Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes!

Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes! (Page 9)
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2017, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
nothing ironic there at all.
Clarke or Gingrich?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2017, 02:00 AM
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/u...imes&smtyp=cur


Interesting implications here:
A. Pence has been firewalled from the Trump campaign. In doing so, this points to knowing Trump may have baggage.
B. Pence knew all along.

2. When Yates went to McGahn to inform him Flynn was under investigation he already knew.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2017, 02:09 AM
 
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...151149647.html
One of the Trump administration’s first decisions about the fight against the Islamic State was made by Michael Flynn weeks before he was fired – and it conformed to the wishes of Turkey, whose interests, unbeknownst to anyone in Washington, he’d been paid more than $500,000 to represent.

The decision came 10 days before Donald Trump had been sworn in as president, in a conversation with President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, who had explained the Pentagon’s plan to retake the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa with Syrian Kurdish forces whom the Pentagon considered the U.S.’s most effective military partners. Obama’s national security team had decided to ask for Trump’s sign-off, since the plan would all but certainly be executed after Trump had become president.

Flynn didn’t hesitate. According to timelines distributed by members of Congress in the weeks since, Flynn told Rice to hold off, a move that would delay the military operation for months.

If Flynn explained his answer, that’s not recorded, and it’s not known whether he consulted anyone else on the transition team before rendering his verdict. But his position was consistent with the wishes of Turkey, which had long opposed the United States partnering with the Kurdish forces – and which was his undeclared client.

Trump eventually would approve the Raqqa plan, but not until weeks after Flynn had been fired.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2017, 01:15 AM
 
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2017, 07:20 PM
 
i'm gonna need some context here
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2017, 11:52 AM
 
Other than 'New Zealand ' I don't have it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2017, 12:27 PM
 
Spotted the Secret Service dude!
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2017, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Swiggity Swooty...
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2017, 12:34 PM
 
The white dude is Tillerson? I don't think New Zealand likes him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6...filled-condoms
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2017, 10:44 AM
 
If there's an ounce off veracity to that latest politico tillerson article, good god
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2017, 12:33 PM
 
I'm waiting for leaks of people losing their shit about leaks to get old.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2017, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The white dude is Tillerson? I don't think New Zealand likes him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6...filled-condoms
A couple dozen paid activists (look at how tight those shots are) and some professionally printed banners aren't all of New Zealand. I have to say though, it's impressive how much mileage they can get for such a small amount of $$.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/treas...n-was-ceo.html
The Treasury Department has fined Exxon Mobil $2 million for violating U.S. sanctions against Russian individuals, citing actions the oil major took while Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was still serving as the company's CEO.
Great. Our current Secretary of State who has heavy input into foreign policy just watched his old company get fined for violating sanctions while he was running it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:38 PM
 
They're getting fined a whopping 0.0007% of their 2016 revenue. They lost more money between the couch cushions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They're getting fined a whopping 0.0007% of their 2016 revenue. They lost more money between the couch cushions.
The price of doing business.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2017, 10:57 PM
 
Honestly, I was going more along the lines of pinning a $2MM fine on the CEO of a conglomerate which pulled in $216B is a bit ridiculous.

Paul in the mailroom not only keeps losing shit, he's a big asshole... and the buck stops with you T-Rex.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
They're getting fined a whopping 0.0007% of their 2016 revenue. They lost more money between the couch cushions.
Yeah that's the other absurdity. I read they made something like 4 bil off it. That means the minimum fine should 4 bil.

...and yes, the CEO should get a fine for his troubles as well.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 12:26 AM
 
Maybe I'm not understanding the point.

Is the problem here State went easy on Exxon?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I'm not understanding the point.

Is the problem here State went easy on Exxon?
Oh, it's not personal. Corporate crime pays. It shouldn't. I thought that was what you were pointing out with the couch cushions comment.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 01:11 AM
 
My initial point was an action which could potentially incur a 0.0007% loss wasn't even on Tillerson's radar when he was CEO. He's got vice presidents to worry about that.

