Support NeoGAF

[Daniel B·]

I don't really get why you're for increasing the corporate tax rate but not the top income tax rate. I guess corporate taxes feel less personal, but the money is coming from somewhere. With income taxes you know for sure it's coming from people that can afford it. With corporate taxes it might come from rich investors and CEOs, but it could just as easily come from consumers paying a higher price, employees taking paycuts/layoffs, or small business startups that are putting everything they own into their business.

I also wonder why you think Bernie has a good chance, while also thinking socialist style policies is bad politically. Like i said earlier those two thoughts seem incompatible to me. What makes you think Bernie has a good chance?

Let's take Stephen Colbert as an example. He is reportedly earning a cool $4.6 million, per year, for hosting The Late Show. At the top rate of 39.6%, his Federal tax bill will be roughly $1.82 million and his New York State tax will be roughly $386K (according to BankRate.com, 6.85%, up to $1M and 8.81% over a million). This makes his total contribution to society of $2.2 million, per year, or almost 48% of his earnings. Even as a Bernie supporter, I stand with Stephen and say that he is already making a fantastic financial contribution to society and currently, we should absolutely not be asking him to pay any more, as there are far more just sources for taxes. If, due to legal loopholes, his tax bill is nothing like this, I am all for closing a good deal of those loopholes, and re-evaluating the tax levels.

As for corporation tax, I have no disagreement with Bernie:

We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is absurd that in 1952, corporate income taxes provided 32 percent of federal revenue, but in 2014 they provided only 11 percent. It is scandalous that major profitable corporations like General Electric, Verizon, Citigroup and Bank of America have, in a given recent year, paid nothing in federal income taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible that the U.S. Treasury loses about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens.

For decades, this bonanza of corporate profits haven't benefited the middle class in the slightest, with stagnant wages and their jobs being lost to the lowest common denominator. This is where we need to redress the balance, with a $15 minimum wage and by closing the loopholes that legally allow corporations to sometimes contribute nothing in federal taxes or worse, we give them millions in a tax rebates...

So, rich investors, can and should be contributing a decent percentage of their earnings and no more of the tax burden should be put on someone earning a daily crust, from the fast food server to the CEO (sorry CEOs, IMO, your share options are fair game )

 

[gcubed]

Let's take Stephen Colbert as an example. He is reportedly earning a cool $4.6 million, per year, for hosting The Late Show. At the top rate of 39.6%, his Federal tax bill will be roughly $1.82 million and his New York State tax will be roughly $386K (according to BankRate.com, 6.85%, up to $1M and 8.81% over a million). This makes his total contribution to society of $2.2 million, per year, or almost 48% of his earnings. Even as a Bernie supporter, I stand with Stephen and say that he is already making a fantastic financial contribution to society and currently, we should absolutely not be asking him to pay any more, as there are far more just sources for taxes. If, due to legal loopholes, his tax bill is nothing like this, I am all for closing a good deal of those loopholes, and re-evaluating the tax levels.

As for corporation tax, I have no disagreement with Bernie:



For decades, this bonanza of corporate profits haven't benefited the middle class in the slightest, with stagnant wages and their jobs being lost to the lowest common denominator. This is where we need to redress the balance, with a $15 minimum wage and by closing the loopholes that legally allow corporations to sometimes contribute nothing in federal taxes or worse, we give them millions in a tax rebates...

So, rich investors, can and should be contributing a decent percentage of their earnings and no more of the tax burden should be put on someone earning a daily crust, from the fast food server to the CEO (sorry CEOs, IMO, your share options are fair game )

... You do realize what a marginal tax rate is for federal taxes?

Besides that, taking a reported salary and doing math without taking into account any kind of deductions he will take to lower that gross salary is just a fallacious argument. Sure, you can remove deductions or raise rates, both will result in just about the same thing... A higher effective tax rate.

 

[ivysaur12]

Let's not forget the context here.

The whole reason that Hillary didn't provide any emails that may have been exchanged during her first two months in office is because she claimed that she did not use any emails on that server during that time, and used her BlackBerry private email address instead. That turns out to be a lie.

Now granted, getting the dates wrong from memory could be an honest mistake, but in this case, it's a mistake that reflects incompetence (not solely due to human error) because a government request for all work-related emails is serious enough to thoroughly investigate when the very first time she started using the server for work took place, which is a request easy enough to accurately satisfy with 100% certainty, even if you miss a few emails.

I'm frankly surprised by the Clinton defense force here, because unlike everything else leading up to this point (to which I've offered exactly zero commentary, that's how pointless it was) this is actually something tangible, and not just a matter of misrepresentation of the facts.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's also something that's most likely checkable.

