|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 17 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 03:51 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 02:45 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:
FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes? Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D I would rather have a population that believes money must be collected for federal spending to take place than one that believes the government can just print unlimited money to solve any spending problem. Mostly people barely have a grasp on how economies work, so the latter option is prone to instability and poor management.
And I would rather people understand that it is the real resources that matter and not be afraid to spend on the public purpose. If we go for universal healthcare, for example, it matters that we have enough doctors, nurses, medical equipment etc... not if we can "afford it" or whether we have to increase FICA taxes.
|
On August 17 2018 04:04 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 03:51 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 02:45 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:
FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes? Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D I would rather have a population that believes money must be collected for federal spending to take place than one that believes the government can just print unlimited money to solve any spending problem. Mostly people barely have a grasp on how economies work, so the latter option is prone to instability and poor management. And I would rather people understand that it is the real resources that matter and not be afraid to spend on the public purpose. If we go for universal healthcare, for example, it matters that we have enough doctors, nurses, medical equipment etc... not if we can "afford it" or whether we have to increase FICA taxes.
Agreed, but also not that relevant to abolishing the income tax/SS/Medicaid tax and the impact that would have on the population’s perception to those programs.
|
On August 17 2018 04:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 04:04 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 03:51 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 02:45 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:
FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes? Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D I would rather have a population that believes money must be collected for federal spending to take place than one that believes the government can just print unlimited money to solve any spending problem. Mostly people barely have a grasp on how economies work, so the latter option is prone to instability and poor management. And I would rather people understand that it is the real resources that matter and not be afraid to spend on the public purpose. If we go for universal healthcare, for example, it matters that we have enough doctors, nurses, medical equipment etc... not if we can "afford it" or whether we have to increase FICA taxes. Agreed, but also not that relevant to abolishing the income tax/SS/Medicaid tax and the impact that would have on the population’s perception to those programs.
I don't know. If you look at SS, many people don't consider it an entitlement program and seem to think that Uncle Sam keeps their old 1950's nickels in a piggy bank for them or something. Then again, these same people don't seem to blink an eye when the military budget is conjured up with no question about how we can pay for it or raising taxes etc.
|
On August 17 2018 03:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 03:51 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:50 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2018 02:45 screamingpalm wrote:On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:
FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes? Yes. It is a regressive tax that should be abolished! As much as the right claims to love their tax cuts, they never seem to champion tax cuts for the working class. I wouldn’t mind paying less for SS and Medicaid. But I’m not in the abolish all “regressive” taxes camp, as it is important for everyone to have some skin in the game, even a little. Those with more money should just have to pay more, rather than receive tax cut after tax cut. That's a lesser evil I suppose, but the problem with FICA, is that it makes people believe that taxes are necessary to pay for federal spending. You can still have your Calvinism with state and local taxes (where revenue is actually necessary). :D I would rather have a population that believes money must be collected for federal spending to take place than one that believes the government can just print unlimited money to solve any spending problem. Mostly people barely have a grasp on how economies work, so the latter option is prone to instability and poor management.
we went over why the government can't keep the presses printing money like two pages ago, too.
|
The Manafort jurors submitted some questions to the judge today that are, frankly, a little dumb. But they seem to indicate that the jury does not consider it a slam dunk case. It's a little speculative, but I would guess the jury is not swayed one way or the other yet.
Public support for the Special Counsel would probably be damaged by an acquittal.
Just before 5 p.m. ET, jurors sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis with four questions, including one asking him if he could "redefine" for them the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. Ellis responded that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."
Jurors also asked questions related to Manafort's tax filing and foreign bank account disclosure charges, including when a person is required to file a foreign banking disclosure, and the definition of "shelf" companies. Ellis instructed them to rely on their "collective recollection" and gave no additional explanation.
www.msn.com
|
On August 17 2018 07:17 Doodsmack wrote:The Manafort jurors submitted some questions to the judge today that are, frankly, a little dumb. But they seem to indicate that the jury does not consider it a slam dunk case. It's a little speculative, but I would guess the jury is not swayed one way or the other yet. Public support for the Special Counsel would probably be damaged by an acquittal. Show nested quote +Just before 5 p.m. ET, jurors sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis with four questions, including one asking him if he could "redefine" for them the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. Ellis responded that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."
Jurors also asked questions related to Manafort's tax filing and foreign bank account disclosure charges, including when a person is required to file a foreign banking disclosure, and the definition of "shelf" companies. Ellis instructed them to rely on their "collective recollection" and gave no additional explanation. www.msn.com
What the living fuck?
A guy literally came out and said ' We did crimes together, a shit ton of them, crimes, shit against the law.... we did that stuff'
How is this hard???
|
On August 17 2018 07:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 07:17 Doodsmack wrote:The Manafort jurors submitted some questions to the judge today that are, frankly, a little dumb. But they seem to indicate that the jury does not consider it a slam dunk case. It's a little speculative, but I would guess the jury is not swayed one way or the other yet. Public support for the Special Counsel would probably be damaged by an acquittal. Just before 5 p.m. ET, jurors sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis with four questions, including one asking him if he could "redefine" for them the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. Ellis responded that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."
Jurors also asked questions related to Manafort's tax filing and foreign bank account disclosure charges, including when a person is required to file a foreign banking disclosure, and the definition of "shelf" companies. Ellis instructed them to rely on their "collective recollection" and gave no additional explanation. www.msn.com What the living fuck? A guy literally came out and said ' We did crimes together, a shit ton of them, crimes, shit against the law.... we did that stuff' How is this hard???
because that was a different guy; the jurors need to follow the judges instructions. And the jurors (like most people) are idiots; and ill-equipped to handle a (presumably) very complex case. I doubt most jurors would be able to follow bayesian logic either. they're probably being asked to decide on very fine (as in precise) points in ways they're not used to thinking about.
