Trump Calls and Endorses Moore, Corrine Brown Sentenced to Prison, Grassley Thinks Americans Blow Their Paychecks on Booze: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump
    KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom

    We're back to now debating whether President Donald Trump legally obstructed justice when he tried to convince others to end the investigation into Mike Flynn and ultimately fired FBI Director James Comey. All of this is because of Trump's Twitter feed.

  • Trump has called Roy Moore in Alabama to offer his endorsement in the Senate race (and he tweeted support as well).
  • Trump also this afternoon announced a reduction in the size of federally protected lands in Utah.
  • Former Democratic Florida Rep. Corrine Brown has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for a corruption scam involving a fake charity.
  • Last year the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives go out and take the guns from people who had failed federal criminal background checks and were not legally permitted to own them.
  • The Supreme Court declined to get involved in a Texas court case that seeks to determine whether their federal requirement for states to recognize same-sex marriages extends to treating them equally when it comes to government employee benefits. Texas's top court has determined that the Obergefell ruling didn't officially settle the matter. For some reason, some people seem to think this is the win for those opposed to same-sex recognition. But the actual ruling bounces the Texas case back down to a lower court to determine whether Obergefell applies, and the judges did not nudge them in either direction. This is far from over and ultimately could end up back before the Supreme Court at a later date.
  • Here's how Rep. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) argues for the repeal of the estate tax: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." Insert the Ralph Wiggum "I'm helping!" meme here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: Like Reason's Look? Give Us Money!

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. Trump also this afternoon announced a reduction in the size of federally protected lands in Utah.

    Does that count as an attack on the Mormons?

    1. Hello.

      FBI handing over files to the ATF.

      Yeah. That won’t – can’t – end well.

      Talk about going to look for trouble.

      1. -82 Branch Davidians.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com

      2. I would say that, right there, answers any questions about whether the FBI keeps the information that they supposedly don’t keep after approving your background check.

        1. Actually this is the normal process. If the FBI can’t complete their NICS in a timely fashion (3 days, I think) you are allowed to purchase the gun. If they complete the check and then determine you were not eligible, they send the ATF to reclaim the gun.

          This is not quite as nefarious as it might have seemed.

    2. Utah has huge tracts of land.

  2. Last year the FBI issued more than 4,000 requests to have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives go out and take the guns from people who had failed federal criminal background checks and were not legally permitted to own them.

    That doesn’t seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things. Registration could bring that up to a lot in the grand scheme of things.

    1. You know who else had grand schemes?

      1. Ronnie, the fruit sushi piece that wanted to be the first fruit sushi to go to college?

      2. Nick Gillespie, before he put on The Jacket for the first time?

        1. You have that backwards.

          1. Everyone knows the jacket put on Nick Gillespie.

            1. Probably more of a “bringing in” motion, technically.

                1. Still a better love story than…

      3. The poor intern tasked by Postrel to add a comment section to Reason articles?

        1. Hey, some of us wish we had been that intern.

        1. Me and my Little Brain

  3. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

    Investing in booze, women or movie futures is bad financial planning.

    1. What about drugs and video games?

        1. He didn’t say anything about bacon-assisted masturbation.

          1. I tell the ladies that the pimples are natural ribbing.

      1. People wealthy enough to have estates to pass down don’t do either of those things.

    2. Like the old joke goes: the lottery winner spent 90% of his winnings on hookers and drugs, and the other 10% foolishly.

    3. Which helps the economy more though?

      1. On one occasion in February 2016, after attending a fundraiser, the woman says, Kihuen followed her to her car and told her: ” ‘You look really good, I’d like to take you out if you didn’t work for me.’ ”

        How is this a sexual advance unless the chick is a known home run pitcher?

        1. He meant, ‘take you out’… like ‘take you out’… you know?

        2. You know, it’s funny, asking someone out isn’t really harassment, unless he kept doing it after she said ‘no’ or asked him to stop.

          1. Don’t forget he “touched her thighs” (?!) on two occasions!

            1. I just skim the articles before tweeting #MeToo

            2. The #MeToo thing has taught me a few things about women:

              1. They are too fragile to be working among men.
              2. They view everything as a sexual advance, so really they should always be under the watchful eye of a man for protection.
              3. They have a deeply held need to be a part of a group, even if it’s not very prestigious.

