Hillary Clinton

Clinton Campaign Leaks Show Her Stubbornness on History of DOMA

Emails suggest she won't recant discredited claim gay marriage ban prevented amendment.


Hillary Clinton
Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

Speaking for myself and only myself, I feel as though it's actually a positive development that gay and transgender issues are playing such a minor role in this year's presidential election. Granted, there are still some political fights going on (particularly in North Carolina over transgender bathroom issues and discrimination regulations), and there are some fears that the Supreme Court might rethink gay marriage recognition (very unlikely). But for better or worse, gay issues are not a major narrative in this election.

But that does make me wonder why a blog post I wrote last February got a bunch of new visitors over the weekend. Maybe the title of the post helps explain: "Hillary Clinton's Struggles on Gay Issues Are About Her Honesty, Not Her Transformation." Like many Democratic politicians (including President Barack Obama), Clinton was not a supporter of legal gay marriage recognition until recent years. She "evolved," is the term they've all decided to use.

Clinton got herself into some hot water earlier last fall defending Bill Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back when he was president. Both Clintons have tried to argue that their support of DOMA as an attempt to prevent a possible Republican effort to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. They were trying to shift blame for their own support for DOMA to Republicans. The problem was that there was no Republican push for a constitutional amendment during Clinton's administration. That failed effort didn't come around until George W. Bush became president. LGBT activists knew this and blasted Clinton for trying to blame her own positions on Republicans. It was a revisionist history designed to try to wriggle their way out of responsibility for the passage of anti-gay legislation.

Now the new leaks of internal emails within the Clinton campaign from Wikileaks make it clear that the Clinton campaign understood that she was wrong about the history of DOMA, but she also was not likely to admit it or their role in supporting the legislation. Clinton campaign LGBT liaison Dominic Lowell noted last October that gay activists were not supporting Clinton's story that there was a constitutional amendment being pushed by the Republicans. Dan Schwerin, director of speechwriting for the campaign, noted:

[M]y two cents is that you're not going to get her to disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes on offense.

And later …

I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.

We've hit Trump repeatedly in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts on everything from crime and trade because they're politically inconvenient to the message he's trying to sell to voters. Here, too, Clinton has been selling herself as the savior to LGBT voters for every political issue that remains (regardless of whether it needs any sort of federal involvement). But she stubbornly wants to cling to the idea that she was forced into an antigay stance, a claim that is not supported by history.

That, in a nutshell, explains why this latest round of email leaks has probably led people back to my blog post from last year about her honesty. Which version of Clinton would be president? Why are we asking that question about Trump, but not her?

NEXT: Gary Johnson Praises Anthony Kennedy, Unaware That Kennedy Voted for Eminent Domain Abuse in Kelo v. City of New London

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If any of Hillary’s handlers are reading this, I hope she catches the AIDS.

  2. “Which version of Clinton would be president?”

    The awful one, because it’s the only version.

    1. The Hillabot 6.2 is the latest version and I think there’s only one more upgrade scheduled before the election so that’ll be the one that gets elected.

      The Hillabot 7.x will be what takes office, however, and that version isn’t yet ready for market. There’s reportedly a software conflict between the programming for the black hole that powers its evil functions and the portalway to hell that serves as the main memory access and they both keep getting glitched by the refrigeration system for its heart since that sucks up so much power. Plus the usual problems with the shielding for the hate radiation unit, but that’s always been a problem even with the first units.

      1. So Hillary is Sithrak but for the living. Kind of a catch-22 if Sithrak exists.

  3. Watching debate. Audience applauds Trump, moderators yell at them. Audience applaudes Clinton. Moderators say nothing. I don’t think they understand how much their attempt to help Hillary actually helps Trump. They are pathetic DNC shills. Not that I didn’t already know that.

