Whether you believe "Trickle Down" or not, the impact on very small businesses (250K to $2 mil) is much more direct than hitting Microsoft or Coca Cola. Many of the 250-$1 mil businesses are in the services industry - things like landscaping, catering, plumbing, flooring, real estate and the like. If you add a 40-50K tax to those businesses, chances are it will cost a real job. They don't have the expenses to say "Well, we'll just stop having lunches at Ruth's Chris" and make up that 50K. They often run on credit and barely survive as it is. What many would do is layoff one person and reduce their potential workload accordingly - they just don't have many other options.

You are correct. If he is paying $176, I'd wager the employer is picking up the other 75%. That means his bill is most likely $700 a month as benefits a company pays are an extension of your salary.

My point was the cost to actual people given the coverage. Obviously, there's a bigger cost to businesses - but that won't change under Obama. Either business will cover people or (what most smaller businesses will choose) they will pay for the right not to cover people. That expense will be there under either system (only the much larger companies will save under the newer system) - the point is the cost to the actual insured family is fairly low in our current system. And that's the cost that many seem to be referencing in this debate.

A small business owner who is taking home over $500k in income is not living on credit and barely surviving.

As I said, employers are based on value to the company. Take a real simplified approach and say you hired 10 salesman for $40k each. They each bring in $50k in profit through sales and thus each one is worth $10k apiece to the company. If you lost $40k overnight, firing one of your employees would in fact cost you more money as you'd not just be cutting the employer salary, but the value they added to the company.

Most service small business fall in the 250 to 750K range and many are extremely leveraged. They employ 3-5 people (most in hourly situations) and have a high percentage of their money invested in the business. It's not like they write a check for 500K to themselves at the end of each year.
What other choice do they have? Simply stop making phone calls? If you are a 500K business and are asked to cut 10%, that will mean a job for most people. So, in the above situation, that business will simply go from netting 100K to netting 90K and achieve the 50K needed to pay off that new expense.

People act like small businesses have this massive slush fund they can hit every time a new tax comes in. The reality is that tough decisions need to be made when that happens and it usually comes down to:

1. letting go an employee and reducing potential production.
2. Dropping a vendor-provided service (which could be a job impact to that company) and reducing potential production.
3. Selling off certain assets and reducing potential production.

"Pulling cash from the mattress and moving on like nothing happened" is not an option - it's a myth used by politicians who have never owned their own business. If Grey Dog Software got hit with an extra 50K a year (heck, even 25K), there would be MASSIVE changes to our company - and none good.

Arles, can you provide a link to where you found that the 5.4% tax applies to business? The only references I can find apply to individuals with those income levels.

Very well done speech (saw some clips as well). It's a shame that neither Bush's nor Obama's military system allowed for us to complete the dots on what was an obviously misguided person. My hope is that this tragedy allows us to be more open with these links (ie, less PC) in the future. There's no reason this had to happen given what was out there about Major Hasan prior to the shooting.

Money re-invested within the business would not count toward your income. If you are extremely levaraged while taking home over $500k in profits every year on your small business, you are doing something wrong. You should be paying down your debts.

What other choice do they have? Simply stop making phone calls? If you are a 500K business and are asked to cut 10%, that will mean a job for most people. So, in the above situation, that business will simply go from netting 100K to netting 90K and achieve the 50K needed to pay off that new expense.

If your small business is making $500k in profit every year, you should have a nice nest egg set aside.

And if your company was hit with this, would you really cut out a profitable division of your company? How does that make any sense? My company runs a number of websites. The last thing I'd do if my personal income was cut would be to cut out a profitable website. That's just lowering your income even more.

So you are telling me that if you were taking home $500,000 a year in income, you would dramatically change the landscape of your company if that income went down to $475,000? Are you using Scottie Pippen's financial advisor? I'm not saying it wouldn't suck, but why would you make the problem worse by cutting out profitable parts of your company?

After the past election (specifically, all of the "Joe the Plumber" talk), I am convinced that a majority of Americans do not realize this.

