Slashdot Mirror


Putin Says Panama Papers Part of US Plot to Weaken Russia (go.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Russia President Vladimir Putin says he has no links to offshore accounts unveiled in the Panama Papers. Moreover, Putin believes that these leaks are part of Western efforts to weaken Russia. As ABC News reports, Putin criticised Western media for involving his name in offshore business even though his name didn't feature in any of the leaked documents. Speaking in St Petersburg, Putin added that it certainly seems like a US-led disinformation campaign waged against Russia. Putin also defended a cellist friend who was named as the alleged owner of an offshore company, noting that his friend is a philanthropist.People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers. As Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports, most Russians haven't heard of -- or don't care about -- the Panama Papers. The media house interviewed 30 people on the street, of which it found only 1 person thought it was wrong. (video).

207 comments

  1. in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Panama papers leak you!

    1. Re: in Soviet russia... by Quzak · · Score: 1

      Sounds kinky. Follow me to the gay bath house.

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    2. Re:in Soviet russia... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Troll

      And Russia is not the biggest loser here. They just try to gain some cheap political points because the US isn't high on the list.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:in Soviet russia... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm always amused, mind you, why autocrats always view themselves as effectively the "state", so that when some allegation is made against them, suddenly, it's all about destabilizing the "state".

      As it is, Putin's presence in the Panama Papers, so far as I understand it, is notable by his absence. Just about everyone around him is multi-zillionaires, but Putin is not to be found. The same goes for the Chinese Premier, an apparently very poor man with lots of rich relatives.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:in Soviet russia... by lgw · · Score: 0

      Putin is thought to be the richest man in the world. I suspect the rackets in the Panama Papers were too low-tier for him, not even worth his effort.

      I thought the Chinese Premier was there? Who's there that China is aggressively censoring any mention of Panama fright now?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:in Soviet russia... by Archtech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Putin is thought to be the richest man in the world.

      "is thought"??? The unattributed, anonymous passive voice? Is that honestly the best you can do?

      You are thought to be a ridiculous dork.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    6. Re:in Soviet russia... by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shouldn't you be deleting a Wikipedia article right now?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:in Soviet russia... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      That's because autocrats no longer have need of money... they speak and their will is done.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    8. Re:in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and we all know how honest Putin is, how he never lies or stretches the truth and is the very epitome of Truth!

    9. Re: in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1putin pidarasï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼ï¼

    10. Re:in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Russia is not the biggest loser here. They just try to gain some cheap political points because the US isn't high on the list.

      That's because a lot of the tax shelters and loopholes being exploited in Panama are perfectly legal in the US

      BTW, The Panama Papers leak also overshadowed this other bribery leak that also includes the global elite and many multinational corporations. www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/the-bribe-factory/day-1/the-company-that-bribed-the-world.html

    11. Re:in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which article? The bullshit one that you penned pushing 5 eyes propaganda?

    12. Re:in Soviet russia... by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Standard Kremlin responses. Accuse the opponent of undermining their political system, or of being Nazi collaborators, or preferrably both. Anything it takes to make the kleptocracy look good.

    13. Re:in Soviet russia... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Putin essentially is the state now. At least he's such a big part of the state that even he has difficulty knowing the difference.

    14. Re:in Soviet russia... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

    15. Re:in Soviet russia... by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Putin is thought to be the richest man in the world. I suspect the rackets in the Panama Papers were too low-tier for him, not even worth his effort.

      I thought the Chinese Premier was there? Who's there that China is aggressively censoring any mention of Panama fright now?

      You should read more about what was in those papers. Putin's holdings are about $2 billion. That's not low-tier.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    16. Re:in Soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real story is not that wealthy people seek out tax havens and setup shell companies. Most of these types of transactions are not illegal. The real story is how did the leaders of supposedly communist style governments amass their substantial wealth in the first place? China is not governed by communist party they are governed by a Board of Directors who don't even bother hiding it. Any citizen with a complaint is quickly dealt with. The USSR breakup was not a breakup of the state it was a hostile corporate takeover. Everything that was under state control was privatized and parceled out to high ranking military and state security leaders with the remaining assets going to a select few who were ruthless in securing their new found wealth and power.

  2. Polls by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers. As Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports, most Russians haven't heard of -- or don't care about -- the Panama Papers. The media house interviewed 30 people on the street, of which it found only 1 person thought it was wrong. (video)."

    Does not follow. You mean to say: only one person was willing to speak out against it. Polls have little to do with what people think. They only tell you what they are willing to admit.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    1. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, it was a sample of 30 (Ooooo) random people on the street. For all we know, these were people who just left a Putin Indoctrination Meeting or people leaving a bar that was closing in Moscow.

      Truly, Journalism is Dead. Also in other news. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

    2. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Coincidentally, that one person now glows in the dark and has spontaneously generated holes in several vital organs. The official cause of death was listed as 'natural causes.'"

    3. Re:Polls by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Russians aren't stupid just because they're drunk. They know that talking to foreign reporters (or pretty much any reporter) can get very, very career-limiting.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Polls by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a known fact in Russia one does not speak out openly or things will happen to you. Bad things. Just ask Boris Nemtsov.

      Oh wait, you can't. Putin ordered his assassination in a pathetic attempt to silence the work he and others had done showing the systemic corruption in Russia.

      Go ask the Tartars of Crimea who have their homes invaded by Russian police searching for anything that is against the official party line or that references Tartar culture. Since Russian's invasion of Crimea this is a daily occurrence, not to mention any Tartar newspaper radio service being shut down.

      Just the other day Putin ordered the creation of a "national guard", over 400K strong with tanks and artillery to be used, he claims, to fight terrorism. The reality is with conditions worsening in Russia due to sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine and plunging oil prices, with elections in the fall Putin is planning to use this national guard to suppress any vocal opposition to his hand chosen candidates. In other words, if you speak out against Heir Putin, the national guard can and will shoot you on sight, no other order necessary.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re: Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just have a look to our "national guard" preparation https://openrussia.org/post/view/14173/

    6. Re:Polls by fbobraga · · Score: 2

      It's a known fact [...]

      Caution with that! Normally, it's a lie (I don't mean it is in this case...)

    7. Re: Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lyudmila Petranovskaya: "Any totalitarian regime first of all destroy the family"

      Seriously?

    8. Re:Polls by nickol · · Score: 5, Funny

      I live in Russia and I can confirm that most Russians are sure that most Russians haven't heard of -- or don't care about -- the Panama Papers.

    9. Re: Polls by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      Bad grammar aside, yes, seriously, the first thing that a totalitarian regime targets is loyalty to traditional entities, like religion, family, etc...

      This is why sick aberrations like Pavlik Morozov are turned into martyrs, why organizations like all the stages of Communist Youth are created, why religion is undermined, infiltrated and presented as a kinky delusion.

      The idea is to make the individual loyal to the state. How well does it work? It doesn't work on everyone. Most of those who keep their sense end up in positions of power, or at least in law enforcement. The rest, who lack the brains, or suffer from an overabundance of morals, end up in psychiatric facilities, or even in concentration camps.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    10. Re: Polls by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      For example: Martyrs of Compiègne

    11. Re:Polls by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Russians aren't stupid just because they're drunk. They know that talking to foreign reporters (or pretty much any reporter) can get very, very career-limiting.

      Especially when they're surveyed in front of the Kremlin

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:Polls by Zargg · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, you can't. Putin ordered his assassination in a pathetic attempt to silence the work he and others had done showing the systemic corruption in Russia.

      It's only corruption if you thought the purpose was to be fair for everyone in the first place. It's just business as usual for everyone in on it!

    13. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians aren't stupid just because they're drunk.

