End of the Week Links
Clearing out some links that have been sitting open on my laptop:
There are a few people more entertaining than Ace of Spades when he gets going on one of his truly inspired rants. This one is worth reading all the way through, but I’ll tease you with the end:
This is a dangerous moment. I keep saying this, but I do think Tyranny is in the air. When the press decides that our Dear Leaders are above suspicion, and any suspicion is evidence of both mental illness and treason simultaneously, we’re living on the cusp of Chavez-like times.
Dear Self-Proclaimed Rationalists/Empiricists,
You’re doing it wrong. Please note this for your records.
Respectfully,
People Who Would Like To Know What’s In the Kool-Aid,
Before We Drink It,
If That’s Quite All Right By You
Another thing I liked about Ace’s piece is that it reminded me of this excellent year-end takedown of fact-checking pieces. I think the “fact-checkers” are some of the most dangerous enemies of freedom we have these days, because they don’t care about the facts, but they are treated as if they do because they declare it to be so. As Ace reminds us, in these fact checking pieces, “true claims made by Republicans are deemed false, because the liberal ‘fact’ checkers don’t like the implications made, and [] false claims made by Democrats (especially Obama) are deemed ‘true,’ because, well. Let them explain.”
Continuing down the list: it’s another crazy White House petition, this time asking the White House to “authorize the production of a recurring television program featuring Vice President Joe Biden.” Because there aren’t enough buffoons in prime time TV. Anyway, this is apparently the pilot episode, titled “Spread Your Legs, You’re Gonna Get Frisked”:
Finally, we have Nancy Pelosi altering a photo to show more women Congresscritters in it:
A few years ago, the Newseum hosted a terrific exhibit called “The Commissar Vanishes,” which chronicled Soviet dictator Josef Stalin’s editing of official photos to eliminate Communist officials who had fallen out of favor with the mercurial tyrant.
The technology has advanced — we have Photoshop now, after all — but politicians still see a need to alter history.
That brings us to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
The Democratic leader found herself on the defensive today in response to charges that she altered a photo … to add four lawmakers who weren’t there.
The missing lawmakers — who arrived late for the photo — included Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. The doctored photo included the four absent representatives as a fictional top row of the photo.
Make no mistake: she would do the same thing with votes if she thought she could get away with it.
Comment away.
Patterico (038ee9) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:16 pmI don’t see the big deal in this story. Is it any different than adding photos to a yearbook when someone missed the picture day at school or for the team? What am I overlooking here? Why is this “news?”
WarEagle82 (97b777) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:19 pmMost politicians will find a way to pervert technology to advance their own interests. Nothing new here.
Dirty Old Man (0c7e45) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:01 pmAnd David Gregory is still unarrested. Emily Miller tells the story of one of the 115 who were, in 2012.
htom (412a17) — 1/5/2013 @ 4:52 pm4. Emily Miller says:
Well, that should put David Gregory in the clear. He didn’t possess a high capacity magazine. It was, at all times, owned and in the custody of NBC.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:49 pmSammy, you really don’t understand “possess” in the context of firearms.
htom (412a17) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:57 pm“Make no mistake: she would do the same thing with votes if she thought she could get away with it.”
What on earth makes you think she hasn’t?
C. S. P. Schofield (fdfc57) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:17 pmWell, it’s about damn time!
I was beginning to think that these week links would never end.
Icy (f1nk31m@n) (4feb96) — 1/5/2013 @ 8:37 pmI find Ace’s piece particularly interesting in light of this back-and-forth on facebook regarding the idea that anyone might have… “enhanced” the Connecticut school story… Not so much a claim of “conspiracy” as much as noting the discrepancies between early stories and the current party line on it, and the absolute failure of so-called “journalists” to follow through on such and such to make sure those discrepancies are just errors and not cover-ups.
IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States (98ae1f) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:31 amWell, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly understand the term “bereft” in the context of
Smock Puppet, 10th Dan Snark Master and Accidental Death And Dismemberment Promoter (98ae1f) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:33 amgun controlvictim disarmament advocates.C. S. P. Schofield #7 – you beat me to it by *thiiiis* much, you fink !
(grin)
Alasdair (f252a5) — 1/6/2013 @ 5:43 amGreetings:
The First Female ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America once again amazes me with her multitasking abilities.
11B40 (d87de3) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:28 amComment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:12 pm
Sammy, less than half own homes, so he mean the mortgage and property tax deductions.
Technically, it might be correct that they aren’t available to “most Americans” but that would be true for most deductions – certainly ones involving college tuition, which he favors. Could you really say they they are (only) available to “the wealthiest individuals”
The child and dependent care credit would be one not available to most Americans, and heavily tilted toward the upper income brackets, since this only applies when all the guardians of a child under the age of 13 * are working or looking for work, a full-time student, or unable to take care of themselves and therefore also a child, and are people are paid on the books except that a person’s own children under 19 don’t count even if they are paid on the books, for hours that are not considered schooling if the child is attending kindergarten or higher, and only for hours necessary to enable someone to work,* and no more than the minimum necessary to pay * to get the care from that particular source for those days covered. Payments for tutoring or summer school also do not qualify.