    1. How many times did Hillary touch her nose during the debate?

      1. Hadn’t noticed so far.

        1. I did just notice another leading question after Trump talked about “extreme” vetting of muslim refugees. The blond chick aak Clinton for her response starting with “Mrs. Clinton, we know want toughr vetting…”. Really?

          1. I’m also noticing every first question to Trump is a negative queation about him, and every issue related question goes first to Hillary.

            1. So now the blond is directly debating Trump. She might as well get up on stage and stand next to Hillary.

    2. I question how powerful the “go fuck yourself” vote is. I hope I’m surprised.

    3. Gloria Allred has chimed in. That’s more Trump votes.

      1. Interestingly, on Twitter Roseanne Barr has been ripping Hillary a new one for being a rape enabler. She’s one of Hollywood’s rare public Trump supporters.

    4. They appear to have helped Trump to about a 6 point drop in the polls.

  4. The gay community seems to be universal in its opposition to Trump, but it doesn’t seem to be based on the thing that makes them a community. It’s that the larger team defaults to Democrat, as far as I can tell. Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I’m wrong on that.

    1. Nah. They hear “Trump’s a bigot”, believe it (despite the dreadful record of those saying it), assume he’s bigoted against them, and its a done deal.

      Gays for Hillary. Because she lied about why she tried to block gay marriage? I dunno. People are stupid; no need to waste time trying to make it seem like they aren’t.

    2. How the hell can they vote for Hillary when she is taking all that money from Saudi Arabia?

      1. You want those gay-bashing Saudis to *keep* all that money?

        1. Get over it. It’s going to a good cause

          1. Yup, keeping Clinton cronies from having to get a real job.

    3. Combination of things:

      – Trump hasn’t personally done a ton to antagonize the gay community, but his positions on “gay issues” still align with those of most of the gay community less than Clinton does. He’s still officially against gay marriage.
      – Picking Pence was terrible for his chances of appealing to gay voters.
      – Gays do tend to lean Democrat on most issues, though it shouldn’t be too surprising that people tend to form opinions in line with the party that’s been much less hostile to them their whole lives. Also, a lot of gay people are skeptical of perceived demonization of minority groups, even if it isn’t them personally.

      1. The GOPs social conservative stance is a losing strategy. Neocons have fallen out of popularity also. And they did their best to purge libertarians from their ranks. They don’t have much of a popular platform left. Sure they pander about fiscal conservatism, but they do little to nothing about it anymore. Maybe they slow down Democrat spending a little, but not much. And most of them will vote for whatever shit prog bills the Democrats can come up with as long as they get to insert some of their own bullshit into it.

        1. The Neocon at the top of the Team Blue Ticket disagrees that they are out of fashion.

          And the biggest applause lines during the Team Red debates went to Trump and Cruz, who both made reference to turning the ME desert into a sea of glass.

          There is zero public pushback against our renewed presence in Iraq, or our activities in Yemen. And the fact that people are still supporting Hillary after the dumpster fire that is Libya shows that the Neocons are doing quite well, so long as you don’t go by the name Neocon.

          1. I think most people are skeptical of large deployments of ground troops in foreign conflicts – though maybe not inside the GOP, as long as it’s “done the right way.” But that’s about it.

          2. Only the Butcher of Benghazi won’t win because of being a war mongering neocon, but in spite of it. Because else, Trumphitler.

            “There is zero public pushback against our renewed presence in Iraq, or our activities in Yemen.”

            There will be plenty of it if Trumphitler wins. It’s amazing how progs turn into peaceniks once a Republican is in office.

    4. The gay community seems to be universal in its opposition to Trump,

      Republicans have said for decades that gays and lesbians are evil child molesters out to destroy the American family; even Hillary’s ambiguous position on gay marriage is still more favorable than that.

      Personally, I don’t have any strong preference between the two candidates on gay issues; in fact, I think they don’t really matter. I just think Hillary is utterly corrupt and evil.