The reality is that many people with businesses under $1 million file much of that income on their individual returns. Here's a good breakdown:

Chart: How 5.4% Surtax Hits Small Business, State by State | Fix Health Care Policy

For those who don't want to go into the above link (or can't at work), 1,222,000 small businesses will be impacted by the 5.4% tax in the US. What really worries me, though, is that that 500K isn't indexed for inflation. 5-6 years down the road (given the level of inflation we should expect in this climate), that number could be doubled.

I'm a little leery of the validity of those numbers, when the source for their chart is "Source: Calculations using Heritage income tax model and IRS tax data, estimates rounded." The Heritage Foundation was one of the main architects of Reaganomics, and their tax model is going to be heavily skewed towards a supply side model.

Some of the more profitable companies are extremely leveraged in real estate, investments or other costs associated with business growth. There's a limit to what can be deducted and much of their revenue ends up on a tax
sheet. So, yes, they could opt for option 3 from above and sell some assets - but that's not without a cost to their business (often more painful than letting go an employee).

Even if that's the case, why use that to pay a revolving 50K debt? In 2-3 years, that nest egg will be gone. You have to reduce expenses or increase revenue to pay it consistently and that's where assets and jobs come in.

Of course not, but you may remove an employee and work on that website yourself. Often what happens is that the business owner simply takes more work on themselves in these situations. So, if I employed 4 people to do catering and went out on 2-3 jobs a week myself, the best course may be for me to employ just 3 people and go out on 5-6 jobs a week myself to make up for it. Other may decide to let the one person go and do just 4 jobs a week instead of 5.

What I am saying is that if I employed 4-5 people in some type of services business, I would probably look at reducing that number by 1 before I started "using my nest egg" or depleting the companies reserves to pay for a new yearly cost. It could also be that I don't use a certain vendor service and overwork my employees to cover that (or do it myself).

I'm not saying it wouldn't suck, but I could probably get by with one fewer person on a 500K business as opposed to eating a 50K expense with no additional revenue.

Arles: Talk to your wife. First, 500k in revenue isn't 500k in profit. Second, the tax only applies to taxable income past 500k. 500k in taxable income does not mean you'd pay 5.4% on every dollar from 1 to 500k.

As of 2008, there were around 24 million small businesses in the US. 4% would amount to around 960K. So, your source says about 960K, mine says 1.2+ mil. Let's just meet close to the middle and say 1 million small businesses will be impacted. Sound fair? ;)

Here's a good article on my non-index for inflation fear:

Health-Care Bill Doesn't Index for Inflation; Hits Young and Rising Middle Class Hard - WSJ.com

At the end of the day, my point here is that you have all these costs that are being unloaded on small to medium sized business and higher rate individuals for a system that probably won't improve the cost or quality of care to nearly every person out there who has employer provided PPO coverage.

Seems like a lot of money for a minimal return - especially when much less expensive actions could be taken to target those who need better insurance options (but done within our current system).

If you want to talk deception, I would say to start with your 4% source. The 1 million impacted is only 4% of the total small businesses. But, 19.5 million business don't employ people. So, if you make the assumption that business that employ people tend to make more money than whose who don't - the number is closer to 20% (1 mil in the remaining 4-5 million).

Does 20% count as "many" to you?

--EDIT, the numbers I was using was from a 2004 business census, not 2008. So, it probably is a lot closer to the 1.2 million number above.

A serious question. You claim to support providing coverage for the uninsured. How would you fund it? The overwhelming portion of the money in the House bill is for covering the uninsured, how do you do that without somehow coming up with the money to pay for it?

I think that focusing on providing subsidies, tax credit or even just tax deductions (esp for self employed) to people in the following situations would be a good start:

1. Self employed
2. pre-existing conditions that impact insurance options
3. Making less than a certain amount of money a year

You could also go the way of giving some incentives to the individual/family and others to the insurance companies if they cover a person in the above situation (esp for the pre-existing conditions). I think there are a lot of options to be tried here that could help land the uninsured in an existing private insurance plan.

