New bill in congress will help the average American
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/02/sports/02tax.final.html?hp
Bill Would Raise Franchise Value of Sports Teams
By DUFF WILSON
wners of professional sports teams stand to gain tens of millions of
dollars in the values of their franchises because of a single sentence
buried deep in a sprawling piece of export-tax legislation now before
Congress.
The benefit to sports franchises is contained in a small part of an
enormous bill introduced originally to settle a trade dispute with the
European Union. But the legislation has since become laden with add-ons
for interests ranging from tobacco farmers to Oldsmobile dealers.
The bill, which has been approved by both houses, is expected to go
before a conference committee to resolve the differences. The final
version is expected to be put before both houses in September, when
Congress returns from vacation.
The proposed change affecting sports team owners, which has been passed
without hearings or debate, would allow the owners to write off the full
value of their franchises over 15 years. Existing law generally limits
teams to writing off only the value of player contracts over three to
five years. The biggest items subject to the expanded write-offs would be
television and radio contracts.
The benefits would apply to newly acquired assets, so current owners
would not actually pocket more money, but they could command higher
prices when they sell.
Two directors at Lehman Brothers, the investment bank, who specialize in
sports banking and tax policy said the change could add 5 percent to
sports franchise values. If so, it would represent a $2 billion windfall
to franchise values, which totaled $41 billion in 2002, according to
Forbes magazine.
"They're doing very well in this," said Robert Willens, a managing
director at Lehman Brothers.
The Jets, who were sold for $635 million in 2000, might be worth an
additional $55 million under the proposal, Willens estimated. Robert
Caparole, chairman of Game Plan, a Boston investment bank, which has been
an adviser on the sale of many professional sports teams, agreed that the
change could boost purchase prices.
The proposed change appeared in separate export-tax measures in the
Senate in October and in the House of Representatives in March. The two
bodies recently passed markedly different versions of the bill, which
grew to 960 pages, but each version has the identical language that is of
special interest to owners of professional teams.
The prime sponsors, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and
Representative William M. Thomas, Republican of California, did not
return telephone and e-mail requests for comment last week.
Willens predicted the bill would become law in October.
Benefits for Larger Teams
Write-offs like those proposed for franchise owners sometimes reduce
taxes not only on sports teams but also, in some cases, on owner's other
earnings. For example, if Donald Trump bought the Yankees for $1.5
billion, he could deduct about $100 million per year for 15 years on
profits not only from the Yankees but from his other companies that made
a profit.
The precise effects of the measure cannot be calculated without knowing
each team's financial details and each owner's tax situation. But in
general, according to nine professional sport bankers, accountants and
lawyers interviewed last week, the new law would be of greatest benefit
to sports teams with higher values, longer-term ownership plans, and
larger broadcast contracts.
"The benefits are going to vary depending on how long you're going to
hold the team and the size of the deal," said Michael E. Rapkoch,
president of Sports Value Consulting in Dallas.
Shawn McCarthy, director of the League of Fans, a program of the Center
for Study of Responsive Law, which was founded by Ralph Nader, said,
"Naturally I'm skeptical when professional sports leagues are lobbying
Congress for changes that benefit them financially, especially
considering all of the taxpayer handouts these leagues have received over
the past 15 or so years."
A report by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation says the
measure would actually increase taxes for sports owners by $381 million
over 10 years. Mark Prater, chief tax counsel for the Senate Finance
Committee, said in an e-mail message that the change would also end
disputes over allowable write-offs between the teams and the Internal
Revenue Service.
"There's nothing nefarious about it," Prater wrote.
Rob Vandenheuvel, a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee,
said the proposal had popped up twice before in other bills "as a revenue
raiser."
Lower Taxes for Owners
But most of the sports bankers and accountants interviewed said they did
not believe sports owners in the long run would pay more taxes under the
proposal.
Major League Baseball actively lobbied for the change and the National
Football League supported it. The National Basketball Association and the
National Hockey League were neutral. Willens said he was mystified by the
Congressional claim that the measure would raise taxes on sports owners.
Robert E. Leib, former lead tax partner in the professional sports
industry group at Arthur Andersen, said that claim was misleading. Leib
said the proposal would generally lower taxes and raise the capital
values of sports franchises, especially in the N.F.L.
"The effect will differ franchise to franchise and league to league,"
added Leib, a lawyer and accountant who founded The Leib Group in
Wisconsin. He also represented the Boston developer Frank McCourt in his
$430 million purchase of the Los Angeles Dodgers this year.