      1. So why doesn’t Gary & LP do better with this community?

    5. Because she is a Democrat. The Dems love victims and there are leaders in the gay community who perpetuate the victim mentality, just as Al Sharpton and his ilk perpetuate the racist victim mentality. If Hillary was currently anti-gay marriage, she would still get support because she is a democrat and therefore good. Put simply, Democrat/socialist = good. Republican/capitalist= bad. Libertarian not quite as bad as republican, but not democrat so still bad.

      1. I had lunch with some lefties once. One said, “I know the Clinton’s lie and cheat and are corrupt…but, I still support. Of course I support.”

    6. I suspect that some gays are leaning Trump because they aren’t thrilled with the idea of more Muslim immigration, but it’s just anecdotal and a hunch.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t realize we actually had real data on this.

        I suspect many gay people will vote for Clinton because she’s a Democrat and Trump’s a bigot.

        I also suspect Trump may win more of the gay vote than any Republican ever because he’s got New York values and doesn’t care if you’re gay. While Clinton opposed gay marriage and wants more Orlando shooters in the mix.

        It also is probably completely irrelevant because every state with a significant gay population is heavily blue and not likely to tip the electoral scales due to the relatively small gay voting bloc. There aren’t THAT many gay people in San Francisco.

  5. I feel as though it’s actually a positive development that gay and transgender issues are playing such a minor role in this year’s presidential election.

    Ya know, I hadn’t thought about it, but you’re right. So am I.

    [continues reading, looking for something minor to have a completely unjustified overreaction to]

    Nope. Got nuthin. Good article, Shack.

    [tosses Shackford a cookie]

    1. tosses Shackford a cookie

    2. How about this: It’s not an issue because the two major candidates, plus Johnson, are largely agreed that the government should recognize and promote same-sex unions. That includes compulsory cakes. Trump said a few nice words about religious freedom (“so important”), but assuming he even remembers he’s supposed to be for religious freedom, he doesn’t believe in freedom of association in general, so to him religious exemptions would be the only exemptions.

      Oh, well, at least there’s the libertarian candidate…oops.

      1. The MSM is focused on demonizing whover is running against Hillary, but if Trump loses, wait a few years and he will be celebrated as a Great Statesman who brought the gospel of gay rights to the Republicans.

      2. Thank you for finally sharing your opinion on these issues.

        1. I seem to recall that when Adam and Steve couldn’t file a joint marital tax return, OMG IT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER and if the government couldn’t deregulate marriage the *least* it could do was recognize Adam and Steve as married and entitled to marital benefits. And any objections about freedom-of-association issues were brushed off as “none of our business, that’s totally unrelated.”

          Then when the violations of freedom of association come as predicted, it’s “oh, well, shit happens,” and “this stuff was already implicit in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

          1. That is exactly as I remember it as well.

          2. Many states have had anti-discrimination laws covering gay people on the books for years before gay marriage. The notion that the former was a result of the latter isn’t supported by the evidence.

            1. True enough. I was concerned about additional laws, especially federal laws, being piled on after gay marriage.

              At the state level, it hasn’t happened (yet?). At the federal level, previous agency actions deeming “gender” discrimination to be prohibited by bans on “sex” discrimination are spreading, to the point where we now have to have specific policies on how we handle transgender patients/customers.

              1. There definitely have been anti-discrimination laws passed at the state level. The link below has a map – and as you can see from the timeline, most of the laws predate gay marriage becoming law in the same state.


      3. Trump isn’t in favor of gay marriage (officially). What are you talking about?

        1. Trump isn’t in favor of gay marriage (officially). What are you talking about?

          Neither was Hillary or Obama in 2008, but teh gays all told themselves they knew that Hillbama was just lying to fool the dumb black people…

  6. But Hillary’s constantly lying, changing positions and lying about changing positions on a whole bunch of policy issues is just not important and really doesn’t warrant any media coverage.

    The only thing thing that does warrant media coverage is whatever the Trump outrage of the minute happens to be based on something he said or (if that doesn’t deliver a sufficient enough outrage) something that can be spun as what he said even if he didn’t say it.