It would cost money, but nowhere near what will be needed to have the government run the whole thing.

In 2004, non-employers accounted for 3% of the total revenue generated by small businesses. That means that 97% of the revenue was generated by the 5+ million who employ people (many impacted by this tax increase).

But they still have to pay this non-indexed 5.4% - plus the additional rates on cap gains/dividends. This is going to be a hit to many small businesses who employ people. Most have investments that will now see a lower rate of return in addition to the 5.4% tax.

I have no idea what this means. I'm more than willing to get poor people "all the care I deserve" by finding ways to get them more affordable options to private insurance plans. Not start a whole new system that may end up negatively impacting people with good coverage now.

Sounds like we should probably cut that as well. You'd be hard pressed to find an area of the federal government that I am not in favor of some level of spending cuts on.

as an aside, our HR estimates that about 15-25% of the hourly employed people (min rate is around $15/hour) choose not to take our health care coverage. So, they have access to the plan I'm on (or a cheaper one with a slightly higher copay - $20 per visit instead of 10-15), and they "choose" to be uninsured.

I have a feeling this is the case for a lot of hourly people who may not even know how to sign up (or think they need to). A great start may be to focus on educating people on how to sign up for coverage and setting up some government initiatives (and even tax breaks) to encourage people with options to sign up.

I love how the bill doesn't kick in for three years.


Not a fan of the bill at all (or a lot of this adminstration/congress), but that is just me.

Arles: How do you pay for all those subsidies and credits?

The thing is, there are no options. I can speak directly to this since my Mom has them and can't get insurance. She probably has a net worth of well over a million dollars thanks to inheritance, investments, and her home value. She can afford to pay even a super high rate. There are no options, no one will take her on at any rate.

This is part of the health care debate that goes unnoticed. It's not about money for some people, it's more of a factor in just not winning the genetic lottery.

You're insane trying to argue that someone making a million a year in income is somehow magically going to have to alter his business over having to dole out a few bucks in tax. Not sure if someone mentioned it, but the tax doesn't start till $1 million if you are married.

Here's the thing. I'm against the tax. I think the rich pay way too much right now and that it's bullshit that so many don't pay a dime. I just think this trickle down scare tactics are bullshit. It's just a dumb gimmick by the party to avoid saying the truth, the rich pay too much. Just because you tax a millionaire a few percent more doesn't mean everyone is losing their job. That's especially true with small businesses where the value of an employee means much more.

Plus States can't print money, so if they implement a failed plan they have to change it, a la Tenn Care. That means there is accountability. Something lacking with every Federal Gov. plan to date.

What's amusing is that about 10 key guys are on here debating health care every day and coming to absolutely no agreement. But they are dumbfounded with politicians who are even more ideological then them can't either. It's the same political party guys! The exact same one! There is never going to be an end result that is best for the people, they don't work for the people anymore. They just differ on how they want to spend your money and what promises they can make to fool you into voting for you them again.

but if it's led by the states you end up with an unequal playing field for businesses in different states, or different offices of multistate businesses

The states idea is dumb. So I have to get a new insurance company everytime I want to go on vacation? This will make cross country road trips just dandy.

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that health care that is cheaper in one state will inspire businesses to open there? If so, isn't that part of what makes a health care model work or not work for a state? Look at California, they want to provide everything for everyone and it has bankrupted the state. That means it (California's way) does not work. What is this equal playing field garbage? Once you start diverging in philosophy and application, one way will pretty much always be superior to the other. That is how using states as laboratories works. You try many different concepts and then through natural process, best practices start to appear accross the board.

That does not make sense to me. I have health care with a provider in the state in which I reside. If I travel to California and get injured, my insurance still covers me. It can still work that way.

Amen.

You know, I was just realizing something.

The Kos Kiddies of the left are doing the exact thing that the Freepers on the right did during the two Bush administrations did (especially the latter stages to currently).