 

[brainchild]

And note that even this weak defense only applies to the emails redacted by the State Department, not the classified (including top secret) material uncovered by the intelligence community's inspector general, who emphasized:



The material uncovered by the IG included information about North Korea's nuclear program--hardly the dinner party chit-chat Jack hopes it was.

I did not know about this. IF this turns about to be true, I will upgrade her incompetence from slightly incompetent to grossly incompetent/'what were your thinking'.

Seriously, why isn't this being talked about?! It'd be more of a smoking gun than any other evidence I've seen thus far.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This email controversy is such a nothing burger. I mean yeah you can make the case that going by rules some errors and mistakes were made that confusion and incompetence lead to not abbiding by the "rules" but absolutely nobody has really shown anything that this use of a server has 1 prevented FOIA requests and far more important let jeopardised anything.

It's people trying to find technical slip ups to pin some great crime. Never mind the fact this whole story is being worked backwards where the great charge was brought forth and now its working backwards to justify the charge finding ever the smallest charge as evidence they were right. It's a purely partisian attack and though one can see that the charges aren't always false the question remains. Why is this that big of a deal?

Let's take Stephen Colbert as an example. He is reportedly earning a cool $4.6 million, per year, for hosting The Late Show. At the top rate of 39.6%, his Federal tax bill will be roughly $1.82 million and his New York State tax will be roughly $386K (according to BankRate.com, 6.85%, up to $1M and 8.81% over a million). This makes his total contribution to society of $2.2 million, per year, or almost 48% of his earnings. Even as a Bernie supporter, I stand with Stephen and say that he is already making a fantastic financial contribution to society and currently, we should absolutely not be asking him to pay any more, as there are far more just sources for taxes. If, due to legal loopholes, his tax bill is nothing like this, I am all for closing a good deal of those loopholes, and re-evaluating the tax levels.

As for corporation tax, I have no disagreement with Bernie:



For decades, this bonanza of corporate profits haven't benefited the middle class in the slightest, with stagnant wages and their jobs being lost to the lowest common denominator. This is where we need to redress the balance, with a $15 minimum wage and by closing the loopholes that legally allow corporations to sometimes contribute nothing in federal taxes or worse, we give them millions in a tax rebates...

So, rich investors, can and should be contributing a decent percentage of their earnings and no more of the tax burden should be put on someone earning a daily crust, from the fast food server to the CEO (sorry CEOs, IMO, your share options are fair game )

Marginal tax rates. How do they work?

 

[Diablos]

Stephen Colbert would be one of the last people to complain about getting taxed too much.

He makes more than enough money as is. I'm sure he invests wisely; he is far from poor. When he goes to sleep I sincerely doubt the last thing on his mind is that he is paying too many taxes.

 

[gcubed]

Marginal tax rates. How do they work?

I actually had an engineer coworker years ago tell me with a straight face that he wouldn't take a raise that put him just into the next bracket as it would result in less take home pay for him.

I stood there dumbfounded

 

[PhoenixDark]

Let's take Stephen Colbert as an example. He is reportedly earning a cool $4.6 million, per year, for hosting The Late Show. At the top rate of 39.6%, his Federal tax bill will be roughly $1.82 million and his New York State tax will be roughly $386K (according to BankRate.com, 6.85%, up to $1M and 8.81% over a million). This makes his total contribution to society of $2.2 million, per year, or almost 48% of his earnings. Even as a Bernie supporter, I stand with Stephen and say that he is already making a fantastic financial contribution to society and currently, we should absolutely not be asking him to pay any more, as there are far more just sources for taxes. If, due to legal loopholes, his tax bill is nothing like this, I am all for closing a good deal of those loopholes, and re-evaluating the tax levels.

As for corporation tax, I have no disagreement with Bernie:



For decades, this bonanza of corporate profits haven't benefited the middle class in the slightest, with stagnant wages and their jobs being lost to the lowest common denominator. This is where we need to redress the balance, with a $15 minimum wage and by closing the loopholes that legally allow corporations to sometimes contribute nothing in federal taxes or worse, we give them millions in a tax rebates...

So, rich investors, can and should be contributing a decent percentage of their earnings and no more of the tax burden should be put on someone earning a daily crust, from the fast food server to the CEO (sorry CEOs, IMO, your share options are fair game )

I see conservatives play this game all the time. Granted maybe you just forgot or don't know we have marginal tax rates in this country...but more often than not conservatives use celebrity income/tax examples to make misleading points about "unfair" taxation.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Things are not that cut and dry regarding classification. One can disagree with the Inspector General.

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the full contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level.

Clinton didn't transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes direct reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on. Former CIA director Leon Panetta and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have openly discussed it.

The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, the officials said. Several people, however, described this claim as tenuous.

