Manafort sentenced and indicted (again)
The latest sentence, handed down by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., federal court, was for 73 months in connection with Manafort's guilty plea related to foreign lobbying and witness tampering. But Jackson ordered a portion to be served concurrently with a 47-month sentence meted out last Thursday in Virginia, meaning Manafort has 81 months left to serve behind bars. Manafort was credited with nine months time served, bringing the former Trump campaign chairman’s overall sentence to 7 1/2 years.
Minutes after he was sentenced, the Manhattan District Attorney unveiled a 16-count indictment against Manafort related to a mortgage fraud scheme.
So, do you think Trump will pardon him (for his federal crimes)?I don't think Pres. Trump will pardon him. I don't see an upside for doing it.
GAHi, islandbites, whether Trump pardons him or not is not my business. But I care. 71/2 behind bars is too much for an old man. Recently, I read in my local newspapers that an 80 years old man who abuse a teenager sexually for was very much pardon by the Britsh judge, because he has other bodily issues to be taken care of like high blood pressure. Thank you.
I know many individuals who are less wealthy get a lot more time for doing a lot less wrong in the US. I've never heard of anyone in these parts get a sentence that much below the sentencing guidelines.
Of course, in Indiana, if you're Jim Irsay, the owner of the Colts, you do what you want without fear of repercussions from the law. If you're poor, you get the shaft one way or the other, whether 9 or 99.Yep, I've seen the same thing. In America, wealth = justice.
If you have doubts, just get a "court-appointed attorney" who will spend 5 minutes on your case.Yup, wealth does equal justice. I had an attorney straight up tell me he could make things go away for about $30,000 cash. This is really common knowledge though.
Welcome to the real world. This is not a U.S. franchise.
GAI think the richer and more powerful a person in America is, he can get away with the law? Thanks.
I'm sure this is not exclusive to the US and has likely been this way, to some degree, since courts existed. However, that doesn't mean the plebes should just unquestioningly take it with no lube. Ah, that big money privilege. But, don't tax them...that's stealing, lol.
Hello, hard sun, I agreed with you. Here in Nigeria where courts also exist, the richer a person is, the more justice is perverted. The rich particularly political class are "gods." Here where one steal public money or engaged in corruption like Manafort, the law becomes an ass!
The campaign to fight corruption is not yielding a significant result with the current government. The most corrupt are within the presidential fold or APC Government: governors, Senators, Legislator, and soon.
Thank you, and have a great day.I agree hard sun, we shouldn't just "take it." But it is a battle we will always have to fight.
However, I do think your "tax them" point is one of envy, not justice,
GAAgreed on all but envy. I'm more than fine with where I'm at, and I learned years ago happiness is a state of mind, no matter income levels. But, that doesn't mean I think a select few should take, take, take and not give.
Fair taxation in a capitalist society is inescapable from "fighting" as you put it. If we let them convince us it's envy...it makes their job all the easier. I'll do my job. We cannot fight for justice without fighting for fair taxation.We have had plenty of these "fair taxation" discussions Hard sun, so no need to start another one.
But I can't resist saying that so far no one has defined what a fair tax share is, but everyone can define what it isn't. Must be like porn; can't define it, but we all know it when we see it.
GAIt is easier to define what isn't fair. As with most human endeavors, taxation is awash with shades of grey. But, that doesn't mean we cannot determine one side of the spectrum from another and work toward moving things to the center, even if the precise center is not yet clear. This is how we advance in both "hard" and "soft" sciences. The upper class is certain to have its views on taxation. Should we not acknowledge that this view is likely far from center? The lower classes simply should defer taxation decisions to the wealthy?
This is how the Sun-centered solar system "theory" became the clear center. Progress is never easy, but it never stops.
I likely stole that last line from someone, but it seems fitting, lol.Cute ending hard sun, but I think it is misplaced. If another "fair share" tax thread pops up we can further develop your thought about how one reaches an understanding of meeting in the middle.