They mistook getting the centrists to go along with them as a sign that the country had shifted to their side of the ledger. They're so intent on enforcing hard-left ideological purity (there's talk about not giving to the DNCC, etcetera, to punish the ones who voted against the health care bill) that they don't realize that the pendulum has gone as far left as it's going to, and it's currently swinging back slightly to the right.

Rather then realizing that the nation governs from the center (sweeping Center-Left to Center Right, and back, really), they're thinking that the country will forever go further and further to the left to their dream nation. It's not going to happen. And all they're doing by trying to move their party hard left is make the pendulum's move to the right look worse."

posting this since it somewhat makes commentary about Fox News handling of, well, News (We get a lil Bachman Crazy in the clip too which is always fun):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Yup. I visit Kos a fair bit now, in large part to remind myself that, while the crazy Right might be louder than the crazy left, the crazy left still has a lot of crazy in it.

Under the scenario of states controlling everything, hospitals do not have to see you even in emergency situations. That is a federal law which would be void. Even if you had insurance, the hospital could be out-of-network, in which case the hospital could simply reject you.

I'd have to make sure I had insurance coverage at every hospital I traveled by on my vacation.

The partisian blogs seem to be more concerned with whining about what the other side is doing than what they can do to change things.

For good or bad I really dont read the blogs, of either side.

How is that different from now? First, ERs will always provide service (even to uninsured). But, I work one block from the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Scottsdale. My insurance doesn't cover the Mayo. So, if I go in tomorrow, they are out of network and I have to pay. I have a family friend who runs a family practice. I trust him for health issues I may have, but he isn't covered. If I see him, I'm usually paying $70-80+ for the office visit. It's worth it to me to see him 2-3 times a year, but I am paying out of pocket.

If I go on a trip to California, there's a chance a doctor/specialist/hospital won't take my insurance now.

Because the reason hospitals are required to treat you is because of a federal law that mandates it.

Because many hospitals do not like having to deal with insurance companies that are not associated with them. Without a federal law that mandates that these hospitals must see you in the event of an emergency, they would have every right to look at your insurance card on the way in and say to the ambulance "we don't deal with Blue Cross, send him to the hospital 30 miles down the road".

Maybe the answer is to leave that federal law in place and not to create a federal run health care system.

Looks like the Obama administration is finally starting to see that the frontal attack and boycott of Fox News wasn't in their best interest. Dunn has been moved to a different position and Obama has scheduled an interview with Fox News. Not sure why they wasted 4-5 weeks of resources fighting that battle only to give in and do what everyone was saying they should do in the first place.

Obama To Give Interview To Fox News

MBBF, what are your thoughts on the daily show clip above and what Fox News did in their coverage there?

and just to clarify another one of your 'Looks Like...' comments:


you may be one of the most inaccurate posters in the history of the web.

From an April 30 Politico piece on Dunn joining the White House:


From an October 19 piece on MSNBC:

There's obviously no context there, so it's tough to assess. Was the script by Hannity supposed to involve a mention of the previous rallies and was skipped due to Bachman rambling on or did they intend to manipulate the situation? I don't know and you don't either. But it makes for good humor from the 'non-news' hours as the Obama administration defines it, so I certainly understand why they showed it. If they intended to manipulate it, they got what they deserved.

Bachman is a nutball anyway. Having to listen to her was far more annoying for me personally than showing clips from multiple rallies. Her and Ed Schultz could drive me to do bad things to other people.

wow.

What's your point? As I said, Dunn was moved to a different position. Dunn's statement that you cite was pretty good spin, but doesn't address the attacks in any way, nor does it admit that they have openly said they avoid Fox News. I'm not surprised you tried to spin it in that way.

When you say Dunn moving and Obama going on Fox are signs the WH has lost a war with Fox, you're just making things up. Dunn was interim and always expected to leave that position and from the beginning of the Fox spat WH officials said they will still do Fox interviews, but will treat them as hostile opposition. Both of the points you cite to prove the WH is backing down prove no such thing.