But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more problematic, officials said. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, they said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — receiving information the government considers secret through "open source" channels.

 

[Diablos]

I actually had an engineer coworker years ago tell me with a straight face that he wouldn't take a raise that put him just into the next bracket as it would result in less take home pay for him.

I stood there dumbfounded

Sounds like an excuse for not feeling comfortable with the added responsibilities/expectations that may come with getting a raise.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Things are not that cut and dry.

But it disproves the statement she didn't have classified information in her email!!!

That's my whole issue. Who cares about a small misstatement that doesn't really amount to anything. That like 99% of politicians statements.

 

[gcubed]

Sounds like an excuse for not feeling comfortable with the added responsibilities/expectations that may come with getting a raise.

Nah, he was actually clueless. It took 30 minutes of explaining along with supplying IRS web pages and I think him finally doing the math in his head until he got it, and felt like an

He is a libertarian

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Nah, he was actually clueless. It took 30 minutes of explaining along with supplying IRS web pages and I think him finally doing the math in his head until he got it, and felt like an

He is a libertarian

I usually illustrate with using dollar bills. Your first dollar I take 10% in taxes, your second dollar I take 15%, etc.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sounds like an excuse for not feeling comfortable with the added responsibilities/expectations that may come with getting a raise.

Nope. Lots of people don't understand marginal tax rates, which makes it real easy for them to be lied to. There's a reason why Drudge runs small stories about how much tax a golfer or football player will pay after winning a major sporting event. People apply that to their own life and before you know it they're failing basic math and tax basics.

 

[brainchild]

Things are not that cut and dry regarding classification. One can disagree with the Inspector General.

This is why I made the statement conditional. I'm not sure on the veracity of the claim yet, but if it's confirmed that actual, non-retroactively classified documents have been exchanged on that server, then she and anyone else responsible for the dissemination of such sensitive information will have to answer for this mess.

I will refrain from judging her on this until I can confirmation on this.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

But it disproves the statement she didn't have classified information in her email!!!

That's my whole issue. Who cares about a small misstatement that doesn't really amount to anything. That like 99% of politicians statements.

None of it was marked classified at the time according to Feinstein. And now we're seeing that the reasoning for retroactively deeming it classified isn't exactly mind blowing and is debatable by different agencies.

I'm sure Joey Fox will explain to us how dangerous and illegal it was to discuss information that is widely reported in the news all the time.

The State Department, meanwhile, stressed that it wasn't clear if the material at issue ought to be considered classified at all.

"None of the emails alleged to contain classified information include any markings that indicate classified content," Sen. Dianne Feinstein a California Democrat who is the ranking member on the intelligence committee, said in a statement.

 

[Daniel B·]

Stephen Colbert would be one of the last people to complain about getting taxed too much.

He makes more than enough money as is. I'm sure he invests wisely; he is far from poor. When he goes to sleep I sincerely doubt the last thing on his mind is that he is paying too many taxes.

Did you perhaps miss my [post=179880577]transcript[/post] of his recent segment with Elizabeth Warren?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Things are not that cut and dry regarding classification. One can disagree with the Inspector General.

I think the better question is whether one can agree with the Inspector General. If so, then one should recognize there's a serious issue here in need of further investigation. But the position that several people in the thread seem to be taking is that the IG can't possibly be right, stop talking about it, only partisan hacks would even bring it up, vote for Hillary.

Who cares about a small misstatement that doesn't really amount to anything.

Er... you do?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The point is a little broader than that. If the intelligence community is reasonably divided in regards to how they should classify certain materials, then you can't really malign Hillary for breaking protocol if there isn't even agreement on what the protocol should have been in the first place.

That said, the classification issue is at least more nuanced than the hubbub about the timeline being off by a month as it relates to an isolated and trivial personal email chain.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think the better question is whether one can agree with the Inspector General. If so, then one should recognize there's a serious issue here in need of further investigation. But the position that several people in the thread seem to be taking is that the IG can't possibly be right, stop talking about it, only partisan hacks would even bring it up, vote for Hillary.

We can look at the facts. None of it was marked classified at the time. The retroactive classification is the subject of debate within agencies. Now the material being retroactively deemed classified by certain sects of the government contains information that could be found openly.

 

[NeoXChaos]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

If she didn’t break any specific law, though, then what’s the big deal?

Clinton does not appear to have violated the letter of the law but she did ignore the spirit of it when she went out of her way to create a system that gave her unprecedented control over what could become public. Hillary’s private email account and server effectively shielded her messages from Freedom of Information Act requests, congressional subpoenas, and other searches.

But since she’s now turned all those emails over, everything’s OK? Better late than never, right?