              Two of these are sarcasm. I’m sure you can figure out which one’s.

              Honestly, though, feminism is long dead and it’s moved back along into protectionism and puritanism. Give me the 60’s or 70’s, or hell even the 80’s, back please. Everything post-2000 has been shit.

              (Oh, and I’m not necessarily trying to make light of some people’s actual experiences of being preyed upon but they’re being lost in the literal sea of ‘gotchas’ right now.)

              1. My wife fears that the current climate will be bad for women’s careers. No sane man will mentor a woman.

                1. My wife fears that the current climate will be bad for women’s careers. No sane man will mentor a woman.

                  No doubt. There is zero benefit in mentoring a woman if you’re a man.

                  1. I worked with a guy who refused to have any interaction with women at the workplace. He was not a kook, a very smart and talented engineer. I have concluded that he has the best solution to women in the work place.

            3. How does one even have opportunity to touch someone’s thighs in the work place? Is he four feet tall?

          2. Next you’ll be claiming that this sexual harassment stuff will put an end to workplace flirting!

        3. How do you know it’s unwanted, until you ask?

          1. Take a look at a picture of the man. It’s obviously ruled harassment on account of how he looks.

      2. I think the people will start being protected by the full scale avalanche of offenders.

      3. Who is going to be brave enough to step up and accuse Pelosi of sexual harassment?

        1. *starts to put hand up, then looks around nervously before withdrawing*

          1. That is OK. Your mind has not been consumed by madness to the extent that such a claim would be believable anyway.

        2. How do you stop Pelosi’s sexual advances?

          Depends.

          1. How do you stop Pelosi’s sexual advances?

            The same way you catch a unique rabbit or stop a rhino from charging… shoot her in the face.

            1. That’s fucked up, mad.casual. I was just gonna write a letter.

          2. Wow….that was good.

    1. Headlee laid out in emails to her superiors in April 2012, Hockenberry was professionally “sabotaging” her; he interrupted her on air, “trampled” her lead-ins, didn’t “allow guests to finish answering questions [she] posed.” If she tried to discuss it with him, he’d blow up, she told the station, insulting her publicly. As a solution, her boss arranged sessions for Headlee with a “radio personality” coach

      cite

      Shouldn’t piling on sexual harassment claims be sexual harassment?

      “You don’t have to sue me to get my pants off.” – Mr. Burns

      1. How is that different from the dickish nature of any other talk show host?

        1. Because she’s a woman and therefore has superior rights.

  4. Trump has called Roy Moore in Alabama to offer his endorsement in the Senate race (and he tweeted support as well).

    lol the libs must be going crazy

    1. They already were.

  5. Former Democratic Florida Rep. Corrine Brown has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for a corruption scam involving a fake charity.

    You know who else had a fake charity?

    1. Costanza’s The Human Fund?

    2. Hey, the Clinton foundation raised millions for Haiti and helped dozens of people. That’s not fake, that’s just high overhead.

      1. It’s proof that they hired the best people.

    3. It could not have hapened to nicer congresscritter.

      On the other hand, having lived at one end of her bizarrely constructed district for several years, I did not think she had mental faculties to run a corrupt scheme like this. I underestimated her.

      1. Honestly, at this point, I think the FBI and the IRS might want to consider auditing any Congressperson who has a ‘charity’. It’s starting to look like their go-to scam. Gee, I wonder who might have given them that idea?

    4. Susan B Komen?

      Wound Warriors?

  6. “Former Democratic Florida Rep. Corrine Brown has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for a corruption scam involving a fake charity.”

    One down, about 431 to go.

    1. It’s probably going to be more effective to just accuse them of sexual harassment.

  7. The estate tax is bullshit and should be repealed.

    1. You didn’t build that.

  8. Former Democratic Florida Rep. Corrine Brown has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for a corruption scam involving a fake charity.

    Too seldom is it current Rep. such-and-such.

    1. She was current at the time she was indicted.

      1. For some reason I thought she had gotten out before the actual indictments. Seems like a district that might keep her seat warm for her.