So I'm an inaccurate poster because the Huffington Post updated their story AFTER I read it and copied the link? It's an interesting game you play, but it's not based in any form of reality. Carry on.

wow. the spin-o-rama there is amazing.

I'd agree with you now after the update at the Huffington Post. The White House is not backing down. They're not even going to do the interview after all.

There's no spin-o-rama there. If you watch the news or other shows where situations are taken out of context, it's easy to see that could happen.

And I did say that if they truly did intend to manipulate it, that they got what they deserve, which is exactly what Flasch and you believed. We're no different in that assessment assuming it's correct.

Missed your last sentence. Still...not sure how there needs to be anymore context to it. There is audio so you can hear what is being said...if it was truly something as convoluted as "well bachman talked too much so they couldn't get in there that it was pictures from a different rally that they were showing" then the production folks ought to all be fired for doing such a shitty job of time-managing and not making sure to find the time in the program to make taht clear. but i think that's probably a one-in-a-million shot that that is what happened, don't you?

they had plenty of time to talk and lay graphics over the video clips...in fact they did. and now they've been called out on it i fully expect them to come out with some lameass excuse about technical errors or something like that, but i 100% believe they were trying to put one over on people

Edit that to 4 guys.

For the record, this clip was aired in the 'non-news' hours as noted by the current administration, so you shouldn't take it seriously anyway. :)

You think if states were open to compete with each other for health insurance plans, the federal law requiring ERs to treat people would go away? That's a pretty big leap.

I'm guessing that any move to open up health insurance to state-to-state competition wouldn't impact the current law requiring ERs to treat patients independent of insurances. The outcry if that got repealed would be worse than anything this government has seen in a long time. Plus, it doesn't make sense.

There's no reason to think that law will go away. You can have a federal oversight law for ER treatment and still have state-to-state competition for insurance plans. Why do you think that law would go away? Seems like a pretty big scarecrow argument to me.

BTW Flasch, here's is Hannity's response. Basically states that they made an honest mistake splicing in the wrong footage and thanks Jon Stewart for keeping him honest and watching the show. Thought he handled it well.

Hannity: Jon Stewart Was Right About Protest Footage (VIDEO)

dola

Interesting new article up over at the Huffington Post. It details how the mortgage bailout created by Obama has spent $27B so far and had very little effect on slowing the mortgage crisis. Also notes that an economist had laid out early on why Obama's plan would fail and accurately predicted why it was a ill-conceived approach to solving the problem.

The Economist The Obama Administration Should Have Listened To

right like when they throw the D up instead of the R....OFTEN when a congressman is caught cheating on their wife or being investigated? Sometimes there is a trend.

except that the mortgage crisis has been slowed. Whether for good, bad, turned around for good or not, Im in it and it has been slowed. Now if you want to argue that that is temporary you can but the facts are again facts.

Whether it has slowed or not is immaterial. As is noted in the story, the mortgage bailout orchestrated by the Obama administration has done little to create a slowing effect.

wow.

immaterial.

wow.

Sorry to interject this...again...but why are we even talking about things like Universal Health Care when we have fundamental economic sustainability problems in this country? I think I know the answer...but, well...crap it doesn't make me feel any better.

From what the polls have shown of late, most Americans agree with you, myself included. The exit polls from the latest elections showed that health care was a pretty distant concern compared to things like unemployment and the rising deficit.

A report today noted that the federal deficit for October 2009 was $187B.........for just one month.

Your second sentence makes me scared and the irony of the end of your last sentence will be lost on you, but go ahead and keep believing that government spending is the way to solve economic problems. Wow! (I know this will come off as really arrogant and even rude but please PLEASE read a book on economics!!!!!)

Possible topics to study: debasing the currency, malinvestment, tanstaafl, Austrian business cycle.

Spitting into the wind, Mr. panerd.