State said it was okay to deal with the company, not the individual. Exxon should get dinged four billion dollars for that?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 03:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Exxon should get dinged four billion dollars for that?
Yeah, why not? Companies need to be destroyed.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Jul 21, 2017 at 06:00 AM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 05:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My initial point was an action which could potentially incur a 0.0007% loss wasn't even on Tillerson's radar when he was CEO. He's got vice presidents to worry about that.
Even if he were CEO, if I told you that in order to be able to take advantage of a huge business opportunity, you'd have to pay a 0.0007 % tax/fine/access fee, you'd do it as it would make financial sense.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
State said it was okay to deal with the company, not the individual. Exxon should get dinged four billion dollars for that?
I think it is absurd that a company should get to keep proceeds that result from illegal behavior. Why not do it as in, say, certain liability cases where you add a punishment on top (e. g. if it cost $2 billion dollars to fix a safety flaw in a certain car, fine the car maker $3 billion so that being honest is also financially the more sensible thing to do).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yeah, why not? Companies need to be destroyed.
No, companies need to know that they cannot profit by deliberate and calculated abuse of the law.

Is that view in any way controversial? Are you claiming companies should be above any laws or fines, just in case it prevents them from making profit?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My initial point was an action which could potentially incur a 0.0007% loss wasn't even on Tillerson's radar when he was CEO. He's got vice presidents to worry about that.

State said it was okay to deal with the company, not the individual. Exxon should get dinged four billion dollars for that?
I was making up a number. Do you think a fine that is less than the money earned from violating sanctions acts as deterrent? Do you think Exxon regrets violating sanctions for 2 mil?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
No, companies need to know that they cannot profit by deliberate and calculated abuse of the law.

Is that view in any way controversial? Are you claiming companies should be above any laws or fines, just in case it prevents them from making profit?
Where does the $$ go? To pad some program somewhere that's entirely unrelated? Fining corporations like that is ridiculous, jail the corporate officers responsible instead. Big fines only induce workforce cuts, hurting the blue collar folks, whereas throwing the execs in prison for 10 years gets to the root of the problem. You think a $2B fine is going to tarnish an offending CFO's golden parachute? Hell no, those are more iron clad than a Constitutional amendment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 11:48 AM
 
It's part of the problem that a fine would come out of worker's paychecks not the offending bigwig who makes billions. Also part of the problem is corporations saying that insurance fees or whatever would put them out of business when you can see the bigwigs living large.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Where does the $$ go? To pad some program somewhere that's entirely unrelated? Fining corporations like that is ridiculous, jail the corporate officers responsible instead. Big fines only induce workforce cuts, hurting the blue collar folks, whereas throwing the execs in prison for 10 years gets to the root of the problem. You think a $2B fine is going to tarnish an offending CFO's golden parachute? Hell no, those are more iron clad than a Constitutional amendment.
For sure jail time for the CEO's and other board members should act as a deterrent. And proper jails for large amounts of time too, not country clubs for a couple of months. We all know that's never going to happen though.

The fines should be levied against the individuals as well. I don't agree that the companies should not be fined though. It's crying wolf to say that the workers will pay, the fine should match the illegal benefit. This is extra money not bottom line. It should never have been earned so it shouldn't be regarded as lost money by the company.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 08:26 PM
 
Whoopsy daisy!
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jar...ing-1500678017
Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, on Friday released a revised version of his personal financial disclosure showing his initial filing omitted dozens of assets, including commercial real estate, bonds issued by the New York water and sewer authority, a personal art collection and a New Jersey liquor license.

According to the disclosure, 77 assets were “inadvertently omitted” from Mr. Kushner’s earlier form and were added during what the form’s footnotes describe as the “ordinary review” process with the government ethics office. The updated form also provides additional information about 77 other assets, offering more detail about the structure of Mr. Kushner’s real estate assets. Mr. Kushner’s initial disclosure, released in March, hadn’t then been certified by the Office of Government Ethics.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
For sure jail time for the CEO's and other board members should act as a deterrent. And proper jails for large amounts of time too, not country clubs for a couple of months. We all know that's never going to happen though.

