ObamaRama 8

[Old Pio]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Any Federal Judge who lets the defense put on the kind of show you seem to think will happen would never have gotten onto the Federal Bench to begin with. Everything you're describing should be excluded by the Federal Rules of Evidence as irrelevant. This isn't an investigation into Gitmo, it's a murder trial. If they want to protest the conditions of their confinement, they'd need to bring a habeus action or a civil action against the U.S.



I wouldn't mind if pardons became commonplace once again. Up until the latter part of the 20th century, they were routinely and commonly granted by governors and presidents alike. I'm all for tough penalties for career criminals or heinous crimes, but the get tough on crime crowd is pretty much just the more civilized version of the lynch mob; perhaps the only thing guaranteed to get more votes than local pork projects are tougher criminal sentences.

Customarily pardons are granted to people who are in prison or have served their sentences. In either case, they've had their day in court and been convicted. Marc Rich, on the other hand, had fled the United States, he was
a fugitive (the fact that his wife "donated" 400K for the Clinton library just makes a horrible decision even worse). 'Course Clinton tried to steal the silverware on the way out of the White House, so who's surprised at him pardoning a fugitive and commissioning his idiot brother and brother in law to sell pardons. No way you can take the stink off this pig.

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Or anything his lawyers can argue is even tangentially related to anything he's mentioned while in custody. Even if they found corroborating evidence independently, the fact that he said it without a Miranda warning is problematic for that whole chain of evidence (I think - I am not a lawyer).

I still think the biggest problem with this trial is that Obama said they're staying in custody no matter what. If that's not a show trial/kangaroo court, then I don't know what is. Gary Powers had a better chance of being set free at his trial...

Depends really. If they found it beforehand, then it's good even if he later admitted things about it afterwards w/o Miranda. If they found it afterward, there are always exceptions to the 4th and 5th Amendment requirements, including the inevitable discovery doctrine.

And see my remarks below about Obama's statements. Really not an issue unless the government opens the door to that.

Well, coupled with the Obama Administration admitting that KSM was tortured (waterboarded), they might have to defend against pretty strong coerced confession argument. Granted, there may be other evidence, but the defense will most likely be painting our military as the enemy.....and given public sentiment following the demonization of our intelligence personnel, it is not far-fetched to think that there may be a 'not guilty' verdict. Also, the military doesn't have the equivalent of Miranda rights--which is a moot point, given that anyone tried in civilian court is afforded all of the rights in the Constitution--including Miranda.

If they don't need the confession, then they won't attempt to use it and anything related to it, including possible torture, should stay out as irrelevant.

As to your latter point, the military still has to follow the Constitution, though. The manner in which justice is dispensed is not the same, and the rules and procedures of its tribunals are different from the civillian courts, but the Military can't violate the 5th Amendment anymore than the FBI can. Just because it doesn't have explicit Miranda requirements (which, by the way, is a SCOTUS-created mechanism to protect the rights afforded by the 5th Amendment, and SCOTUS has always left open the possibility of using means other than Miranda to accomplish the same goal) doesn't mean it could somehow use compelled confessions in its own tribunals.

The part I just don't get is that KSM had already plead guilty in the military courts

Separate jurisdiction. No different than McVeigh being tried in both state and federal court.

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

This has strong entertainment potential ...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/?hp

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I guess you're still waiting for Obama's teleprompter to tell you the appropriate rebuttal.

Don't need for a teleprompter to dismiss your post as merely dealing in hypotheticals (hence all the ?%'s that you listed).

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Customarily pardons are granted to people who are in prison or have served their sentences. In either case, they've had their day in court and been convicted. Marc Rich, on the other hand, had fled the United States, he was
a fugitive (the fact that his wife "donated" 400K for the Clinton library just makes a horrible decision even worse). 'Course Clinton tried to steal the silverware on the way out of the White House, so who's surprised at him pardoning a fugitive and commissioning his idiot brother and brother in law to sell pardons. No way you can take the stink off this pig.

You left out the part about how he had Buddy the Dog whacked before it turned states evidence on Whitewater. Get it right, will ya?

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

This has strong entertainment potential ...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/gop-considers-purity-resolution-for-candidates/?hp

Yeah, I agree with maybe five of those: 1 (though lower deficits and lower taxes are pretty much mutually exclusive at this point - I'm for lower taxes long-term after we bump them up in the short run to pay down the deficit), 4, 5 (though not as expresed here - we support by opposing? really?), 6, and sorta 10 (though that's already enshrined in the 2nd amendment, so...)