The wacky goldbug stuff is one of the reasons libertarians won't ever be more than a fringe. From Wiki:

JPhillips, you keep bringing up that strawman as if it means something. libertarian-minded economic, social and governance policies and actions can work well within the existing political structure, it just takes courage and common sense, which are lacking.

The Austrian Theory has been so thoroughly discredited that believing getting rid of the Fed and going to a gold standard is the key to prosperity is akin to believing in Santa Claus.

Wow, need to read up on some history books and learn where FDR got most of his ideas. He took most of them from Hoover. What FDR did was extrapolate it to a large degree.

Plus your previous comment regarding Social Security (which was never supposed to be paid out, it was an added tax), kind of interesting to point to a fund that many think is going to go broke in the near future (15-20 years) as an example of a great government program.

Gold. You quote a Free Market Monetarist (and often times also closely associated with Libertarianism) on why Libertarians are wrong and Obama (his economic policy<-antonym->Monetarism) is right.

And to add a cherry to the top, Friedman was a HUGE opponent of the Federal Reserve and FDR's policies which is where this discussion began with Steve Bollea's post 6 or 7 posts ago.

I don't mean to sound like a dick but try a little better than a wikipedia argument against someone who has studied and read a ton on this particular branch of economics. Am I or the Austrian school necessarily right? Maybe not. But there is a little more to their theory than what Wikipedia says under "criticisms". Try reading the book "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?" by Richard Maybury sometime. It is a great introduction into the world history of government meddling versus free market economies. I will warn you it isn't real dry like most economic books tend to be and it will probably scare the hell out of you how profoundly right it probably is. It concludes there isn’t much history to support the meddling theory ever playing out.

I hear you. My only hope is that I once battled on whether I was a liberal or a conservative and then realized I want people (ie the government) to just stay the fuck out of my life and my business. And then I was pointed to a group of people who support both conservative economic issues and liberal social issues. (Our civics class didn't spend a lot of time on this)

I struggle to understand how anyone can be on the other side!!! I guess they must of really loved being babysat as kids and like that people like Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and Joe Wilson will fill in as their adult babysitter seeing as they know how to run peoples' lives better than they do.

Just noticed Thomas Jefferson in your signiture. I am sure he would agree that a rapidly out of control, debt accruing, all encompassing federal government is good while a call for free markets and civil liberties is akin believing in Santa Claus.

The argument was about whether the states should control everything. I pointed out that if the states control everything, it would cause major issues since many federal laws make it easier to go state to state for health care. It seems like you are agreeing with me as you are pointing out that the federal law would need to remain in place.

What are we arguing about here? You are making my point for me.

In regards to the insurance talk, I thought I would share this somewhere and this seems like a decent place:

My wife developed a rare illness while she was pregnant with our son and he was born 10-weeks early. He is home and doing pretty well now, but he had to stay in the Newborn ICU for close to 40-days. We had gotten some scattered bills here and there for a few hundred dollars, but we got the big one for the NICU stay today. We had been dreading receiving it because we had no idea how much it would cost or how much our insurance would cover.

It was for a little over $98,000. The insurance company reduced it down to $2,800 and change and our co-pay was $5.00. I'm really glad that it was covered and it isn't going to severely set us back financially, but it is hard to believe that they would accept that little. I'm guessing that would barely cover a few days of salaries for the nurses that took care of him.

I'm not making any type of policy statement about it. I'd just love to know the inner-workings of how insurance reductions work.

What's the cap for FICA earnings? 75K? 100K? So A-rod and LeBron aren't going to get any of this money that you are taxing over this amount when they retire? Somehow in the super liberal world this all makes sense. What would be your reason for like 25% of all households having zero tax liabaility? Isn't that more of a crime than LeBron and A-Rod (your words, substitute Bloomberg or Jobs if it makes your feel better) already shouldering?