GAI think I'm 100% on target, cute or not
Social science and physical science arrive at findings in the same way, and government is a social science.
Exactly how is it misplaced?
"If another "fair share" tax thread pops up we can further develop your thought about how one reaches an understanding of meeting in the middle."
My answer is simple on that one. The same way people find the middle on anything.
We bring together the best, most educated minds on the matter, looking at what works best elsewhere, and determine how to best tweak things before and after any changes..this way we work toward that balance. This is the same thing for healthcare. Societies with better-functioning governments without anti-intellectual strains accomplish these goals the best. No one has THE answer on taxes, and that's a good place to start.
This is what good governance is...something we sorely need.I think your analogy is misplaced because of the issue being addressed.
I see your "social science," (government), and "physical science," (real and hard economic numbers), as similar to oil and water. They won't mix, which means a "middle" won't be a fixed point, (or a set determinable value).
Just for this point, set aside any considerations of outright tax fraud, and wealth-enabled tax law abuse.
Today, (hypothetical "today"), the social science of government says we need "X" revenue to meet spending goals. The physical science of hard economic numbers does the calculations and comes up with a table of progressive tax rates to generate that revenue. That is your "middle."
Let's also say the progressive rates in the table--whatever the numbers might be--were equitably determined, (by the best minds of both sciences), by balancing the needs of the government, (social science), against the "physical science" of hard economic numbers. That would make the achieved "middle" a fair-share tax table.
Do you agree with that? Is that a fair display of what you meant as a way to find a "meeting in the middle?"
Now apply what we see year after year; the goal posts are moved. New social science data, (new government programs), is injected into the discussion, but there is no new physical science data--so now the equation is imbalanced. The middle has moved. Additional revenue is demanded, but there is no source to meet that demand.
Increase the tax rate on the rich is the typical solution demanded. They must pay a fair share of taxes. But last year, (hypothetically), they were paying an agreed upon fair share, why are they no longer paying a fair share.
We know that happens hard sun. Do you still think your analogy fits the issue?
GANo, I don't agree with much of anything there GA. My main point is extremes are not good. I'm not a taxation specialist. The underclass fights for the upper class to pay more, while the upper class does the opposite. If the underclass is duped into thinking the upper class always deserves to pay less, there's no balance. What I'm saying is not that complicated.
There is hard data with social science.I can agree that extremes are not good hard sun.
As to the rest, it must have been your reference to "fair taxation" that threw me off your point about finding a "middle" meeting point of faieness.
It wasn't my intention to support "duping" the lower class, or claim the rich should pay less.
If a fair taxation middle ground has been found, (or could ever be found), why would the lower class always have to fight for the rich to pay more?
I think the answer to that is that the lower class will never agree on a "fair share" taxation point because there will always be a demand for more--and only one place to get it.
GAI must not be explaining myself real clearly here.
"If a fair taxation middle ground has been found, (or could ever be found), why would the lower class always have to fight for the rich to pay more?"
The point is, there will be no balance if the lower classes don't fight for "fair" taxation as we know the upper class will fight for what it feels is fair.
"If a fair taxation middle ground has been found, (or could ever be found), why would the lower class always have to fight for the rich to pay more?"
I think the answer here is obvious. A middle ground hasn't been found, and if one is found, both sides will have to continue to fight to maintain that middle ground. Why should the lower classes agree to a "fair share" until the upper classes do? Neither is going to, thus we must maintain balance by both sides fighting for themselves.
If the lower classes don't fight...they are being duped. Right now, we have middle and lower class Americans fighting for the rights of the uber rich...this is considered "conservative." I call it being hoodwinked.
We could just as easily say "there will always be a demand for less from the upper class."We could just as easily say "there will always be a demand for less from the upper class."
It is just my opinion hard sun, but I don't think that statement is as true as it's opposite is.
There is a large school of economists and taxation scholars that say there is a maximum productive tax rate. If that is true, (and tax history seems to confirm it), that is your sciences finding the "middle."
