leh-nerd skin-erd

No, not really. This is awkward.

Thanks. In the case of property taxes, I think for many it ultimately boils down to a few questions: 1. Is there sufficient value received for the cost incurred? 2. Projecting forward, what’s the tax situation going to look like in those golden retirement years? 3. What is the trend as it relates to population growth or decline with respect to the tax burden? 4. Access to medical care an individual feels most comfortable with, most particularly later in life; 4. Given questions 1, 2, and 3, 4, is there a place that offers a better, more equitable option? One thing I found particularly frustrating occurred during the pandemic. There was quite a bit of pressure on business to shut down/close and/or give back to the community. Late fees were eliminated, an eviction moratorium was set in place, banks, cable companies, credit card companies all called upon to do the right thing. However, when it came to property/school tax….nothing. No temporary waiver of late fees. No payment plans to help the people. In my case, for the property I own, the bills arrived quite promptly with insets telling the consumer that regular bill pay options were suspended because the town offices were closed. The bills also prominently indicated the substantial extra charges due if payment was one or more days late. That’s more serf-king relationship than anything else in context, and an important consideration for me. When I consider my future in this particular blue state, and consider my 5 bullet points, the only real consideration is option 1. That’s all about access to family and has very little to do with the state, high tax rate and deductions to make me feel like I’m getting a good deal. I appreciate the reply.

It’s weird because the body of the story notes that Eastman is asserting that the documents are covered under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Is that newsworthy? And why not just use that as a headline? That’s a fundamental legal principal that dates back hundreds of years in our country and to olde Ÿè Ènglande before that. I understand how you feel, generally though. I can’t understand why the J6 proceedings aren’t televised, that full and unredacted transcripts aren’t released, that selective leaking absent context is permitted, and why the free press isn’t pounding the table for complete transparency.

That wasn't the question. To quote myself from just before I wasted my time yet again: Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself. It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. Then why all the links from left wing outlets that purport wrongdoing and criminality on the part of DJT? You consistently refer to non-believers as cultists and provide links that align with your dogma. Your actions suggest you care deeply what the media suggests is the truth, up to and including using them in an attempt to buttress your arguments. Sure I care. I'm trying to get as fair a picture of the world as I can from sources that are generally not worthy of unconditional trust. I have a belief system based on my experiences and my point of view. However, in the case of, say, Trump/Russia and Mueller, the reality is that nothing came of it. That's not me buying into right wing media, that's a 100% certifiable fact. Fox News, for example, never broke the HRC aligned with Russia story, or that Obama and Biden were briefed on her campaign's involvement. That's troubling to me, as troubling as the WaPost quoting anonymous source after anonymous source and getting the entire story wrong. Anyway, I had hopes you would answer directly on the simple, innocuous questions I posed, but it exceeds your capacity. Thanks for taking the time to answer directly. Perhaps, one day, others shall benefit from your leadership and follow suit!

DR is long gone from this website, friend. I said what I said, and it applies to everyone, myself included. However, as in politics, certain rules apply. Imo, your approach is that you pose a question or questions, expect answers but rarely answer directly yourself. It’s classic deflection, and that’s fine, but it makes it hard to take you seriously. When you direct a question to me, I (usually) try to answer directly. I realize I’m not always on topic, may drift a bit, or write a mini-manifesto. If I have a follow up question, the easy answer is for you to respond “whataboutism!. In this case, I acknowledge your feelings about the Durham investigation, your feelings about bombshells and your absolute belief that Trump broke the law and for reasons unknown or unshared has yet to be prosecuted. You could be correct. I have acknowledged listening to the original complaint, being somewhat willing to keep an open mind as Pelosi et al pursued the Russia angle, and ultimately decided that the entire fiasco was political in nature. It is inconceivable to me—in spite of the things that bother you—that 4 years and $40m could end with such a thud when Mueller made whatever case he was trying to make. I could be wrong, but I’d place the odds at 1 in 10,000. So there you. I asked two questions earlier today, and would be interested in your thoughts as a Trump hater and Russia purist. Here is a summary: Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection (Clinton and Steele), to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on? They were briefed in 2016. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/07/john-brennan-confirms-he-briefed-obama-on-russia-election-scheme-n2577629 With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?

Why do you want the SALT tax deduction reinstated? I’m not looking for a fight, I was on the wrong side of that when the rules changed (at least as it relates to keeping more of my income), just wondering why you feel as you do?