Guess what? Teachers don't pay FICA tax. (And I am a teacher so I greatly benefit from this) Wonder if the Democrats would go after teachers where they could EASILY get this money? (Go ahead and answer with some BS about how they don't get any social security either and I will go back to my first question about LeBron and A-Rod. Those two wouldn't benefit from your plan) Nah, let them continue their assault on the rich, won't piss off their voters. (Though I would guess this is just one of your proposals and even the Democrats realize how silly it is)

Obama is expected to drop some programs promised in his campaign and try to emphasize deficit reduction. Story notes that promises of deficit reduction by sitting presidents often end up being unsuccessful.

After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits - Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

It would be great if he started some serious deficit reduction.

No way I can vote for him(or any of my congressmen) if he ignores the issue or puts it on the back burner.

dola, I know Obama has a say, but isn't it up to congress to stop appropriating money and start raising revenue?

Just as an aside, Maybury's books are very interesting reading. He is strong anti-government, but his points and explanations are presented very well. I'd also recommend "Are you Liberal or Conservative? Or Confused?". I think many on this forum would enjoy it (whether or not they agree with each point).

It does sound like we are on the page when it comes to some high-level federal guidelines. However, my point was that fear of not being given out of state care is not a legitimate criticism to opening states to competition on health care insurance.

I don't really see a downside to opening up state-to-state competition (assuming some very basic federal mandates like above).

Kudos to Obama if he does try to reduce the deficit. But like MBBF has said while everyone is whining aobut the government out of control, history shows that those who attempt to fix it fail. They start taking away peoples' free lunches, the people get pissed, and very quickly they go back to their wasteful spending ways. So I am torn. I would love for fiscal responsibility but know the reality of thousands of years of governments and don't expect it to last long.

So KSM is getting a "civilian trial" in New York.

One of two things is true:

1. KSM is a prosecutor screw-up or creative jury decision away from being a free man

Or (much more likely)

2. It's a sham, meaningless trial

Yeah, no matter how you slice, this is a mockery of our judicial system.

I know its been rehashed to death here, but the whole point of a civilian American trial is that we're OK with criminals going free. We have decided that justice requires that, and pretty much everyone is on board and accepts that. So it's just not a place for terrorists and war criminals and national security risks. One, that risk isn't acceptable for them, and two, putting them in there without that risk does make a mockery of our system. I mean, imagine a jury trial where even if the defendant is acquitted, he's still punished for the crime. That's what this is, at best. (At worst, make he could get a fluke aquittal and move down to Greenwich Village, get some roomates, get into the punk scene)

my solution: eat the rich

Yeah, what I meant above is that either he gets convicted in a court where he had no chance of a fair trial (I'm sure this jury will have no biases against him) or he gets off on a technicality and ends up like Molson said. It's just a joke on all fronts.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how KSM and the other accused could possibly get a fair trial in New York City. AG Holder said today they'll be tried "just blocks" from the WTC site.

I remember when Tim McVeigh's trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver because the judge thought it was impossible for McVeigh and Nichols to get a fair trial in OKC. I'm afraid if the trial does take place in NYC that it will immediately give KSM an issue to raise on appeal.

Seems like a slippery slope. Are you saying we should not try people who are obviously guilty because they might get off?

Not American civilians, certainly. Domestic criminals who are "obviously" guilty might get off, and that's fine, that's our system. Guilty people are acquitted all the time, we err on the side of doing that/not charging people to begin with.

"Suspected" war criminals/terrorists should be tried too, just not in civilian courts. Military tribunals with a relaxed standard of proof and rules of evidence is more appropriate. An "obviously guilty" terrorist should not be set free, even if a rougue civilian judge makes an adverse evidentiary ruling that compromises a case, for example. Or if a key witnesses is murdered or otherwise is unavailable, or if a jury is tainted, or if a prosecutor/investigator just makes a mistake (accidently or on purpose) that results in the suppression of necessary evidence.

But that's not even really the debate here. If a trial judge excludes all possible evidence against KSM for various reasons (not the least of which would be the torture during his confessions), and the prosecution couldn't proceed, I'm sure the U.S. would still lock him up forever for something. The trial is just a sham, and Obama is gambling on the the extreme likelihood (but not guarantee) that there will be a conviction. Then he can gloat about the civilian trials doing justice in the American way and whatnot. When of course, that civilian justice is just an illusion in this case (as it is in many criminal trials in many other countries, like Russia, - not usually here though).