      Anybody that gets drunk is stupid. They are afraid of talking to reporters, yet are too stupid to understand they can blurt out things when drunk that they would not say when sober.

      Babs, you need to work on your shtick.

    14. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg.. u never been in Russia. No one cares if you talk to reporter domestic or foreign.

      It is not 1950 anymore sigh...

    15. Re:Polls by Kartu · · Score: 1

      You guys need to take into account that next to no TV or radio channel has mentioned that Putin's friends are mentioned in Panamagate.
      The main Panamagate context for Russian TV is Ukraine's president.

    16. Re: Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin pidor!

    17. Re:Polls by Rakarra · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Omg.. u never been in Russia. No one cares if you talk to reporter domestic or foreign.

      It is not 1950 anymore sigh...

      It's not 1950 anymore, but it's also not 2000 either. Keep in mind that Russia is currently governed by an autocrat who feels that Russia should have returned to its 1950s ways. But under him, not The Party. He's more corporatist than communist.

    18. Re:Polls by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think that one person was actually a tourist.

    19. Re:Polls by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Putin is the state. So seeking to make sure Putin is not reelected is seen as equivalent to seeking the overthrow of the state.

    20. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      smooth-whatever believes in (or be willing to believe in) everything smelled anti-Russia:
      How about Putin is not fighting ISIS you've parroted for months?
      How about corrupted Ukraine today, which you have defended in your posts?

      to silence the work he and others had done showing the systemic corruption in Russia.

      An AC was voted (-1) because of calling you "moron", I agree that in a debate, this AC is deserved this, but honestly I can't find a word better to labeled you. Why?
      Because, Boris Nemtsov and his ally Mikhail Kasyanov, with nick name "Misha 2 percent", are known for Russians for their corruption in Yeltsin's era, that why they have about 2% support of Russians.

      Tartars what?, who peaceful lives in Crimea or who attempted to damage the electric systems?

    21. Re:Polls by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's settled then.

    22. Re:Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty?
      Oh, come on! If it's RT, let see how the comments below the parent post react, but RFERL, no one care!

    23. Re:Polls by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      (sigh) You can be totally pissed drunk and still decide that sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger isn't a smart move. Otherwise there'd be even more suicides by gun owners.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:Polls by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Former Russian deputy prime minister and Putin critic Boris Nemtsov would have liked a word with you, but he can't ... but he was silenced with extreme prejudice.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re:Polls by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Quite a few people have heard about Panama Papers. What they have heard, though, is that it exposed massive corruption in the Ukrainian government.

    26. Re: Polls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh we know. We know our shit aint perfect. Tell me again how yours aint either? See thats the difference, you cant or wont.
      Heads are rolling around the globe cause of panamapapers.. Just not in Putin-Russia cause.. ruski perfect? Whatever comrade.

  3. The one person that was wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can not be found for follow up interviews. It is official, now nobody cares about the panama papers in Russia.

  4. To be fair by The-Ixian · · Score: 5, Funny

    I live in the US and I barely care about the Panama Papers either.

    Actually... the first thing I think of when I see "Panama Papers" is David Lee Roth for some reason...

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The largest bank in the Nordic countries was caught hiding client money in Panama etc. Tax evasion is sort of a big deal there with all the commies and so on. You should all expect a big mess with European banks because of all this. Also expect the US to put some sanctions and set some fines on those darn banks too.

    2. Re: To be fair by The-Ixian · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah... I get it.. tax evasion by wealthy people... it shocks me to the core...

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    3. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tax evasion is sort of a big deal there with all the commies and so on.

      Much of what is documented in the Panama Papers is tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

      In fact, this is the big story here, just how much tax avoidance has been made legal by western governments at the request of the rich and powerful.

    4. Re:To be fair by gtall · · Score: 2

      That's because in the U.S., we have Delaware, no need to go to Panama.

    5. Re: To be fair by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The wealthy will always avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for us little people, always have been. Useful idiots like Bernie always talk about the 1% to distract the tax increases being passed along to everyone else. Taxes are regressive. All of them.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the US and I barely care about the Panama Papers either.

      Actually... the first thing I think of when I see "Panama Papers" is David Lee Roth for some reason...

      Yes, yes let the dark side flow through you. Let yourself be actually proud and a braggart about your Unbridled Mind-Numbing Stupidity. Because, ya' know, Unbridled Mind-Numbing Stupid Sluts love that. Sure.

      Now, fall off that mile high platform with no guard-rail. Sure.

    7. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your butt seems really hurt.

      Nobody gives a shit because tax avoidance isn't illegal. In fact, you're a fucking moron if you aren't doing it.

    8. Re:To be fair by Quzak · · Score: 1

      Corruption and tax dodging by the powers that shouldn't be? Say it isn't so!

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    9. Re: To be fair by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks. It was the US who put the most pressure on Switzerland to reform banking practices and start abiding some reasonable standards of transparency. In fact, I'd say the popularity of other tax havens in the intervening years is because Switzerland is no longer so friendly to those seeking to hide their cash.

      The reality here is that the one government who could do a lot to reduce avoidance and out and out evasion and laundering is Britain. It's overseas dependencies are some of the most notorious tax havens, but every attempt to close loopholes has been met with resistance. Judging by the increasingly hot water David Cameron is in, I think we know why.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re: To be fair by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As Simon Jenkins at the Guardian notes, while tax avoidance may be legal, the use of them, particularly by lawmakers, is just plain wrong. David Cameron, in particular, has stood against closing loopholes, and now it turns out that, because of his old man's dealings, he has been a beneficiary.

      And this is the crux of the problem that the Panama Papers reveal. Yes, there is certainly a criminal element to all of this, in that these havens are used by people out and out evading taxes, and some criminals are using these havens to launder or hide their money (much as they used to do with their private Swiss bank accounts). But the real scandal here is that it is the very people who make the laws that create tax havens who are either directly making the laws (like Cameron) or have an extraordinary amount of influence over the laws being passed. These aren't just Joe and Jane Average using a few tax deductions or trusts to reduce their tax bill, these are some of he wealthiest people in the world, the kind of people that can put all sorts of pressure on lawmakers to make sure that their "avoidance" schemes stay legal.

      The Panama Papers are an example of a worse kind of crime that evasion and money laundering. They are an example of the fundamental corruption of many even "liberal" political systems. In a way, this makes someone like Cameron no better than Putin, except Putin actually looks to be a lot smarter than the Prime Ministers of Britain and Iceland.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re: To be fair by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      there's "tax heaven states" in U.S: no need to the wealthy there manage offshores of this kind by a Panamanian company (a country not CIA-friendly...)

    12. Re: To be fair by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      Taxes are regressive. All of them.

      You know what you are saying? It's pure BS!

    13. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, another international haven was Panamanian banks. The USA put a crimp on them several years ago. The "Panama papers" thing was probably a work-around for that.

    14. Re:To be fair by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking of the New Riders...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re: To be fair by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Yes, and those poor American workers from circa-WW2 to the early 80s cried all the way to the bank, until Reagan saved them from their plight.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re: To be fair by Agent0013 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks.

      Yeah, I'm not so sure they are actually trying to fight this stuff. If they were then the three states that allow anonymous shell corporations would not be so popular. The US is rated third in the world for "Offshore" shell games.

      The Tax Justice Network ranks the U.S. third in terms of the secrecy and scale of its offshore industry, behind Switzerland and Hong Kong but ahead of the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    17. Re: To be fair by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you told me!

      Let me tell you a true story, about taxes ONLY the very wealthy would have paid, and the damage it did to those that weren't even targeted.

