The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

If the entire 1% were paying 100% in taxes, we would still be running deficits. I know that it won't get said in this thread, but taxation isn't our biggest problem here.

 

Taxation is a huge problem, along with all of those unfunded wars Republicans wanted, and the never-ending defense spending expansion on top of it.

 

We have two problems that are ballooning spending right now: automatic safety net spending because unemployment and poverty still suck and the demographic problem of the worst generation, the baby boomers. Fix the economy back to full employment, end the wars and raise taxes and our budget is pretty much fine. I know your solution is to gut government spending, but I think we need to only look across the sea to see how silly notions of austerity are.

[StrangeSox]

SB, how exactly is Romney doing something illegal? He's doing something that the federal government hasn't outlawed yet. That's not illegal, that's just smart.

 

Hypothetically if I were to not pay Illinois sales tax on Amazon purchases, you'd be claiming that i'm doing something illegal even though the federal gov't hasn't mandated that I do that (ignore the state law that is in the courts right now). How is me not paying that tax until i'm told to shady/unethical/illegal?

 

I believe you're supposed to report those purchases now regardless and that the new law is making a stronger enforcement mechanism. So, technically, illegal.

 

Romney may not have done anything illegal (his 2009 tax returns would reveal if he was part of the UBS amnesty or not), but he took every possible loop hole and advantage he could to pay as little as possible. I guess I'll never understand that sort of pathological obsession with amassing huge sums of wealth. I find those sorts of actions immoral, but they aren't illegal, unfortunately.

[southsider2k5]

Taxation is a huge problem, along with all of those unfunded wars Republicans wanted, and the never-ending defense spending expansion on top of it.

 

We have two problems that are ballooning spending right now: automatic safety net spending because unemployment and poverty still suck and the demographic problem of the worst generation, the baby boomers. Fix the economy back to full employment, end the wars and raise taxes and our budget is pretty much fine. I know your solution is to gut government spending, but I think we need to only look across the sea to see how silly notions of austerity are.

 

We can't even get sustained growth, despite record spending and interventions.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah, once you got busted lying, you tried changing the subject and made it into something it wasn't.

 

 

You still havent showed me where I lied. I said "i dont try and avoid", taking a standard deduction isnt trying to avoid taxes in any way shape or form to a normal person. If you want to make it that way, you can, but its like arguing Im a liar because I said "Its hot out" when the temp was 90 and you say "No thats cold".

 

Maybe in your mind that is a lie, but to no one else it is.

 

You just cant get over how bad you look and are trying to obscure it.

 

SB, how exactly is Romney doing something illegal? He's doing something that the federal government hasn't outlawed yet. That's not illegal, that's just smart.

 

Hypothetically if I were to not pay Illinois sales tax on Amazon purchases, you'd be claiming that i'm doing something illegal even though the federal gov't hasn't mandated that I do that (ignore the state law that is in the courts right now). How is me not paying that tax until i'm told to shady/unethical/illegal?

 

Im not talking about Romney. I have no clue about what he is doing.

 

When I said "most rich people", that was republicans and democrats a like.

 

The amazon issue isnt what Im talking about. There is a legitimate question whether the tax is owed (and an argument that the state of IL really has no right to it, but well save that for another day.)

 

Im talking about setting up fake corps to run expenses through so you have very little income, then using the corp to buy things for you personally and pretend they are for the corp.

 

There are just a ton of ways to really screw things up, most people dont have the type of money to make it work. But if you are talking about millions of tax liability, you can pay lawyers tens of thousands to get rid of it.

 

That just isnt fair, and we all suffer.

[Jenksismyhero]

You still havent showed me where I lied. I said "i dont try and avoid", taking a standard deduction isnt trying to avoid taxes in any way shape or form to a normal person. If you want to make it that way, you can, but its like arguing Im a liar because I said "Its hot out" when the temp was 90 and you say "No thats cold".

 

Maybe in your mind that is a lie, but to no one else it is.

 

You just cant get over how bad you look and are trying to obscure it.

 

 

 

Im not talking about Romney. I have no clue about what he is doing.

 

When I said "most rich people", that was republicans and democrats a like.

 

The amazon issue isnt what Im talking about. There is a legitimate question whether the tax is owed (and an argument that the state of IL really has no right to it, but well save that for another day.)

 

Im talking about setting up fake corps to run expenses through so you have very little income, then using the corp to buy things for you personally and pretend they are for the corp.

 

There are just a ton of ways to really screw things up, most people dont have the type of money to make it work. But if you are talking about millions of tax liability, you can pay lawyers tens of thousands to get rid of it.

 

That just isnt fair, and we all suffer.

 

Fair and illegal are two separate things. You've been saying illegal acts, so I just wanted clarification.