The “whataboutism” is the easy layup answer for those lazy folk who want to draw a line in the sand, stomp their feet and declare “I don’t want to talk about that!”. The challenge here is there really seem to be no rules in politics, so everything is on the table. Frankish opted to super-size that silliness with the old “Trump is pure as the driven snow” deflection, something his supporters say as often as you see a unicorn trotting in midtown Manhattan during rush hour. I’ll ask you a question I asked Frankish earlier today. He hasn’t responded and perhaps chooses not to engage. Shortly after Trump was elected, during the height of the original Big Lie, the outgoing admin was briefed on the Clinton Campaign being intricately involved in the Steele dossier fiasco. At that point in time, dem leadership was casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election, suggesting a coup had occurred, and fomented stories of Russians on the WH lawn. Millions believed that narrative, and using Frankish’s hyperbolic commentary, felt Hillary Clinton was pure as the driven snow and lost only because of Russian interference and Trump’s treasonous behavior. There was considerable strife in the country as a result, citizens distrustful of fellow citizens. America,mit seemed at the time, was coming apart at the seams. Was it incumbent on Obama/Biden to come clean on the connection, to allow us all to give pause and consider what might actually be occurring, and to give their supporters a more nuanced view of what was going on? I didn’t ask Frankish, but will direct a second question to you. With all their highly place sourced, guarantees of anonymity and the like—-do you think major media sources (WaPo, NYT etc) knew about the Clinton connection and chose not to report it, or that maybe their sources failed them?

That article is four+ years old. Mueller has come, babbled about and gone to where old spies go, Bannon is still rolling along and hasn't flipped on the alleged treason, and Don Jr has not yet cracked, like an egg, as predicted. When is the explosive best seller going to ROCK the world? We've also learned that Obama and Biden were read into intelligence reports that the H. Clinton campaign was knuckles deep in the Steele dossier in early 2016. Speaking of that, and given your feelings on Trump and the case of the Curious Case of Disappearing Collusive Collusion, why do you think Obama/Biden didn't acknowledge the Clinton role in the Steele dossier back when they first learned of it? The country was being torn apart, the Pro-Trumpers calling foul and the Pro-Clintonista's pointing fingers an accusing everyone not like them being treasonous. Wouldn't you think that information should have been shared for the greater good?

No, he’s the “Trump obviously is Russian and everyone knows it but gosh darn it no one can prove it but no one really investigated beyond the multi-year investigation by the opposition party that cost tens of millions of dollars” guy.

Back when Trump was first accused of being the illegitimate step-grandson of Vladimir Lenin, and suddenly President Obama woke up and bravely banished a couple dozen Russian ambassadors on the 2899th day of the 2922 days he was in office, I listened. I mean, I thought it odd that he hadn't acted swiftly and decisively several months or years earlier, but he was a busy guy in those days and he probably couldn't get to the files in the R category until December. I was even somewhat open-minded. The whole story sounded quite preposterous to me, so much so that I actually assumed there really could be no freakin way Trump couldn't be a Russian asset on some level, however pedestrian. It had nothing to do with proof, or trust of the democrat machine--I just really didn't think that any serious politician would run the Joe McCarthy gambit again. That whole thing was a such a stain on our country--well, you know all about that of course. I just didn't think a politician/political party would try that again, and if they did, the grandchildren and great grandchildren of those who bought it the first time would surely sniff it out and be furious to be treated as hapless twits again. I was wrong about just about all of it. As for the meeting...I'd hazard a guess that on any given day, week or month the amount of cross-pollinating going on between hostiles/friendlies is quite high. Heck, was it really wise to blindly trust Christopher Steele just because at one point he was in the service of an ally? Anyway--Vanity Fair--yeah. Good stuff. I'm trying to get my hands on a pretty interesting Teen Vogue article that offers a deep dive into Trump, Russia and Ivanka's Herstyles of the 80s (they called them that--"Herstyles"--I thought it was catchy). Turns out she almost exclusively used a lady named Olga to style her hair, and wtf Olga only used Russian products. I mean, come on! Back to the point, no one in power looks particularly competent or trustworthy for their role in all that hubbub. A Friday dump seems par for the course.

I’m certain there are government officials who would like nothing more than this all to be minimized and be handled under the radar. I think the same applies to major media outlets who missed the story here. We’re nearly 6 years out from the earliest declarations and breathless reporting that Trump was Russian cosmonaut masquerading as a reality tv star/NY real estate mogul. Additionally, the fact that wrongdoing may have occurred does not necessarily mean that establishment types have any desire to paint Trump as victim or see his claims validated.

You probably don’t know it, but you summarized it very well with “We can’t not say he’s not unguilty” a couple posts up.

Thankfully, as a society most of us have moved past the ignorance of our ancestors. We said good-bye to Purity Tests, Chastity Belts and the Salem Witch Trial model of justice. Still, old-timers like Mueller can roll out “We didn’t not not find evidence of guilt” to appeal to people of a certain point of view. Why? Because some people can be convinced that something is true in spite of mountains of evidence, millions of dollars spent and several years of investigation clearly indicating that it is not. By the way, if I had confidence you could comprehend the immense and irrefutable chasm between “evidence of a crime” and “evidence of innocence”, I would say so.