      In the late 90s, Bill Clinton and the tax and spend congress (both R and D) decided to "Tax" Luxury items, such as yachts, airplanes and expensive cars. It was supposed to raise all sorts of additional revenue (based on current purchasing trends). What happened was the rich stopped ordering those things and eventually the industries that built them started to collapse. The RICH didn't pay their taxes, because they stopped buying their toys, The people actually hurt by these taxes were the workers and small businesses that supported those industries.

      It was so disastrous, that it was quickly repealed (quietly). But the damage was already done. In addition, it was a net loss of tax revenue.

      Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS" ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re: To be fair by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Jimmy Carter was such a great president!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re: To be fair by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      maybe you mean "tax avoidance make all taxes something regressive": I may agree with that :-)

      Taxes over income and wealthy are very useful tool to "redistribute" income (know the Gini Coefficient, right?

    20. Re: To be fair by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Gini is an interesting concept. But I wouldn't call it anything other than what it is, socialist (Fascist) crap.

      Redistribution of wealth is a noble idea, but sucks in practice, as it is entirely elitist driven. Elites decide who is "too wealthy" and then tax the poor and middle class in an effort to get the wealthy's money. Meanwhile the wealthy buy access to those in power, and move their wealth to places that aren't taxed and none of it actually helps anyone.

      The strange thing about socialism is that it works in theory, but never works in practice. Because eventually you run out of other people's money.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    21. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nevada is worse, attracting companies for it ownership secrecy and low taxation.

      Delaware's prime advantage is for corporations, the state has laws limiting shareholder suits and a separate (from the civil system) court for corporate disputes. Companies don't incorporate in Delaware for tax reasons.

    22. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I've listen your mom calling you from outside the basement!

    23. Re:To be fair by Krojack · · Score: 1

      As an American, i'm sure I can speak for most of us when I say that we're not shocked. We expect politicians and big bank CEO's to be doing this. Other than a massive civil war or revolution, we can't do anything about it. The powers to be make their own rules. Newly voted in are quickly currupted if they aren't already.

      The US political tree is just one big dynasty.

    24. Re: To be fair by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS" ;)

      Yet in the US, the top 1% of earners paid nearly half of the federal income taxes. The top 20% paid around 85% of the federal income taxes, which makes up about half of the federal budget. Those numbers come from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think-tank, but they don't seem to be controversial to conservatives or progressives. They certainly don't square with the notion that the rich can just avoid all their taxes. They certainly have more ways around some taxes, but they certainly have more taxes aimed at them that the poor don't have to pay either. Where the poor gets hit more is with the payroll tax, but the services the payroll tax funds (social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance) are not supposed to act as wealth redistributors -- you get out what you put in. Theoretically. In reality, money moves through the federal government in creative ways.

    25. Re: To be fair by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That's right! Everything that's legal is also moral!

    26. Re: To be fair by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Yes, the real problem is the hypocrisy. Government leaders who on one hand will be encouraging citizens to dutifully pay their taxes, or who campaign that they side with the little people instead of the wealthy, then end up looking like fools or liars when they're caught playing tax tricks with their money.

    27. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying taxes is not a moral imperative, you fucking dipshit.

      This isn't church, and the IRS isn't a collection plate.

      If you want to pay more, go for it, but don't pretend that somehow makes you better than anyone else. Just a sucker.

    28. Re: To be fair by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And yet the US has lead the way in shutting down probably the most infamous haven; the Swiss banks

      - you are clearly blissfully unaware that the biggest tax haven in the world is the USA.

      If you are an American company that's one thing, you want your money out of the States, but if you are a foreign entity you want to move money into the USA, nobody will be able to track you. USA hosts more foreign money avoiding and evading taxes than the rest of the world combined.

    29. Re: To be fair by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He's the last one who would not lie to your face to tell you he was great. None of them since have made that mistake.
      Since then it's been "heck of a job" instead of actually delivering bad news. Carter's failures were blamed on honesty versus slick salesmanship hence the America of today where 100% salesmanship and no substance is seen as Presidential material.
      There's been many Presidents better than Carter, but how would you compare him to the current nominations and the current President? Do you honestly think Trump, Cruz or Hillary (Sanders will be locked out by party machinery) would handle an oil shock better than the one that made things difficult for Carter?

    30. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think of rolling a blunt.

    31. Re: To be fair by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Paying taxes is not a moral imperative, you fucking dipshit.

      This isn't church, and the IRS isn't a collection plate.

      If you want to pay more, go for it, but don't pretend that somehow makes you better than anyone else. Just a sucker.

      Interesting. Do you use government services at all? Is there a road in front of your house? A bridge nearby? Do you like knowing that the meat you buy at the grocery store won't kill you? Or that your funds are FDIC-insured? Perhaps you enjoy the security that a strong military gives. I suppose I could go on and on, but you use and benefit from a lot of government services. So pay your damn taxes.

    32. Re: To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carter was underrated. He got blamed for stagflation but it was his (and his Fed appointee Paul Volcker's) anti-inflationary policies; the Fed raised interest rates to 20% in Q2 of 1980. Inflation moderated and growth resumed in Q3 of 1980 (when the election was held) however these results were too late to affect the election.

      Reagan gets political credit for strong growth in 1981, but this is like his getting credit for the US hostages in Iran; the problem was fixed when he took office. In fact none of Reagan's fiscal policies would have been in place until October of that year (the US Federal budget year starts in October), and the full effect of his policies wouldn't have been felt until 1982.

      Reagan also lucked out because by the start of 1981 OPEC's oil price fixing scheme had failed and energy prices were plummeting. His tax cuts did have a stimulative effect on the economy, along with massive increases in Federal spending. But averaged over his entire presidency economic growth was only slightly higher than over Carter's four years; if you shifted the window by nine months to reflect the fact that the first three fiscal quarters of a presidency are under the prior president's budget, Carter actually outperforms Reagan. Yet anyone who lived through it remembers the 1980 "stagflation"; it was a bona fide crisis.

      As for where the inflation came from, that started all the way back under Johnson. Nixon tried a PR campaign called "Whip Inflation Now" to try to get people to save more and spend less; when that failed he actually imposed a freeze on all wage and price increases! When that didn't work he did it again in 1973. Carter did the brave thing and appointed an inflation hawk as Fed chairman, and suffered the consequences.

    33. Re: To be fair by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well he did manage to fix the mess that was left to him, though Reagan took the credit. It's like Obama getting flack for the mess that Bush II left him while America is performing better then most any other western country.
      Of course not being American, it seems to me that the President doesn't have nearly as much power as he's made out to have. Isn't it Congress who passes laws and budgets?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  5. Follow the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In fairness, USAID did bankroll the entire investigation, and American politicians were rather conspicuous by their absence.

    The US is also confusingly quiet on the question of whether or not the documents should be called 'stolen'.

    1. Re:Follow the Money by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
      There are over 300 Americans in the Panama Papers. Also, the US is now the #1 tax haven. Just search for "US #1 tax haven" and choose your poison, Forbes, Bloomberg,etc.

      Why would Americans wanting to hide stuff go off-shore when they can do everything they need to do right in the USA?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Follow the Money by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And there's the Russian troll. Considering USAID distributes food, medicine and shelter, and helps those countries who want to have some form of democracy, unlike Russia, it is quite clear why you trolls would mention an NGO.

      After all, Russia has a long history of paranoia when it comes to groups trying to help people better themselves or understand why oppression, such as is practiced in Russia, is not how countries become strong and independent.

      How's the weather in St. Petersburg? Is Uncle Putin still paying you in rubles which decline in value each day? Has your vodka allotment been increased to keep you under control?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Follow the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want the rest of us to pay for our own oppression by the state.

    4. Re:Follow the Money by Quzak · · Score: 2

      If Putin is willing to pay then people are free to accept. I don't know about you but bribes are always welcome in my house. Those bills aren't gonna pay themselves!