  7. One might suspect that her vehement anti-gay positions in the ’90’s were based on insecurity. You know, if they were a tinfoil hat wearing type.

  8. But for better or worse, gay issues are not a major narrative in this election.

    Are you telling me the issues that are playing out aren’t gay?

    1. No. They are queer.

  9. So-called civilized humanity exhibits a pathological compulsion to stream every fucking flavor of its myriad affairs through the catchments of bureaucracy to such an extent that the people who sign up to run the thing are forced to shift into non-human tentacled multitudinous bionic systems packed with whirring skedaddling pencil pushers, idea categorizers, and reality convergers.

    These fucking leader thingies are throttling plasticized drek terminals dinged and chipped from the cognitive tallow of the national collective consciousness.

    1. is tallow really the word you want there?

      1. Are you questioning the artistic choices of Hit and Run’s poet laureate?

        1. I know my AG. He’s definitely writing prose in this example.

      2. I think tallow – a soft, undifferentiated mass prone to slumping and melting in the heat – is an excellent description of the national collective consciousness.

        1. But how does such a material cause dings and chips? Particularly in an object that has been plasticized. You’ve got three states of material consistency that don’t line up. Which now that I think about might have been the point all along.

          1. You’re catching on, Hugh.

            AC is on this earth to enlighten you, not to educate you.

          2. It’s the cognitive shit that’s doing the dinging. The tallow is just the vessel.

      3. I’m more concerned with ‘thingies’, I expect more from AgCy. He could’ve at least invented some nonsense word ala Carroll or Lear.

        1. Not enough free ice cream, huh?

          1. I don’t even eat ice cream, also I have no idea what you’re getting at. Is this a metaphor thingie?

            1. Yes, it is.

              Not a euphemism, though. Thank God.

  10. Which version of Clinton would be president?

    The version that lies.

    Why are we asking that question about Trump, but not her?

    Because partisanship makes people stoopid.

  11. Low-information voter is term getting a lot of currency this time around. In reality, most people are low-information voters all of the time. They are also low-information consumers. Let’s face it, reading is hard. So everything you need to know about Koch Bros, gluten, GMOs, AGW, etc is succinctly explained in Cosmo or O or Ladies Home Journal. Deep thinkers go for Huff Post and Vanity Fair.

    1. People who actually do think read what is being paraded before them and reach for a bottle.

      1. And my liver is screaming, “Stop reading that shit”…

  12. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times.

    So not only is she lying, she’s one of those people who perception and memories warp to match their lies.

    1. That is actually what is most remarkable about her. Bill Clinton is a liar but you can tell he knows he is lying and enjoys pulling one over on people. That is not good. Hillary in contrast seems to convince herself of whatever lie she is giving. I remember after the FBI let her off she was on the Sunday morning talk shows denying she had classified data on her server and telling the host “that is not what the FBI said” when he tried to correct her. That is fucking terrifying.

      1. John- See also Obama.

        He is “on record” in 2015 saying he first learned about Hillary’s private server from the news. Now we’ve learned that he was sending emails to Hillary under a pseudonym in 2012, which led even Huma to ask, “Why isn’t this classified?”

        Media says, “LOLWHUT?”

    2. I recall reading an article a few days ago about one of Trump’s lawyers testifying in a deposition that there was a strict policy of always having two lawyers present when discussing any matter with Trump because Trump tended to have “memory problems” about what exactly was said or agreed to if it was just your word against his when a later disagreement came up about what exactly was said or agreed to. Just sayin’.

      1. That’s not uncommon, actually. I deal with that on a weekly basis.

        1. Yes. I have a list of people that I use recording devices for, particularly when it comes to payment agreements.

          1. I’m a fan of the confirmatory email.

            People haven’t figured yet that, if I send you one, its because I don’t trust you.

