Some weird tangent from the thread "Trump exempts entire white house senior staff from ethics rules"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Woody1, Jun 1, 2017.

  1. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    It's like I'm re-reading the Hillary headlines when she worked at the state departmentt. People voted for a difference and they aren't getting it. Too bad Sanders is too old to run again.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    The more you try to compare Trump to Clinton the more asinine you look.
     
    Bells likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You can't possibly agree with Trump and Sanders, except on a few points. The cognitive dissonance must be incredible.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    We're brainwashed into thinking we have choices. It was a long drive to the voting booth last year, and I felt like turning around and going home. I didn't even vote the first Obama election.

    This time it was the worst selection of candidates I've seen in a lifetime. All I know is that I want an outsider, and I'm tired of american corporations buying off politicians. Beyond that I don't care. I'll even vote for you Spider. ;-)
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Do you think you made the right choice? Because Trump is filling not draining the swamp. We wanted transparency, we get secrecy. We want truth, and he tells lies. We want ethical leadership, he personally profits from his official decisions and hires his family. He campaigned on obeying rules regarding official communications, and he not only uses an app to avoid those rules, he reveals classified information on purpose to the fucking Russians. Not even Hillary, who was unfairly demonized, did that.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Looks like you chose the wrong politician, then.
     
  10. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    You know there are some people in this world you can't vote for no matter what, and Hillary Clinton is one for me. If there was an election between Hillary and Putin, I don't know if I'd even vote.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Why wouldn't you vote for Putin? He's one of Trump's strongest supporters.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it isn't. You are trying to rewrite history again.
    One reason the attacks on Clinton and Obama are not going to fade, even the lies and elaborate slanders, is that the Trump voter is going to need the excuse.
    It's going to be that more and more - as with W after Katrina, it's going to be hard to find anyone who actually voted for Trump. Against Mythical Clinton, maybe, but for Actual Trump? increasingly rare.

    Maybe if Trump can somehow grant similar waivers to the heads of major agencies, he will be able to fill those positions more easily - he's currently about 400 appointees short, and having trouble finding the willing and able (his "acting" desk-jockeys tend to have ethics issues).
     
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    She's unappealing, but light years better than any Republican. You got conned into believing that Hillary is evil? Are you anti-feminist? ...Anti-abortion? What was it that fooled you into accepting a craven pig of a man as your leader?
     
  14. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Her husband convinced me when he rewrote inheritance laws in 1994 and applied them retroactively after my grandmother died -- forcing small farmers to sell off huge estates at fire-sale prices. Her estate went for enough to cover the taxes and that's about it. Her estate was planned, and Bill Clinton changed the rules after the game was over. I'd probably have a couple of hundred acres to plant in orchard trees right now if it wasn't for him.

    I sell my orchard tree products in the organic and renewable market. You'll never find them at the mega-supermarket. And to think that my grandparents vowed to never vote republican and lived up to their promise. So this is what we get. Lesson learned. Well enjoy your insecticide soaked fruit at the grocery store.

    Fortunately, there have been some modifications to the inheritance laws. Why do you think Michael Moore switched allegiance to the Trump camp? Answer: Hillary Clinton wanted to bring it back and do it all over again... Killing the Family Farm
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The estate tax exemption did not change in 1994 (it was 600k before and after)and Clinton did not rewrite the inheritance laws in 1994 - that was the year the Republicans took control of the House.
    Hillary Clinton's estate tax proposals did not affect small family farms.
    What are you talking about?
    You need to call this guy, from your link btw, and straighten him out: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/the-estate-tax-isnt-destroying-family-farms.html
    Uh, Moore voted for Clinton, and wrote articles and letters saying other people should do that as well, because Trump was so uniquely bad that even the lefties should vote for Clinton. He had a very low opinion of Trump. https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

    Apparently Moore - like I and some other midwestern libertarian lefties - had publicly sworn to never vote for Hillary Clinton in the wake of her inexcusable last straw Iraq War support: one galling personal effect of the Trump nomination was that it forced us to go back on that oath.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  16. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Iceaura. We know what happened when Bill Clinton went "retroactive" with inheritance taxes. You know what retroactive means, right? He didn't have to do that. My brother is a lawyer and that's the feedback I'm getting from him. He voted Obama both times by the way.

    The inheritance laws were repaired with Bush, but look at what Hillary proposed. I don't think you have a leg to stand on really. Michael Moore said he wanted his kids to inherit his estate, not the government. I read an article where he was looking toward Trump. He was actually a Sanders advocate. Michael Moore endorses Sanders

    By the way enjoy your genetically modified food. You can bet Hillary isn't eating it. Hillary, GMOs, and Monsanto funding
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Retroactive tax collection was an issue long before Clinton's '93 tax bill. The '94 Supreme Court decision upholding its legality was from a case filed in 80s against Ronald Reagan's IRS efforts.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-14/news/mn-3963_1_retroactive-tax
    (trivia point: notice in the article how under Reagan it is Congress that imposes the retroactive tax, whereas under Clinton it is Clinton imposing it. Both of them were bills passed by Congress and signed by the President. And by Clinton's time there was precedent, Reagan's precedent).