But the best part is 1 being somewhat contradictory with 6, 7, and 9; and 2 really being at odds with 9 (we want lower deficits and free-market healthcare reform, but don't mess with Medicare!). I'm not sure it's even logically possible to agree with all 10, though I guess logic isn't the GOP's strongpoint at the moment.

I really hope the GOP isn't this stupid. Otherwise we're looking at one-party rule for the forseeable future, because this will drive out all moderates, candidates and voters alike.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You left out the part about how he had Buddy the Dog whacked before it turned states evidence on Whitewater. Get it right, will ya?

Isn't that pending before the World Court?

Quote the Rhodes Scholar: I thought if someone donated something to the White House while I was president, it belonged to me, and I could take it home. Priceless.

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Yeah, I agree with maybe five of those: 1 (though lower deficits and lower taxes are pretty much mutually exclusive at this point - I'm for lower taxes long-term after we bump them up in the short run to pay down the deficit), 4, 5 (though not as expresed here - we support by opposing? really?), 6, and sorta 10 (though that's already enshrined in the 2nd amendment, so...)

But the best part is 1 being somewhat contradictory with 6, 7, and 9; and 2 really being at odds with 9 (we want lower deficits and free-market healthcare reform, but don't mess with Medicare!). I'm not sure it's even logically possible to agree with all 10, though I guess logic isn't the GOP's strongpoint at the moment.

I really hope the GOP isn't this stupid. Otherwise we're looking at one-party rule for the forseeable future, because this will drive out all moderates, candidates and voters alike.

I was thinking the same thing. I can get onboard to varying degrees with 6-7 of them. If the GOP is starting to engage in a purge of some sort, and using 10 simple points as a litmus test, they've all but assured their "also ran" status at the national level for a good decade or more. I guess they've also managed to forget Reagan's "11th Commandment" along the way ...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Yeah, I agree with maybe five of those: 1 (though lower deficits and lower taxes are pretty much mutually exclusive at this point - I'm for lower taxes long-term after we bump them up in the short run to pay down the deficit), 4, 5 (though not as expresed here - we support by opposing? really?), 6, and sorta 10 (though that's already enshrined in the 2nd amendment, so...)

But the best part is 1 being somewhat contradictory with 6, 7, and 9; and 2 really being at odds with 9 (we want lower deficits and free-market healthcare reform, but don't mess with Medicare!). I'm not sure it's even logically possible to agree with all 10, though I guess logic isn't the GOP's strongpoint at the moment.

I really hope the GOP isn't this stupid. Otherwise we're looking at one-party rule for the forseeable future, because this will drive out all moderates, candidates and voters alike.

I'd love to find the time to chime in on each of these individually also as there are quite a few cracks here...

Big problem here is the general idea due to it being a stereotypical one for conservatives everywhere. The ghosts of McCarthyism...you're with us on these issues or get out. Black and white mentality formalized and legitimized. This was already a criticism and it appears that there's validation via this policy.

I would add that the whole categorization scheme of calling Obama a 'socialist' is creeping into the GOP mantra also. I don't think it makes sense for the rank and file to think of Obama as a socialist...GW was a lot of things but the average democrat didn't call him a nazi at every turn. But when elected representatives who are hoping to lead the country incorporate name calling into the day-to-day, then that should be a red flag for pragmatic policy.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: ObamaRama 8

New poll numbers for the socialist in chief...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.

Also...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 41% to 24%.

 

[Bill]

Re: ObamaRama 8

New poll numbers for the socialist in chief...

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove.
[/i]

I think the the number of Americans who do not pay income tax is pretty close to that. I think 48% is the number I've seen.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Don't need for a teleprompter to dismiss your post as merely dealing in hypotheticals (hence all the ?%'s that you listed).

A 10% tax increase has already been proposed/promised. The others are seriously being considered. Business, like the markets, are forward looking. Why would they take the risk of expanding right now when its at least probable that some of those measures will come to be?

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

A 10% tax increase has already been proposed/promised. The others are seriously being considered. Business, like the markets, are forward looking. Why would they take the risk of expanding right now when its at least probable that some of those measures will come to be?

Ummm....if it profitable to expand they'll do so anyway? You'll never know exactly what the tax rate is going to be in the future. There's no reason to kiss off making money because you might pay 5% more on it than now. That makes no sense, and makes me wonder if you've ever observed closely a small business being run.

As a side note, I recall Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill saying that when he ran Alcoa he never made a business decision based on what the tax rate was.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Ummm....if it profitable to expand they'll do so anyway? You'll never know exactly what the tax rate is going to be in the future. There's no reason to kiss off making money because you might pay 5% more on it than now. That makes no sense, and makes me wonder if you've ever observed closely a small business being run.

