[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 11:43, said:

The article states that Former Attorney General Janet Reno asked for the prompt resignation of all U.S. attorneys thus disrupting the graduated replacements one would have expected. She wanted ALL Republican US attorneys gone promptly as in resignation effective in a matter of days; there was no graduated replacement schedule. Plus, she asked for all 93 resignations while Sessions wanted 46 to resign.

Curiouser and curiouser....

Please double check the NY Times article and my assertion and tell me where you see a "graduated firing". Thanks.

Try this: http://www.cbsnews.c...edented-or-not/

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-06, 11:51, said:

On taxes: Just a suggestion, but...

Each citizen or resident alien (or illegal alien?) pays 2% (pick a different number if you like, but keep it low) of gross income (defined as all income - no exceptions) to his or her local government (I suggest county or equivalent). The local government pays 2% of its gross revenue to the state. The state pays 2% of its gross revenue to the federal government. If at any governmental level there remains an excess after reasonable expenses (including, possibly, some kind of "rainy day" fund) the excess is distributed back down to the next lower level (iteratively if that results in an excess at the lower level). Governments at all levels should be limited in what they can do with this revenue (no "Social Security" schemes, for example).

The devil is in the details of course, and if I can come up with a simple scheme like this no doubt some politician can come up with a way to use it to further his political power — if we let him.

In law where ambiguity arises, it is often decided by which party can most afford the loss. Should it be any different in societies where there is not equality of access to earnings?

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-06, 12:41, said:

Try this: http://www.cbsnews.c...edented-or-not/

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2017-June-06, 11:51, said:

On taxes: Just a suggestion, but...

Each citizen or resident alien (or illegal alien?) pays 2% (pick a different number if you like, but keep it low) of gross income (defined as all income - no exceptions) to his or her local government (I suggest county or equivalent). The local government pays 2% of its gross revenue to the state. The state pays 2% of its gross revenue to the federal government. If at any governmental level there remains an excess after reasonable expenses (including, possibly, some kind of "rainy day" fund) the excess is distributed back down to the next lower level (iteratively if that results in an excess at the lower level). Governments at all levels should be limited in what they can do with this revenue (no "Social Security" schemes, for example).

The devil is in the details of course, and if I can come up with a simple scheme like this no doubt some politician can come up with a way to use it to further his political power — if we let him.

How is this really different from each individual paying:
1.96   % city tax
0.0392 % state tax
0.0008 % federal tax

And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP?

The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs.

So:

• You determine what all the government needs to do. This is called politics.
  
• Then you determine how much money is needed for that and you add it up. This is called making a budget.
  
• Then you make sure that you get the needed money by deposing taxes. It seems generally accepted that the stronger shoulders should carry the heavy load, first of all because they can afford it and second because they profit most from the government (rich people use the roads and airports more than poor people). This is called progressive taxation.

So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair.

I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life.

Rik

[RedSpawn]

Trinidad, on 2017-June-06, 13:05, said:

How is this really different from each individual paying:
1.96   % city tax
0.0392 % state tax
0.0008 % federal tax

And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP?

The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs.

So:

• You determine what all the government needs to do. This is called politics.
  
• Then you determine how much money is needed for that and you add it up. This is called making a budget.
  
• Then you make sure that you get the needed money by deposing taxes. It seems generally accepted that the stronger shoulders should carry the heavy load, first of all because they can afford it and second because they profit most from the government (rich people use the roads and airports more than poor people). This is called progressive taxation.

So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair.

I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life.

Rik

??? Our GDP is $18,569,000,000,000. Our annual military/defense is about $850,000,000,000. We more than satisfy the 2% of GDP requirement for Defense spending as outlined by NATO.

[RedSpawn]

barmar, on 2017-June-02, 16:54, said:

I asked about this on politics.stackexchange.com. Someone answered that 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides an exception for the President appointing White House staff, and the DOJ OK'ed the appointments based on this law.

It's interesting how "5 U.S.C. § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions" has this strong anti-nepotism language.

And 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) has a relaxed viewpoint about appointments and pay in the White House Office.

Well played!

[y66]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 12:59, said:

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

Asking all U.S. attorneys for their resignations when a new president comes in is routine and is not news to anyone reading this thread. Not bothering to replace any of them after 4+ months after promising to drain the swamp and using words like assiduous to describe this is not news either unfortunately.

[jogs]

Quote

In any case, the nation-state belongs in the past, to a family, job, religion and way of life stay put in a single place and are insulated against global developments. Our world is no longer like that, and we must change in step with it if we wish to belong.

After all these recent terrorist attacks, populists don't agree with your statement that the nation-state belongs in the past. There can only be one set of social values. No compromise is acceptable. The Ottoman Empire lost. Sharia Law should not be tolerated.

There are over 3,000 on the terrorist list in the UK. Over 20,000 on the sympathy list. Unknown is the number who wish the UK to be under Sharia. One of the London terrorist is on record predicting that the UK with be under Sharia.

Trump is the only world leader which recognizes the threat. May has finally made some statements similar to Trump's. We Trump supporters wish to retain our nation-state status as long as possible. While you Europeans better be prepared to live under Sharia.