        1. We’ll find out in 5 years when she runs again. She can on a justice reform platform, claiming she was acquitted of 4 counts and they threw her in jail anyway.

          Not exactly inaccurate, but her constituents won’t care about the rest.

          1. I don’t know the district, but honestly that would yield a lot of cred in many districts.

            /not sarcastic

          2. Does she have to wait until she is out? Joseph Morrissey won a special election to replace himself while he was in jail.

    2. My guess is she will discover some medical ailment that will keep her out of prison for some time, or she will appeal this and get to stay out until she dies of old age. After all, there was that one juror who was kicked out because the Holy Spirit told him Corrine was innocent. For some reason the judge bounced the juror from the pool.

  9. Trump has called Roy Moore in Alabama to offer his endorsement in the Senate race…

    “You’re better than a Democrat.”

    1. Given his opponent…yeah, he probably is.

      Democrats — you had to run a pro-choice extremist against him in Alabama? Really?

  10. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” Insert the Ralph Wiggum “I’m helping!” meme here.

    Spending on booze and women is investing.

    1. Better than just pissing it away

  11. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/04…..ffect.html

    Remember when the travel ban was a gaff that was doomed to be overturned by the courts? Not so much

    1. It was just hate.

      They were citing his campaign rhetoric.

      You don’t even have to like the ban to see that it’s constitutional.

      And if Trump keeps delivering wins, . . .

      I find his rhetoric ridiculous myself, and I disagree with some of his policies and policy goals.

      But in terms of what he’s done so far, I’m not seeing anything to disagree with on constitutional grounds.

      It’s like boy who cried wolf danger, there, too. Not everything we disagree with is unconstitutional because we disagree with it. If and when Trump really does something unconstitutional, people are going to ignore us if we cry wolf every time he does something we don’t like.

      1. I don’t like the ban. I don’t see how it could be unconstitutional.

        1. Well, shit. Just look at how many random things are constitutional or unconstitutional despite of the constitution. Can’t see why something couldn’t just happen.

          1. Only the Nazgul know for sure.

    2. Anyone with two functioning brain cells has known for months that his action was perfectly legal and would stand.

      The president has, and has always had, rather broad powers to take actions to protect citizens at home from foreign psychopaths who hate us and want to kill us. It’s pretty much one of his most critical jobs, at least to normal Americans.

    3. Remember when it was just a temporary 90 day ban while they sorted out the vetting process?

  12. The Supreme Court declined to get involved in a Texas court case that seeks to determine whether their federal requirement for states to recognize same-sex marriages extends to treating them equally when it comes to government employee benefits.

    What’s the point of letting them into that exclusive club if you don’t cough up all the advantages?

    1. But is it marriage marriage?

  13. “Trump has called Roy Moore in Alabama to offer his endorsement in the Senate race (and he tweeted support as well).”

    I don’t understand why he’s allowed to do that–after CNN and MSNBC said supporting Roy Moore was unacceptable and everything?!

    1. Not to mention literally the most basic mote of human decency such as would require you not to endorse a child molester, for anything really but especially the US Senate.

      1. It’s becoming more and more obvious that you don’t know what the word ‘alleged’ means but, then again, your lexicon has always been rather thin. That, and your basic operating procedure has always been ‘guilty if (R), innocent if (D)’. I don’t mean that mockingly, even, it’s just a fact that you don’t put any more thought into it than that. Ever.

        1. I do apologize ever so genuinely to the otherwise extremely decent human being Roy Moore for assuming that the women accusing him of touching their vaginas when they were children aren’t liars.

          1. You also seem to have a major problem in getting even the allegations themselves correct. Every time you tell this story, I notice you embellish it a little more. You really are from the South, aren’t you.

      2. I dunno, adding a child molester probably raises the average respectability of the Senate.

      3. which candidate supports infanticide?

        1. Infanticide vs. child molesting. And 2016 was all about the lesser of evils.

          Or are you outright saying that child molestation is OK as long as it’s not the constitutionally protected right to abortion?

          1. Better to kill than to flirt?

            Got it.

  14. “Trump also this afternoon announced a reduction in the size of federally protected lands in Utah.”

    Serious question–is Trump more libertarian than Reason?