The fines should be levied against the individuals as well. I don't agree that the companies should not be fined though. It's crying wolf to say that the workers will pay, the fine should match the illegal benefit. This is extra money not bottom line. It should never have been earned so it shouldn't be regarded as lost money by the company.
Nope. It's not the govt's place to profit from fines, they aren't a business, and acting this way makes a govt even more predatory, leading to them fining everyone for anything. They don't deserve that money any more than the offending company. Throw the execs in prison, that will fix it all. People like that fear prison more than fines.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 09:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
It's part of the problem that a fine would come out of worker's paychecks not the offending bigwig who makes billions. Also part of the problem is corporations saying that insurance fees or whatever would put them out of business when you can see the bigwigs living large.
Workers would certainly be affected by it, but so are other workers in other companies and the public at large. Plus, if we get serious about punishing companies for crimes, eventually that will trickle down to the reimbursement packages. Perhaps laws could also be put into effect (no golden parachutes if your company was involved in shady business practices).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope. It's not the govt's place to profit from fines, they aren't a business, and acting this way makes a govt even more predatory, leading to them fining everyone for anything.
Fines aren't about the state making profit, the purpose should be to give companies a financial incentive to stick to the law. And in order to do that, the punishment has to be large enough to offset profits from illegal behavior.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They don't deserve that money any more than the offending company. Throw the execs in prison, that will fix it all. People like that fear prison more than fines.
But such people don't get sent to prison. For instance, no one got sentenced to prison time for their involvement in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But such people don't get sent to prison. For instance, no one got sentenced to prison time for their involvement in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
It's much harder to prove that people had knowledge or took specific actions when prosecuting. Unless we pass a "The Buck stops Here" law that puts the burden CEOs and executives to prove they didn't know or participate in the act, fines are the only reliable manner with which to leverage punishment for companies bad behavior.

There's a reason almost no one got punished for 2008 financial crisis.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I was making up a number. Do you think a fine that is less than the money earned from violating sanctions acts as deterrent? Do you think Exxon regrets violating sanctions for 2 mil?
I think if the sanction was against the whole company, then a fine amounting to all profits made in deals with the company is on the table.

If only a single individual is sanctioned, I think a fine amounting to all profits made in deals with the company will almost assuredly be too large.

Also note, IIUC, just getting this bunched up with State probably cost Exxon a billion dollars worth of delays.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's much harder to prove that people had knowledge or took specific actions when prosecuting. Unless we pass a "The Buck stops Here" law that puts the burden CEOs and executives to prove they didn't know or participate in the act, fines are the only reliable manner with which to leverage punishment for companies bad behavior.
Sure, that's one factor. Another is that CEOs can afford a team of top notch lawyers and often connections to politicians, and the responsibility of illegal behavior can be diffused across several layers of management. That's why I think punishing corporations is a venue that should be pursued more often, as it is much harder to deny responsibility on the company level.

Initially, managers of Volkswagen suggested that two, three engineers and their immediate boss were responsible for designing the code running on the Engine Management Unit on their diesel cars in such a way as to fake low emissions during emissions testing and exceed the legal limits in real-world conditions. In the US, some top VW managers have arrest warrants, but much to my shame, not in Germany. (Plus, “surprise, surprise”, this is in fact an industry-wide problem.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 12:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
For sure jail time for the CEO's and other board members should act as a deterrent. And proper jails for large amounts of time too, not country clubs for a couple of months. We all know that's never going to happen though.
The last sentence is key to me: focussing on pursuing cases against individuals works only if this law is applied widely and regularly. The last sentence is the reason why I don't think that will work, especially not as a sole measure.
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
The fines should be levied against the individuals as well. I don't agree that the companies should not be fined though. It's crying wolf to say that the workers will pay, the fine should match the illegal benefit. This is extra money not bottom line. It should never have been earned so it shouldn't be regarded as lost money by the company.
Agreed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Fines aren't about the state making profit, the purpose should be to give companies a financial incentive to stick to the law. And in order to do that, the punishment has to be large enough to offset profits from illegal behavior.
Then the money should just be destroyed, erased. The last thing that should happen is the gov't profiting from it, because it only gives them incentive to hit anyone for anything, just to stuff their coffers.