 

I'm confused as to how making as much money as possible is immoral. Having 3 kids you can't afford is just as immoral to me as creating dummy corps to dodge taxes. But in the case of the former we want to throw cash at the problem and feel sorry, in the latter we want to hang people in the public square. Makes no sense.

 

[southsider2k5]

You still havent showed me where I lied. I said "i dont try and avoid", taking a standard deduction isnt trying to avoid taxes in any way shape or form to a normal person. If you want to make it that way, you can, but its like arguing Im a liar because I said "Its hot out" when the temp was 90 and you say "No thats cold".

 

Maybe in your mind that is a lie, but to no one else it is.

 

You just cant get over how bad you look and are trying to obscure it.

 

You're just choosing to ignore it by adding lots and lots of other BS to your posts, hoping to get me to leave the original point alone. The ultra-rich use the exact same logic you do, of course you don't see it that way. That would deflate your entire argument. You avoid taxes, just like everyone else in the world.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a timely piece!

 

http://coreyrobin.com/2012/08/30/were-goin...-their-ass-off/

[bmags]

Here's a timely piece!

 

http://coreyrobin.com/2012/08/30/were-goin...-their-ass-off/

 

Thanks for posting.

[StrangeSox]

If you haven't seen it, check out some of the sparring that Robin and others at Crooked Timber did with some of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians over workplace coercion. There's a pretty big rabbit hole of links and posts to follow, but there's a lot of good reading.

[Soxbadger]

You're just choosing to ignore it by adding lots and lots of other BS to your posts, hoping to get me to leave the original point alone. The ultra-rich use the exact same logic you do, of course you don't see it that way. That would deflate your entire argument. You avoid taxes, just like everyone else in the world.

 

No they wouldnt. Every ultra-rich person has agreed with me. Do you think they are idiots? They understand the difference between gaming the system and taking legitimate deductions. You dont, you think they are the same thing. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this isnt happening.

 

You really have no clue what you are talking about. You dont get paid to help people screw the system, I do. You dont get told every secret and every way they are scamming, I do. You dont have an ethical obligation to keep it secret, I do.

 

You are wrong, whether you want to admit it or not, I dont really care. Its not like you are someone who has any credentials to say you understand how people game taxes. You are not a CPA, you are not an accountant, you are not a lawyer.

 

Youre out of your element.

[bmags]

If you haven't seen it, check out some of the sparring that Robin and others at Crooked Timber did with some of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians over workplace coercion. There's a pretty big rabbit hole of links and posts to follow, but there's a lot of good reading.

 

I have an auction draft i'm preparing for tonight.

[Soxbadger]

Fair and illegal are two separate things. You've been saying illegal acts, so I just wanted clarification.

 

I'm confused as to how making as much money as possible is immoral. Having 3 kids you can't afford is just as immoral to me as creating dummy corps to dodge taxes. But in the case of the former we want to throw cash at the problem and feel sorry, in the latter we want to hang people in the public square. Makes no sense.

 

I am talking about things that I consider to be illegal. A lot of them are "grey" but as an attorney you understand when the spirit of the law is being abused.

 

I dont think making money is immoral. I dont really believe in morality, I believe in utility. Anyway, having 3 kids you cant afford, my first answer is, why werent they aborted. But therein lies the rub, the party that doesnt want abortion doesnt want to pay for the results. You cant have it both ways.

 

Im a callous b****, I know that. If we really believe these children are a drain on society, change the rules. You get support for 1 kid, but you get free abortions for the rest.

 

I dont want to pay for other peoples mistakes, I just understand that there are consequences if I dont. As for comparing to dummy corps, I think that the corps are worse. At least the kid has a chance to do something amazing and change the world. The corp isnt going to help anyone.

[StrangeSox]

I have an auction draft i'm preparing for tonight.

 

Do it. Spend the next 6-10 hours of your life reading blog posts.

 

Actually that reminds me, I've got a draft tonight too, better at least glance at some of the rankings.

[StrangeSox]

I am talking about things that I consider to be illegal. A lot of them are "grey" but as an attorney you understand when the spirit of the law is being abused.

 

I dont think making money is immoral. I dont really believe in morality, I believe in utility. Anyway, having 3 kids you cant afford, my first answer is, why werent they aborted. But therein lies the rub, the party that doesnt want abortion doesnt want to pay for the results. You cant have it both ways.

 

Im a callous b****, I know that. If we really believe these children are a drain on society, change the rules. You get support for 1 kid, but you get free abortions for the rest.

 

I dont want to pay for other peoples mistakes, I just understand that there are consequences if I dont. As for comparing to dummy corps, I think that the corps are worse. At least the kid has a chance to do something amazing and change the world. The corp isnt going to help anyone.

 

Corporations are people too, my friend.