    1. You better be glad these guys don’t have your email. Otter dick pics would flood your inbox.

      1. He keeps doing serious libertarian shit!

        I despise his rhetoric on free trade, but apart from that?

        I don’t like his tweets either, but so what?

        My problems with Obama and Dubya were a lot more than their fucking tweets.

        I’m impressed with his diplomacy having a huge impact on destroying ISIS.

        He’s gonna sign a bill to cut corporate tax rates by 40%!!!

        He’d sign a bill to replace or repeal ObamaCare if we sent it to him.

        He’s undoing net neutrality and rewriting the way Title IX is implemented in rape cases, etc.

        On this side, there’s the shit Trump says. I’m not real fond of that, but on the other side, there’s all this immensely libertarian stuff he keeps doing.

        Have we started talking about pulling out of the Paris accord?

        Have we started talking about what they’re doing over at the EPA?

        It may not be saying a lot, but he’s the best president, so far, we’ve had in 16 years from a libertarian perspective.

        And I’m still not over the fact that he promised to sign a bill that would have cut $772 billion from medicaid if only Rand Paul and company had voted for it. Being willing to cut entitlements and having the likes of Suderman and other Reasonoids shit on that bill . . .

        Like I said, Trump may be more libertarian than some of these Reasonoids–in deed if not on Twitter.

        1. Lol at that list. There are only two actual items on it.

          1. I count 5, actually. Paris, EPA, taxes, net neutrality, and Title IX.

            Of course, he also forgets that his actions on TPP and Canadian Lumber are a lil’ bit more than “rhetoric”. And I would say Jefferson Beauregard Sessions counts as at least 6 or 7 “bad” points by himself.

            1. I confess to not knowing anything about Canadian lumber. I’ll check that out.

              I wasn’t thinking of TPP, but that’s a serious consideration, too.

              I was mostly thinking of NAFTA and GATT, which haven’t really been big issues yet. He’s talked about those, but hasn’t really acted on them.

              Still, on those issues, Trump has been a lot better than I expected.

              He’s wrong on legal immigration (which I’d like to see expanded), and he’s wrong on free trade.

              1. True, he has been much less awful about free trade than one might have feared, just still awful enough for it to count. Score one for his eeeevil NYSE plutocrat advisors, nonetheless.

              2. “ISIL has not only been losing territory in Syria, but also in Iraq, where the Kurds and the Iraqi Security Forces recently recaptured ISIL’s last stronghold, Mosul.”

                http://www.aljazeera.com/indep…..29467.html

                2015 link, but maps etc updated recently.

                This is apparently something that Trump has been taking seriously while in office.

                http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/…..index.html

            2. Not to mention partially walking back Obama’s only libertarian move, opening up relations with Cuba.

              1. I think there is also a division between an action a libertarian might like, and a libertarian action. I don’t believe I see anything aligning philosophically with libertarianism from Trump, just coincidental fortunes.

                1. I don’t think there was any question of a *philosophically* libertarian president this century (Johnson/Weld 2220!).

            3. Add Gorsuch. He was left off the original list.

              1. Wasn’t going for thoroughness, but I’ll see your Gorsuch and match a Chris Christie opioid commission.

    2. In areas that do not involve Mexicans and pot, yes he is. In the all important ass sex area,it is likely a push.

      1. I gave a list of what I think are libertarian accomplishments above this comment.

        I’m not even sure the writers at reason have been fully acknowledging them.

        If Gary Johnson had been elected president, I’m not sure we would have gotten better than Trump delivered on those issues.


        1. If Gary Johnson had been elected president, I’m not sure we would have gotten better than Trump delivered on those issues.

          On this, at least, I think we can mostly agree. Johnson was a joke, even if he’s personally likable. He would make an excellent Vice Presidential pick, but as the President not so much.

          1. But Aleppo!

    3. I’m starting to think Bill Clinton might have been more libertarian than most of these fugazi shitheads are.

      1. If we could cut spending back to Bill Clinton era levels, there would be no budget deficit.

        1. Probably true, considering that Clinton’s last budget in 2001 is about $2.6 trillion in 2016 dollars vs. the $4.1 trillion that Trump submitted for 2018.