So this is one maybe that only a limited number of people can take advantage of, and they’re mostly upper income.
—————–
* Age 13. The way thing are going now every child under 13 can be considered to need a babysitter, and every child 13 and over can be a babysitter, and there’s no middle ground. The credit also can be taken for care of a disabled person.
* enable someone to work. Can include situations where one spouse works days, and the other works nights, and the spouse who works nights sleeps during the day.
* minimum necessary. If let’s say someone works 3 days but has a child in day care 5 days, if the center does not offer a 3-day option, and the 5 day is the minimum charge, all is deductible. Similarly, if food, or even some education, is included in the minimum charge, and they are basically incidental, it is all deductible.
============================================
But I don’t think President Obama has any specifics really in mind, if he does, this description of them being “loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans” really can’t be justified.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:27 amSince he views “most Americans” as “wage slaves” or otherwise victims of the oppressor classes, he probably means charitable deductions and other affectations of the monied few. With bigger government, who needs charity anyway?
We know what his charitable deduction proposal is: Reduce the deduction to 28% even if the marginal tax bracket is higher. Which would mathematically be the same as taking the fraction 28/marginal tax rate including phaseouts, and multiplying that by the amount of the contribution.
Now something the wealthy can take advantage of that most Americans can’t, is a charitable donation of appreciated stock or a painting perhaps.
Obama seems not to have made any proposal dealing with appreciated assets (where the current value gets deducted, but no capital gains tax is charged)
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/BetweentheIssues/LastMonth/Articles/ObamaProposaltoCapCharitableDeductions/
Maybe medical deductions since since only a lucky few can afford to pay for medical care (and besides, there’s the ACA).
There are very few medical deductions left. On Schedule A it only applies to expenses over 7.5% and this has now been raised to 10% except for people over the age of 65 for another 4 years.
The big “loophole” some see here is the deductibility of employer provided health insurance. Because unions take advantage of this, Obama is unlikely to want to change any of that.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:28 amI think this is all in the wrong thread, (should be in the “Obama: No Spending Cuts That Hurt My Ability… which was about his weekly address) but let me finish here/
Current law, as interpreted by the IRS, about HSA’s (Health Saving Accounts – From 8889) MSA’s (Archer Medical Savings Accounts – Form 8853) FSA’s (Flexible Spending Arrangements) and HRA’s
(Health Reimbursement Arrangements)
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/ar02.html
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:36 amComment by htom (412a17) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:57 pm¯i> #
Sammy, you really don’t understand “possess” in the context of firearms.
Well, if someone owns a firearm, and he or she gives a non-lethal part of it to a child to hold, is the child, “possessing” the weapon? What about a visitor?
So, no, David Gregory did not possess this, NBC did. At no point was he going to do anything on his own with it. I grant you, had he stolen it, he would have possessed it, but he did not.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:40 am7. “Make no mistake: she would do the same thing with votes if she thought she could get away with it.”
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (fdfc57) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:17 pm
What on earth makes you think she hasn’t?
The rules of the House limit it:
http://www.house.state.pa.us/rules/2011HouRules.htm
It is not permitted at all on the floor, except there is this business about pairing votes on opposite sides of a question (unless that stopped)
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:47 amThe crime of the Pelosi PhotoShop is the incompetence. Is there nothing these idiots can do right? The four harridans of the caucus look like Mt Rushmore back there, only uglier.
Comment Monster (72e905) — 1/6/2013 @ 2:13 pm16. Yes, the child is in possession of that firearm or part thereof. It’s a very broad definition meant to make it easy to prosecute for possession. If you are mugged by a goblin with a gun, and he drops the gun and runs away, and you pick it up to keep it from the school children getting off the bus, you are in possession of that firearm. And if it was a stolen military handgun, you’re in possession of a stolen military handgun. If you give it to one of those children, they are ALSO in possession of it.
htom (412a17) — 1/6/2013 @ 2:22 pmReminds me of an old golf joke.
A pro was cleaning up his golf shop when a female player entered, complaining that she’d been stung by a bee.
“Where were you stung?” inquired the pro.
“Between the first and second holes.” replied the lady.
“Well, obviously,” chuckled the old pro “your stance is too wide.”
mojo (8096f2) — 1/7/2013 @ 1:05 pmSammy, you slay me. You remind me of that “fact checker” who gave Haley Barbour a bunch of “Pinocchios” for claiming that there were welfare cheats, when in fact cheating on welfare is clearly against the law!
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 1/7/2013 @ 4:27 pm“So this is one maybe that only a limited number of people can take advantage of, and they’re mostly upper income.”
Sammy – The tax credit is targeted at lower income brackets. Wake up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/7/2013 @ 5:00 pm