Remember: Clinton says she deleted 31,830 emails. Since Clinton and her team decided for themselves which messages to turn over and which ones to delete—and since they’ve never fully explained how such decisions were made—there’s no way to know with any certainty that everything erased was actually OK to erase.

Already, it’s clear that the self-sorting process was, at best, an imperfect one. In June, for example, the State Department said that more than a dozen Libya-related messages that former aide Sidney Blumenthal had sent to Clinton were unaccounted for in the trove she turned over to the agency. We know those emails exist at all only because Blumenthal, a longtime friend of the Clintons, had already turned over his copies of them to the congressional panel investigating Benghazi. We have no way of knowing whether they were deleted intentionally by Clinton or simply slipped through the cracks during the sorting process.

So is this just a transparency and trust issue?

It began that way. But a story about Clinton appearing to seek out a legal gray area from which to do business has since become one about her putting classified information at greater risk than it needed to be.

Wait, I thought Clinton once said she never sent or received classified information with this account?

During her first public comments about the controversy back in March, Clinton was adamant that no classified information of any kind was kept on her account or server: “There is no classified material.” That stance, though, has been subtly but significantly changing as more information comes to light. Late last month Clinton revised her answer to: “I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.” And then on Tuesday it shifted again, to: “I did not send any material that was marked or designated classified.”

What exactly are the answers we’re looking for?

There are the ones we want but will likely never get: Did Clinton deliberately delete any work-related emails? Did she knowingly send classified information over her personal email? Did she intentionally use her private email account to operate without oversight? And there are the ones we might yet discover: Was any of the classified information on Clinton’s server classified at the time she sent it? Who, if anyone, gave her the green light to use a private email system? Was her account the subject of a hacking attempt, successful or otherwise?

Does any of this have anything to do with Benghazi?

Yes. The discovery of Clinton’s personal email account can be traced back to the GOP-led House panel investigating the attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. It was that panel’s request for Hillary’s email that set this whole thing in motion, and committee Chairman Trey Gowdy’s efforts that have helped fan the flames.

Clinton says she plans to testify before the Benghazi panel in late October, which all but guarantees a high-profile clash with Gowdy, who has emerged as one of her most vocal critics in Washington. But while the hearing is likely to produce plenty of partisan fireworks, it’s unclear whether Gowdy’s offense or Clinton’s defense will be enough to change voters’ minds about a woman and presidential candidate most have already made up their minds about.

Sorry, last thing: What actually happened in Benghazi?

You’re on your own, buddy.

 

[brainchild]

I think the better question is whether one can agree with the Inspector General. If so, then one should recognize there's a serious issue here in need of further investigation. But the position that several people in the thread seem to be taking is that the IG can't possibly be right, stop talking about it, only partisan hacks would even bring it up, vote for Hillary.



Er... you do?

Yes. It's being made out to be a foregone conclusion that it was a harmless incident that barely warrants further investigation.

I don't understand this, aside from blind defense. At the very least, we should wait and see what comes out of this (the IG's claims) before assuming that the IG is wrong.

The point is a little broader than that. If the intelligence community is reasonably divided in regards to how they should classify certain materials, then you can't really malign Hillary for breaking protocol if there isn't even agreement on what the protocol should have been in the first place.

That said, the classification issue is at least more nuanced than the hubbub about the timeline being off by a month as it relates to an isolated and trivial personal email chain.

If there is a reasonably divided consensus regarding something being classified or not, I'd err on the side of caution and not use a private server for it.

For god's sake, using a private server for government related work should warrant some serious precaution!

We can look at the facts. None of it was marked classified at the time. The retroactive classification is the subject of debate within agencies. Now the material being retroactively deemed classified by certain sects of the government contains information that could be found openly.

As far as I'm aware, the IG report directly contradicts these statements. At the very least, it is not in agreement that NONE of the emails were considered to be classified at the time.

 

[dramatis]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

The last answer is untrue. Jeevesmeister said that Michael Bay's movie in January will tell the truth about Benghazi.

lol

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Using the private server and classification of certain emails within a system (private or public) are different things. I don't think the government should allow private servers for officials, but it has been done before apparently without issue and clearly the idea of it being done was not so outrageous as to be shut down immediately upon request/discovery as a prima facie violation.

Now screwing up by sending a email on the wrong system (private vs. public) is a different issue and potentially worse depending on the kind of violation. But the kind of classification mistakes that have apparently been made don't appear to be substantive but merely technicalities. Catch-22 esque secrets to everybody, chatter among dignitaries at a function being classified regardless of the content of the conversation, etc. If there's a blatant and substantive violation, then she's toast, so why is there all this focus on little stuff that never goes anywhere like Benghazi?