        2. You misspelled Gingrich.

      2. “fugazi ”

        Nice. Had to look it up.

  15. I saw some expert on CNN scoffing at the idea that the President can’t commit obstruction of justice, after all – he said – we’ve already impeached two Presidents for obstruction of justice, one from each party, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. And the news anchor didn’t bat an eye.

    1. Ah, but those were political remedies, not criminal.

  16. We’re back to now debating whether President Donald Trump legally obstructed justice…

    Depends what your definition of justice is.

    1. Depends what your definition of depends is.

    2. Depends on what your definition of “we” is.

    3. Depends what your definition of ‘is’ is.

      1. Depends on what your definition of “definition” is.

  17. Former Democratic Florida Rep. Corrine Brown has been sentenced to five years in federal prison for a corruption scam involving a fake charity

    Go Gatas!

    1. I completely forgot about that!

      https://youtu.be/KgbBP9Em00A


  18. ?Here’s how Rep. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) argues for the repeal of the estate tax: “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” Insert the Ralph Wiggum “I’m helping!” meme here.

    I’m…not so sure that this guys point is wrong here. I mean, most of America does in fact live pay check to pay check and are pretty shitty at financial planning. Mostly because various levels of the State keep promising to make those decisions for them, and are in fact forcing that upon them, so many live in a state of denial about how their retirement will work.

    I mean, he is saying that they should repeal the estate tax, right? Or is Reason now arguing for an estate tax? Say it ain’t so, Shackalaka!

    1. How about the libertarian principle that crinkly old lifelong politicians get their noses out of people’s personal lives?

      I realize asking you to stop regurgitating the asinine slavish nonsense that wealth=virtue and poverty=vice would be pointless at this juncture.


      1. …slavish nonsense that wealth=virtue and poverty=vice would be pointless at this juncture.

        I’ll take ‘things I’ve never said or implied in my life’ for $500, Alex. Things you own, including assets, have no bearing on your moral standing whatsoever.

        1. I’m glad to know that we both disagree with Sen. Grassley.

          And literally the entire moral justification for Republican party tax and social welfare policy for half a century.

        2. Well, that depends. You just gave vague endorsement to Grassley’s statement here, and it’s pretty easy to interpret Grassley’s statement as “wealth = virtue, poverty = vice”. So if you take that interpretation, then you did just “say or imply” it.

          Not saying I agree, mind you, just pointing out the logical chain that cold lead someone else to such a conclusion.

          1. Uhh…what is immoral about any of the things he mentions? I took it as a simple statement that estate taxes are wrong because they punish saving instead of spending, but I don’t know the context of his full statement so I can’t say for sure. Welcome to basic economics 101.

            It’s an almost verbatim argument that I’ve heard hundreds of times from hundreds of sources on why estate taxes are wrong, but if you want to insert morality into it the one person being forced to do anything in an estate situation is the person who’s parent(s) just died.

            Saving may or may not be moral but it is responsible. I guess it’s up to you if being responsible is the moral thing to do, but I’m getting the sense that you and your ilk believe that taking is the more moral option.

            Frankly I don’t give a shit if someone does spend all their paycheck each pay period on wants, but that’s their choice. If someone’s needs outweigh their income, that isn’t necessarily immoral but one can’t make a judgment on such a thing collectively it would require a case-by-case analysis and there is no ‘national’ level policy that could make sweeping judgments there.

            But none of that justifies an estate tax, either, and is a separate question. Another separate question would be ‘should tax policy attempt to induce morality’ which I tend to disagree with.


            1. Not saying I agree, mind you, just pointing out the logical chain that cold lead someone else to such a conclusion.

              I see, you’re making a devil’s advocate case. Fair enough.

              Note that what Grassley mentioned are all quantified as ‘wants’ type expenditures which is why I said he’s not off base. If he had said ‘frittered away their money on food and shelter’ than maybe, but if you’re blowing your retirement money on wants today than you’re expecting the public to bankroll later in your life.

              That is not moral, or even helpful to society as a whole, to most ethos I can think of off-hand.

        3. The point he made was if you blow your money on useless stupidity, you won’t accumulate any assets.

      2. How about the libertarian principle that crinkly old lifelong politicians get their noses out of people’s personal lives?

