Morning, Dr. R! Morning, all! I started reading the NYT article last night and am only half-way through it. No expert when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our tax laws, but the lay explanations dotted throughout the article keeps this reader engaged. When news broke out about Deutsche Bank (last week, was it?) and several other rel…
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, all! I started reading the NYT article last night and am only half-way through it. No expert when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our tax laws, but the lay explanations dotted throughout the article keeps this reader engaged. When news broke out about Deutsche Bank (last week, was it?) and several other related stories, I reposted them on my FB page with the title "Follow the Money?" Seems accurate in light of what is unfolding now.
I like to harken back to "famous lines" from movies that I have seen. In the original Die Hard movie (1988) there was the scene between Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) and Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) where she accuses him of being "nothing but a common thief," to which he replies that he is "an exceptional thief." Call me crazy, but this so resonates with me with every story that I am reading these days.
And finally, does having six Catholic Supreme Court judges truly represent the views of this diverse nation?
Demographically, no more than the hundreds of years of all judges being Protestant white men represented this country. As a non-Catholic, I would add Pope Francis to the court in a heartbeat if it were possible, because he would support using the government to heal the sick. (Reproductive rights are dead at a federal level already.) The problem is that the court has a majority of persons who oppose the idea that the purpose of government is to support the general welfare, and prefer instead to limit it to supporting only the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. <Insert my usual comments about creating a new Federal Law Review Court to replace SC review of federal laws>
And pass new laws and change the constitution where necessary so that the governments defend people and not property! Let the politicians take their responsibilities or punish them!
Heavens, no, I was not being sarcastic. I look forward to reading your posts. They expand my education, which is subpar on these important issues. Seriously.
If he had taken the inheritance from his father and simply invested it in virtually any reliable index fund he would be worth more than he even claims to be worth at present.
Every US bank of any renown with a sign on the street in Manhattan could have told us all that for the last 25 years or more. None of them would lend him a nickel.
I was being sarcastic - so true that the banks have had his number for years. I also think he's had a tough time getting high-powered legal representation because he's notorious for not paying his bills
Morning, Dr. R! Morning, all! I started reading the NYT article last night and am only half-way through it. No expert when it comes to the nuts and bolts of our tax laws, but the lay explanations dotted throughout the article keeps this reader engaged. When news broke out about Deutsche Bank (last week, was it?) and several other related stories, I reposted them on my FB page with the title "Follow the Money?" Seems accurate in light of what is unfolding now.
I like to harken back to "famous lines" from movies that I have seen. In the original Die Hard movie (1988) there was the scene between Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) and Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) where she accuses him of being "nothing but a common thief," to which he replies that he is "an exceptional thief." Call me crazy, but this so resonates with me with every story that I am reading these days.
And finally, does having six Catholic Supreme Court judges truly represent the views of this diverse nation?
No, having six Catholic Supreme Court judges does not represent America.
Demographically, no more than the hundreds of years of all judges being Protestant white men represented this country. As a non-Catholic, I would add Pope Francis to the court in a heartbeat if it were possible, because he would support using the government to heal the sick. (Reproductive rights are dead at a federal level already.) The problem is that the court has a majority of persons who oppose the idea that the purpose of government is to support the general welfare, and prefer instead to limit it to supporting only the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. <Insert my usual comments about creating a new Federal Law Review Court to replace SC review of federal laws>
And pass new laws and change the constitution where necessary so that the governments defend people and not property! Let the politicians take their responsibilities or punish them!
Thanks, Joan. This helps my understanding tremendously.
Was I actually helpful or are you being sarcastic?
Heavens, no, I was not being sarcastic. I look forward to reading your posts. They expand my education, which is subpar on these important issues. Seriously.
Thank you.
“Exceptional thief”, indeed. Always follow the money.
Or in this case, always follow the (lack of) money... He's flat broke - who could have foreseen that
If he had taken the inheritance from his father and simply invested it in virtually any reliable index fund he would be worth more than he even claims to be worth at present.
He is not only a liar and a crook, he is also a moron.
Every US bank of any renown with a sign on the street in Manhattan could have told us all that for the last 25 years or more. None of them would lend him a nickel.
I was being sarcastic - so true that the banks have had his number for years. I also think he's had a tough time getting high-powered legal representation because he's notorious for not paying his bills
I agree - it's almost like a game to him or something.