LawTalkers - Waiting for Fitzgerald

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have never missed the fact that you are in favor of some tax. I just think you are wrong about the best way to levy it. The source of tax revenue has absolutely nothing to do with the people seeing what the government is taxing and what it's spending the revenue on. If you have issues with spending, then address them through the ballot box. Once the deficit is gone (that being the real tax on our children), then we can cut taxes to reduce a govt. surplus.

The current proposals for the estate tax have the exemption level going up to as much as $20 million. The question I have for you is, what is wrong with taxing the people least in need of money (the wealthy dead) at the expense of the people least deserving (those who did not earn it)?

1. My issue with spending and taxing is I want to see it, in plain, undisguised form. Then I can go to the ballot box and make an informed decision. Don't tax me in 8 million ways. Make it one tax and then I can see the affect and vote accordingly.

2. I dispute the did not earn it. A family unit is a cohesive concern. And perhaps the sacrifices of the family members who are not actually named on the paycheck contributed to the person whose name is on it being able to earn it.

3. The problem I with an exemption levels is that the least of the very rich get hit the hardest, while the very very rich can spend a proportionately less amount of their wealth to avoid it completely. Why should the government be creating an incentive for the tax avoidance industry? (or any industry, I am against all govt incentive/distortion as created by a tax code).

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
In the first place, Rehnquist himself had no judicial experience when he was appointed. In fact, numerous Justices have been appointed without prior judicial experience. The only real harm in that is that there is no track record on which to politicize the appointee.

The woman was the first partner of a large Texas firm, the first woman to be elected the President of the Dallas bar, the first woman to be voted president of the Texas state bar. She's obviously a highly-accomplished lawyer.

I can guarantee that Bush knows her politics and her judicial leanings. It's just the rest of the country that doesn't and won't unless she's affirmed. Does anybody here really think that Bush would appoint someone who was not in his mold to be his personal counsel, let alone to the SC?

Earl Warren had no judicial experience when he became Chief Justice.

Give Peace a Chance

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The Law and Order types that are against the war don't bother me. It is the people that say it was immoral for us to invade Iraq.

When people say that, it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the intentions were OK, but we were just going to make things worse and it was a waste of resources and manpower. I call this the Naive argument. It was Naive for the the US to make it better. Although I don't agree with that argument I can respect it.

I also respect the strategic argument. People that believe US foreign policy should be solely based on US interests (and it was not in our strategic interest to invade Iraq). I don't agree with it but I can understand the logic of that argument.

The arguments that seem inherintly flawed and irrational are the ones about the immorality of taking Saddam Hussein out (the war monger theory). The outrage at attacking Iraq. Like somehow taking out a man that killed 300,000 of his own people directly and million in a war with Iran is somehow an immoral act.

I'm with you up to here, even though we disagree. I don't think attacking Iraq was "immoral". I think it was stupid -- a waste of resources that should have gone to fighting the enemies who can hurt us, a poorly planned and poorly executed adventure, and a huge blow to our standing in the world -- which matters because the fight against our real enemies is not one we can win without enthusiastic allies.

Quote:

Also the focus on Bush "lying" to get us into the war. Either the war was the right move or not. What Bush used to whip up public opinion to support the war is irrelevent. It has nothing to do with whether or not the war was the right move.

Here, I disagree. The problem with Bush lying -- which I, in fact, believe he did -- is multifold:

First, it damages US credibility, making it that much harder to get international support for real efforts. Further cries from the US about enemies getting WMD are going to be less effective and less convincing. Also, it makes those who say that the war was really about bringing democracy and getting rid of a bad, bad man look equally dishonest -- as if WMD and al Qaeda connections were merely a footnote in the quest for using might for right.

Second, it is part of why the war has been such a failure. If the focus had been on eliminating a dictator and building democracy, then maybe -- maybe -- the time and resources needed for that task would have been considered more seriously and carefully. When the war was just about going in, knocking out Saddam and taking his WMD, well, we thought it would be easy as pie. And we planned accordingly, and poorly.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If your (future or current) wife is inheriting the money, how is that self-made?

