jakee

The new President, however, re-opened old wounds when, exactly one month into his tenure, he granted Richard Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon . . . for all offenses" Nixon committed, or "may have committed," while President.… Instead Ford's pardon of Nixon touched off a firestorm of protest. Polls showed that most Americans wanted Nixon punished. Observers also questioned Ford's judgment in pardoning Nixon so soon after taking office, with one Republican senator asking a presidential aide, "doesn't he have any sense of timing?" Indeed, his first press secretary, Jerald terHorst, resigned in protest over Ford's decision. Ford's popularity plummeted in public opinion polls, dropping from the high sixties into the high thirties. Just as important, members of Congress from both parties reacted angrily to the pardon. A group of liberal Democrats, in particular, wanted to learn more about the pardon—and especially whether Ford had discussed Nixon's pardon with the ex-President or his staff. The specter of a deal between Nixon and Ford hung in the background as a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ("The Hungate Committee") sent Ford a set of questions about the pardon. Attempting to answer his critics, Ford agreed to appear before the committee, a decision his White House aides did not support. Ford thus became the first President since Abraham Lincoln to testify before a congressional committee of inquiry. That doesn’t sound to me like the reaction of a nation which accepts a decision. As a general rule it’s a good idea to read a link which you hope supports your point of view before posting it. Exactly, yet another huge problem with Ford’s decision. It kicked a can down the road and left open a bunch of legal questions contributing to the quagmire today. Heck, Trump might already be in prison if not for Ford’s pardon.

Then why did you provide it as evidence? Come on dude, you can’t have it both ways. The author of your link either knows what he’s talking about or he doesn’t. If he does, you should consider what he actually says. If he doesn’t, why are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

That very link says that Ford pardoned Nixon for self serving reasons, not for the good of the country. Never mind that even his public justification was more concerned with the wellbeing of the criminal than the country. Imagine the outcry from the Right today if it was ever suggested that prosecutors should be careful not to harm the mental health of a suspect! Ford told Americans on September 8, 1974, that he had granted the pardon because Nixon had suffered enough, because the threat of prosecution was damaging Nixon's health, and because a trial of the ex-President would reignite bitter and divisive passions and prevent the country from moving forward. Privately, Ford worried that a trial would seriously harm his ability to govern, and he yearned for a presidency free from daily questions about the fate of Richard Nixon.

Wouldn’t it be nice to believe the VP of the (2nd?) most corrupt President ever had such noble motives.

15 years or so ago an extremely wealthy British investment fund manager announced in all the papers that because of a 5% hike in the top tier income tax rate he was leaving London to live in a channel island tax haven. Last year he announced that he'd been a total idiot, and losing access to all the City networking, power lunches and old boys' clubs had been far more damaging to his business than the tax he'd saved. Even funnier is the fact that the 5% rise he'd decided was too much, was abolished again only a couple of years after he left.

No, I think his point is that corporations go to the government and say ‘give us what we want or we’ll sack X hundred/thousand people’.

No solution to what?

No, he's jst interested in bashing black people - as usual.

I'm curious - what exactly did you think this thread was about up to this point?

So let’s tax them fairly instead, and raise an enormous amount of money - some of which will recoup the subsidies that allow Bezos and others to so dramatically underpay the employees whose effort generated their wealth. Why are you fixated on the idea that begrudging has anything to do with it? It seems pretty clear that if you were in charge you would like to build a system that taxes only the people you feel are unworthy, but in the real world that’s not how it works. Society has to be paid for, hence we need a system of taxation that works.

You couldn’t make it up. To post a bond so he could appeal his massive fine for inflating assets and breaking NY law, he teamed up with a company which does not have enough assets and does not think it has to comply with NY law.

The secret Trumpist’s get out clause.

Compared to taxes, of which 100% is recirculated. I guess that's suddenly not such a good metric anymore.

As has been pointed out before, this is wishful thinking. We live in a world of Scrooge McDucks. https://www.ft.com/content/7ebfa850-bf2d-11e9-9381-78bab8a70848 Rich people are hoarding cash, and wealth managers are getting frustrated. High-net worth individuals (HNWIs) — people with at least $1m in investable assets — are increasingly shunning equities. In the first quarter of this year, HNWIs held nearly 28 per cent of their portfolios on average in cash, according to the Capgemini World Wealth report.

Or to put it another way, needed. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-on-food-stamps-2018-8 "In 2017 nearly one in three Amazon employees in Arizona was on food stamps, or lived with someone who was, according to data obtained by nonprofit New Food Economyfrom state governments. In both Pennsylvania and Ohio, one in 10 Amazon employees was on food stamps." If it's conservative to point out the reality that Amazon is not a job creator, why do you do the opposite?

The SpaceX that only a lefty would call success? You relly are showing yourself to be quite a fan of socialist economics today.

Hunter Biden founded or had ownership in several businesses that did with rich people's money exactly what you think rich people should do with their money. According to you, Hunter Biden is very valuable to American society. You're also conflating Hunter and the politician, but as far as I'm aware there are no reasonable allegations that the politician cheated on any taxes. Further - as you're very fond of saying, Tesla gets big government subsidies to run its business and pay its employees. Amazon gets away with paying its employees so little they also need government support to survive. This is a huge subsidy for Amazon. So according to you, the politician is instrumental in creating real value in America.

No-one's talking about equal. That's the strawman you fall back on when you realise that what you're saying is indefensible. BTW, Amazon is a primarily a retailer. Is it really creating societal wealth by selling things cheaper than independant brick and mortar shops coud, driving those business owners nder, and paying its employees so little they have to rely on benefits from the government, funded by the taxes that Jeff Bezos pays so little of? If you want to get the economy moving and that's your priority, then you really should want to take money from the rich and give to the poor. The ultra rich just sit on vast swathes of their money. They literaly have too much of it to bother doing anything with. The very poor will spend every single extra dollar they get.

I mean, sure. Making Jeff Bezos, a man who pays thousands of employees so little they have to rely on food stamps yet who is so rich he can afford to build a space rocket on a whim, pay a similar tax rate to normal people would be exactly like killing a poor man's only goat. Because Bezos is the peasant in this fable, not the Csar. Obviously. I'm not sure whether you think you're covering it up, but honestly you don't half make it obvious when you realise your arguments run out of juice.

Yes, we know you are. You just said people would be stupid to pay more than they have too, and have just shown that Bezos pays a much lower tax rate than you. You’d love to be able to do that!

So what’s that, a 10% tax rate or even less? Yeah, he couldn’t possibly be expected to contribute more, there wouldn’t even be any point left in being rich. What are we, Marxists? It’s also probably fairly similar to what he spent on a toy boat, once you factor in a few years of support costs and bridge rebuilding. If we want just a smidge of context.

You are talking to the man who once advised against raising tax rates on the ultra rich because they might not be able to afford to eat out at nice restaurants anymore. So really, asking Jeff Bezos to settle for maybe having to choose between going to the moon and building a yacht so big it needs bridges to be demolished really is going too far. What are we, Marxists?

Or maybe they just care about providing healthcare and helping the poor, like you... do? Don't? I don;t know anymore. Do we have to open the box and collapse the waveform to find out which position you're taking in any given 30 second block right now?

Are you gonna tell that to the guy in the other thread who think taxes are just pointless envy? I don't think he wants to redistribute any money from wealthy people to poor people.

What are you doing with your other hand? Anyway, if you think that’s not ever happening anyway, why the rush? The election is happening this year - so maybe you could prioritise?