Re: Hunter. It is one of those times when they were initially a bit confused in messaging, but they seem to have found a lane. This prosecution was the DOJ doing Biden a solid by distracting from not pursuing FARA/influence peddling BS that would implicate Joe himself.

Much BS in the prosecution, and Weiss is a cowardly fuckpig who got cowed by the screaming whackjobs in Congress. Disgraceful shit. Recommend reading emptywheel on some of the fuckery.

The guy who stole Hunter Biden's laptop is still free.

Anyway, people seem to have stopped running into my car when it's parked. Which is the criming that I have been victimized by lately.

Everyone knows only the Trump ballot line was rigged against him and only Trump's trials have been rigged against him. Trump's supporters are also victims of rigging, as long as they're currently loyal to him. Everything else in US institutions is legitimate, especially arrests, prosecutions, deportations, and getting fired for criticizing any person, organization, or ideological position allied with Trump.

It's not complicated, people!

For a less strident take on the disgraceful behavior of David Weiss, read Harry Litman here:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-06-11/hunter-joe-biden-found-guilty-conviction-trump-gun-harry-litman

The Republicans wouldn't have anything to complain about if it weren't for the fact that inflation is still through the roof.

I think they are still complaining about video games with female characters who don't give them an erection.

They'll still complain about crime and inflation regardless of whether they're real.

I'd be more sympathetic to their complaints about inflation if they had a realistic plan to fix it.

Requiring nipples to be visible through armor might help fight inflation.

I see that Republicans are also deeply concerned about the lack of enforcement of the various check boxes on federal firearms permit forms.

I think that, as a gesture of bipartisan good will, Biden should launch a program to audit all the forms submitted over the years and confiscate the weapons of anyone who may have fibbed.

Taxing rich people would be marvelously anti-inflationary but somehow they never want to talk about it.

I'm all for taxing rich people, but why is it particularly anti-inflationary?

I think it would lower the rate of increase of housing costs.

Speaking of crime, the recent charges of price fixing by landlords are probably very important in ways that are going to be too slow to affect the election.

For the election, what matters is that we know Hunter Biden has a bigger penis than Donald Trump.

13 - Taxing rich people would mean that thry would have less money and would reduce demand for certain goods. Whether it would reduce inglation on basic goods everybody buts I don't know.

I actually think about this in my utopia where healthcare, ling term care and childcare are funded with a payroll tax and higher marginal rates. Employees at the bottom would get more take-home pay as compared to paying premiums now without them being much more expensive as employees (assuming they get benefits) and hugh income earners, assuming it goes ip to 1 mill earned income would pay a lot more and have less money to bid ip the cost of luxury goods.

13: I'm not sure about that either. Rich people have far less propensity to spend - the poor spend 100% of their income or more, the rich save, which is why tax cuts or payouts for the poor are so much better as economic stimulus. Because you know the money will get spent and promote economic activity.

But the other side of that, I would think, is that tax cuts for the poor are actually much more inflationary.

I think they are still complaining about video games with female characters who don't give them an erection.

I was going to vote for Joe Biden but then they turned the green M&M into a lesbian.

A gay man, surely. If it was a lesbian it would be an F & F.

18: My friend, the economist at the Fed agrees. And says it's the Fed that determined the money supply.

Probably not true for the really rich, but the market for higher end housing and luxury cars might be smaller if we had a 65% marginal rate on incomes over 400k (married couple) and 80% over 2 million a year.

Even if the market on luxury items shrinks (and it's inconceivable that we'd tax the rich out of being able to afford luxury items), it definitely doesn't follow that the price of those items would go up. Or go down. Or do anything in particular, because once you're at the level of haute brand with teeny markets, the pricing scheme is set based wealth-extraction anyway.

21: If we are serious about going full MAGA -- the 1950s in most peoples' minds, I presume -- what's wrong with a 91% marginal rate that kicks in at $2 million (in 2019 $s).

PS: It kills me that it was the most Keynesian CEA evuh -- JFK's -- (including Walter Heller and James Tobin), that proposed cutting marginal tax rates from those progressive, egalitarian, levels.

23: I figured we could say it was still a tax cut compared to the Eisenhower years. Plus my payroll tax is going to be around 28% if you include social security, medicare for all, ling term care, paid family leave and universal daycare. That will be on earned income up to 1 million,