[RedSpawn]

y66, on 2017-June-06, 04:14, said:

This is somewhat interesting:


From You’re Not Going to Change Your Mind

Thread over.

So if we debate over whether the woman in the picture is a young woman or old lady, we will reach an impasse.

We will both feel that our viewpoint is valid. Depending on how we are looking at the picture, each of us would have a valid viewpoint.

Even if the news were to release facts about the picture, it doesn't change the picture at all. It may influence how we feel about our perspectives about the picture though. But the picture is what it is.

I think we have to remember to scrutinize our beliefs and see if our perceptions about people, places, and things are colored by biases.

[y66]

Nevada’s plan to create “Medicaid for all,” explained by Sarah Kliff at Vox

[Vampyr]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 10:03, said:

I am suggesting that Trump is neither virtuous nor malevolent, but somewhere in between. I am not exactly sure where on that spectrum he is. But as this political melodrama plays out, I might have a better assessment. Trump may be a piece of slime and a liar. He may not be.

Question: Is Former President Bill Clinton a piece of slime and/or liar? When a sitting President can point a sanctimonious finger at the nation and say to the camera, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” That's bold. His wife and sitting Vice President was in that press conference, and maybe, just maybe he forgot the truth in that moment, but he sold us a false bill of goods. He sold that lie with such swagger and unabashed confidence that most initially believed his narrative. But that is what successful politicians do! They double down on lies when they think they can get away with it.

My contention is all politicians lie when it matters (and some do it when it doesn't even matter). They're human beings, of flesh and blood, and will fall short of the glory. I think we have to be careful when we take our Puritan history and sensibilities and apply them to the dirty politics of the D.C. establishment. Let he that is without sin, cast the 1st stone. Almost all of our politicians are sinful in one way or another; it's a matter of choosing among the lesser evils.

Clinton lied about his sex life, and was rightly impeached for incitement to perjury or whatever the changes were. I did not follow the hearings well enough to know why he was acquitted, except of course the defining of the words.

Maybe he should not have been acquitted; I don't know. But to compare his lies to Trunp's is disingenuous. Clinton lied about his peccadilloes, and it is not at all clear to me that this was even any of our business. His sexual indiscretions and what he decided to say about them were not relevant to how he performed as President, and I do not think that anyone could suggest that he was other than an excellent President.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 12:59, said:

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

No, you are comparing. I see no comparison.

[awm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 12:59, said:

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

Asking the attorneys to resign was not unusual. The two strange things were that Trump had specifically promised one of them he could stay, then went back on his promise... and that Trump seemed not to have replacements ready to go.

It's like asking what's the big deal about Trump playing golf? Obama played golf. But again it's the context... Trump says one thing and then does another.

[Trinidad]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 13:35, said:

??? Our GDP is $18,569,000,000,000. Our annual military/defense is about $850,000,000,000. We more than satisfy the 2% of GDP requirement for Defense spending as outlined by NATO.

But how are you going to spend 2% of your GDP on defense if your federal tax revenue is only 0.0008 % of your GDP, as Blackshoe proposed?

Rik

[diana_eva]

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

[y66]

diana_eva, on 2017-June-07, 04:16, said:

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

Julian Borger of The Guardian posted these comments in his Qatar story today:

Quote

“It’s unlikely (to say the least) that Donald Trump realised we are running the entire air war out of Qatar prior to his tweet,” said Andrew Exum, a deputy assistant secretary of defence for Middle East policy in the Obama administration

Hours after Trump’s tweets, Vladimr Putin telephoned the Qatari emir, stressing “Russia’s principled position in favour of settling crises by political and diplomatic means, through dialogue”. CNN reported on Tuesday that Russian hackers had planted a fake news story on the Qatari state agency attributing reconciliatory remarks on Iran and Israel to the emir. The news story helped precipitate the current crisis with Riyadh.

“The Saudis, Emiratis, and President Trump are certainly correct that Qatar has been playing both sides of the street ... but we’re probably underestimating the possibility of Qatar breaking with the Sunni states and aligning itself with Iran,” said Kori Schake, a senior defence official in the last Bush administration. She added: “[I]hope we have a back up for operations at al-Udeid.”

Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior state department official now at the Centre for a New American Security said: “At the end of the day, we have a lot of leverage on the Qataris and they are not going to walk away. But the President has thrown fuel on the fire. If we are going to build a coalition to fight extremism you have smooth over differences and this is going to inflame them.”

“He has pretty much undercut any diplomatic efforts by US officials to try to calm things down.”

Kelly Magsamen, a former senior Pentagon official now an adjunct lecturer at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said: “It’s interesting that Donald Trump is choosing to pile on pressure just as we are beginning Raqqa operations.”

Magsamen pointed out that al-Udeid is not just a base for US air operations but also for US allies taking part in the counter-Isis coalition.

“It’s not clear whether there was a deliberate American decision before the president leaned in, and whether the national security council ran any sort of process on the risks of encouraging the Saudis and Emiratis to put pressure on the Qataris,” she said.

Situation normal, assiduously so.

