posted by O-Trap

But you can't tax someone's income if they're undocumented.

Unless they're paid illegally under the table, you probably take more taxes from undocumented workers.  If they don't file taxes, they aren't collecting numerous credits that would result in a refund of some of the taxes withheld by the employer.  Most of their taxes are otherwise FICA, which is, again, withheld (supposedly 3/4 of illegal workers have payroll taxes withheld).

I couldn't tell you how many illegals file taxes.  But many have fraudulent/fake/duplicate social security numbers, so they may be filing taxes.  I don't know, but I'm guessing it may be more of a red flag for them not to file since otherwise there's a W2 with no matching tax return every year.

Actually, I'd think most illegals do file (if they have a social security) to avoid the red flags AND to get that refund.  Except just like welfare leeches know every trick, illegals would probably school us on taxes....they probably know the max number of exemptions to claim without raising flags to minimize their withholding.

posted by gut

Unless they're paid illegally under the table, you probably take more taxes from undocumented workers.  If they don't file taxes, they aren't collecting numerous credits that would result in a refund of some of the taxes withheld by the employer.  Most of their taxes are otherwise FICA, which is, again, withheld (supposedly 3/4 of illegal workers have payroll taxes withheld).

I couldn't tell you how many illegals file taxes.  But many have fraudulent/fake/duplicate social security numbers, so they may be filing taxes.  I don't know, but I'm guessing it may be more of a red flag for them not to file since otherwise there's a W2 with no matching tax return every year.

Actually, I'd think most illegals do file (if they have a social security) to avoid the red flags AND to get that refund.  Except just like welfare leeches know every trick, illegals would probably school us on taxes....they probably know the max number of exemptions to claim without raising flags to minimize their withholding.

Functionally, this is probably accurate, but do you think the average Democrat in today's political milieu is thinking about it at this level?  They tend to view paying taxes toward the plethora of public programs and initiatives as one's civic duty, full stop.

posted by O-Trap

...but do you think the average Democrat in today's political milieu is thinking about it at this level? 

I think they see them as a potential bloc of dependent voters.  Not a lot of revenue to be had there.

Now I don't think a lot of our politicians are as dumb as they seem, but you're average progressive voter seems to believe taxing the rich solves everything.

posted by gut

I think they see them as a potential bloc of dependent voters.  Not a lot of revenue to be had there.

Now I don't think a lot of our politicians are as dumb as they seem, but you're average progressive voter seems to believe taxing the rich solves everything.

Well, it seems like they believe that's something that isn't being done now, and they try to use corporate taxes as an example (which is obviously dumb), but it seems like most of them believe paying taxes is a civic duty for any and all who can.  That whole "fair share" thing, which is arbitrary bollocks.

Yeah, I didn't mean politicians.  I'm convinced they know better and probably don't care.  I was more referring to your average blue NPC.

So an activist complained that Macy's was selling fat-shaming plates. Macy's ended up pulling them.

I actually think they're "cute" and funny. Not a motif that I would want in my kitchen but still.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1153851610675552256

I got a laugh out of this this morning 

Can’t wait for all the Mueller hot takes today

posted by iclfan2

Can’t wait for all the Mueller hot takes today

I largely expect Muller to say absolutely nothing new. He will basically just read his report. Which, I think is the point. But, if people think he will say something new, they will be disappointed. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I largely expect Muller to say absolutely nothing new. He will basically just read his report. Which, I think is the point. But, if people think he will say something new, they will be disappointed. 

Oh I fully agree. There was no point to have him in. If he looks bad (which it appears to be so far), there was no benefit for the left. 

Uh oh Hank Johnson is questioning Mueller.

He is worried the White House could tip over and capsize.

I agree with this 

Imagine writing a report for 2 years, having months to prepare for a hearing since releasing said report, and then constantly asking for citations of your own report.  

posted by geeblock

I agree with this 

I will actually agree with gblock for once.  I would also add that nobody will give a fuck about this hearing in 2020. 

posted by like_that

Imagine writing a report for 2 years, having months to prepare for a hearing since releasing said report, and then constantly asking for citations of your own report.  

If they all already have the report, and read it, then what questions do they even have? It’s a clown show. The left wing media with obsess that Mueller said he doesn’t fully exonerate trump (which doesn’t even make sense) and the right wing media will obsess with how stupid Mueller sounds. 

LOL, Mueller doesn't know anything and can't remember what he did know.

So basically "12 angry Democrats" wrote a smear piece.  And an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct investigation of a non-crime is a crime, but obstructing a duly elected President with a sham investigation is not?

So, Repubs and Dems keep attempting to put words in Mueller's mouth, and every key "gotchya" moment Mueller says he disagrees with the characterization.

Rep. Lieu(?) goes thru what he says are the 3 elements of obstruction.  All outlined in his report.  Mueller says Trump is not indicted because of OLC opinion.  Then Mueller adds "but I disagree with what you're atttempting to prove".  Which sounds a lot like a Clinton type deal = probable cause, but unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (nevermind no discussion over whether no underlying crime matters).

Then some Repub asks about the link between Russian troll farms and the Russian govt.  Says Mueller was excoriated by a judge for failing to present evidence, and then had a press conference the next day changing their language.  Did the judge force you to publicly re-cant the claim over threat of contempt?   Mueller: "No".  The rep was literally staggered by the response.

Dems working hard on setting up a obstruction case......pubs heavy on discrediting the report because Mueller is a political hack.

This has been exactly as expected. But, I have gotten two things out of today, so far. 

Mueller reinforcing the report did not exonerate Trump and the opening of the door that charges could be brought up to Trump once he leaves office.   

On that second point, I highly doubt that happens as that would be historic, for a sitting President to charge the opponent, the ex-President.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

On that second point, I highly doubt that happens as that would be historic, for a sitting President to charge the opponent, the ex-President.

A politically-motivated prosecution of a former POTUS would be bad for the country.  Attempting to convict a POTUS for trying, but failing, to obstruct an underlying investigation which determined he committed no crime.  Sure sounds like non-criminal interference over a non-crime, to me.

Remember the old joke about "you can indict a ham sandwich"?  Mueller fairly plainly said he can't prove a crime [which is actually the standard a prosecutor operates under].

posted by CenterBHSFan

So an activist complained that Macy's was selling fat-shaming plates. Macy's ended up pulling them.

I actually think they're "cute" and funny. Not a motif that I would want in my kitchen but still.

Let's be honest.  This could be useful for some.

Whoever is upset by this is trifling.

posted by O-Trap

Let's be honest.  This could be useful for some.

Whoever is upset by this is trifling.

 

I'm pretty good at stacking a lot of food on small plates.   Their design is flawed. 

posted by fish82

posted by gut

A politically-motivated prosecution of a former POTUS would be bad for the country.  Attempting to convict a POTUS for trying, but failing, to obstruct an underlying investigation which determined he committed no crime.  Sure sounds like non-criminal interference over a non-crime, to me.

Remember the old joke about "you can indict a ham sandwich"?  Mueller fairly plainly said he can't prove a crime [which is actually the standard a prosecutor operates under].

Yes. I agree on your first part, and I differ on the second part, but it does not matter. 

Each side, D and R got what they wanted out of the hearing. 

posted by like_that

I'm pretty good at stacking a lot of food on small plates.   Their design is flawed. 

Same. 

I thought the plates were funny, so did my wife actually.  The people that complained need to lighten up.