      --
      Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    5. Re:Follow the Money by codeAlDente · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, and zerohedge has also pointed out that this just eliminates competition for the Rothschilds.

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
  6. Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Legitimate criticism of my wrongdoing, backed up by objectively verifiable facts, is in fact harassment and will not be tolerated."

    Just give him some neon hair, a side-shave and some problem glasses and have him write blogposts about how objects in C++ are oppressive toward womxn.

    1. Re:Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tell when you've hit the nail on the head when the response is calling you a whiner.

    2. Re:Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I'll be the fourth whiner in this chain. Huzzah for whining.

      Now to go do something even less productive.

    3. Re: Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you prefer, "off topic hyperbole, from someone with an unexplained axe to grind who wouldn't know how to treat a woman with respect and pays for his sex while downloading his porn, all the while blaming women for not falling for his studly and manly charms?"

      See, I didn't say the OP was whining. :)

    4. Re: Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with being a vegan, asshole?

    5. Re: Putin would make a helluva SJW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with being an asshole, jackass?

  7. Shoe coverup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a plot to make sure Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson's enduring legacy is not the shoe incident, which would have been embarrassing.

  8. Charitable foundation by rfengr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hell, in the USA you just need to establish a charitable foundation like the Clintons.

    1. Re:Charitable foundation by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Exactly this. Instead of paying 50% in taxes, you spend 10% being a "charity", and keep the difference for personal use. But they get a pass because they aren't (R) (who are just as bad).

      Talk the BS, but don't have to walk it, same for both (D) and (R), just different BS being spewed

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Charitable foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of ways to pay off politicians:

      1. Hire their family and friends.
      2. Pay them huge fees to speak at colleges/corporations.
      3. Pay them huge advances for books, but let it be ghostwritten. The politicians serves as adviser/the idea man. Ghostwriting is such a common industry practice that it's acceptable.
      4. Get no-interests loans from your wife's company. Invest it and you'll be profiting handsomely.

    3. Re:Charitable foundation by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or Mark Zuckerberg or the Koch Brothers or anyone else who has millions/billions and don't want to pay taxes on the money.

      In countries, that do not tax wealth, only your actual income matters to your tax-bill. What you already have is irrelevant.

      After all, I'm sure there's not a single Republican lawmaker who's upset at Bill Clinton for having such great economic success [...]

      Whether other politicians are squeaky clean or not, you've got to admit, the Clinton Foundation racket is something special — not just for the scale, but also for the brazenness of it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Charitable foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, in the USA you just need to establish a charitable foundation like the Clintons.

      Hell, in the USA you just need to establish a "charitable" (hahaha) foundation like the Clintons.

      FTFY.

    5. Re:Charitable foundation by mbone · · Score: 1

      Or Mark Zuckerberg or the Koch Brothers or anyone else who has millions/billions and don't want to pay taxes on the money.

      In countries, that do not tax wealth, only your actual income matters to your tax-bill. What you already have is irrelevant.

      I'm guessing you don't own much real property.

    6. Re:Charitable foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. citing the ny post.
      now that's credible reporting.
      about as credible as the Bat Boy.

  9. And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

    The conspiracy theorists are playing right along by saying there are no Americans mentioned in the Panama Papers so it must have been scrubbed, despite (1) hundreds of Americans being named in them, and (2) you don't have to go offshore to hide money. The US works just fine for hiding money.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in come the liberal media establishment apologists...

      >hundreds of Americans being named in them,

      Uh-huh, where's the list of "hundreds of Americans". Oh, that's right, the media won't report them except for the bigwigs who've already been exposed when they were prosecuted for tax evasion and fraud in federal court. Teh rest are supposedly retirees and penny-ante scammers.

    2. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course the western news reports I saw talking about the Panama papers with slick background images showing Putin and Assad, despite them not being named in the documents. Yeah, that's not conspiring anti-Russian / anti-Syrian propaganda at all. Nope. Nothing to see here.

      WE SLEEP. THEY LIVE. Sweet dreams.

    3. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by swb · · Score: 2

      I'll mostly buy that argument, but one thing that seems weird is how the NY Times did almost no reporting on the topic. The silence was so deafening that the Public Editor or whatever the column is called actually wrote a column on why they hadn't reported much on it.

      The closest non-conspiracy angles I could come with for this were:

      1) They weren't invited to the journalism party on this "leak" so they could on report on it as the documents were released, and responsible journalism meant a lot of work trying to verify information. This was basically the Public Editor column.

      This could also be called "not invented here", a deliberate attempt to downplay a story they weren't part of and had to play catch-up on.

      2) It's *kind of* a non-story -- before the Panama Papers, did anyone go to bed at night assured that tin-pot dictators weren't somehow funneling money into overseas bank accounts? I believe Donald Trump is more honest about building a wall Mexico will pay for than I do that dictators aren't siphoning money into personal bank accounts.

      I do think it's weird that Putin would funnel money overseas for personal use. Is he planning on retiring to Costa Rica or something? My guess is that Putin is boss and lives in Russia forever, which means he basically has the entire resources of the state at his personal disposal. Why bother moving money overseas at all? When a time comes that Putin isn't boss, he will either live in relative luxury at state expense or he will be taking a dirt nap, at state expense. There is no scenario where Putin lives in the South of France as a expat and has to cover his own caviar and vodka tab.

      The paucity of influential Americans on the list I mostly just assign to the fact that influential Americans' wealth is already dollar denominated and doesn't need to be surreptitiously converted from local Monopoly money into dollars, rich Americans already set the tax code to their benefit and are far better off just parking it in whatever Congressionally approved tax sheltered investment they can buy.

    4. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the issue was that politicians were somehow involved in payoffs. Offshore holdings are perfectly legal. Jackie Chan is named in those papers as well. Just having an account isn't indicative of wrongdoing.

    5. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by PRMan · · Score: 2

      My guess is that Putin is boss and lives in Russia forever, which means he basically has the entire resources of the state at his personal disposal. Why bother moving money overseas at all?

      It's good for dictators to have a backup plan...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bet he had to jump through hoops for his money.

    7. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump is more honest about building a wall Mexico will pay

      While this is not the best venue nor do I think Trump is good for anyone but Trump, I wish to defend him here. His plan is actually fiscally sound. We supply Mexico, like many Allies, with monetary foreign aid. A significant chunk of that goes to the budget of policing their side of the border. We would not need to pay them so much if we had a wall. His plan is to reduce foreign aid to Mexico and use that money to build the wall. From a businessman's perspective, from an accounting background, reducing expenses to Mexico to fund a different expense and future liability like the wall's ongoing budget really is "making Mexico pay for it".

      I hope this is read as this little plan and perspective is one of the most surprising things about the campaign season. A fool that has run multiple casinos into bankruptcy says something incredibly outlandish and outright dumb yet digging into the details it is actually quite a sound plan.

    8. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most important thing to bear in mind is that if any documents have been scrubbed, this has and should have zero impact on the evaluation of the people whose names have not been scrubbed.

    9. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The Guardian has already named some of them, even before the story was submitted, stupid. coward.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, the ones I just mentioned. Still waiting for the hundreds more. If they're known, you should be able to list them, right? Oh, but you can't. You just have take the media's word for it, don't you darling?

    11. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I do think it's weird that Putin would funnel money overseas for personal use. Is he planning on retiring to Costa Rica or something? My guess is that Putin is boss and lives in Russia forever, which means he basically has the entire resources of the state at his personal disposal. Why bother moving money overseas at all?

      The smart investor diversifies, puts his money in many different places. He lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union and the near-dissolving of Russia's economy before he came to power. Put all of your money in Russian banks, and then if the Russian banks go down, so do you.