The fact that there's all this hand-wringing over low magnitude specifics suggests to me that there's probably nothing big waiting to be discovered. Why go for the rock when you can go for the gun? I would assume that if she did make such a mistake, then it likely would have been identified by other people in the State Department at the time of commission. Otherwise we would have to assume that not only did Hillary screw up in a major way, but that everyone at the State Department who would have been exposed to the severe violation didn't recognize it either. And if no one would have recognized the error, then it's hard to say she actively did something worth raking her over the coals for.

 

[brainchild]

Using the private server and classification of certain emails within a system (private or public) are different things. I don't think the government should allow private servers for officials, but it has been done before apparently without issue and clearly the idea of it being done was not so outrageous as to be shut down immediately upon request/discovery as a prima facie violation.

Now screwing up by sending a email on the wrong system (private vs. public) is a different issue and potentially worse depending on the kind of violation. But the kind of classification mistakes that have apparently been made don't appear to be substantive but merely technicalities. Catch-22 esque secrets to everybody, chatter among dignitaries at a function being classified regardless of the content of the conversation, etc. If there's a blatant and substantive violation, then she's toast, so why is there all this focus on little stuff that never goes anywhere like Benghazi?

The fact that there's all this hand-wringing over low magnitude specifics suggests to me that there's probably nothing big waiting to be discovered. Why go for the rock when you can go for the gun? I would assume that if she did make such a mistake, then it likely would have been identified by other people in the State Department at the time of commission. Otherwise we would have to assume that not only did Hillary screw up in a major way, but that everyone at the State Department who would have been exposed to the severe violation didn't recognize it either. And if no one would have recognized the error, then it's hard to say she actively did something worth raking her over the coals for.

I'm also having trouble understanding this. You'd think this would be a bigger issue if it were true.

However, I will not give any government agencies the benefit of doubt in assuming that if this is true, it would have come to light earlier. It would just be an indication of more incompetence and lack of oversight, and it would be best to get the facts than to make assumptions regarding the conduct and competency of government officials.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I know Gotchaye has a very quick ban trigger, so I need to be a little careful here.

Just wanted to follow up on this because obviously if there's a mod who is out of control and just banning people willy-nilly, that's something I'd want to look into, so I did.

Out of 4,050 bans in the last year, Gotchaye was responsible for 28. He would not make the top 30 most active moderators. In the all-time rankings he's about to be knocked out of the top 40 most active moderators. There was a five month period this year he didn't ban anyone.

You keep getting banned because you seem to be under the impression that you're allowed to be an asshole to people you don't like here. In case this is unclear, you are not. I trust having corrected that impression, you won't continue getting banned for this and you won't need to be paranoid about Gotchaye's heavy hand. Incidentally, pretty much the only reason anyone ever gets banned in PoliGAF is because they think they're allowed to be an asshole to people whose politics they don't like. This isn't rocket science. I know sometimes our rules are unclear, but I can't believe this one is.

 

[thepotatoman]

Let's take Stephen Colbert as an example. He is reportedly earning a cool $4.6 million, per year, for hosting The Late Show. At the top rate of 39.6%, his Federal tax bill will be roughly $1.82 million and his New York State tax will be roughly $386K (according to BankRate.com, 6.85%, up to $1M and 8.81% over a million). This makes his total contribution to society of $2.2 million, per year, or almost 48% of his earnings. Even as a Bernie supporter, I stand with Stephen and say that he is already making a fantastic financial contribution to society and currently, we should absolutely not be asking him to pay any more, as there are far more just sources for taxes. If, due to legal loopholes, his tax bill is nothing like this, I am all for closing a good deal of those loopholes, and re-evaluating the tax levels.

As for corporation tax, I have no disagreement with Bernie:



For decades, this bonanza of corporate profits haven't benefited the middle class in the slightest, with stagnant wages and their jobs being lost to the lowest common denominator. This is where we need to redress the balance, with a $15 minimum wage and by closing the loopholes that legally allow corporations to sometimes contribute nothing in federal taxes or worse, we give them millions in a tax rebates...

So, rich investors, can and should be contributing a decent percentage of their earnings and no more of the tax burden should be put on someone earning a daily crust, from the fast food server to the CEO (sorry CEOs, IMO, your share options are fair game )

It's not that obscene. A 50% tax rate means something completely different to me and Colbert and 1.8 million in taxes means something very different between me and Colbert.

The impact on quality of life for someone going from 4 million to 2 million just isn't the same as the impact on quality of life for someone going from 50,000 to 25,000. Honestly, once you start getting past the 100,000 to 200,000 point, you're basically all the money you need to buy happiness. At that point, if you start thinking you'll be even more happy if you could do all the things your neighbors are doing with $400,000, you'll have the same problem when making $400,000 and looking at people making $800,000. If you're in debt and stressed when making $200,000, you're probably going to be in debt and stressed no matter what you're making.