 

[Soxbadger]

Corporations are people too, my friend.

 

Which is why I am fully entitled to hate them, just like people.

 

[StrangeSox]

Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying an AK-47 Pistol with a Thirty Round Clip In a Public Park: An Unusual Fourth and Second Amendment Case

 

The case is Embody v. Ward, handed down today by the Sixth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Sutton. It begins:

 

Tennessee law allows individuals with gun permits to carry handguns in public places “owned or operated by the state” such as “public park” and “natural area.” Tenn. Code § 39-17-1311(b)(1)(H). The statute defines a “handgun” as “any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches” that is “designed, made or adapted” to be fired with one hand. Id. § 39-11-106(a)(16).

 

Armed with knowledge of this law and one thing more — a Draco AK-47 pistol — Leonard Embody went to Radnor Lake State Natural Area, a state park near Nashville, Tennessee, on a Sunday afternoon. Dressed in camouflage, he slung the gun with its eleven-and-a-half-inch barrel across his chest along with a fully loaded, thirtyround clip attached to it.

 

Embody anticipated his appearance at the park would attract attention—he carried an audio-recording device with him—and it did. One passer-by spontaneously held up his hands when he encountered Embody. Two park visitors reported to a park ranger that they were “very concerned” about Embody and the AK-47. R.22-3 at 5. And an elderly couple reported to a ranger that a man was in the park with an “assault rifle.” Id. at 6.

 

Two more predictable things happened. A park ranger disarmed and detained Embody to determine whether the AK-47 was a legitimate pistol under Tennessee law, releasing him only after determining it was. And Embody sued the park ranger, claiming he had violated his Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

 

For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.

Thanks to Howard Bashman for the link.

 

UPDATE: It seems that the appellant in the case (aka the one with the gun) is now participating actively in our comment thread. Be sure to read the thread if you’re interested in knowing more about the case.

 

The guy was carrying around one of these strapped to his chest with the tip painted orange:

 

 

which I guess technically qualifies as a pistol for Tennessee's open-carry law. He's actively commenting in the discussion thread, seems like a nutjob.

[southsider2k5]

No they wouldnt. Every ultra-rich person has agreed with me. Do you think they are idiots? They understand the difference between gaming the system and taking legitimate deductions. You dont, you think they are the same thing. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending that this isnt happening.

 

You really have no clue what you are talking about. You dont get paid to help people screw the system, I do. You dont get told every secret and every way they are scamming, I do. You dont have an ethical obligation to keep it secret, I do.

 

You are wrong, whether you want to admit it or not, I dont really care. Its not like you are someone who has any credentials to say you understand how people game taxes. You are not a CPA, you are not an accountant, you are not a lawyer.

 

Youre out of your element.

 

Now that is funny. It is you who has no idea what you are talking about, or what I do for a living. I know what is happening. I just don't pretend to be better than someone else over a false flag.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

If you wouldn't game the system if you had the income levels necessary to really enter into the tax-dodging world, you don't have to pretend to be better.

[Soxbadger]

Now that is funny. It is you who has no idea what you are talking about, or what I do for a living. I know what is happening. I just don't pretend to be better than someone else over a false flag.

 

Well based on what youve posted on these boards Im pretty sure you do something involving trading, perhaps options, and involving compliance. If you are an attorney or an accountant, I admit I was wrong, but Im pretty confident you are not.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well based on what youve posted on these boards Im pretty sure you do something involving trading, perhaps options, and involving compliance. If you are an attorney or an accountant, I admit I was wrong, but Im pretty confident you are not.

 

You're close, but not understanding what is involved in my job description. Let's put it that way.

[bmags]

"Natalie Portman's Wedding Dress Tax Dodge: "Natalie Portman's awkward, unflattering $30,000 Rodarte wedding dress was a fashion bomb, but financially it's a hit! Since the pricey gown was a gift from the label, the Black Swan bride worried she'd be paying hefty taxes on the dress. But Rodarte, who is keen to make Natalie the brand's new face, declared the dress on loan 'indefinitely,' meaning Nat wouldn't be on the hook for an enormous tax bill."

 

ugh.

[StrangeSox]

ugh indeed. But I understand, Portman would be struggling if she had to pay taxes on the $30,000 dress she was gifted.

 

Our society is so dumb sometimes.

[bmags]

ugh indeed. But I understand, Portman would be struggling if she had to pay taxes on the $30,000 dress she was gifted.

 

Our society is so dumb sometimes.

Oh no! I have to pay for my dress like a peasant?

[StrangeSox]

A $30,000 dress. More than a lot of families live on for an entire year. And she's avoiding taxes on it. ARhahrhhggg.

[mr_genius]

Ann Coulter is on FOX news making fun of young voters with no job that vote Obama. thinks they should be banned from voting.

 

haha