      Also, there could be some hedging of bets against, say, the rest of the world freezing his assets if he does something even more aggressive than the Crimea invasion.

    12. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What goes around comes around unfortunately. Remember all that stink about Wikileaks beign anti-american due to not mentioning things unrelated to the USA. Apparently winning an award for exposing corruption in Kenya didn't count.

      Same stupid game different players - shooting the messenger as an Olympic level sport.

    13. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And also, if you wanted to hide money from your government (which is the one that would otherwise tax it), why would you park it in a country that is pretty much owned by said government?

    14. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why wouldn't people who want to get across just dig tunnels? They're quite common for drug smuggling. The one they found a few yeas ago was 10m deep and 4,000m long.

      http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

    15. Re:And out came the conspiracy theorists ... by swb · · Score: 1

      [Standard polite company disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter, etc.]

      The local paper had a column by a civil engineer who claimed that a "Trump Wall" would have side loading which would require footings ~10 M deep, deep enough that it might make all but the most complex tunnels difficult.

      For all the really good tunnels (deep, long, well-constructed), I'd guess the majority are shitty tunnels not that deep and not that long, and a well-built wall may make them obsolete. And there's limited places you can effectively tunnel without doing a first-world engineering project using serious resources; the geography doesn't permit it.

      I've often wondered if they wanted to really deal with tunneling if they couldn't create a monitoring vehicle with ground-penetrating radar that was simply driven over the border continuously looking for them. And if they found one, drill an inspection hole to verify, and then use the inspection hole to pump in a few hundred gallons of something to block it, like a concrete slurry or self-expanding foam (as well as tracing the exit). I've always wondered why the Israelis didn't flood tunnels in Gaza with a propane/acetylene/oxygen mix and ignite it.

      I also wonder if the future of smuggling isn't drones anyway. With the cash that cartels have, they should be able to build good drones that could carry a kilo payload and fly several miles on GPS. They should be able to fly at night, high enough to not be heard, low enough to not show up on radar and maybe even cool enough for their size to not have a heat signature, either. A drone like that could land on a rooftop or other obscure/secure location.

      From what I've read, cartels are now manufacturing their own fentanyl, which is 50x more potent than heroin. That makes a 1 kg payload into what would have been 50 kg before. That would make even a $10k drone into an economically viable disposable unit.

  10. Summary is proving Putin right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the papers have nothing to do with Putin, lets throw in a jab about the political ignorance of the average Russian.

    In an effort to maintain fair and balanced reporting perhaps they should have asked the average American to explain what exactly the Panama papers are? Just because people have heard the name and have been told that it's bad, it doesn't mean they're politically literate.

    1. Re:Summary is proving Putin right by mi · · Score: 2

      So the papers have nothing to do with Putin

      Yeah, Putin had nothing to do with it — it is perfectly common for a cellist in Russia to have $2 billion in Panama. Right...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  11. Wikileaks comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
    "US govt funded #PanamaPapers attack story on Putin via USAID. Some good journalists but no model for integrity."

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
    "#PanamaPapers: If you censor more than 99% of the documents you are engaged 1% journalism by definition."

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
    "In total, Guardian has released, 2 #PanamaPapers documents. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 0 documents."

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
    "3 days to go: With 86,987 votes counted over 95% demand full disclosure of #PanamaPapers"

    WikiLeaks @wikileaks
    Should we release all 11 million #PanamaPapers so everyone can search through them like our other publications?

  12. Big surprise? by wwalker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget, Panama Papers is just a subset of data that was released. Heavily edited. Conveniently, not a single US politician mentioned in the released data. Also, Putin's name isn't there either, just his "childhood friend". Yet in all the newspapers it was reported that Putin was directly implicated. So, what else would you expect him to claim? Also, he actually wasn't the first to come to the same conclusion:
    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

    1. Re:Big surprise? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Well, the US elections are not set. Wait until after the conventions.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Big surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Yep. When it came out that no Americans were on the list, it became pretty damned clear that this was a US ploy of some form. Not sure what the end-game is, but there's no way you can trust this "leak." It's some form of US-backed scam.

    3. Re:Big surprise? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget, Panama Papers is just a subset of data that was released. Heavily edited. Conveniently, not a single US politician mentioned in the released data. Yet in all the newspapers it was reported that Putin was directly implicated

      From wikipedia:

      McClatchy Newspapers, the only participating US news organization, has found four Americans in the documents, all of whom were previously either accused or convicted of financial crimes such as fraud and tax evasion.[43] In 2008, Mossack Fonseca reportedly utilized a 90-year-old British man to conceal the offshore accounts of Marianna Olszewski, a well-known US businesswoman.[197]

      In response to the lack of American individuals in the documents, the editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung said: "Just wait for what is coming next."

      Also, it has been revealed that Mossack Fonseca created over 1000 US corporations in the last 15 years. And most accounts I have read have not directly implicated Putin, however quite a few people and entities closely associated with Putin (such as his eldest daughter's godfather-a professional cellist-who had assets of $100million in the leaked documents, or Rossiya Bank) are included in the documents.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Big surprise? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all this time I couldn't figure out why Putin's name kept being mentioned when 1) he wasn't in there and 2) even if he had offshore funds, he's not the worst offender on the list by miles.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    5. Re:Big surprise? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Except there are Americans already listed and more to come. But don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theory.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Big surprise? by mi · · Score: 1

      Conveniently, not a single US politician mentioned in the released data.

      Bullshit. For one example, Podesta-brothers have already been outed in numerous online publications.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Big surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is right, while PRMan is wrong as usual.

    8. Re:Big surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Americans lists so far are already known because they were prosecuted in federal court for tax evasion and fraud. When details about the so-called "hundreds" of not previously known Americans on the list are revealed and they're more than retirees and low-level scammers, then maybe this "leak" will be worth something. Right now, its all fizz.

    9. Re:Big surprise? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Also, Putin's name isn't there either, just his "childhood friend". Yet in all the newspapers it was reported that Putin was directly implicated.

      Uh huh. So his childhood friend, a cellist, just happens to have $2 billion worth of holdings. But Putin had nothing to do with this, and doesn't benefit in any way. Right.

      Useful idiot.

  13. In Soviet Russia... by in10se · · Score: 1

    People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

    My first guess is that the people of Russia have more important things to think about. Based on the past actions of Putin, this probably doesn't even rank in the top 100 things to care about politically/legally.

    Also, do we even know if this is illegal under Russian tax code? Even if it were, I'm guessing Russia would follow the legal maxim of rex non potest peccare (the king can do no wrong).

    --
    Popisms.com - Connecting pop culture
  14. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers while Putin proposes Panama Papers potentially part of political plot

  15. What an asshole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thug in the Kremlin is nothing but a remnant from the Cold War. He's pathetic and obsolete, and he does not even know it.

  16. Re: No argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Syou want less powerful governments? The only way to do that (without getting anarchy) is have smaller countries and thus more government. Split up any country over 20 Million inhabitants?

  17. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is funded by US by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    RFE RL is a 501c 3 corporation that receives U.S. government funding and is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an agency overseeing all U.S. federal government international broadcasting services. The Russian Federation is subject to sanctions by the US government over the legitimacy of the people of Crimea's vote to declare themselves as a the Russian Autonomous Region of Crimea. Who do you trust, what can you verify with your own eyes, and who has an agenda here?

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  18. Get what you deserve by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

    Yeah, I really don't care. The people of Russia clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state. If that's what they want, that's what they get and I'm not going to get too worked up about their choices.

    The Russian people don't need the Panama papers to see the obvious corruption and political nepotism. The Olympics should have provided more than enough proof and most people didn't care. If they don't care, I don't care.