[kenberg]

diana_eva, on 2017-June-07, 04:16, said:

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

Funny you should ask. Abut half an hour ago I read today's Washington Post and mentioned an editorial to Becky. My comment was "What I get out of this is that I do not at all understand the whole thing". To start with, I pronounced Qatar with the accent on the second syllable, sort of like guitar (this analog comes from source ), but Becky pointed out that it was pronounced more like "cutter" on PBS. Also, I am a little vague on just where it is.

Here is a part of the editorial

Quote

Mr. Trump's intervention aligned the United States against a country that is currently hosting at least 10,000 U.S. military personnel at a base where operations against the Islamic State are being directed — a facility that was needed after Saudi Arabia ordered U.S. forces to leave its territory.

.

Fine, call me uninformed, call me an ignoramus, but I did not know this. I have some vague recollection of American forces leaving Saudi Arabia but I would not want my life to depend on me getting this right.

I wanted to put the above out there because we often hear of voters just being uninformed. Well, yes. We have to be honest with ourselves about that. I attended a grandson's high school graduation on Monday, and we all went out to a restaurant afterward. The conversation hopped around, we got onto the subject of movies, and I mentioned that we recently saw The Year of Living Dangerously. My son-in-law, Alan, mentioned that he found the politics confusing when he first saw it. Well, so did I. It is set in Indonesia of 1965. I was working on a thesis in 1965, mathematics not politics. Yes, I knew who Sukarno was. President of Indonesia. I mentioned that maybe it had once been a British colony and Alan said, no, it was the Netherlands. Sure, Dutch East Indies, I knew that, but I had forgotten.

The point: Don't expect expertise from me. I think I am above average as voters go. This is a problem.

How, you might ask, did we end up talking about movies? Well, it was high school graduation, we were thinking back in time, and my daughter Ruth mentioned that when she was 17 she and I went to see Alien. She really wanted to see it, I said I didn't like horror films, she said she really wanted to see it, we saw it. I still don't like horror films but I did like Alien.

A good part of my political views boils down to this: I want a president who knows more about Qatar than I do. I am not so sure that we have one.

[Winstonm]

Proof of what I have believed all along, that there are many decent and well-meaning conservatives who want prosperity for everyone:

Quote

The Wichita Eagle reported overnight on GOP officials in Kansas embracing the one policy contemporary Republicans almost never even consider.

Lawmakers rolled back Gov. Sam Brownback's signature tax policy over his objections Tuesday night, forcing into law tax increases to fix a budget shortfall and provide more money for schools.

The legislation ends the "march to zero" income tax cuts that Brownback heralded for much of his time as governor.... The increases are expected to generate more than $1.2 billion for the state over the next two years.

In the Republican-led state Senate, the veto-override vote was 27 to 13, and in the Republican-led state House, the vote was 88 to 31.

Brownback, who may soon join Donald Trump's administration and skip the remainder of his second term in Kansas, denounced the proposal as "the largest [tax hike] in state history."

Bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Kansas' legislature ignored him.

Unfortunately, the zealots of the right have taken over the party with the backing of a few super-rich libertarians. Kansas has it right: ignore them and do what is needed and right, regardless.

[RedSpawn]

Trinidad, on 2017-June-06, 13:05, said:

How is this really different from each individual paying:
1.96   % city tax
0.0392 % state tax
0.0008 % federal tax

And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP?

The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs.

So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair.

I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life.

Rik

The problem is the tax code itself. It's a used tire with over 6,000 patches on it and quite frankly it's time for a new tire. The tax code is 74,608 pages long! The tax code uses obfuscation and "legalese" to conceal the fact that "legal fictions" AKA corporations ask for excessive tax breaks at the expense of John Q Public.

The current tax code is an elaborate wealth distribution program that benefits the well-to-do at the expense of the working poor. Even Warren Buffet has admitted this. See http://www.washingto...7062700097.html

So basically the working poor, who don't incorporate their talent and labor, pay disproportionately more in taxes as a % of income than the "legal fictions" they work for! If corporations want to proclaim that they are people and have rights similar to people then they better be prepared to pay some real taxes instead of funnelling their net corporate income into the deferred tax shelters provided in the tax code.

In tax law, those who don't speak legalese or have lobbyists who do, bear the tax burden! Uber wealthy families and large multinational corporations are scheming the tax authorities of various countries by claiming their constructive sales and net income are earned in the country with the lowest tax rate despite reality. How convenient. While the coffers at our Treasury Department are bone dry, our government has to track down these "legal fictions" and sue them in court to make them pay their fair share in taxes.

All the while Congress incurs annual federal budget deficits, curtails entitlement programs, and provides even more unnecessary tax breaks to the wealthy. Insane!

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-06, 10:03, said:

My contention is all politicians lie when it matters (and some do it when it doesn't even matter). They're human beings, of flesh and blood, and will fall short of the glory. I think we have to be careful when we take our Puritan history and sensibilities and apply them to the dirty politics of the D.C. establishment. Let he that is without sin, cast the 1st stone. Almost all of our politicians are sinful in one way or another; it's a matter of choosing among the lesser evils.

But Trump lies practically on a daily basis, whenever it suits him.