Leib warned, however, that minor leagues of professional sports may find
the new tax rule "very disadvantageous." He said that the minors had
virtually no media contracts to figure into the proposed new accounting
and that they probably would pay more taxes.
Owners of professional sports team have been trying for years to persuade
the I.R.S. to allow them to amortize their increasingly lucrative media
deals, but the I.R.S. has ruled that those are continuing assets, and
nondeductible under special tax rules established in 1993 for
professional sports.
The Canadian Press, a news service, has estimated that the average N.F.L.
team received $77 million a year from national broadcast rights in 2002.
The average in the N.B.A. was $26 million, according to the agency, Major
League Baseball teams averaged $12 million and N.H.L. teams averaged $5
million. The bill under consideration would allow them to write off the
value of those broadcast rights from their income, while stretching out
the write-off on player contracts.
Values Up by 5 Percent
"At the end of the day, this should add to the current value of
franchises," said Aaron Barman, a sports investment banker with the
public finance department at Raymond James & Associates.
Allen R. Sanderson, associate chairman of the economics department at the
University of Chicago, who teaches and writes about sports economics,
agreed.
"This is clearly something that would benefit them," Sanderson said.
Willens said the change would add about 5 percent to major league
franchise values "across the board."
Sal Galatioto, the managing director in charge of Lehman Brothers' sports
advisory and finance group, said that the change would lower taxes for
most franchises, depending on their size and other factors, and that it
would add up to 5 percent in value.
"But personally, I don't think it's going to be enough to change
someone's determination on whether or not they want to buy one of these
things," Galatioto added. He is an adviser on the pending sale of the
Nets this month and said that the deal should not wait for a possible tax
law change in October.
"Deals that are done are going to have to close now," Galatioto said.
An Expensive Disagreement
The change also means that owners are certain to save millions of dollars
on the teams of lawyers and accountants they have had to hire to battle
the I.R.S. in the continuing argument over franchise write-offs.
When Bud Selig, now commissioner of Major League Baseball, bought a
bankrupt Seattle team and moved it to Milwaukee in 1970, he assigned
$10.2 million of the $10.8 million price to player contracts and wrote
off the salaries. The I.R.S. challenged the move. Selig won the dispute
in court, but in 1976 Congress limited player contracts to 50 percent of
franchise values.
In 1993, Congress set a simple 15-year rule for most businesses to write
off intangible assets, but it carved out a special exclusion for sports
franchises that allows them to more quickly write off player contracts .
In 1997, the I.R.S. set up a team of specialists based in Florida to
scrutinize a wide range of professional sports' tax claims, especially
the write-offs. Audits, appeals and litigation followed.
An I.R.S. spokesman, Anthony Burke, declined to comment last week on the
proposal before Congress.
"If it's pending legislation, we don't discuss it," he said.
Congress's stated reason for changing the sports tax law now, in addition
to raising taxes, is to end argument between owners and the I.R.S. "The
committee believes expending taxpayer and government resources disputing
these items is an unproductive use of economic resources," the House
report on the legislation says.
The Senate version of the bill passed by a vote of 92-5 on May 11. The
House version, called the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, passed by a
vote of 251-178 on June 17, but not before a raucous debate on other
special-interest items in the bill.
Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, called the bill "a
Christmas tree of special interest giveaways."
Some Call It Pork
Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, complained, "Instead
of creating jobs, it creates tax cuts for cruise-ship operators, foreign
dog-race gamblers, Nascar track owners, whaling tribes, bow-and-arrow
makers, Chinese ceiling-fan manufacturers, Oldsmobile dealers, and beer
and liquor wholesalers."
Republicans disagreed. Representative Thomas, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, said the measure would primarily create jobs and
incidentally fix some unfair or out-of-date tax laws.
"People deserve a day at least once every 20 years," Thomas said in floor
debate, "to try to correct the horrible, horrible condition of many areas
of our economy under our current tax code."
Nowhere in the hours of debate in the House or the Senate was a word
uttered about professional sports franchises.
Greg Aiello, N.F.L. vice president for public relations, said the sports
write-off proposal was not controversial because the government said it
would collect more taxes and the I.R.S. and owners would spend less money
fighting each other.
"It was agreed it makes sense to simplify the code and eliminate all the
hassles," Aiello said.
The N.B.A. remained neutral on the bill, said league spokesman Mike Bass,
because some N.B.A. owners would benefit from the change, but others
would not, because they had larger ratios of player contracts already
being written off.