    1. Re:Get what you deserve by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      The problem with the Russian people is that they don't know how to care about these principles. They are, in a lot of ways, indicative of what Americans are on their way to becoming if oligarchs in the US have their way. The lesson that the despotism of other nations can teach democratic societies is that it is possible to erase the collective memory of oppression and injustice among a people in a remarkably short amount of time. By (1) controlling the flow of information, (2) indenturing the public by encouraging excessive consumption and accumulation of debt, (3) legitimizing mass surveillance and draconian policing under the guise of defending against various bogeymen, (4) removing accountability and transparency in corporate and political systems, an entire society can be reverted to totalitarianism in less than a generation's time.

    2. Re:Get what you deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The people of Russia clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state. If that's what they want, that's what they get and I'm not going to get too worked up about their choices."

      neither do you septic tanks, your doing your level best to get rid of any semblance of it.

    3. Re:Get what you deserve by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

      Yeah, I really don't care. The people of Russia clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state. If that's what they want, that's what they get and I'm not going to get too worked up about their choices.

      You are correct. I can't tell you why it's that way though, but it's been that way for a long time. I posted on this earlier in the week. There are stories going back to the days of the Tsars where the Tsar would send out his minions to rough up or kill the peasants and the survivors would wail and say "If only the Tsar knew what was happening, he would save us!" when what happened was because he ordered it. Russians love to believe the guy at the top is wonderful and kind and it's really the people under him who are evil. This is why it's not difficult at all to find people in Russia who revere Stalin still, which to me is just a hair breadth's of difference from revering Hitler. I've read that Putin himself doesn't seem to own much of anything but his daughters, son-in-law and close friends have billions. So it allows him to provide enough plausible deniability that he's not corrupt and crooked for the public to buy it. They really don't care.

    4. Re:Get what you deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

      I live in Russia. Great that your so informed. Don't confuse Russia with Moscow.

      Yeah, I really don't care.

      Long time Ex Pat from Russia here. Really neither do I care, considering most the bankers and smugglers will get off with a free out of jail card anyway.

      The people of Russia clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state. If that's what they want, that's what they get and I'm not going to get too worked up about their choices.The Russian people don't need the Panama papers to see the obvious corruption and political nepotism. The Olympics should have provided more than enough proof and most people didn't care. If they don't care, I don't care.

      Its hilarious that most westerners are so quick to jump on one bandwagon or another regarding Russian politics. After the collapse the Russian Federation was in such a dissary and complete mess. Putin was actually good for Russia then and many still see him good for Russia today because of the lack of a strong replacement to take care of the underlying issues. This goes back about 25 years so its still really fresh.

    5. Re:Get what you deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

      Yeah, I really don't care. The people of Russia clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state. If that's what they want, that's what they get and I'm not going to get too worked up about their choices.

      The Russian people don't need the Panama papers to see the obvious corruption and political nepotism. The Olympics should have provided more than enough proof and most people didn't care. If they don't care, I don't care.

      Yeah, you really don't care. The people of (YOUR COUNTRY HERE) clearly aren't terribly interested in a free press, an uncorrupt government or any semblance of a modern open democratic state, either. Just look at rates of incarcerations of innocent and non-violent "criminals," treatment of minority or otherwise disenfranchised populations, the inconceivably lopsided distribution of wealth... If that's what you want, that's what you get and I'm not going to get too worked up about your choices either.

      The people of (YOUR COUNTRY) don't need the Panama papers to see the obvious corruption and political nepotism. The (RECENT NATIONAL DISAPPOINTMENT/HILARIOUSLY EMBARRASSING HUMILIATION) should have provided more than enough proof and most people didn't care. If YOU don't care, I don't care.

      In the above, I have mostly assumed (YOUR COUNTRY) to be the United States of Amerika*, but even if it is not, odds are, it's true of your country as well, in one way or another. A long-lived, fair, honest, equitable, just, wise, stable, and FUNCTIONAL government is like a floating chariot drawn by a team of winged unicorns farting a trail of rainbows and smiles everywhere they go. Nice as it may be, it just doesn't exist.

      * Amerika used to be spelled with a "c", but as Donald Trump gets closer to the Republitard nomination, AmeriKa gets closer to getting a SECOND "k" to go with the first. Should he then be elected, the country will get it's third "k," and officially become AmeriKKKa.

      Hush now, I'm filling out my application for a Canadian visa...

  19. The more things change.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    New Tzar just like the old Tzar..

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  20. People in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are doltish and born to be exploited.

  21. Re:No argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Evading taxes in the US should be every citizen's duty. And it should be every non-US citizen's duty to mankind to help US citizens evade taxes. The less money the US government gets, the less people in the world will suffer and die.

  22. Re:No argument here by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The money lost to tax avoidance can give everyone an extra couple of grand a year in their pockets. It's not "free money" - it's returning your money, that was stolen from you because others refused to pay their fair share, from them, making restitution to you.

    Think of what that extra money would do for the economy. For yourself.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  23. Here's why they don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because they know, without the slightest doubt in their minds, that if the money came back to government, it would merely be used to expand the powers of government for the benefit of the ruling class.

    You know what? I tend to agree.

  24. Let them be by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    I'm not surprised esp. when hearing 83% of Russian approve Putin https://www.washingtonpost.com.... If the citizens feel that the way of life in Russia is good, they're ok with high up people accumulating wealth and hide them. Let them be. They deserve it.

    1. Re:Let them be by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Well, as much as Putin has allegedly taken (and who knows, but I'm sure it's happening some), the fact is that the average Russian lives 100× better today than 25 years ago.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Let them be by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      when hearing 83% of Russian approve Putin

      Hahahah.
      A lot of Russians may well approve of Putin. But this report could just as easily say 75% or 99% or 117% approval.

      Not "maybe it is biased in some way", but you cannot trust 1) anyone answering a survey, 2) anyone doing a survey and 3) you certainly cannot trust a person doing a survey and discussing it (non-anonymously!) with a reporter.

    3. Re:Let them be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as much as Putin has allegedly taken (and who knows, but I'm sure it's happening some), the fact is that the average Russian lives 100× better today than 25 years ago.

      Googling "russia gdp per capita 1990" suggests you are lying.

      If you ignore inflation, then per capita income tripled in the last 25 years and that's directly attributable to the spike in oil prices (which is fading). Turkey has done just as well for comparison, and China has done way, way, way (20x) better - as long as ever more toxic air and water isn't factored in.

    4. Re:Let them be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope so. I spent 10 days staying with a family in Troitsk in 1991. That family of four in a cramped, one-bedroom apartment taught me everything I need to know about the realities of Communism. "100× better" would still be worse off than the average American.

    5. Re:Let them be by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think "25 years ago" wasn't the number the original poster meant to give. "20 years" is probably more accurate, give how Russia's GDP in 1995 was half of what it was in 1990. They probably hit a low with the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis.

  25. Re:No argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IRS makes the FBI, CIA, and NSA look like powerless stooges. The IRS can freeze your bank accounts, garnish your wages, seize your properties, and then start adding up the fines or jail terms you will face if they suspect you are breaking any tax laws. It took the power of the IRS to convict Al Capone. Major mafia syndicates have been brought to justice using the IRS related laws. Major drug dealers have been brought to justice using the IRS when all the other law enforcement agencies fail. Criminals may be good at hiding the dead bodies but hiding large sums of money always leaves a trail. The IRS knows damn near everything about your life when you submit your taxes and they do not need to bother with probable cause or warrants because they operate under and entirely different set of rules. Between the IRS and the Treasury department they wield the type of power that all the other security agencies wish they had.

  26. English, German, Cyrillic... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    They are Russian. They cannot read or understand English or German, or the Latin alphabet. So how the hell does anyone think that the common Ruskie would know anything about it?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  27. At least Hillary and Putin agree on the vast right by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    At least Hillary and Putin agree on the vast right wing conspiracy idea. Tim S.