It is beyond that "middle" rate, where higher rates become unproductive and produce less revenue that I think your quoted statement would be true.
If we could name that top productive rate--the one that is most productive and least fought against by the wealthy--the "fair share" tax rate, then the rich, (in general, not the fringes), would not be fighting for fewer taxes. And the lower class should be able to accept that as a fair share. Do disagree with that?
But I would guess that scenario would only last for one election cycle. Then the Liberals would go vote hunting with more free programs, (requiring more revenue), and the Conservatives would go vote-hunting with more tax reduction proposals, (potentially reducing revenues). And boom! there goes the "fair share" tax number. Now the lower class is demanding they pay more and the wealthy think the increase is more than a fair share and want less.
Which is why my original question to you was what you think a fair share is.
GA"We could just as easily say "there will always be a demand for less from the upper class."
It is just my opinion hard sun, but I don't think that statement is as true as it's opposite is.
There is a large school of economists and taxation scholars that say there is a maximum productive tax rate. If that is true, (and tax history seems to confirm it), that is your sciences finding the "middle."
It is beyond that "middle" rate, where higher rates become unproductive and produce less revenue that I think your quoted statement would be true.
If we could name that top productive rate--the one that is most productive and least fought against by the wealthy--the "fair share" tax rate, then the rich, (in general, not the fringes), would not be fighting for fewer taxes. And the lower class should be able to accept that as a fair share. Do disagree with that?
But I would guess that scenario would only last for one election cycle. Then the Liberals would go vote hunting with more free programs, (requiring more revenue), and the Conservatives would go vote-hunting with more tax reduction proposals, (potentially reducing revenues). And boom! there goes the "fair share" tax number. Now the lower class is demanding they pay more and the wealthy think the increase is more than a fair share and want less.
Which is why my original question to you was what you think a fair share is.
The bottom line is that I think the lower classes idea of the wealthy's fair share will be whatever it takes to pay for their support. Which makes the statement that it is a battle we will always have to fight very true. No one is being duped.
GA"The bottom line is that I think the lower classes idea of the wealthy's fair share will be whatever it takes to pay for their support. Which makes the statement that it is a battle we will always have to fight very true."
This appears all too true, for there does not seem to be an end to the growth of entitlements (in this country, at least).
Taxation isn't just a tool to satisfy envy or increase government revenue. It's also a tool to manage social order.
Excessive wealth creates injustice such as our current court and political systems, both of which are getting worse.
It's also economically damaging by supressing lower-class incomes and wasting resources on billion-dollar homes and yachts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconn … 651ee9f10b
Capitalism is good, but only to a point.Hi, Promisem, "Excessive wealth creates injustice such as our current court and political systems, both of which are getting worse." You are correct. Unequal distribution of the wealth of the nation is the cause. The judges are human and they want to get what the politicians are getting too, without considerationfor the very unfortunates. That is not fair to the larger populace. Thank you.
You packed several points in there promisem. A couple of which I strongly disagree with.
I think using taxation as a tool for managing social order is wrong.
I agree that excessive wealth can, (and does), cause the harm you mentioned, but I think the cause is human nature, the wealth is only the tool. Physical might can, (and does), cause the same harms. The answer isn't controlling excessive wealth, it is controlling the use of the tool.
The biggest point I would argue with is; : "...wasting resources on billion-dollar homes and yachts."
That comment is nothing more than a personal judgment of scale. Everyone's "resource" is their earning power. If your earning power resource enabled you to take a vacation, is that "wasting resources?"
GA"It is controlling the use of the tool."
If that's the case, we are managing social order.
There is no such thing as earning power. There only is effort, luck, manipulation and market distortions.
Likewise, I don't see how you can equate a $700 getaway to the beach with a $1 billion home.I agree, controlling the use of the tool is managing social order, but it should be done with laws, not taxation.
You seem firm on your thought about earning power not being a resource, so I will just disagree and move on.
As for equating that beach vacation to the billion dollar home, it is as I said - just a matter of scale.