William H. Schweitzer, a managing partner of the Washington law firm of
Baker & Hostetler, promoted the tax change on Capitol Hill for Major
League Baseball. Schweitzer said the change would have a slightly
positive impact, varying from club to club, by eliminating I.R.S.
disputes, without significantly changing taxes. He said baseball had not
specifically evaluated how the new tax law would affect franchise values.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
Bert Hyman
news:Xns953988782746bi...@130.133.1.4:
> Bill Would Raise Franchise Value of Sports Teams
You want The State to regulate the economy, don't you?
What's your beef about this?
What else did you expect to happen?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
news:Xns95397EC91C4...@news.visi.com:
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns953988782746bi...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Bill Would Raise Franchise Value of Sports Teams
>
> You want The State to regulate the economy, don't you?
>
> What's your beef about this?
>
> What else did you expect to happen?
>
Boy Bert - you sure showed me what's what. I don't think I ever read a more
comprehensive and well-written rebuttal in all my years in usenet.
Bert Hyman
> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
> news:Xns95397EC91C4...@news.visi.com:
>
>> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote
>> in news:Xns953988782746bi...@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>> Bill Would Raise Franchise Value of Sports Teams
>>
>> You want The State to regulate the economy, don't you?
>>
>> What's your beef about this?
>>
>> What else did you expect to happen?
>>
>
> Boy Bert - you sure showed me what's what. I don't think I ever
> read a more comprehensive and well-written rebuttal in all my years
> in usenet.
It certainly beats yours, since you merely post what others write.
But, you ->are in favor of The State regulating the economy, aren't
you?
So, when The State regulates, you'll just have to take what it dishes
out and live with it.
What else could you possibly expect?
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns95398AD91DA7bi...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns95397EC91C4...@news.visi.com:
>>
>>> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote
>>> in news:Xns953988782746bi...@130.133.1.4:
>>>
>>>> Bill Would Raise Franchise Value of Sports Teams
>>>
>>> You want The State to regulate the economy, don't you?
>>>
>>> What's your beef about this?
>>>
>>> What else did you expect to happen?
>>>
>>
>> Boy Bert - you sure showed me what's what. I don't think I ever
>> read a more comprehensive and well-written rebuttal in all my years
>> in usenet.
>
> It certainly beats yours, since you merely post what others write.
>
> But, you ->are in favor of The State regulating the economy, aren't
> you?
>
Regulating "the" economy? As in every single aspect of the economy? No.
But are in favor of absolutely no regulation at all?
Bert Hyman
You claim to be a Libertarian, yet you seem to view such a
proposition with horror.
Why's that?
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
It's called "realism" Bert. Learn some history. Read about the late 19th
century. Now will you answer my question?
Bert Hyman
Being careful to distinguish between having laws to punish crimes
such as fraud, and having The State actively regulate the economy,
then yes, I'm in favor of having no regulation.
And you?
You do realize that many of the problems of the late 19th century
were actually brought about by a form of State regulation of the
economy, don't you? Corrupt business men bought favors from equally
corrupt government officials in order to bring the police power of
The State to bear on their competitors.
In the long run, this is the guaranteed outcome of any scheme of
State meddling in the economy; since there's no rational way for The
State to run the economy, the rules will simply be made to favor
those who pay the biggest bribes.
It's your form of "realism", pragmatism and compromise that got us
into our current state. You may not realize it, but you're probably a
conservative, interventionist Republican, not a Libertarian.
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
So you think we should abolish the Fed? Let the market directly determine
interest rates? No tax credits to companies that reinvest income? No
anti-trust laws? The government should allow people to buy prescription
drugs from Canada or over the internet? And any accounting malpractice
short of outright fraud is OK?
> And you?
>
> You do realize that many of the problems of the late 19th century
> were actually brought about by a form of State regulation of the
> economy, don't you? Corrupt business men bought favors from equally
> corrupt government officials in order to bring the police power of
> The State to bear on their competitors.
>
No minimum wage. No unemployment insurance. No fair hiring and firing
laws. No safety regulations to protect workers.
> In the long run, this is the guaranteed outcome of any scheme of
> State meddling in the economy; since there's no rational way for The
> State to run the economy, the rules will simply be made to favor
> those who pay the biggest bribes.
>
> It's your form of "realism", pragmatism and compromise that got us
> into our current state. You may not realize it, but you're probably a
> conservative, interventionist Republican, not a Libertarian.