And I still don't see why corporations have to be the primary target. Maybe do focus on capital gains more since investors provide so little to society compared to what they take out of it, but corporations never seemed like a good general target to me. There are plenty of business owners making less than Colbert and still provide more to society than Colbert ever could. They're not terrible targets, since businesses do put their own strain on society and government that they should be able to pay back, but there's other, better ways to tax people.

I think we can both agree that there's a point on both of these policies where taxes can go so high they cause serious damage, but I'm much less worried about some CEO who leaves because he's taxed too much than I am of corporations thinking the risk-reward isn't worth it.

There's always someone willing to take the CEO's spot who's probably not that much worse and might even be better, but there might not always be another corporation to step in to fill the hole the previous one left behind.

 

[Coriolanus]

Nah, he was actually clueless. It took 30 minutes of explaining along with supplying IRS web pages and I think him finally doing the math in his head until he got it, and felt like an

He is a libertarian

I usually illustrate with using dollar bills. Your first dollar I take 10% in taxes, your second dollar I take 15%, etc.

I swear there should be a "How To Be a Functional Adult" class in the last coupla years of high school that should teach one how to do taxes, laundry, cook, change a tire, office etiquette, household budgeting, how not to drive like an asshole, and how to deal with e-mails.

Among other things.

 

[Oblivion]

Probably my favorite new revelation about e-mailghazi is that Hillary has somehow formed a sinister alliance with Republican hero David Petraeus.

Hope this somehow gets incorporated in the Michael Bay film.

I usually illustrate with using dollar bills. Your first dollar I take 10% in taxes, your second dollar I take 15%, etc.

Yeah, I explain it to them by imagining the money they get from their paycheck and splitting it into different piles, which would be taxed at different rates.

Just wanted to follow up on this because obviously if there's a mod who is out of control and just banning people willy-nilly, that's something I'd want to look into, so I did.

Out of 4,050 bans in the last year, Gotchaye was responsible for 28. He would not make the top 30 most active moderators. In the all-time rankings he's about to be knocked out of the top 40 most active moderators. There was a five month period this year he didn't ban anyone.

There's 40+ moderators?

 

[Gotchaye]

There's 40+ moderators?

No

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

As far as I'm aware, the IG report directly contradicts these statements. At the very least, it is not in agreement that NONE of the emails were considered to be classified at the time.

Were they marked or referred to as classified?

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bams you playing these word games. Just where do you think she was hiding those nuclear codes? /s

 

[brainchild]

Were they marked or referred to as classified?

The IG states that there were no classified markings/dissemination controls for the four emails that were referred to the security officials within the Executive Branch. However, the IG insists that the emails contained classified information at the time the emails were made, and that they should have never be disseminated through the private server in the first place.

Furthermore, the IG asserts that said classified documents may be located on at least one private server and thumb drive, both of which were not currently in the government's possession by the time of the IG's report, and more importantly, the IG considers this incident to be a potential compromise of National Security, and has made the referral of this incident to the security officials within the Executive Branch for this reason.

So no, the emails weren't marked as classified. However, the IG makes it clear that that's the least of their concerns at this point.

 

[Daniel B·]

Marginal tax rates. How do they work?

If you think Bernie supporters are idiots, that makes our fight all the more easy .

For curiosity's sake, using a tax calculator on Colbert's Federal taxes, I get $1.81 million, so by intentionally ignoring the lower tax brackets, I was out by a paltry 10k...

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The IG states that there were no classified markings/dissemination controls for the four emails that were referred to the security officials within the Executive Branch. However, the IG insists that the emails contained classified information at the time the emails were made, and that they should have never be disseminated through the private server in the first place.

Furthermore, the IG asserts that said classified documents may be located on at least one private server and thumb drive, both of which were not currently in the government's possession by the time of the IG's report, and more importantly, the IG considers this incident to be a potential compromise of National Security, and has made the referral of this incident to the security officials within the Executive Branch for this reason.

So no, the emails weren't marked as classified. However, the IG makes it clear that that's the least of their concerns at this point.

Yet the statement still holds true. None were marked or referred to as classified. Clinton alone is not the arbiter of classification, it's the effort of many people as a whole. So if you blame her, you may as well blame everyone involved.

 

[Diablos]

The last answer is untrue. Jeevesmeister said that Michael Bay's movie in January will tell the truth about Benghazi.

lol

So I googled the trailer for this. I thought you were joking.

What the fuck. OF COURSE it's a Michael Bay movie.