What if your $700 beach vacation were a $7000 Hawaii vacation, do you think the scale would be viewed the same by someone that could not afford a $70 day-trip vacation?
So, if you eliminate the judgment of scale, then is any resource expenditure a waste of resources?
That $70 day-tripper would probably think you don't need that $7000 Hawaii trip, so would their thought about wasting resources be as valid as yours?
GAI have a question.
How many jobs do wealthy people create when compared to poor people? Should consideration be given to those who have a skill to create wealth?
Again, how many poor people employ as many as wealthy people?
How many average to poor people have become wealthy from their hard work and determination? It can only happen like this in a capitalistic society.
Greedy capitalists are what has given the world everything from the light bulb, to the home computer, cell phones and more.
Don't obsess over what people have as much as what they've done. Look at all the innovations given to the world by Apple Computers, Microsoft and others.
"It's also economically damaging by...wasting resources on billion-dollar homes and yachts."
And there, in a nutshell, is the biggest divide between conservatives and liberals. Liberals are convinced, beyond any doubt, that they know better than the owner how wealth should be spent, and will take whatever steps they deem necessary to force that spending into the "right" channels. Whether it is what the owner wishes or not is irrelevant - the liberal knows what is best and actual ownership means nothing.
(Sorry that I'm off topic, but this struck a nerve - spending what we has earned as we wish to is unacceptable; it must be spent as the politicians wish or is wasted.)
In the U.S. sometimes fresh-caught elderly criminals are let off prison time because it would cost the state or the federal government (whichever applies) too much money to be responsible for their medical upkeep. That has nothing to do with humanitarian reasons.
In some US prisons they just let the elderly lay in bed and die. Of course, that isn't likely with a prisoner who has wealthy friends and family.
Hi, hard sun, ah ah ah! eh eh eh! "Of course, that isn't likely with a prisoner who has wealthy friends and family." How correct you are. In my country Nigeria, a wealthy man presently does not goes to prison. Recently, a Senator who falsely declared his educational qualification, and was supposed to serve imprisonment, is being awarded FIVE BILLION in local currency for damage. Thank you.
That's an insane amount of money to give someone even if they are falsely accused! It is sad that such practices seem so universal. For reasons such as this, I think the underclasses should fight for policies that contribute to the betterment of its welfare. Of course, what those policies are, is debatable. However, in the US, prison and justice reform should be high on the list for the lower classes in my opinion. We need to vote in those who understand these things. The upper classes will certainly take advantage of what they can.
Hello, hard sun, you know the minds of the people who do not think for themselves. This is not to say that they can not think and reason. For reasons better known to them such as monetary endorsement, these allowed their minds to be bought by the politicians and wealthy persons.
With the small monetary gift received, they think the wealthy class will do the rest for them. Though these are always disappointed, they still go on the same path.
So, if policies are going to be formulated, it will be done by the politician! Is the GND a plan of the general public or the government? Will, the government implements health, education, job, benefits in the pact?
Voting those who understand these things into power can be derailed at times. Look at why President Trump to power. Is he performing his promises or his he double speaking? Thank you.
Guys, what does all this have to do with Manafort? Just curious.
Nothing, but in my defense, I did try, (weakly?), to steer away from it. ;-)
GAHi, GA, ah ah ah! Eh eh eh! You make me chuckle. I am a very light-hearted person, and your words "nothing" make me very light! And now, know this: I am still jingling! Thank you, and have a great weekend.
Hi, MizBejabbers, don't play silly. With all the serious discussions going on, but you're much welcomed. Good day.
Related Discussions
- 3501
Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 246
President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 4 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 17
John Durham Indicts Second Operative InTrump Russian Probe
by Sharlee 4 months ago
In May 2019, Attorney General William Barr tapped Connecticut’s U.S. Attorney John Durham to look into issues related to the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. Durham is a longtime federal prosecutor in Connecticut known for leading organized crime and public corruption cases.Aug 2020...