>
No, I'm a libertarian. But I will grant you that most self-described
libertarians are exactly what you described: conservative,
interventionist republicans. What's really funny is that you yourself
have called me a liberal - now you're calling me a conservative. Why do
you need to straddle this issue? Can't you come down on one side and stay
on that side without flip-flopping whenever it suits your agenda? Then
again, since Libertarians mix fiscal conservancy with social liberalism,
your mistake is understandable.
Bert Hyman
Of course.
> And any accounting malpractice short of outright fraud is OK?
Not being an accountant, I don't know what "accounting malpractice
short of outright fraud" is. There may well be other crimes that
businessmen commit, but having laws to punish objective crimes is
certainly not the same as "regulating the economy".
>> And you?
>>
>> You do realize that many of the problems of the late 19th century
>> were actually brought about by a form of State regulation of the
>> economy, don't you? Corrupt business men bought favors from
>> equally corrupt government officials in order to bring the police
>> power of The State to bear on their competitors.
>>
> No minimum wage. No unemployment insurance. No fair hiring and
> firing laws. No safety regulations to protect workers.
That's right.
>> In the long run, this is the guaranteed outcome of any scheme of
>> State meddling in the economy; since there's no rational way for
>> The State to run the economy, the rules will simply be made to
>> favor those who pay the biggest bribes.
>>
>> It's your form of "realism", pragmatism and compromise that got us
>> into our current state. You may not realize it, but you're
>> probably a conservative, interventionist Republican, not a
>> Libertarian.
>>
> No, I'm a libertarian.
If the laundry list of government regulations you included in your
post represents things you think are good ideas, you are not.
> But I will grant you that most self-described libertarians are
> exactly what you described: conservative, interventionist
> republicans. What's really funny is that you yourself have called
> me a liberal - now you're calling me a conservative. Why do you
> need to straddle this issue?
In modern politics, there's really not much difference; both
so-called liberals and so-called conservatives are great proponents
of the power of The State. From the limited context available in your
post, could have been either one. You still could be either one; as I
said, you're not a Libertarian, and certainly not a libertarian
either.
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns953994EE03BA0bi...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns953988DF7D8...@news.visi.com:
>>
>>> Being careful to distinguish between having laws to punish crimes
>>> such as fraud, and having The State actively regulate the economy,
>>> then yes, I'm in favor of having no regulation.
>>>
>> So you think we should abolish the Fed? Let the market directly
>> determine interest rates? No tax credits to companies that reinvest
>> income? No anti-trust laws? The government should allow people to
>> buy prescription drugs from Canada or over the internet?
>
> Of course.
>
You agreeing with all of them or just the last one?
>> And any accounting malpractice short of outright fraud is OK?
>
> Not being an accountant, I don't know what "accounting malpractice
> short of outright fraud" is. There may well be other crimes that
> businessmen commit, but having laws to punish objective crimes is
> certainly not the same as "regulating the economy".
>
Actually, it is. No regulation means no regulation. Why are flip-flopping
on this? Why are you trying to be all things to all people?
>>> And you?
>>>
>>> You do realize that many of the problems of the late 19th century
>>> were actually brought about by a form of State regulation of the
>>> economy, don't you? Corrupt business men bought favors from
>>> equally corrupt government officials in order to bring the police
>>> power of The State to bear on their competitors.
>>>
>> No minimum wage. No unemployment insurance. No fair hiring and
>> firing laws. No safety regulations to protect workers.
>
> That's right.
>
And this is what you want? Where do you work? Maybe I can sell your boss
some cheap new desks made out of depleted uranium.
>>> In the long run, this is the guaranteed outcome of any scheme of
>>> State meddling in the economy; since there's no rational way for
>>> The State to run the economy, the rules will simply be made to
>>> favor those who pay the biggest bribes.
>>>
>>> It's your form of "realism", pragmatism and compromise that got us
>>> into our current state. You may not realize it, but you're
>>> probably a conservative, interventionist Republican, not a
>>> Libertarian.
>>>
>> No, I'm a libertarian.
>
> If the laundry list of government regulations you included in your
> post represents things you think are good ideas, you are not.
>
Libertarians don't believe in safety regulations or unemployment
insurance?
>> But I will grant you that most self-described libertarians are
>> exactly what you described: conservative, interventionist
>> republicans. What's really funny is that you yourself have called
>> me a liberal - now you're calling me a conservative. Why do you
>> need to straddle this issue?
>
> In modern politics, there's really not much difference; both
> so-called liberals and so-called conservatives are great proponents
> of the power of The State. From the limited context available in your
> post, could have been either one. You still could be either one; as I
> said, you're not a Libertarian, and certainly not a libertarian
> either.
>
Flip-flopper.