 

[RastaMentality]

The last answer is untrue. Jeevesmeister said that Michael Bay's movie in January will tell the truth about Benghazi.

lol

Have they casted Hillary for the female leading role yet?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Is Cilizza really trying to say he doesn't write empty political trash articles for a living? He's been around for years and all I ever see is buzzfeed style articles with "25 reasons why Obama's midterm losses is the worst ever" crap.

He has no interest in policy, no interest in informing the reader, and no interest in objective analysis. It's like a gossip rag for the subject of politics for people who are into that thing. Just fluff no substance.

 

[B-Dubs]

So I googled the trailer for this. I thought you were joking.

What the fuck. OF COURSE it's a Michael Bay movie.

Yep, I was all what the fuck when I saw the trailer. There's like 4 or 5 things the trailer gets wrong and its like 2min long!

 

[NeoXChaos]

Is Cilizza really trying to say he doesn't write empty political trash articles for a living? He's been around for years and all I ever see is buzzfeed style articles with "25 reasons why Obama's midterm losses is the worst ever" crap.

He has no interest in policy, no interest in informing the reader, and no interest in objective analysis. It's like a gossip rag for the subject of politics for people who are into that thing. Just fluff no substance.

idk. I usually stay away from biased Republican and Democratic sounding spin. I like Jonathan Bernstein and Charlie Cook. The only thing I ever read from Calizza is his senate rankings. I just started to read his other stuff.

 

[brainchild]

Yet the statement still holds true. None were marked or referred to as classified. Clinton alone is not the arbiter of classification, it's the effort of many people as a whole. So if you blame her, you may as well blame everyone involved.

Oh, rest assured, that's exactly what I did, assuming all of this is actually true.

This is why I made the statement conditional. I'm not sure on the veracity of the claim yet, but if it's confirmed that actual, non-retroactively classified documents have been exchanged on that server, then she and anyone else responsible for the dissemination of such sensitive information will have to answer for this mess.

I will refrain from judging her on this until I can confirmation on this.

Furthermore, the IG states that the documents were classified. Just because there were no markings in the email that indicated that the documents were classified, it does not mean that the documents themselves shown no indication of being classified, or that they were not referred to being classified through the usual security channels. If they were considered classified at the time, and Hillary was privy to relevant documents that were classified at the time through the security channels, I would say those kinds of protocols count as documents being 'referred to as classified' even if the emails (which is just a delivery system) do not contain such markings.

But let's not lose sight of the real problem here. This would have never happened had she not have been using a private server that had the potential to transmit classified documents in the first place. That other government officials practice this system should not be an argument for justification, but an indication that there was some serious incompetence going on during this time. This is further compounded by the issue of having classified documents in your possession that exist outside of your purview and could potentially compromise national security.

 

[thepotatoman]

LA Times has a good article going over McCarthy. Basically he's a hard worker and likeable dude that gets him a lot of allies. He's not a very ideological congressman, which makes him very much like Boehner in that sense.

McCarthy votes with his party 96% of the time according to Open Congress, making him a pretty generic republican. But it's probably worth looking at the time he's not voting with his party to see how he differs. The 4% of the time he's not with his party is almost exclusively on being with the democrats on spending for various things, probably usually in order to create a budget that can pass, but sometimes also because some of these cuts are too far even for him/his corporate interests.

Government Programs he stopped from being cut by going against his party include:

• All Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Appropriations, Fossil Energy Appropriations, and some Nuclear Energy Appropriations
• Public defense attorney spending for Guantanamo Bay prisoners
• 7.4% across the board cuts to Energy and Water Development Appropriations
• 2.5% percent across the board cuts to Science Appropriations
• Administration and enforcement of rules regarding High-Hazard Flammable Trains
• Amtrack Grants
• Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act of 2013
• African Growth and Opportunity Act and the preferential duty treatment program for Haiti
• NIH and Cures Innovation Fund
• All Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
• Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
• FISA Foreign Intelligence Information Collection funds (some here might not like this one)

Again, this is just a concentration of all the things he sides against his party on. He is still mostly a generic republican 96% of the time. It's still an interesting look at how the party can move even further right as the old establishment continues to lose their party.

 

[Diablos]

Did you perhaps miss my [post=179880577]transcript[/post] of his recent segment with Elizabeth Warren?

I saw the interview. I think he was more than anything else reminding her of the opposing argument and how much of an uphill battle she has. Warren, as much as I respect her, was a bit too intense and seemed to forget literally half of the country does not accept her argument as being so easy to digest.

 

[FiggyCal]

No

Are you getting outperformed by moderators who don't even exist anymore?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Oh, rest assured, that's exactly what I did, assuming all of this is actually true.