            1. Hi R C Dean,

              It was great to get the chance to read your comment earlier today. I’m glad that you had the opportunity to make clear that you are a fan of the confirmatory email. I completely understand your motivation to send people confirmatory emails, and appreciate that you do it because you don’t trust them.

              If you have any questions or concerns about your comment, feel free to reply to this comment.

              Warmest Regards,

          2. I have certain people who routinely get a follow-up memo right after we finish meeting to memorialize what was said. This is pretty routine .

      2. You deal with [….]

        Trump deals with [……………………. ………………………………… …………………………….. …………………………… …………………. …………………………………………. …………………………………… …………………………….. ………………]

        I would want 2+ lawyers in a deposition, if I could afford them, too.

  13. Which one will let the most people who want to murder gays into the country? How about asking that question? And when religious Muslims become more important to the Democratic party than gays, which at the current rate should be about 2020, gay will be told to go back into the closet and shut up about it.

    1. All special snowflakes are special, but some special snowflakes are more special than others.

      1. Gays are already yesterdays news. It is all about trannies now. That won’t last long. And the left has its followers so buffaloed into doing or saying anything to keep from being called a bigot, that will happily go along when told “gays living openly is triggering to Muslims”.

        1. I can’t wait for the Democrats own translation of Shariah that we’re all supposed to just accept as gospel. Something about celebrating women and peace, and saving the planet.

        2. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

          1. I wasn’t a right wing asshole until I watched “Dances with Wolves” The buffalo hunting scene bothered me.


            It’s great subject to tackle more frankly in a movie. But watch that clip and vomit

          2. Buffaloed soldiers

    2. Re: John,

      Which one will let the most people who want to murder gays into the country?

      Who is letting in the Hell’s Angels, again?

      1. Yeah. That is the threat. I mean it was a Hells Angel who shot up that gay club in Orlando

        1. I didn’t realize that the Hell’s Angels are an anti-guy club.

    3. It’s astounding to me that more Jews have not fled the Democrats over Muslim immigration. Talk about ideological blindness to the point of suicide.

  14. Alllleeeeeeepppppooooooo! (what you want hear from the MSM)

  15. What’s truly frightening is this:

    I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times.

    She actually believes her own lies. She is so disconnected from reality that she believes that if she says it, that makes it true.

    1. True politicians are pathological liars. They seem to fit the bill.

  16. Both Clintons have tried to argue that their support of DOMA as an attempt to prevent a possible Republican effort to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide. They were trying to shift blame for their own support for DOMA to Republicans.

    “Well, yes… its true we whipped the slaves when they tried running off…. but it was so that other people wouldn’t lynch them!!”

    We had to destroy the village to keep it from falling into enemy hands

    1. You just know that this particular explanation went thru multiple revisions by the Clinton apparatchiks in one of their group email chains.

      1. It seems a rationalization with a long and distinguished pedigree.

  17. Clinton Campaign Leaks Show Her Stubbornness on History of DOMA

    She’s a stubborn, stubborn, stubborn woman!

    Stubborn, I say!

    The problem was that there was no Republican push for a constitutional amendment during Clinton’s administration. That failed effort didn’t come around until George W. Bush became president.

    “Heed my words! I bring bad tidings! Ye fate is certain, for the Republicans will pass a constitutional amendment in good time! Only a sacrifice in the nature of a DOMA will stave off the evil that approaches! I’ve seen it as clear as I see thee!”

    I think Nostradamus wrote something about it, too.

  18. So aside from all the polls I have not noticed any particular prices spikes in the local firearms market. In fact it appears most implements of destruction have settled out to a calm post Newton level.

    How does that compare to the commentariot’s experience in October 2008?

    1. Hard to compare… I just remember Armagundon, or Ammopocalypse, or Ammogeddon or whatever it was being called, where the shelves looked like the Zombie Apocalypse had hit. I think there was a brief spike in ’08 but admittedly that was when even gun nuts like me believed (for a short time) that Obama didn’t want to take your guns.

