ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Wonder if this might result in (unwanted?) time off for a few of the board legal types... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/courts-run-out-of-cash-next-friday-here’s-what-happens-then/ar-BBRMTzC?ocid=msnclassic The system has enough money left over from fees and other sources to run through Jan. 11, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which supports the judiciary. After that, nonessential workers at the 94 federal district courts, and at higher courts across the country, may have to stay home even as skeleton crews show up -- without pay -- to handle matters deemed essential under U.S. law, including many criminal cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just now, Tywin et al. said: I really don’t want to sound like an alarmist, I was laughing at the Obama 2012 people who though he could lose MN, but Trump said something today in his mess of a press conference that has my hackles raised. He used the term that many have feared he might one day: national emergency. Now, declaring a national emergency to take control of the army for the purposes of building the wall isn’t that troublesome in and of itself, but what it does is twofold. First, it lets Trump know he can get away with it, and god knows what he could do with it in the future. Second, it lowers the bar for all future presidents if he does in fact do this. We’re still a long ways away from the Rubicon, but this could bring us one step closer, which is a frightening thought to me. You are forgetting the monumental corruption, cowardice, and incompetence of the Trump administration. Trump tries to declare a state of emergency, the effort WILL be so badly botched as a direct result of those factors it will collapse almost immediately. More, a stunt like that is one of the very few things that might genuinely prompt the relatively sane republican senators to go the impeachment route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 4, 2019 Author Share Posted January 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I really don’t want to sound like an alarmist, I was laughing at the Obama 2012 people who though he could lose MN, but Trump said something today in his mess of a press conference that has my hackles raised. He used the term that many have feared he might one day: national emergency. Now, declaring a national emergency to take control of the army for the purposes of building the wall isn’t that troublesome in and of itself, but what it does is twofold. First, it lets Trump know he can get away with it, and god knows what he could do with it in the future. Second, it lowers the bar for all future presidents if he does in fact do this. We’re still a long ways away from the Rubicon, but this could bring us one step closer, which is a frightening thought to me. National emergency on what grounds? That he can't get a budget (to his liking) passed? In no sane world or could that be considered a national emergency. America has worked just fine without that wall for 200 years. So that looks like a non-starter, too. But again, we are talking of the US of A in 2019, so we are not in a sane world, or even Kansas for that matter, anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Mueller's Grand Jury gets a six month extension. Wonder if that means more major indictments? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/robert-mueller-grand-jury-gets-6-month-extension/ar-BBROHN6?ocid=msnclassic Special counsel Robert Mueller's federal grand jury has been extended by six months. The grand jury, based in Washington, DC, was seated for an 18-month term that began in July 2017 and was set to expire in the coming days. Under federal rules, the court is able to extend a grand jury's term for another six months if it is "in the public interest." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 11 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Not wealthy. In my case, the refund stems from some truly impressive work vehicle repair bills (most of $10,000) and medical expenses. That's this year. Last year, it was the joy of an unexpected $6000 engine replacement, plus other mechanical bills. I do allow a certain amount for repairs, but the past couple years wear and tear has not been a joy. And I'm guessing you file estimated taxes? There might have been ways to futz with your estimates so that you didn't have such a long time value drag, but it happens sometimes (and sucks). I am more focused on people (and there are a lot of them) who purposefully or lazily allow over-withholding because they like the certainty of a check from the government showing up sometime between March and May. And people have reasons for doing it - they just aren't U of Chicago-style "rational." (But, Chicago-system "rational" behavior doesn't really exist in the real world, so there's that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 AOC is at it again, with a DOA (for now) tax proposal certain to give conservative economists and lawmakers coronaries should it somehow ever pass (maybe Old Gimlet Eye would be willing to provide a partial list) http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-floats-70-percent-tax-on-rich-to-pay-for-green-new-deal/ar-BBRNVUT?ocid=msnclassic In an interview with Anderson Cooper scheduled for broadcast on CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez suggested implementing an income tax rate of up to 70 percent on wealthy Americans to pay for the so-called Green New Deal, a program to move the country toward zero carbon emissions. “People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes,” the 29-year-old said. “You look at our tax rates back in the ’60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system your tax rate, you know, let’s say, from zero to $75,000, maybe 10 percent or 15 percent, etc. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops — on your 10-millionth dollar — sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. AOC also boasted about her dance skills: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-touts-dancing-skills-following-viral-college-video/ar-BBRNRwL?ocid=msnclassic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: AOC is at it again, with a DOA (for now) tax proposal certain to give conservative economists and lawmakers coronaries should it somehow ever pass (maybe Old Gimlet Eye would be willing to provide a partial list) http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ocasio-cortez-floats-70-percent-tax-on-rich-to-pay-for-green-new-deal/ar-BBRNVUT?ocid=msnclassic Actually think this is a terrible idea as applied to ordinary wage/business income. What needs to happen is getting rid of the stupid-a$$ capital gains preference immediately. Also, roll back the corporate tax to something between 26-30%, get rid of immediate expensing and the stupid-a$$ pass-through deduction. Also, get rid of preferences for oil and gas (buh BYE percentage depletion). Also, restore the estate tax IMMEDIATELY, remove the ridiculously