Also, reasonable doubt itself is a problematic standard, in that it's often not well-defined at all.
|
United States24740 Posts
I wouldn't jump to conclusions. When the decision they make is obviously going to have serious repercussions, not just for the defendant but for many other people as well, it's good for them to make sure they do their due diligence and don't come to a decision based on faulty understandings or unnecessarily incomplete knowledge, especially if they just weren't that knowledgeable on trials and juries to begin with.
|
FYI, Trumps masturbatory military parade's estimated cost has ballooned to $92million, up from $12million and then $30 million. There is no way this farce can go forward now, right? The VA is broke but they will spend that much money on a pointless, un-American parade? I imagine Republicans will be fighting hardest to end this since it will be a big story going into the elections.
Kelly and Mattis must be shitting themselves.
Source:
|
On August 17 2018 07:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 07:17 Doodsmack wrote:The Manafort jurors submitted some questions to the judge today that are, frankly, a little dumb. But they seem to indicate that the jury does not consider it a slam dunk case. It's a little speculative, but I would guess the jury is not swayed one way or the other yet. Public support for the Special Counsel would probably be damaged by an acquittal. Just before 5 p.m. ET, jurors sent a note to Judge T.S. Ellis with four questions, including one asking him if he could "redefine" for them the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the legal threshold for acquitting a defendant. Ellis responded that the prosecutors had to prove their case not "beyond possible doubt," but beyond "doubt based on reason."
Jurors also asked questions related to Manafort's tax filing and foreign bank account disclosure charges, including when a person is required to file a foreign banking disclosure, and the definition of "shelf" companies. Ellis instructed them to rely on their "collective recollection" and gave no additional explanation. www.msn.com What the living fuck? A guy literally came out and said ' We did crimes together, a shit ton of them, crimes, shit against the law.... we did that stuff' How is this hard??? Remember, juries are supposed to be as dumb as possible. You don't want any smart people able to convince others.
|
Attorney who also has a funny twitter account, Popehat has provided this sage advice about the jury notes. It applies here too, don’t read into it. Juries don’t get to ask questions during the trial and most people on a jury take it seriously. Which means they ask questions, especially when it comes to complex cases and the burden of proof required.
|
United States43209 Posts
On August 17 2018 02:42 Plansix wrote:
FICA is the act that requires the collection of several taxes through pay roll. Can we assume you mean all of those taxes?
FICA is social security (12.4%ish) and Medicare (2.9% ish), there is also SUTA, and FUTA, which collectively make up the payroll taxes. They’re over twice what people see on their pay stubs due to stealth racing half of it as “employer pays” (still part of your total cost to the employer which they pay for your labour).
|
On August 17 2018 07:53 On_Slaught wrote:FYI, Trumps masturbatory military parade's estimated cost has ballooned to $92million, up from $12million and then $30 million. There is no way this farce can go forward now, right? The VA is broke but they will spend that much money on a pointless, un-American parade? I imagine Republicans will be fighting hardest to end this since it will be a big story going into the elections. Kelly and Mattis must be shitting themselves. Source: https://twitter.com/AP/status/1030157564347080705
God please let this going forward before November. 90 million in free campaign ad b-roll. If they are going to do stupid shit, let it be this stupid shit.
|
Juries shouldn't exist. The entire idea of striving for ignorance is silly.
|
5930 Posts
On August 17 2018 08:03 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1030212527324426240Attorney who also has a funny twitter account, Popehat has provided this sage advice about the jury notes. It applies here too, don’t read into it. Juries don’t get to ask questions during the trial and most people on a jury take it seriously. Which means they ask questions, especially when it comes to complex cases and the burden of proof required.
I remember the jurors asking the reasonable doubt question with Scooter Libby. Most of the time its Jennifer or Robert in the corner wanting the judge to totally define the scope of "beyond a reasonable doubt" so they can figure out if the defendant is guilty on count 25, which is a totally fair question honestly because what exactly is beyond a reasonable doubt, and the rest of the jurors shoving that question with the list.
|
On August 17 2018 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Juries shouldn't exist. The entire idea of striving for ignorance is silly.
They are your peers. The point of the jury is that the final verdict is out of the state’s hands.
And the idea that DAs seek dumb juries is a bit of a conspiracy theory, IMO. It is not great to have one super informed juror, like an attorney. But I’ve never meet a real attorney who advocated for dumb juries in any serious fashion.
|
On August 17 2018 08:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2018 08:14 Mohdoo wrote:
Juries shouldn't exist. The entire idea of striving for ignorance is silly. They are your peers. The point of the jury is that the final verdict is out of the state’s hands. And the idea that DAs seek dumb juries is a bit of a conspiracy theory, IMO. It is not great to have one super informed juror, like an attorney. But I’ve never meet a real attorney who advocated for dumb juries in any serious fashion.
I don't think my peers should have anything to do with determining legal verdicts.
|
Who else are you going to trust to determine legal verdicts?
|
On August 17 2018 09:34 Ryzel wrote:
Who else are you going to trust to determine legal verdicts? Ehm, the people that actually studied and trained for it?
Think people call them judges.
Not a bunch of random people off the street.
An innocent man will want a judge. Because he trusts the professional to make the right choice.
A guilty man will want a jury, because there is a bigger chance he can con them into making a mistake.
|
United States24740 Posts
We can train them to perform executions and then complete the trifecta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