  28. So what? by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I don't expect a big mess, because as with every other case of fraud and tax evasion the more likely outcome will be silence and no action. There are some high profile American's on the list, and if you look at their associations I'm sure you could implicate many many other people. The Prime Minister of the UK has cried "private matter, don't look" from day one. All of the names of people in the Middle East, including many supported by the US and UK (and their best allies). One politician has left over the matter, from a Government who went through a soft revolt not very long ago. That is actually much more than I would expect, and more than we would have seen 20 years ago.

    There are 15,600 companies that exist on paper simply to hide money, with hundreds of people from the largest economies in the world involved. What do we hear about it? "That bad ole Putin, he's so bad."

    Hypocrisy comes to mind, as well as disgust...

    Wake me up when these people are actually held accountable for their actions.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:So what? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Even David Cameron is under an incredible amount of pressure. The Telegraph, or as some affectionately call it, the Torygraph, is calling him out. I think, particularly in an age when many governments are imposing austerity measures on their citizens, to have the very politicians who are invoking the necessity of austerity turning around and hiding their own income, and helping their wealthy friends hide their income, is becoming an unforgivable kind of hypocrisy. That the average family will have to pay higher taxes or receive less or a lower quality of various government services, while the men and women lecturing them on the necessity are protecting themselves from that measure is just not something a lot of people will stand for.

      As for Cameron's pleas for privacy, considering it's his government that is trying to get the Snoopers Charter passed, well, that only demonstrates just how much of a hypocrite he really is. I don't know whether he will fall over this, but between this and the EU referendum, I'm thinking Cameron's political future doesn't extend to the next UK general election, regardless of any results.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:So what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Cameron's political future doesn't extend to the next UK general election, regardless of any results.

      Doesn't matter. The future of the party is very bright. His replacement will be no better. The whole "hypocrisy" angle just isn't having any effect, other than revealing another weakness of majority rule. These people could shoot the pope and still win an election. Even Trump has admitted as much.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:So what? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when these people are actually held accountable for their actions.

      Public shaming is part of that if only a small part - time to wake up pentagon fake crash fake engineer boy.

    4. Re:So what? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It's not even majority rule. With 3 or more parties 34% can mean ruling over the 66% who disagree with you. Actually it can be even worse with electoral districts as the party only has to win 51% by 51% and can loose 49% by a hundred percent.
      The one thing worse then the tyranny of the majority is tyranny of the minority.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  29. Putin weakens Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin should look in the mirror. His government is half the reason the world doesn't like Russia.

    1. Re:Putin weakens Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin should look in the mirror. His government is half the reason the US and it's NATO minions don't like Russia.

      FTFY

  30. No, the russian people know too well by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    The Russian people know that caring bout those principles is a joke and complete waste of time. No matter the government they've had, they've been screwed over, be it the Tzar, the commies, the capitalists, and everyone in between. No matter the party, no matter the message, the end result has been a few people at the top stealing whatever they can get their hands on.

    When have the rich people of the US, or anywhere, been ethical in their wealth? Not individual people here and there, but the whole lot? When have they not influenced politics, pushed out competition, etc?

    When was the last time the super rich haven't tried to hide their wealth from governments/taxation? Because I can guarantee you even our half-human half-monkey ancestors would hide their sharpened stones and sticks or hunted animals from one another.

    1. Re:No, the russian people know too well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they know that they are continually screwed, why do they keep breeding? Is it the drunken vodka sex or what?

    2. Re:No, the russian people know too well by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      This is rather disingenuous and not indicative of the popular attitudes of Russian society under Vladimir Putin's rule. As corrupt as he is, he has not gotten this far simply by demonstrating the futility of opposing him. He has extremely widespread support among the Russian people. They don't support him because they're afraid of him. They support him for reasons that are very similar to why a certain segment of American society supports Donald Trump.

      Moreover, if you look at the history of other nations whose people had long been oppressed but later experienced democratization, it is not as if they too have merely resigned themselves to their fate. Look at Myanmar, for instance. People know how to enact change if they really care about it, even if it takes time. It is just as possible to overthrow totalitarian regimes as it is to become enslaved by one. The deciding factor is not whether a population believes it is hopeless, but rather, whether the population gives support to the regime. Putin is able to keep his grip on power precisely because for the most part, Russian society LIKES him, even if that sentiment is based upon lies and manipulation.

    3. Re:No, the russian people know too well by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Putin is able to keep his grip on power precisely because for the most part, Russian society LIKES him, even if that sentiment is based upon lies and manipulation.

      A thousand times this. People act shocked that Trump is doing well. Trump is doing well because of lies. Trump is doing well because he represents an ideal leader for them. Some people want a dictator. It's certainly efficient in a lot of ways. You don't have obstructionism within an 'altruistic' dictatorship. "You want healthcare? Here is healthcare." I'm reminded of the quote from World War Z (the film) where the guy offhandedly acknowledges that North Korea is fine because everybody had their teeth removed in the first 48 hours. There are a lot of operations in which we're run by dictators: most offices, the military or even a family if you're under 18. Government is generally the exception to the rule because there is something to be said for singular vision. It's not for me but we shouldn't kid ourselves and say that it's just the product of people clueless as to what they're asking for.

  31. Weakening Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The embargo against the west regarding food and other stuff we have to import in order to live, because of their sanctions against Russia for the war in Ukraine, is a western plot to weaken Russia.

    I'm sure they would have cut the gas supply, but that's where the money is. So there's savings to make by starving the people.

  32. Re:No argument here by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    I think that just makes you a moron. Defending very wealthy people hiding their cash and making sure the system is gamed so they can is not laudable, and it takes a complete fucking idiot to be making a relatively small annual salary to think what they're doing is some sort of stab at the heart of the Big Bad Government.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Re:No argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Welp...that's the stupidest thing I've read all day.

    I'm not exactly a huge fan of a lot of what the United States does, but we've seen time and time again that the rest of the world would be killing each other even more if it wasn't for the U.S. telling them to stop.

  34. "Oh. You won't mind, then, if we seize all these accounts in your, amd your lieutenants', names?"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  35. People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Big deal! People in the US, sadly, don't seem to care about the Snowden or Manning "papers", except to denigrate the leakers instead of the revealed acts. And they're not going to care about the Panama Papers during the election either, just like they don't care about the already well known quid pro quo of the Clinton Foundation. Panama was a honeypot set up by the state department. That's why you don't see any important Americans in there. Their money is still in Switzerland.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  36. Re:No argument here by pj2541 · · Score: 1

    And the US government doesn't just spend the money it takes in , it borrows nearly a trillion a year, with no plans to ever pay it back (at least we've heard no such plan from any viable official or candidate.)

  37. The US doesn't need to weaken Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin is doing that just fine on his own.

  38. No No by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    The Panama Papers are part of US plot to weaken FIFA

  39. Paranoid Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because Putin is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

  40. Nope by PPH · · Score: 1

    We're just trying to drag the world down to our level. It's the bucket of crabs mentality.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Panama Toilet Papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need some reading material for the john while I wipe my ase.

  42. Re:No argument here by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    No, it's not stolen, and no, it's not someone refusing to pay their "fair share".