But such people don't get sent to prison. For instance, no one got sentenced to prison time for their involvement in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
So what? Companies don't get fined for $3B, either. I thought we were talking about theoretical ways to fix the problem?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think if the sanction was against the whole company, then a fine amounting to all profits made in deals with the company is on the table.
On the table? No. It should simply be "burned".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then the money should just be destroyed, erased. The last thing that should happen is the gov't profiting from it, because it only gives them incentive to hit anyone for anything, just to stuff their coffers.
and yet they have the power to do this now and don't. So what would motivate a change. They "could" be coffer stuffing right now. So we have the worst of both worlds.

They could be forced to dump the money into places that they can't get there hands on it. Or force the companies to pay the fine directly into educational funds. Or better yet, into their staff pension plans? With further fines if the company then reduces it's pension contributions to compensate?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 08:02 AM
 
If it's ill-gotten gains, the only way to truly handle it in an unbiased way is to erase it, if it's determined that a fine will be levied. It completely removes greed and profiteering from the equation.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 09:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
If it's ill-gotten gains, the only way to truly handle it in an unbiased way is to erase it, if it's determined that a fine will be levied. It completely removes greed and profiteering from the equation.
And how do you propose to erase money? I can't see how that works. Surely the ability to simply erase money would wreck havoc with confidence. What would there be to stop the govt simply erasing any other money of wanted to? He effects would be way worse than some notional few of coffee stuffing from fines?
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 11:20 AM
 
"Wreck <sic> havoc with confidence"? No. Not any more than turning such asset forfeiture into yet another gov't income stream. Example: Every podunk town in the USA has turned speed traps into revenue generators, and now they can't fiscally survive without them. So what happened in my state when people decided to finally slow down and obey the law, and those revenues dried up? They now randomly stop people to check for anything they can ticket a person with, and I do mean anything. It's not the cops' faults, either, if they don't earn their keep through tickets, their jobs are in jeopardy.

You don't see how a court order can be issued to delete a number? Really?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 11:29 AM
 
I think you might be inventing the capacity to delete money. It is and at the same time isn't just numbers on a computer. It's confidence in a system and trust that money is always money. If you start reaching into banks and simply deleting it then people will loose trust in the idea of money.

Your fix requires i suspect a while raft of new laws and powers that would far exceed the dangers you over state in coffer stuffing. You risk undermining the whole financial structure.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just fine the backsides off companies And sling some serious jail time around. No new laws needed just some willpower.
( Last edited by Doc HM; Jul 22, 2017 at 11:48 AM. )
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2017, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then the money should just be destroyed, erased. The last thing that should happen is the gov't profiting from it, because it only gives them incentive to hit anyone for anything, just to stuff their coffers.
Why should the money be destroyed? And why do you assume that all of that money necessarily has to go to the state? In the $14.7 billion Volkswagen settlement the majority, $10 billion, will be paid out to the owner of VW diesel vehicles, $2.7 billion for environmental cleanup and $2 billion for the promotion of electric vehicles. As far as I can tell, the US federal government doesn't get a share.

There are also situations where the federal government is the one who is damaged. In Germany, Volkswagen “volunteered” to pay the delta in the emissions taxes: Since the diesels were not as clean as claimed, they had to be re-classified and in principle the car owners would have been liable for back taxes. Volkswagen kindly offered to cover those.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
So what? Companies don't get fined for $3B, either. I thought we were talking about theoretical ways to fix the problem?
Occasionally, they are. Google was recently fined $2.7 billion (although you could again argue that this is a drop in the bucket as Google scale is so humongous). And Volkswagen has had to cough up $14.7 billion for cheating emissions tests. You can argue that it doesn't happen often enough and that often damages aren't large enough, but it does happen.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:53 PM
 
Tillerson taking time off. No stamina. Sad.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 05:30 PM
 
No, he's setting up more meetings with P'Lod regarding 2020.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 10:47 AM
 
Remember to view all of moochs actions through the lens of him being Trump in the 80s
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2017, 11:18 AM
 
I was wondering why his hands were sticky.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2017, 08:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Remember to view all of moochs actions through the lens of him being Trump in the 80s
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2017, 02:39 AM
 

White House Press Secretary Anthony Scaramucci describes "a ****ing mountain of coke" at the daily press briefing - ©2017 AP
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2017, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Tillerson taking time off. No stamina. Sad.
I read that his staff was surprised that vacations of the Secretary of State are typically announced to the press.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,