        He IS doing that.

      3. Eliminating the death tax is the best way to get life-long politicians, and social justice warriors out of people’s personal lives.

    2. Of course he is right. It was a stinging rebuke to many who piss away their fortunes, so naturally it was a “terrible thing to say”.

  19. So we’re in agreement that it’s good to not have an estate tax because rich people don’t waste their money like the dirty poors?

    1. Estate taxes are evil. Period. Not your money.

      1. The person whose money it was is dead. Then it turns into someone else’s income. And we tax income. We tax lots of transactions.

        1. I have a developmentally disabled daughter and I would like to set up a fund for her so that she won’t be as dependent upon the whims of government. I don’t see any reason to give you 1/2 of it.

          So, fuck off.

          1. Who you’re really telling to fuck off is other children who would be left to die in the street for the crime of being born to the wrong parents.

            Civilization. It’s not free.

            1. Who you’re really telling to fuck off is other children who would be left to die in the street for the crime of being born to the wrong parents.

              The money was already taxed when it was originally earned. Why tax it AGAIN? How is it YOUR money?

            2. Didn’t see this last night, but needs to be addressed:

              Welfare, SSDI, Medicaid and all of the other monstrosities shat out by the Great Society Leap Forward are not “civilization”. They are what *destroys* civilization. A civil society would let people seek the wages of prosperity freely, without said wages being taken and monopolized by a mindless and ignorant bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to perpetuate itself, and rely on genuine, mutually beneficial, voluntary structures of community and cooperation to care for those few who could not take care of themselves- as worked for hundreds of years before the cloying lie of socialism spread through the world.

      2. It’s certainly a thing to say we’ll tax you once and then tax it again because you died.

        1. That bothers me to no end. Taxes have been paid already. The government already taxes waaaayyy more than their ‘fair share’. If you can’t be responsible with spending that’s your problem. Now fuck off.

          1. I’d be ok with a capital gains tax at transfer that sets a new cost basis for future gains.

        2. Surely you can make a case that is not inherently disingenuous. The dead isn’t paying any taxes. He’s dead.

          Why should the offspring of a billionaire get a vast windfall of income, tax free, in the way an actual worker does not on his relatively tiny paycheck?

          1. There’s nothing disingenuous about it. At least have the decency to disagree rather than attempting to slur me with some conceit.

            Why should the offspring of a billionaire get a vast windfall of income, tax free, in the way an actual worker does not on his relatively tiny paycheck?

            Because I can’t think of a reason why the government should tax money that was previously taxed as income. Why do they get to dip into money just because someone died? Maybe this is a very core principle difference here. Because as best I can tell, I’m asking why do they have the right to take it, and you’re saying why do they have the right to keep it?

            1. The concept of double taxation is the disingenuous part. The money that ends up in my paycheck was taxed 10 times before it got there. At the register, from the boss’s check, down the line. Transactions are taxed. Inheritance is a transaction. It’s income in every sense of the word, the big difference being the recipient didn’t work for it.

              1. I see. So your issue isn’t the problem I have with it, it’s that it’s already happening and so it’s disingenuous for me to care?

                1. The answer is they have a right to dip into it for the same reason they have a right to tax any other transaction.

                  The fact that this is a particular fixation of Republicans, yet as social policy will only result in a windfall for a tiny handful of uber-wealthy families, is the operative phenomenon here.

                  It’s income people didn’t work for. If anything for that reason it’s more justifiable to tax it than income you do work for.

                  1. The answer is they have a right to dip into it for the same reason they have a right to tax any other transaction.

                    What do you believe those reasons are? There’s certainly a lot hidden behind that sentence.

                    The fact that this is a particular fixation of Republicans, yet as social policy will only result in a windfall for a tiny handful of uber-wealthy families, is the operative phenomenon here.

                    Maybe, I don’t believe that government action as a form of social engineering is valid, so that’s not particularly meaningful either way to me.

                    It’s income people didn’t work for. If anything for that reason it’s more justifiable to tax it than income you do work for.

                    It can also be seen as Money given to a source by someone who has earned it. You’re not doing anything to justify it either way. Your argument is basically “it is, so it shall be.”