    It's taking advantage of the law as written, and there is absolutely no written system out there that can always beat people who are trying to game the rules. Take interest deductions - the one with the fewest limitations is the home mortgage interest deduction. Let's say you have a property worth $400k, and you and your spouse earn $200k/year in total. Let's assume you've been quite productive and have managed to pay the principal down to $200k, but the two of you have $100k in student loans. Student loan interest is almost certainly not deductible for you (ends at $160k AGI for couples), but home mortgage is. So if you were to refinance your loans at today's low, low rates, cashing out your equity to pay off the student loans, you would get a new $300k loan - but all the interest is now deductible. You very well might save some money on the interest rate, as well. College students: unless things have changed in the last ten years, if all your student loans are from one bank, you must use that bank for any student loan consolidation, but if you have federally-guaranteed loans from two banks, your choices are wide open - be sure to get at least one semester's loans from a different bank to keep your options open.

  43. westerners miss the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin is a thief, but he is our own thief... so between him and some liberas-pederast thief prop'd by the West the choice naturally is obvious

  44. Putin = Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was excited to read this until I noticed the highlighted people were a effectively a laundry list of people the US gov't has on their shit list. Zero names of Americans or anyone of interest you would hope to see.

    Captcha: concerns

  45. New Flash` by OpinOnion · · Score: 0

    Nobody needs to do anything to Russia to weaken it other than allow the existing corporations and leaders to run it into the ground. You have one of the best pieces of land on the planet for making money and yet the Russian GDP is a tiny 2 trillion dollars. Russia has always been good with using less money to do more, but a 2 trillion dollar economy from the world largest and most resource filled nation is pathetic and embarrassing. Russia should be the worlds 2nd largest economy, not 33% below Brazil. Russia economy is effectively Globally insignificant. The only thing they currently do that matters is add some fossil fuels, lumber and metals to the market, but really not enough to matter one way or another. I guess Russia is playing the long game. Waiting for it's resources to be worth more, but that's not going to happen. Once automated mining hits the scene the value of resources is going to plummet because the available resources to mine cost effectively will go way way up. There is also the fact that we have tons of resources trapped in the mantle and that's going to be easier and probably safer to mine than mining in space. The point is.. there is no resource shortage. The world will hit it's capacity for fresh water and farmable land long before it runs out of necessary resources. Most of the existing resources are infinitely recyclable. We will easily be able to build vertical farming in the future as labor costs go way down due to automation. There is no reason to think the world won't have robots fully capable of most human labor in 100 years. As long as we can make it 100 years or so most of our problems today can be engineered away with cheap 24 hour labor. Most of our visions of the world are completely wrong because they don't allow for the major breakthroughs like the Industrial Revolution and the coming Automation Revolution. It's going to reshape everything about economics, commodities and labor. One thing we can't avoid though will be rising land prices.. but most other things will lose value because everything in the industrial process will be automated.. from mining to transport to manufacturing to shipping back to retail and for that matter retail is almost highly automated via websites. We will all have robot assistants in a couple decades and they will just get more and more complex. Things like Amazon's Echo are just the start. Soon these things will follow you around and get you stuff and the start doing complex tasks like cleaning, laundry and cooking. I suspect making a humanoid robot will be most idea vs making many highly specialized robots. At first specialization seems most ideal, but not in this situation where the world is full of tools and appliances made to be used by bi-peds ranging from 4-6 feet tall. To leverage all that existing infrastructure, to make people more comfortable and to ensure we don't fully depreciate ourselves, it will be best to make robots that work like humans eventually.

    1. Re: New Flash` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wrote so many words that nobody read.

  46. Why sadly? by mbone · · Score: 0

    People in Russia, sadly, don't seem to care much about Panama Papers.

    I don't get the "sadly" there.

    There is the little detail that (as usual) basically everything Putin said is the literal truth, not that you would know that listening to NPR.

  47. Why the DELAY? Why NOW, a YEAR later? by xiando · · Score: 0

    One little question you all may want to ask yourselves is: Why did the CIA .. I mean the ICIJ ... uhm whatsthedifference .. release these documents When They Did? It important to notice that IT TOOK ONE YEAR AND ONE MONTH from the point in time where they received the documents to the point in the they actually published some minor pieces (It's interesting to note that they will not be publishing the entire dataset). Why the timing?

  48. Re:No argument here by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    When the law is written by bought and paid for politicians, it's theft, same as anything else obtained by fraud and corruption.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  49. Re: No argument here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How fucking ironic that you think not having your money stolen equals theft. What insane mindfuck mental gymnastics.

    Take your meds, schizo.

  50. Re:No argument here by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's taking advantage of the law as written

    A lot of it is outright fraud.

  51. Re: No argument here by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    How fucking ironic that you think not having your money stolen equals theft. What insane mindfuck mental gymnastics.

    Take your meds, schizo.

    Fraud and corruption in these cases are theft under cover of law. Maybe you should indulge in a few mental gymnastics to exercise your grey matter.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  52. Long term by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Better to give future stories to the world's media in full. Then every blogger, member of the press, historian, database expert, document expert, linguist, author, NGO with any interest can just work on or search for what they want or are expert in.
    No selected press, well funded groups with very regional stories to sell, waiting times.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  53. If Putin had an dignity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He would step down like the PM of Iceland did. It would the right thing to do.

    But since, like Assad, he thinks himself being in power is more important than his own people, I doubt he gives more than a couple of fucks.

  54. Best Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...New York can come up with "richest man" "thought".

    They hate him because he stopped their relatives looting Russia's resources while Jelzin was drunk and millions of Russians sold their last items for food.

  55. Pfffft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can do nothing without of hundreds of thousands of well-educated and hard working officers in the military, the police and the civil administration. Do you think he built all these top notch weapons which smoked out ISIS by his own hands ?

    No, he coached Russia to be great again. And that irks the One World Maniacs of NY and D.C.

  56. Compare That To America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America, the elite is the pay of the Saudi Wahabists, whose avowed aim is to eliminate ANY OTHER religion AND ethical system. Like the communists, the Mohammedists want TOTAL RULE. Over the entire planet.

    The Saudis are not stupid brutes, their are very Smart Brutes. So they use their thousands of billions of oil dollars in order to compromise the Bushes, the Battenbergs, the Clintons. And all the useless lefty idiots in the west who want political power. Saud has dollar bills for every Useful Idiot. Never mind that the lefties will be on the Mohammedist's chopping block as soon as they rule an area.

    What does Britain do ? They send more weapons to the Saudis, so that they can do their nasty work of killing Christians, Alewites, Shiites JUST FOR NOT BEING A SUNNI !

    Proofs:
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2014/feb/19/prince-charles-sword-dance-saudi-arabia-video
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Bush,_House_of_Saud
    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/20/reince-priebus/hillary-clinton-took-money-kings-four-countries-go/

    Putin is the last powerful defender of Europe, while the rest of the European (and US-European) elite have decided that the sweet Saudi money has won.

    More power to Putin !

  57. While Standard NY Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is to claim "cleptocracy" while supporting super-corrupt and super-evil folks like Jelzin and the Saud tyranny.

    Go fuck yourself.

    1. Re:While Standard NY Propaganda by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Jeltsin passed away quite a while ago so he's no longer interested.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  58. How Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...your lies are.

    Jelzin was the corrupt drinker in the pay of New York And Relatives.

    Compared to Jelzin, Putin is a brilliant example of a prince discharging his duties relative to his people.

    And I venture to say, compared to "our" elite, he is brilliant, too. Our elite claims they fight ISIS while covertly sending weapons to the Saudis, who are in FACT the sponsors of ISIS.

  59. Property vs. income tax by mi · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you don't own much real property.

    Your house — and the local tax on it — may be "much" by your standards. But not by those of the cited billionaires. Their wealth is primarily in stocks and cash — real estates taxes hardly move a needle on their dashboards.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  60. paama by martial007 · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I suspect its our multipolar hero who might be the Control-ee in this operation. The ''friends of Putin'' were the warning to Putin. Throwing Iceland under the bus is the perfect warning to nations so uppity as to actually jail banksters.

  61. FATCA by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Ever country should have its own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FATCA