  19. Is everyone else getting the ‘register to vote’ popup in google?

  20. OT: Seattle to implement plan for homeless that they tried in Portland. Listen to how Portland’s plan worked out. Hint: It’s full of ideas so fucking stupid, that only a intellectual could have thought of them.

    Sorry, audio, no xcript. But take heart, the seriously excellent part is only 23 seconds in, and it’s nicely confined to about a 45 second long segment. It’s the kind of thing that’ll make you do a spit-take on your monitor.


    1. OT: Seattle to implement plan for homeless that they tried in Portland.

      Smallpox blankets?

      1. Nice way to trick me into saying “I wish”.

        But on a serious note, it created such a backlash in Portland that the squares began to take the situation into their own hands, and uhh, that’s when people start to get hurt. And I don’t condone that.

        1. What the hell is it with Seattle that makes your bums so aggressive? Like out of all the culture shock I experienced my first time visiting the Pac. NW, that was the one that stood out the most.

          1. They’re “empowered” and they’ve got ACLU lawyers on their side essentially arguing that if they plop a tend down on the sidewalk, that’s it, they’ve staked a claim and you, nor anyone else can move them ever.

            No, really, they’ve got ACLU lawyers arguing that– and arguing successfully. Seriously.

          2. Parlour game: Guess how long it would take the city to move MY encampment if I stopped paying my property taxes. No, go ahead, guess.

          3. They are the lefts new army- the Salvation Army.

        2. the squares

          aka “Property owners”

          1. You don’t like people shitting and pissing on your property?

            You racist 1% bigot!

            These people actually think property owners are the problem.

    2. lol

      is the spit take moment when the radio guy goes,


      because you can audibly hear the woman do the (sigh) of acknowledgement that no one wants to ever confront the fact that “good intentions” don’t make bad sets of incentives any better. You can tell *she* gets it (at least in the sense of this specific instance)… but knows that its sort of hopeless trying to tell people the truth about their own naivete.

      If they applied their learning here to gun-control… my god, they might realize why so many other policy ideas they have repeatedly fail. Can’t have that! (fingers in ears) NYAH NYAH NYAH NOT LISTENING.

      1. she also seems to try and provide “comfortable reasons” for people to swallow

        Why wasn’t this niggling progressive law about “homeless people can camp! – but only in groups of 6 or less” enforced?

        Well gee. She says, “i think police weren’t *comfortable* enforcing them?”

        because – shocker – they put cops in a position of conflict with people just otherwise doing nothing violent or criminal, and instead was trying to get them to enforce petty civil behavioral restrictions.

        Why, what’s the next step? they hand out 100 tickets that no one pays – because they’re fucking BROKE? What then? they start locking up the people for not paying the tickets?

        and so on.

        The entire progressive fantasy of a idealized regulated community is all based on the idea of a population that already *wants* to comply; and that therefore the actual iron-fist of enforcement should (theoretically) be unnecessary.

        If it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be socialism.

        1. You don’t think you understand home value, GILMORE Most mature americans have $10,000 or so in cash savings. The rest of their wealth is tied up in the value of their property. Having the harmless homeless bivouac on their front lawn is not going to sit well..

          1. your point was exactly what i was suggesting above

            i was mocking the woman’s attempt to find a “right way” to make this idiotic idea “better”. trying to accommodate the homeless only invites more of them, and turns into a property-value death spiral. Which i think is your same point.

      2. To me, the spittake moment was the fact that anyone thought the rules would be followed.

        “Ok, Homeless people– yeah you! Yes, you, the one peeing on the parked car? Yes, listen up now. You can camp here, but when you set your camp up, the maximum people camping here is six.”

    3. There’s something on the SF ballot to make it easier to take down the homeless tents here.

  21. Pogo Does Trump

    He could make Vlad the Impaler cute and whimsical

  22. Hillary has two positions on every issue. It makes her heroic, or something, like Abe Lincoln. Makes sound logical sense.