Thats kind of the point. Its automatically less profitable to expand when Uncle Sam is taking more off the top. If you aren't going to be rewarded then you're less likely to take the risk.

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

As a side note, I recall Bush's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill saying that when he ran Alcoa he never made a business decision based on what the tax rate was.

Probably not, but you can be pretty **** sure he cranked on his finance and tax people to do whatever they could to lower the taxes Alcoa paid, including offshoring work.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Thats kind of the point. Its automatically less profitable to expand when Uncle Sam is taking more off the top. If you aren't going to be rewarded then you're less likely to take the risk.

Not at all. Your contention is that businesses are less likely to expand if a tax rate is raised up 5%. Lets do the math. You have an opportunity to make (pre-tax) an extra 1M a year if you expand. However, instead of paying 20% on that extra 1M with existing tax rates, thus putting 800K in your pocket, you may have to pay 25% on that extra 1M, thus putting 750K in your pocket.

Since 750K is still greater than nothing, the small tax increase does nothing to discourage you to expand. Either its profitable to do so, before taxes, or it isn't. If there's no profit, the tax rate is irrelevant. If there is a profit, only a 100% tax rate would make it unwise to move forward with the strategy.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You're assuming there is a guaranteed profit. There is opportunity for profit, but there is also risk involved. Essentially there is A% chance that you make $1M, B% chance you make $500K and C% chance you make nothing. You have to weigh those risks/rewards against the money you have to spend to get there. You then start to see your potential profit margins. When the margins are cut into you are less likely to make the investment. You are also taking the money away that would be used to fund the expansion. There is now 10% less money than there previously would have been to pay for the expansion.

It certianly doesn't mean that someone won't make the investment, but they are less likely to do so. An increase in taxes shifts the decisions of those people who are on the borderline of expanding or not. When applied across the country has a large effect on the economy.

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You're assuming there is a guaranteed profit. There is opportunity for profit, but there is also risk involved. Essentially there is A% chance that you make $1M, B% chance you make $500K and C% chance you make nothing. You have to weigh those risks/rewards against the money you have to spend to get there. You then start to see your potential profit margins. When the margins are cut into you are less likely to make the investment. You are also taking the money away that would be used to fund the expansion. There is now 10% less money than there previously would have been to pay for the expansion.

It certianly doesn't mean that someone won't make the investment, but they are less likely to do so. An increase in taxes shifts the decisions of those people who are on the borderline of expanding or not. When applied across the country has a large effect on the economy.

You do realize that taxes are going to have to go up across the board in the not-so-distant future, right? Whether they harm the economy or not will be irrelevant, we're still spending like drunken sailors and the economic hangover is coming 'round the bend.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You're assuming there is a guaranteed profit. There is opportunity for profit, but there is also risk involved. Essentially there is A% chance that you make $1M, B% chance you make $500K and C% chance you make nothing. You have to weigh those risks/rewards against the money you have to spend to get there. You then start to see your potential profit margins. When the margins are cut into you are less likely to make the investment. You are also taking the money away that would be used to fund the expansion. There is now 10% less money than there previously would have been to pay for the expansion.

It certianly doesn't mean that someone won't make the investment, but they are less likely to do so. An increase in taxes shifts the decisions of those people who are on the borderline of expanding or not. When applied across the country has a large effect on the economy.

All of which is decided before you get to your tax rate. What you continue to struggle with is once you do the risk/reward factor, you get to a potential profit. Either there is a profit potential or there isn't. If there is, you go forward because again some profit is better than none at all. Unless the tax rate is 100% IF you think there's a profit to be made you go forward. You may not like the tax rate (I doubt anybody does) but its still worth your while to move forward. Unless you're stupid, you don't turn down a chance to make more money, even if the govt might take 5% more of it down the road. Because if you do put off making extra money, chances are your competitor down the street won't and will end up cleaning your clock.

An increase in taxes has nothing to do with people who are borderline on expanding unless they don't know what they're doing. The question to answer is: what kind of profit (pre-tax) is to be made if any. If the answer is none - taxes are irrelavent. If the answer is some, you do it because taxes won't take up 100% of the pre tax profit.

So, I'll ask again, how close have you ever been to a small business operation?

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

You do realize that taxes are going to have to go up across the board in the not-so-distant future, right? Whether they harm the economy or not will be irrelevant, we're still spending like drunken sailors and the economic hangover is coming 'round the bend.

I tend to agree. This week's Economist has some very good articles on the US fiscal situation, and the situation is not good. At some point, this nation will have to start paying the Piper and live within its means. And that points to a need for larger revenue streams, and cost cuts, at the federal level.