                    1. My paycheck comes from another guy who earned it as part of his paycheck. He was taxed when it was his income. Now it’s taxed when it’s my income. Money, as you know, is fungible. It’s a physical absurdity to claim that you even can only tax it once.

                      As for why it’s justifiable to tax income at all, or raise any taxes at all, that’s a debate between anarchists and statists. If you tell me which one you are we can then work from the relevant set of first principles.

                    2. It’s a physical absurdity to claim that you even can only tax it once.

                      I don’t believe I said anything about that. Of course they can. They do it right now, it would be absurd for me to claim it to be physically impossible. I don’t believe I said that though, so that’s just a non-sequitur from you.

                      I do not believe it is necessary for you to assume my entire world view in order to have a discussion about this issue. I will say that I believe that I believe that someone can own property though, and that someone who owns it should have control over what is used for.

                    3. But isn’t the money in my employer’s bank account every bit as much his property as the estate left behind by a dead guy? More so–he’s still alive!

                      If taxation is justifiable at all, surely taxing inheritance, which is by definition wealth gained by sheer luck alone, is if anything more justifiable than taxing income as a result of labor.

                    4. But isn’t the money in my employer’s bank account every bit as much his property as the estate left behind by a dead guy? More so–he’s still alive!

                      It’s not any more or less. It’s his property.

                      If taxation is justifiable at all, surely taxing inheritance, which is by definition wealth gained by sheer luck alone, is if anything more justifiable than taxing income as a result of labor.

                      First, we are discussing that if. So you’re basically repeating the question at this point. Second, that is by no means the definition of inheritance. You’re putting a lot of meaning that need not be there.

                    5. Ah yes, if it comes from the brow of the farmhand or the factory man it is noble earned income, if someone gets money from the “speculative class” it is filthy lucre.

                      Marx would be proud.

                2. FTR I think it’s such an outsize fixation of anti-tax people because they can imagine getting a big fat lottery check from Aunt Gert and really being pissed off at seeing half of it disappear as taxes. I get it. Sucks huh. But that’s just a failure of imagination (all your income is taxed your whole life) and empathy (most people don’t win the lottery and have to struggle to meet basic needs, so why are you special?).

              2. Income tax isn’t paid on revenue (at the register).

                If you want to tax it at 8% (sales tax) then maybe we’re talking.

            2. Of course, what this debate always illustrates is the impossibility– and the inherent immorality of an ‘income’t tax. It’s fun trying to define income– because it can be rightly defined as anything you receive that has a perceived benefit.


              1. Of course, what this debate always illustrates is the impossibility– and the inherent immorality of an ‘income’t tax. It’s fun trying to define income– because it can be rightly defined as anything you receive that has a perceived benefit.

                The problem is that Tony doesn’t appear to understand that an estate is more than just cash in someone’s accounts, it’s also property and many different classes of asset which may or may not be advantageous to sell at the time of a person’s death. He’s also ignoring that those are property that the government says you can’t give away or they will go after you for tax evasion.

                Yeah, how ‘moral’ that is. Yeesh.

                1. None of this conversation affects anyone but the absolute wealthiest. It’s not wrong that you’re so concerned about their welfare, it’s just disproportionate.

          2. So it doesn’t bother you that the ‘income tax’ when it comes to an estate is something like 50%. Color me surprised, you disingenuous fuck.

            1. Do you argue that people should keep most of their income because they worked hard for it? Or does that not factor in at all?

              1. Of course, the government is the proxy for God and is entitled to decide who deserves to keep their money. /sarc

                1. Since there wouldn’t be any such thing as money without government, it kind of is entitled to do that. But what you think is a slavery vs. freedom debate is actually an anarchy vs. sanity debate.

                  1. You’re retarded, money pre-exists government. Non-convertible fiat currency has only existed for roughly 100 years in American history.

                  2. “Since there wouldn’t be any such thing as money without government, it kind of is entitled to do that.”

                    So, because according to you, women are primarily dependent on government to guarantee their self-ownership (since of course they could never defend themselves without the police), the gov has the right to decide who they marry and have sex with?

                    After all, they wouldn’t even have self-sovereignty without government!