Yeah, I get the political game (and that's always a shame). That being said, wasn't there the same urgency for Timothy Mc Veigh's conviction? Both were horrific terrorist acts on American soil. I understand 9/11 being an act of war, but where do we draw the line? should suspected terrorist robbing a home depot be tried in a military court?

this does not seem to be about the rights of an individual, but rather about the incompetence, negligence and ingornace of the American justice system. and that should not be the reasons for more relaxed standards.

this way thinking puts terrorist in the arena as child molesters. both are presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Is it more of a sham to put him on trial knowing you'll get a conviction or never giving him a trial in the first place?

It's more of sham to put him on a civilian trial where you know the outcome is pre-determined by the government (and not by the jury, judge, statutes, rules of evidence, or anything else that's a part of our criminal justice system) than it is to give him a fair military tribunal with processes and rules of evidence more appropriate for international terrorists and war criminals (not because they're "obviously" guilty, but because there's unique evidentiary concerns and risk that come with those "crimes", and these people are NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS)

The former is just like the Soviet Union. It's just sad to see.

I mean, we have the president and the AG coming out and saying, out loud, that he'll get "justice" in the U.S. system, just "blocks from the scene of the crime". If they said that, pre-trial about ANY other domestically-tried murderer, that would be a clear ground for appeal, and probably a bar to future prosecution. They're utilizing the prestige of their office to encourage potential jurors to vote guilty on something other than then evidence, of which we know little. But this is a special defendant. They're calling it a civilian trial, but its clearly not.

Wait, so a trial where he will certainly be found guilty but will have full ability to defend himself is MORE shameful than a trial where he will certainly be found guilty but have even less of a chance to defend himself?

Which one is which? You can design a military tribunal where he can defend himself. You can let him call witnesses, cross-examine government witnesses, present evidence.

They shameful thing is using a "civilian" trial, which means something in America, for a fraudulent trial where the outcome is pre-determined by the state. He is not a civilian. He is not an American citizen. The constitution does not apply to him.

If you want to give him a civilian trial, get behind it. Don't make it a mockery. Charge him criminally, and if the evidence is tainted, if the prosecutor commits error during closing argument, if the jury misundertands the jury instructions, if comments by the president and AG would prevent a fair trial, set him free and bar future prosecution, just like we would an American citizen. If you're not willing to do that (which I don't believe they are), it's a sham.

It was my understanding that under a military tribunal the defendant would have significantly less access to the evidence against him.

I thought they were designing new tribunals at one point for these terrorists -the rules aren't set in stone.

I wouldn't apply full United States evidentiary caselaw, like Crawford v. Washington, but there should be some kind of process, some kind of ability to defend oneself. But ultimately the military needs to decide if he's "guilty" or not (and/or a threat to national security), and what the punishment should be. (And I don't even really think we should be in the business of "punishing" foreign terrorists in a criminal law sense - if he's dangerous, execute him or imprison him for life for that reason, and if he's not, set him free).

Fair enough. I'm not really concerned with the military vs. civilian trial, but I do feel its important that the defendant gets to defend themselves as they see fit (within historical reason, of course). I think that any trial that these guys have is bound to be a show trial, anyway.

It's a little over $100k. However, you still pay the Medicare portion (2.9%) on everything you make.

Why bother with a trial at all though? As you said, a civilian case in the United States is already pre-determined. And a military tribunal is going to be the same way.

I don't really know what way to go with this. But wouldn't a military tribunal cause issues? I mean if the case is that they are not citizens and don't have the same rights, does that mean a foreign person who shoplifts while on vacation in the U.S. has to sit before a military tribunal?

I think it depends on the severity. But, if a foreign person is charged with a terrorism-related offense - then I see no reason to afford them a civilian trial.

This.