Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just curious, what’s the correlation coefficient (r) of the data? There seems to be a lot of noise in that chart. It would be easy to “find” a correlation with political party and ignore stronger correlations to other factors / variables. Why isn’t that in the study? Probably because the journalists / “academics” wanted to find a result and found it.
After 37 years in marketing, I’d say that’s a pretty darned accurate description of how the media approaches a story.
Just so we’re clear, it’s been 29 years since Bill Clinton left office and 8+ years since Hillary Clinton held office. And yet I get criticized if I dare invoke Trump’s name occasionally — a guy who left office less than six months ago and is still very relevant in politics. Clinton Derangement Syndrome and Trump Sensitivity Syndrome on display.
I guess it’s still not clear. 29 years ago, George H. W. Bush was still President. The 1992 Democratic convention had not yet been held. Bill Clinton was 7 months away from taking office. He wouldn’t leave office until eight years after that, so Slick Willie didn’t leave office until January, 2021 — so I think you meant 20.5 years ago.
[quote quote=4861]“Research provided by Suozzi’s office estimates that such a tax could raise about $450 billion.” Paid over 4 years? In total, this won’t even be a belly scratch for Biden’s Budget Busting spending. Certainly is a “nose in the tent” move, and I agree, the push will downward to include a bigger group of “wealthy” taxpayers. Translates into “those who pay taxes will pay more.” Own a modest home in Cali? Gee, you get to pay another $50k in taxes! How about a novel approach, like cut spending.[/quote]
Biden is counting on the Left’s collective awful math skills to blunt criticism of his budget and any related deficit. The $112.5 billion extra revenue annually will vanish quickly compared to his $475 billion spend.
So the death threats were five years ago, Hilary and Bill are essentially irrelevant now, the suicide investigation is being handled by local police — not the Feds, and yet people in this thread think there some grand conspiracy and that someone would murder this guy over things that are ancient history politically?
I gather by your comment that you don’t feel that the Clintons have any future perils or run any legal or regulatory risk. True? They have nothing at risk now? No potential legal issues or problems? Trying to understand.
I’ve always wondered what would happen if the Fed just kept rates low during raging inflation. Guess we’ll find out.
I don’t see that happening, for better or for worse, the LGBTQ+ spectrum will dictate what is acceptable and what is not, in every segment of society. I’m not saying that’s good, bad or indifferent, it just is.
I think there’s a sister building, isn’t there?
Also, wasn’t there plenty of warning in the few days and weeks prior to the collapse?
99.2 Percent of All U.S. Covid Deaths Are Unvaccinated, New Analysis Shows
About 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average.
Because people who cross the Clintons end up six feet under…
Yes, I know it’s a conspiracy theory, and yes, I know it doesn’t hold water. Still, when I think of the people close to me who have died under suspicious circumstances…it’s a really, really short list. And the Clintons have a really, really long list.
Here’s a question I’ve not heard an answer to. Perhaps because I’m not really listening. . . . What will the IRS do and/or the DA from Manhattan? Trumps CEO and the Trump Org are facing criminal charges for not reporting benefits like tuition as compensation. Will the universities that offer tuition, room and board to athletes, and the athletes themselves, be charged similarly for not reporting the compensation on their taxes? Slippery slope.
Frankly, I don’t know why they’re not taxable now. The basic test is that scholarships for tuition is not taxable, the amount is in box 5 of the athlete’s 1098-T, although they’re occasionally on a W-2 or a 1099-R depending on the nature of the ride. The rule is that “if you do not do work, you do not pay taxes.” So academic work is considered education, not work per se so it isn’t taxable.
Athletic scholarships, on the other hand, require work. So they should already be taxable. I’m guessing that the dodge is that the athletes are considered students first. But if they become pros and the colleges are required to pay, and the students are clearly attending college to facilitate their for-pay athletic participation, then yes…it’s likely that athletic scholarships will be considered to be taxable income.
I had a less-than-satisfying sexual experience last night. It was too hot. Climate change.
My dog dug up a favored rose bush. Obviously it was seeking water and nutrition. Climate change.
A potential client turned down our services in favor of another law firm. Climate change. Obviously.
It’s going to lead to some issues. For one, the number of athletes actually going to be paid will be very, very small relative to the D1 athlete population. For two, I can see a lot of the non-revenue sports falling by the wayside, given that football revenue and men’s basketball revenue support those programs. You’ll have impressionable young men think more and more of themselves as pro athletes and less as students, which will wreak havoc with the 99%+ of the athletes who won’t make lifetime earnings as athletes.
So in the future, I strongly suspect that there will be a lawsuit (if there hasn’t already been) which will accuse colleges of not doing enough to ensure that athletes take their academic opportunity seriously, and that the demands of their sports infringe upon their academic potential.
Paraphrased from a Goodwin partner’s Facebook response:
The Court summed up its opinion in 5 lines, which reads, “when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced.”This was not a finding that Cosby “didn’t do it.” Rather, the Court’s opinion was that the DA unequivocally told the world (including Bill Cosby) that he would not prosecute so that Cosby could not exercise his Fifth Amendment rights and be sued in a civil action. And Cosby then testified about all the creepy stuff he did. In four separate depositions. And when he tried to refuse to answer, a court required him to answer the questions.This does not mean Cosby stays free from the longer term. All it means is that his depositions can’t be used in whatever subsequent trial may come.So what is the outcome? Cosby cannot be prosecuted for this one crime because the DA promised he wouldn’t be prosecuted for the crime. As to everyone else, Cosby is still fair game and could be prosecuted so long as there are not other procedural defects.P.S. The DA who made this promise was one of the lawyers for Trump in the second impeachment case.Signs of the times. Of course he wants his trophy back. Everyone who does something wrong wants NOT just to be absolved, but to redefine the heinous act as virtuous.
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/childhood-vaccination-programs-should-be-exempt-political-bias
12% of anti-Vaxxers are liberal, 10% are conservative say multiple studies…