                  3. Bitcoin disagrees.

              2. It does not, because that’s something the government can not objectively or realistically determine in any way, shape, or form. It’s arbitrary, or in this case predatory since the tax is due immediately which forces you to sell assets regardless of the current market.

                Not that you care, you’re a Marxist thus any vehicle for taking away personal money and assets is desirable as long as it ends up in the State’s hands. Assuming, of course, that you’re personally allowed to somehow profit or break even in the process.

                Even Marx hated your type, you know that right?

              3. Do you argue that people should keep most of their income because they worked hard for it?

                People should be able to keep 100% of their income without being coerced out of it because it’s theirs. It became theirs voluntarily. It should only cease to be theirs voluntarily.

              4. Do you argue that people should keep most of their income because they worked hard for it? Or does that not factor in at all?

                This is where you have it backwards. It’s not your money. You have to justify taking it. They don’t have to justify keeping it.

                1. See above where our lefty idiot claims money can only come from government. It is far from the first time he’s admitted to being an imbecile:
                  Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
                  “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”

                2. Well that’s easy enough. Why didn’t you just say so?

                  Civilization costs money and it’s paid for by taxes; that’s why it’s justified to take them.

                  Do you want to live in a civilization, or do you want to live in a fourth-world shithole? Unless perhaps you can name examples of all those gleaming civilized societies that didn’t tax people.

                  1. Three questions:

                    1. Do you actually have important, pressing matters to attend to between the late afternoon and midnight, or do you wait to come back and corpse-fuck the thread on purpose?

                    2. Are you under the impression there are dystopian societies on earth where taxes *aren’t* collected? Because I can assure you that people in Somalia, the Amazon, and once upon a time the tribal societies of North America and the rest of the world absolutely do “pay taxes”, they just don’t pay them to an entity that matches your specific vision of government- but they, those tribes and warlords and brigands, are governments nonetheless. You can say that there are no *good* “tax-free societies”, but there are no *bad* “tax-free societies” you can point to either.

                    3. Are you really so thick that you cannot grok the idea that, even if government theft is something we cannot eliminate completely, that serves merely to elevate the theft from “evil” to “necessary evil”, thus in no way reducing the need to keep that “necessary” evil to a minimum, like any other form of collateral damage incurred by military/LE operations?

                    1. Corpse-fucking is an odd accusation considering you have to show up past the alleged thread expiration date to make it.

                      If taxes are necessary, as in necessary for the basic structure of any society no matter its form, then how can they be evil? How can something without which we can’t live without be evil?

                      I’m sorry your political worldview is absurd but I’ve been telling you that for years and all you have to do is listen.

                    2. The difference between you and me is that I wouldn’t’ve commented “past the expiration date” if it weren’t for you having done so first. I check the thread and *only* comment as a response if someone else corpse-fucks first. But then, if the difference between aggression and retaliation weren’t lost on you, you wouldn’t be a socialist.

                      Oh, and: can you “live without” police responding to domestic violence 911 calls by showing up in force? Can you “live without” a military that occasionally has to go to war to protect you? Of course you can’t. And yet I’d be willing to bet you don’t believe in calling police out to peoples’ houses for every minor infraction- or invading other countries if we can avoid it, even if they’re ruled by dictators that are totally asking for it.

                      Why? 2 reasons: A, because you might send the guys with guns to the wrong house/country, and B, even if you send them to the right one, they may end up inflicting collateral damage worse than that which they were responding to. And at least 1 of those 2 things is guaranteed to happen almost every time.

                      IOW: wielding state violence against people is inherently awful, *even when it’s unavoidable*. Thus, we should avoid it as much as possible, ideally by only wielding it against those who wield violence first.

      3. The typical family fortune is gone within 3 generations.

        There’s no need for an estate tax to preserve “equality.”

    2. Taxes are stealing. Estate taxes are stealing twice.

  20. My god, somebody has got to do a movie about the Facebook twins.

    http://amp.kiro7.com/news/tren…../658463105

    1. The Winklevlossenheimerscheuller twins?

    2. It was done. Social Network wasn’t a bad flick.

  21. Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect
    I wonder if Trump will get credit for this good turn in securing our borders and current immigration law?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.