3 ms·
Counter-argument: none of the shady shit they'd done had enough of an effect to interest law enforcement, right until they got control of the Presidency. It se
by pm90 8y ago
Counter-argument: none of the shady shit they'd done had enough of an effect to interest law enforcement, right until they got control of the Presidency.
It seems to make sense to me now. All the fear mongering over immigrants and drugs flooding across the border when an American company (Purdue Pharma) engineered the worst actual drug epidemic in generations makes me wonder about the effectiveness of spending literally billions on the "War on Drugs" while not addressing the real issues.
- mikeash 8y agoI don’t think that’s a counter argument, just a specific example of what I said in my first paragraph.
- pm90 8y agoWhat you say in your first paragraph: > There’s little motivation for law enforcement to search for white collar crime, and little support for prosecuting it. How is what I said a specific example of this?
- mikeash 8y agoLaw enforcement wasn’t interested in their shady shit before, because they weren’t motivated to look for it, and if they had found it, it probably wouldn’t have been prosecuted anyway.
- freen 8y agoThe IRS audits low/middle income folks overwhelmingly more than rich folks. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/3/18292741/irs-tax-audit-eitc-black-belt https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/3/18292741/irs-tax... I doubt it’s because of either the magnitude or harm caused, more like the ease of prosecution.