    Bill Clinton did not rewrite the estate tax laws in 1994.

    Some modifications that affected small farms were under Clinton in '97, '98 - under W they just handed big tax cuts to the very wealthy.

    What Hillary proposed was benign with respect to small farmers - mostly a restoration of some of the W cuts for the superrich.

    Michael Moore opposed Trump, loudly and solidly.

    And so forth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  18. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Supreme Court OKs Retroactive Tax Collection

    June 14, 1994|DAVID G. SAVAGE | TIMES STAFF WRITER

    "Last year, Republicans in Congress argued that the Democratic majority was acting unconstitutionally when it raised tax rates on the estates of people who died in the months before the new tax bill became law. On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the higher tax rates for estates and for upper-income people. Those new rates were applied retroactively to Jan. 1, 1993.

    Lawyers for the National Taxpayers Union and the Landmark Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court here seeking to have those retroactive changes invalidated.

    In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia derided the government for "bait-and-switch taxation," but he nonetheless voted to uphold the law."

    My brother is board certified to practice law. He did his research and it concurs with the ruling from SCOTUS. It was all legal when Clinton ripped off the family farm. We are waiting more decisions pending on "imminent domain" where the government wants to swipe what little bit is left-over and pave it with a highway. I'd like to plant an orchard there too, but nope. By time it's all decided I'll be too old to do anything and the risk is always there. Ain't life sweet?

    Any questions? Enjoy your pesticide soaked fruit when you go to the grocery. I won't be growing it. You could have had organic with me -- TWICE.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That case - the one Scalia was talking about, ruled on in 1994 with Scalia concurring despite his objections - was from 1986. Reagan, not Clinton. And Reagan ran it back a full year or more - Clinton, following Reagan's precedent but not as dramatically, ran the law back to the beginning of the same year it was signed.

    Your post there makes it look as if the Court ruled on Congress's '93 law. Your previous post said Clinton rewrote the inheritance laws in '94.
    Why do you always screw around and get your facts wrong, twisted, deceptively misrepresented?

    How come nobody else lost their family farms from Clinton's perfidy? According to your link, anyway.
     
  20. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    per the source "The decision probably deals a fatal blow to a similar lawsuit challenging retroactive tax increases in the 1993 Clinton tax bill."

    I'll see what I can find on it, but the fate will be the same.

    They did and it was particularly hard on african-american farmers. There is a niche for family farms and I even blogged on it for a while. Saving the Family Farm

    The parallel case was about the same thing. I'll see if I can find it. There is no question about it -- the 1993 tax legislation got us.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It seems as though you claimed Clinton rewrote the inheritance laws in 1994, and invented the practice of making such laws retroactive, to me. It also seems as though blaming Reagan for this retroactive stuff is not really an option for you, for some reason.
    Not according to your link. And I rather doubt black farmers were particularly hard hit by estate taxes, compared with white farmers - who weren't hit hard at all, according to your link.
    Not during Clinton's first term, you didn't.
    Your timeline is messed up, throughout. I keep having to fix it for you. Why is that?
     
  22. Woody1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    178
    Here's the decision on the '93 estate tax in the Clinton Tax Bill.

    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

    Argued September 28, 1995 Decided November 3, 1995

    No. 94-5285 NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION, INC., APPELLANT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE

    per 94-5285:

    "NTU opposed the first budget bill of the Clinton Administration, OBRA '93, signed by the President on August 10, 1993, focusing in particular on the bill'sretroactive revision of federal estate and gift tax rates. Section 13208 of OBRA '93 increased the highest federal estate and gift tax rates to 53% and 55% on a permanent basis, effective January 1, 1993."

    My grandmother died in March 1993. I guess she picked a bad time, huh?

    Clinton ripped us off, and you have no excuse for it. My grandma always voted democrat without exception... and this is what we got in return.

    My brother researched the law and he is board certified. He says we have no recourse, and Clinton did it to us. Hillary wanted to do it all over again too. Look at her estate tax proposal. . Well scr*** her.

    Tell me about you legal background.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2017
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Too bad she didn't block Reagan - but she did her best.
    How is what Hillary proposed related to Reagan's objectionable retroactivity?

    Because it's the retroactivity provisions of such laws that you object to, right? Otherwise there's no way your grandma would have set things up like that, you said.
    It's not the rates, because anyone in her position as you described it could avoid them - a small farmer, you said. They never have to pay any estate taxes, your links say.
    So far my legal background has me agreeing with your brother, Wikipedia, your links, and the 1994 US Supreme Court including Scalia. If you object to my agreeing with your links and posts and authorities, mind telling me why?
     

Share This Page