    1. Hey, Len! Haven’t seen you around recently. Sorry you couldn’t come to the last couple of meetups.

      1. Hey Papaya, I’m still a lurker and enjoying everyone’s take on the election, but am slow to comment. Hope to make it to the next event.

  23. “Warren Buffett responds to Donald Trump’s tax comments”
    “OMAHA, Neb. (AP) ? Investor Warren Buffett says he’s never used the kind of tax deduction that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump did, and Buffett says he’s paid taxes every year for 72 years.”

    Right. He’s used other ones, like the one where if you’re an investor in a time-share charter jet service, you can fly and not declare that “income”.
    Buffett is ‘clever’ in many ways…

    1. He also probably never lost a billion dollars, which gave trump massive write-offs.

      1. Oh, I’m sure he has had massive losses. But it’s all in investment so it doesn’t count the same way a failed casino does.

        1. Exactly, Paper losses on investments don’t count. Only realized losses, when you sell the investment, count.

    2. I love how that specific write-off is now being demonized. There’s sadly people dumb enough to believe that line of argument. But nothing separates the one from the other.

      1. I dunno. I think there’s at least a decent argument to be made that just because you did something bad in business and lost a bunch of money doesn’t mean you should get to avoid taxes on unrelated income.

        The distinction of course is *should*. Maybe it shouldn’t be legal for people to do that. Maybe we should change that part of the tax code. But, that’s what the tax code currently allows for.

        1. If all the income is on one tax return, how is it not “related”? What difference should it make that you earned money on X, but lost money on Y? Why shouldnt you get to to net them out?

          1. For any given year, I agree with you. -$900m + $50m = -$850m.

            The problem is rolling over losses into the next two decades. Seems to reward mediocrity and bad decisions and allows rich people making investments to essentially take on zero risk when investing in something because they can just recoup the losses by not paying tax.

        2. It seems more like Trump used a specific form of tax write-off, and now to create a narrative, it’s being mocked rather than the tax system writ large. Buffet exploits tax loopholes and has a lot of people he pays to minimize his tax burden. That’s the point here. Buffet doesn’t go out of his way to pay more in tax – the opposite. But he wants to attack Trump for doing the same thing.

          1. You might say Buffett’s a lying hypocrite!

            1. I am saying that Buffett is a rich piece ‘o shit with too much time on his hands and will not die.

        3. Maybe they should eliminate all these complex tax schemes and move to flat tax for everyone or sales tax or whatever simple easy low tax that pays for a small government with not exceptions and everyone has skin in the game.

      2. “I love how that specific write-off is now being demonized. There’s sadly people dumb enough to believe that line of argument. But nothing separates the one from the other.”
        Companies or people which obey the letter of the tax laws and thereby pay X rather than Y amount (where X

        1. (damn HTML)
          …..(where X is less than Y) are horrible, nasty beings.
          Ds-with-connections who break the LETTER of the law become presidential candidates.

  24. “Hart, Holmstrom share economics Nobel for contract theory”
    “It {the academy} cited a 1997 article co-authored by Hart which highlighted how private contractors have stronger incentives for investing in both quality and cost reduction. The authors argued that the incentives for cost reduction sometimes is too strong, and expressed particular concern about privately-run prisons, the academy said.”

    Sounds right. The ‘customer’ for privatized prisons isn’t the one getting the direct service and, unlike, say trash removal, the ones getting that service are in no position to affect it.

    1. You realize that a fairly large portion of the population has no choice on trash service, because the city they live in has a designated monopoly trash service company? In most of those cities it is also a crime to not have trash service. Privatized, but…

      1. Some places add trash into property taxes even if you don’t have trash.

        Vacant houses don’t have trash, FU vacant house!

  25. Does anyone know how to safely extract a light bulb stuck in the ass? Asking for a friend.

  26. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.