Furthermore, the IG states that the documents were classified. Just because there were no markings in the email that indicated that the documents were classified, it does not mean that the documents themselves shown no indication of being classified, or that they were not referred to being classified through the usual security channels. If they were considered classified at the time, and Hillary was privy to relevant documents that were classified at the time through the security channels, I would say those kinds of protocols count as documents being 'referred to as classified' even if the emails (which is just a delivery system) do not contain such markings.

But let's not lose sight of the real problem here. This would have never happened had she not have been using a private server that had the potential to transmit classified documents in the first place. That other government officials practice this system should not be an argument for justification, but an indication that there was some serious incompetence going on during this time. This is further compounded by the issue of having classified documents in your possession that exist outside of your purview and could potentially compromise national security.

Right, and most of that is beyond just her. It's about these sections of government as a whole and what they saw as acceptable policy.

The story is about Clinton because her opponents on both sides are focused solely on her due to political reasons. If Obama was running in 2016 they would make this all about him and his former administration member. Benghazi was all about him, now it's all about Clinton.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Bill Clinton Blames G.O.P. and Press for Wife’s Email Woes

Former President Bill Clinton blamed Republicans who hope to undercut his wife’s presidential chances and a voracious political news media uninterested in substance for the furor surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private email account and server while she was secretary of state.

“I have never seen so much expended on so little,” Mr. Clinton said in a taped interview with Fareed Zakaria that is scheduled to be shown Sunday on CNN. The network released excerpts on Saturday afternoon.

“She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion,” Mr. Clinton said. “And she’d like to give the election back to the American people. I think it will be all right. But it’s obvious what happened.”

Mr. Clinton likened the current inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s emails to scandals as far back as the Whitewater land deal that plagued his 1992 campaign and his administration.

“This is just something that has been a regular feature of all of our presidential campaigns, except in 2008 for unique reasons,” Mr. Clinton said, without elaborating on why he believed that President Obama had not faced similar Republican-led efforts to derail his candidacy.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...blames-g-o-p-news-media-for-wifes-email-woes/


He's still mad. Pathetic lol.

 

[Diablos]

Angsty Bill is back. Did the Clintons not learn anything from last time?

 

[brainchild]

Right, and most of that is beyond just her. It's about these sections of government as a whole and what they saw as acceptable policy.

The story is about Clinton because her opponents on both sides are focused solely on her due to political reasons.

Of course, the incompetence of this practice is far beyond just her, but she did not have to be a part of it in the first place. She voluntarily elected to use a private server, and had she not, she wouldn't be involved.

I understand why she's being scrutinized, but it doesn't mean that she isn't deserving of ANY of it, even if MOST of it is ill-intended.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The point is a little broader than that. If the intelligence community is reasonably divided in regards to how they should classify certain materials, then you can't really malign Hillary for breaking protocol if there isn't even agreement on what the protocol should have been in the first place.

That said, the classification issue is at least more nuanced than the hubbub about the timeline being off by a month as it relates to an isolated and trivial personal email chain.

From what I can see, the intelligence community isn't divided on this point. The ICIG determined that the emails were top secret by mid-August. A second review involving the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency confirmed that conclusion earlier this month. So the official opinion of the Inspector General for the intelligence community, along with the CIA and NGIA, is that the material in Clinton's email was top secret. On the other hand, we have mixed messages from the AP's anonymous sources--and APK can tell you how much confidence we should place in the AP's anonymous sources.

One important point I haven't seen discussed: According to the AP article you quoted from earlier, the 40 emails reviewed by the ICIG were a random sample of emails provided by Clinton to the State Department. If that's correct, then it raises the possibility that those 40 emails were representative of the other 30,000ish. If so, then we could expect as many as 1,500 of Clinton's emails to contain top secret material. So it's not enough to point to some anonymous sources who disagree about these two specific emails, even if we take those sources as authoritative with respect to those two emails.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

From what I can see, the intelligence community isn't divided on this point. The ICIG determined that the emails were top secret by mid-August. A second review involving the CIA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency confirmed that conclusion earlier this month. So the official opinion of the Inspector General for the intelligence community, along with the CIA and NGIA, is that the material in Clinton's email was top secret. On the other hand, we have mixed messages from the AP's anonymous sources--and APK can tell you how much confidence we should place in the AP's anonymous sources.

One important point I haven't seen discussed: According to the AP article you quoted from earlier, the 40 emails reviewed by the ICIG were a random sample of emails provided by Clinton to the State Department. If that's correct, then it raises the possibility that those 40 emails were representative of the other 30,000ish. If so, then we could expect as many as 1,500 of Clinton's emails to contain top secret material. So it's not enough to point to some anonymous sources who disagree about these two specific emails, even if we take those sources as authoritative with respect to those two emails.

Pretty sure there is disagreement. Enough to say that the opinion is far from unanimous.