high exempt estate level, and remove all exemptions but the spousal exemption. I might also be able to get behind removing lots of the trust exemptions, except for with respect to disabled children. Rates that high IMMEDIATELY incentivize shady planning. Anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 30 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: And I'm guessing you file estimated taxes? There might have been ways to futz with your estimates so that you didn't have such a long time value drag, but it happens sometimes (and sucks). I am more focused on people (and there are a lot of them) who purposefully or lazily allow over-withholding because they like the certainty of a check from the government showing up sometime between March and May. And people have reasons for doing it - they just aren't U of Chicago-style "rational." (But, Chicago-system "rational" behavior doesn't really exist in the real world, so there's that). Yes, I file estimated taxes. Didn't help much two years ago with the out-of-the-blue engine replacement. Last year, I knew there'd be some medical expenses, (tried to) allocate for them, but the sneaky little buggers kept coming in and getting larger, and delays kept cropping up for the tests and procedures. The vehicle expenses were also sneaky - things that were not ever supposed to go bad, did, and the costs for the parts was insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 7 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Actually think this is a terrible idea as applied to ordinary wage/business income. What needs to happen is getting rid of the stupid-a$$ capital gains preference immediately. Also, roll back the corporate tax to something between 26-30%, get rid of immediate expensing and the stupid-a$$ pass-through deduction. Also, get rid of preferences for oil and gas (buh BYE percentage depletion). Also, restore the estate tax IMMEDIATELY, remove the ridiculously high exempt estate level, and remove all exemptions but the spousal exemption. I might also be able to get behind removing lots of the trust exemptions, except for with respect to disabled children. Rates that high IMMEDIATELY incentivize shady planning. Anyhow. I suspect the odds of all that happening are about on a par with AOC's 70% tax rate for the upper income brackets - though, they too would likely cause heart failure among the 'supply side economics' crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just now, ThinkerX said: I suspect the odds of all that happening are about on a par with AOC's 70% tax rate for the upper income brackets - though, they too would likely cause heart failure among the 'supply side economics' crowd. Yeah, I know, but my version is actually good tax policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 59 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: You are forgetting the monumental corruption, cowardice, and incompetence of the Trump administration. Trump tries to declare a state of emergency, the effort WILL be so badly botched as a direct result of those factors it will collapse almost immediately. More, a stunt like that is one of the very few things that might genuinely prompt the relatively sane republican senators to go the impeachment route. Honestly at this point we should be grateful Trump is such a clown (and BTW, @Altherion, time to admit he's no secret genius). If you kept everything the same about Trump except you made him competent, we could be in a much darker place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 57 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: National emergency on what grounds? That he can't get a budget (to his liking) passed? In no sane world or could that be considered a national emergency. America has worked just fine without that wall for 200 years. So that looks like a non-starter, too. But again, we are talking of the US of A in 2019, so we are not in a sane world, or even Kansas for that matter, anymore. There's terrorism at the Southern border, therefore, we must billed the wall. That was basically his justification today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 3 hours ago, ThinkerX said: I'm in almost the same boat, though because of bureaucratic reasons, it'll be at least a month, probably longer, before I have the needed paperwork to do my taxes. Hopefully this mess will be cleared up by then. That said, if the impasse continues, doesn't that put a major strain on ICE and whatnot to continue the purge of illegal aliens? I mean, eventually, the enforcers are going to want paid. It puts a strain on an already clogged and backed-up system. From what I understand immigration courts are only hearing cases with detained defendants. And even those judges are operating without pay. Just heard two pieces on this on our local public radio (not sure if it was from a syndicated or our local),one featured an immigration judge and another an immigration attorney. There were some people waiting for over two years for hearings that are now totally in limbo and haven't been rescheduled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Hopefully this is just typical Trump hyperbole, but damn: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/trump-threatened-to-keep-the-government-closed-for-months-or-even-years-schumer-says. Come on guys this is a <cough> negotiating <cough> tactic. This is the guy who both wrote and says the way to establish being on top is to punch the other side in the gut as hard as possible. Close the border, close the government. Yadda yadda yadda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 And the Republican response is “ignore what he says, see what he does”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 28 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said: And the Republican response is “ignore what he says, see what he does”. Can't believe I'm defending the Republican response to anything, but when you're dealing with someone constitionally incapable of not lying, his actions, not his words, are really all you have to go on. They aren't wrong on that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 Sorry for DP, but also, why don't the Dems run Tammy Duckworth in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Sorry for DP, but also, why don't the Dems run Tammy Duckworth in 2020? The field is so wide open the question should be why doesn't (really didn't) Tammy Duckworth run in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, DMC said: The field is so wide open the question should be why doesn't (really didn't) Tammy Duckworth run in 2020? Yeah, kinda my point, despite the phrasing* that takes agency away from her. I guess I'm wondering why her name isn't in the mix at all. *My phrasing, like someone else would 'run her' instead of her running. Which was a stupid way to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 Her name was certainly bandied about early - like around a year ago. She just simply hasn't shown interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.