I think he meant his wife earned it, but if she dies he might ask the wife's daughter to marry him. Remember the paternity test results showed P was only the daddy to 1 of "his" kids. so it's okay in a Woody allen way.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I was shocked when he blamed Bush this morning. I knew it would not last. My faith in the order of things is restored.

http://www.triton.nu/albums/pics/aw_...gain.thumb.jpg

STP. I said Spector too. Spector is a republican.

Blogging and Backtracking

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
You have a blog separate from what you post here?

I'm multi-talented.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Earl Warren had no judicial experience when he became Chief Justice.

Spank, this is an awful example. It's like a conservative citing Souter an an example of why Stealth Nominees are a good thing.

Quote:

Spanky
Earl Warren had no judicial experience when he became Chief Justice.

QED

Quote:

taxwonk
I was shocked when he blamed Bush this morning. I knew it would not last. My faith in the order of things is restored.

Unless this a real convoluted (and risky) attempt of nominating a woman AND someone tapped by Reid - who will be tagged unqualified by the ABA and get Borked in Committee ...

Thus leading to a "hey Dems, I went with your choice - it failed - now say hi to Owen or Luttig"...

then I blame Bush too.

Bush went to Andover and Yale. He is as Eastern Establishment as they come. He has to spend the rest of his life hanging out with Country Club Republicans. I have worked with many of Bush's friends and they are all Country Club Republicans. I worked with one of his roomates from school and he told me that none of Bush's close friends are pro-life. When he goes to his Andover and Yale reunions there are no pro-life people in the room. If he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade his peer group would never forgive him.

I was wondering when he was going to make the "retirement" shift. Start sucking up to the people that matter most to him.

In addition, W. is intensly loyal to his father. The conservative pundits have been praising W. but lambasting his father. They made the mistake of thinking that Bush wouldn't mind people critisizing daddy. I was wondering when the chickens were going to come home to roost.

Bush sucked up to the conservatives to get reelected (and not make the same mistake his father made). He followed Rove's strategy of appealing to the base to win, and all his recent decisions about family planning etc. have been all about courting the base.

But when it came to the big issue, Roe v. Wade, upon reflection, W was never going to let it be overturned. His wife is pro-choice, his mother is pro-choice and his father changed to being pro-life when he was vice president to a pro-life president (how sincere do you think that was). The problem with ideologues (like Religious believers) is that they are so sure in their convictions that it doesn't occur to them that someone could fake it. They are convinced once someone really understands their arguments they have to take their side. W. understand's their arguments so it does not occure to them that he is faking it.

When W. was faced with spending the rest of his life being hated by the Ann Coulters and Pat Robertsons of the world, or by the people closest to him, I don't think there was ever any doubt which way he would go on these Supreme Court Nominees.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spank, this is an awful example. It's like a conservative citing Souter an an example of why Stealth Nominees are a good thing.

2. School integration was really something that should have been left for the states to decide. The Seperate but Equal thing was working so well.

Give Peace a Chance

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
The problem with Bush lying -- which I, in fact, believe he did --

I don;t know about your post, but he lied about Supreme Court nominees, so there is some discernable propensity to lying. Like father, like son.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think he meant his wife earned it, but if she dies he might ask the wife's daughter to marry him. Remember the paternity test results showed P was only the daddy to 1 of "his" kids. so it's okay in a Woody allen way.

True, but given the discount I get in not having to support my biological kids from your wife, I still pay my wife's bastard kids' way.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
[Republican accusing Bush of never liking the social conservative base, and waiting to stick it to them hard and fast, just the way they claim not to like it]

<*sniff*>

I'm sorry - I wasn't sure I would see this day.

Give me a moment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't want to pay tax attorneys and financial planners. Its a zero sum game. Either I pay the government or the private sector. Either way it is a drag on the efficient and prodcutive use of the money. I would rather see the tax gone, the estate tax avoidance people put out of business and then have the money go into investment in the economy or at least into the economy in the form of useful consumption, i.e. not consumption of tax avoidance schemes.

I'm all for putting lawyers and accountants out of business. I agree with you in principle, but I'm sick of hearing the GOP's battle call re the estate tax because its dishonest. The tax rarely, if ever, hurts anyone. If you've got a few million estate and you haven't consulted a lawyer, you're a fool for a lot more reasons than the estate tax liabilty you might be courting.