The most brilliant colludist of all time. All that colluding in plain sight, so tactical, so brilliant that every liberal knows it but law enforcement and the Mueller tribunal were stymied. 🤣

You sounds like a crazy tinfoiler with this cult fixation, BillSy. But if I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that Twitter and their decision to censor speech is the same sort of thing as the baker refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding couple. I think that’s a fair assessment. In both scenarios, business decisions were made on emotion and bias, though both parties had their reasons for making their own value judgements. At the risk of repeating myself, the interesting part to me is the government’s reaction (or inaction) to these similar events, and how willing people are to rationalize defending one and criticize the other. People are complicated. You’re an optimist, Tim, and I can respect that. The whole thing is a spectacle of asshattery imo. I applaud the RNC.

It is interesting, of course, that the bakers who did not provide the cake for the gay couple were targets of government intervention, yet the Twitter is viewed as a private company doing private company things. Actually, really what’s interesting is how people defend one and not the other based on their own particular predilections.

Don’t need them anymore. With a 24 hour a day news cycle, every move or word scrutinized, and the reality that the candidate(s) spend 90 minutes trying to say nothing about a subject and avoid quotable quotes and/or offer quotable quotes written by speechwriters, we simply don’t need em anymore. It’s a relic of a bygone era. So, you learn nothing, they say nothing, and the talking heads offer really nothing. Andrea Mitchell is the perfect example. She’s 100 years old, has proven to be an untrustworthy source of information and thus offers nothing of value to many. If your chose a right-leaning moderator, same situation applies.

Wait...seriously...you prefer the 'cower in terror', 'stampede wildly over anyone in your path', and/or wait the 20 minutes for the police or social worker to come and de-escalate in this situation? Me, I would prefer to be standing next to the off-duty officer who plugged this luantic in the head as he began his reign of terror. Absent the off duty police officer, I'd prefer to be next to the sensible gun owner who plugged this lunatic in the head as he began his reign of terror.

He’s a real cracker jack on this sort of thing.

We were fortunate enough to plan for both--and have cv life insurance for that purpose. One can never be sure what the tax situation w/r to inheritance will be at the time of one's demise. In this vein, I actually just got off the phone with my attorney to schedule a revisitation of our will. I do agree that many folks focus on the children first, then figure they'll figure themselves out later. Lost time generally, divorce, job loss, lost time in the market, disability/premature death and 15 other things can end up scuttling your plans. A neighbor of mine many years ago mortgaged the house to pay for his daughter's education at Colgate...then sold the house and moved to Az when he got sick and things got tight. If I recall, he was moving in with the Colgatian. That's cool, huh? Of course, Einstein famously said that "The most powerful force in the universe is a benevolent government absolving you of debt foolishly incurred.". Thanks for the disclaimer. 🙉

Makes sense to me. I'm 60, with plans to convert when I can, in whole or in part. I'll take the Medicare suggestion under advisement, but if I'm rolling the bones, I'm figuring tax free to my family with a legacy goal for my heirs is the best bet. Then again, silly me, I figured helping my children achieve their higher education goals was an investment in their future. Who knew?

I feel like it's bigger news when a high ranking NY poli isn't arrested, implicated, forced out or is otherwise preoccupied with forcing very sick folks into NYS nursing homes. Our recent run includes Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Schneiderman, and now Eric Fields. Before that, of course we had Senators Bruno and Silver...and many others. https://data.democratandchronicle.com/troubled-ny-lawmakers/

Our system finds it roots in Olde English Law. We can watch a movie like Braveheart and not notice the similarities with today's America. In the old days, it was Kings, Bishops and the like, today the Government is king and there are all sorts of emissaries out and about to enforce the rules of the kingdom. For some people, the freedom comes from taking a deep breath, stepping off the ledge and pursuing a better life in whatever fashion resonates with that person. Education. Business. Service to the community. Deadheading across the country. For others, it comes from public entitlements, riding the coattails of financially successful people, or sitting and complaining about 'fair share' as if anything even remotely like that exists in the world. Then of course, there's a whole lot of folks squarely in between the two. I'm with you on this point. I believe that paying tax and contributing to the greater good is my obligation, but that this system more than occasionally runs amuck over folks trying to get ahead to the next level. They take the approach that "What's yours is mine, what's mine go f yourself, it's mine.".

Amazing the thoughts that come from a guy with a career in the financial sector. The governmental scam-a-lam on a traditional IRA eludes many people. Save pennies now, get taxed on the whole nut later. Better than a stick in the eye, but a pretty nice source of tax revenue for the government. I know a fellow who converted his traditional IRAs over a couple years about 10 years ago. Tax bill was about $800k. Best move he ever made, he said. Meanwhile, one leg of the Dems plan to incentivize investment in one’s future is to erase the debt incurred by said people in search of enlightenment who prefer to spend their money on other things. Brilliant.

So weird. Of course, Liz Warren and Amy Klobuchar also raised serious concerns about election security and potential for fraud, but that was waaaay back in 2019. That was before everything was buttoned up to offer the American people the most secure election in the history of elections.