“I’m not going to talk about my campaign anymore,” McCain said in a sharp tone. “I’m finished with talking about it. I’ve talked about it for two weeks. I will not discuss it or any aspect of it. Thank you.”
“I’m not going to talk about my campaign anymore,” McCain said in a sharp tone. “I’m finished with talking about it. I’ve talked about it for two weeks. I will not discuss it or any aspect of it. Thank you.”
5 comments:
a covert army of one.
CG2
Also, a sign that the financial apocalypse will soon be upon us, vis a vis, the Great Wealth Redistribution (or "Dems Come Out of Red Closet, the Sequel"). Hidden in the legislation to end private debt collection by the IRS (because the private collectors are calling mostly low-mod income and Dem Congress wants the IRS off their backs and onto Repo backs only), is a provision that requires to you "mark to market" all of your wealth, and pay tax on it when you renounce US citizenship. The last such legislation was introduced by Clinton and the earlier Dem congress. Now, the Dems are putting forward even more onerous legislation. While I appreciate the fact that this is an attempt to bar the gate from tax dodgers, it is an ominous portent. I have maintained for some years now that an early warning sign of an impending crisis would be when the government clamps down hard on expatriation. They did so in the 90's and it stung a lot of people that had no tax avoidance purpose, such as dual nationals that simply wanted to go home, or americans that married foreigners and wanted to live abroad. The new provision requires not only that you pay an "exit tax" and further that you are obligated to pay US taxes for 10 years after you expatriate (I doubt many expats did that), but they will tax your deferred comp (pensions, IRAs, etc) at 30% when you get the cash, even though rates for american taxpayers may be lower, and there may be treaties in place.
Personally, I think that the Dems threw this one in without thinking as it has equal protection violations and treaty violations written all over it (wonder if we can impeach them for proposing illegal legislation? Works for Bush, doesn't it?). They tossed it into the private debt collection bill, knowing that Bush will veto it, and giving them an issue.
Now, explain to me why that isn't sleazy?
Back up and punt.
The USDC in DC has kicked out Wilson's civil suit against Libby, Rove, et al.
The decision is circuitous, a real tome on the subject, but the legal standard on a motion to dismiss is, assuming plaintiff is entirely correct on all facts, he still loses. Here, the court said that the Wilson's did not exhaust remedies and do not have subject matter jurisdiction.
What struck me is how, on a 12(b)(6) motion, the case did not survive. You have to have a really bad case or a really bad attorney to lose on a 12(b)(6) motion. Just how conclusory were the pleadings, anyway? Was this all about playing to the crowd??? You know Wilson will get a position in a Dem administration in 08, based solely on the strength of his persona (which will be a major FU to Repos in DC, and will not sit well, I assure you).
Was that it? I think so!
Of course, I expect shortly a claim from the left that the fix was in!
on yer 1st comment: sleazy? they'll have to go some to catch up to the reptilian party (p.s., i read an interesting story about that gas-main explosion in manhattan a couple of days ago, pointing out the last 30 years of repo tax cuts will wreak havoc on our infrastructure -- but then if i'm talking to a social darwinist, nevermind!)...
2nd: the judge dismissing the case was the same one dismissing any foi claims on the VPs energy mtgs with big energy cos. back in '01; moreover, how can the fix not be in with (dis)respect to the bushies... ?
Because it pales in comparison to other things doesn't make it unsleazy. If the Reps did something comparable, you would be hollering from the rafters (wait . . !). Of course, I still see this as the opening salvo in a class war, and the battleground will be the "middle class", specifically where to draw the line. Here is where I think the Dems are making a huge mistake and drawing it not at the level of hedge fund managers, but at the level below the urban professionals, some of whom keep less money at the EOTD as plumbers, and less than union laborers. Telling the entire college-educated, successful crowd that their hard work and success has made them the enemy, and that they will be taxed back to the Fifties won't make them come around. That is how Gore lost me. I will admit that the GOP did a lot less for me taxwise than they claim, but they are not making me out to be public enemy no. 1 either.
Re: 30 years of tax cuts? Oh pleaze. First, when did it become the Feds job to keep NYC in top condition? Second, why didn't Bill fix it during his eight years of by all accounts, record prosperity and balanced budgets? Third, why didn't Carter or Johnson or Kennedy fix them, or did the Pubs block all of it during all those years? Fourth, when did it become the government's job to fix ConEd's equipment and infrastructure?
As for social darwinism, what was your point again? Or was that a compliment?
As for the 01 dismissal, that case was a farce from the beginning. All manner of deliberative documents are shielded, and this has been ever so. FOIA expressly exempts deliberative documents because to disclose them would chill frank discussions and ideas, and would lead to the sort of evasion now being practiced by Gov. Corzine.
With respect to Wilson, I would have to read the pleadings to see if I agreed. I reiterate, the standard for 12(b)(6) is that, if everything Wilson said was true, there still wasn't anything he could sue for. That is a very easy hurdle to overcome, and the fact that he was tripped up on it is either (a) suspicious or (b) indicative of a b-s case. I am not prepared to say which. But if you want to link me to his pleadings, and the motion papers, I can opine further. After all, I am a professional--don't try this at home.
CG2
Post a Comment