Bert Hyman
> Flip-flopper.
You seem to have latched on to this buzz-phrase and think you can use
it as some sort of general purpose insult, in place of discussing the
issues you've raised.
That's stupid.
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns9539983852F4Ebi...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Flip-flopper.
>
> You seem to have latched on to this buzz-phrase and think you can use
> it as some sort of general purpose insult, in place of discussing the
> issues you've raised.
>
> That's stupid.
>
You just described every single right-wing "journalist". Doesn't change the
fact that you are trying to simultaneously cast me as a "liberal" and an
unwitting "conservative." As I said before, since I am in fact a fiscal
conservative and a social "liberal", your confusion is understandable. Not
everyone marches in lock-step with the party line.
Bert Hyman
> news:Xns95398D18B73...@news.visi.com:
>> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote
>> in news:Xns953994EE03BA0bi...@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>> determine interest rates? No tax credits to companies that
>>> reinvest income? No anti-trust laws? The government should allow
>>> people to buy prescription drugs from Canada or over the
>>> internet?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
> You agreeing with all of them or just the last one?
All of 'em. Each and every one.
>>> And any accounting malpractice short of outright fraud is OK?
>>
>> Not being an accountant, I don't know what "accounting malpractice
>> short of outright fraud" is. There may well be other crimes that
>> businessmen commit, but having laws to punish objective crimes is
>> certainly not the same as "regulating the economy".
>>
> Actually, it is. No regulation means no regulation. Why are
> flip-flopping on this? Why are you trying to be all things to all
> people?
Nonsense. Having a law punishing fraud is no different from a law
punishing ordinary theft, and neither need involve regulating either
people's lives, or the economy.
>>> No minimum wage. No unemployment insurance. No fair hiring and
>>> firing laws. No safety regulations to protect workers.
>>
>> That's right.
>>
> And this is what you want? Where do you work? Maybe I can sell your
> boss some cheap new desks made out of depleted uranium.
Why? Assuming that you think a desk of depleted uranium is a special
danger, or could actually be supplied cheaply, do you think that you
need some special safety regulation, separate from the ordinary laws
already on the books, to punish wrong-doing in a place of business?
Do you need a special law, with a special bureaucracy, to punish
murder in the workplace?
> Libertarians don't believe in safety regulations or unemployment
> insurance?
If you're going to continue to call yourself either a libertarian or
a Libertarian, I suggest you look into that.
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns9539983852F4Ebi...@130.133.1.4:
>> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns95398D18B73...@news.visi.com:
>>> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote
>>> in news:Xns953994EE03BA0bi...@130.133.1.4:
>>>
>>>> So you think we should abolish the Fed? Let the market directly
>>>> determine interest rates? No tax credits to companies that
>>>> reinvest income? No anti-trust laws? The government should allow
>>>> people to buy prescription drugs from Canada or over the
>>>> internet?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>> You agreeing with all of them or just the last one?
>
> All of 'em. Each and every one.
>
So then I take it you are not voting for Bush. After all, he opposes each
and every one.
>>>> And any accounting malpractice short of outright fraud is OK?
>>>
>>> Not being an accountant, I don't know what "accounting malpractice
>>> short of outright fraud" is. There may well be other crimes that
>>> businessmen commit, but having laws to punish objective crimes is
>>> certainly not the same as "regulating the economy".
>>>
>> Actually, it is. No regulation means no regulation. Why are
>> flip-flopping on this? Why are you trying to be all things to all
>> people?
>
> Nonsense. Having a law punishing fraud is no different from a law
> punishing ordinary theft, and neither need involve regulating either
> people's lives, or the economy.
>
Except that you should let the market punish defrauders. Let consumers
boycott their products or services. Let injured parties sue for damages.
Why have the government play any role whatsoever?
>>>> No minimum wage. No unemployment insurance. No fair hiring and
>>>> firing laws. No safety regulations to protect workers.
>>>
>>> That's right.
>>>
>> And this is what you want? Where do you work? Maybe I can sell your
>> boss some cheap new desks made out of depleted uranium.
>
> Why? Assuming that you think a desk of depleted uranium is a special
> danger, or could actually be supplied cheaply, do you think that you
> need some special safety regulation, separate from the ordinary laws
> already on the books, to punish wrong-doing in a place of business?
>
Those laws that are "already on the books" are called "safety
regulations." Above you stated quite clearly that you didn't think the
government should have safety regulations to protect workers.
I said: "No safety regulations to protect workers."
You said: "That's right."
Are you flip-flopping on this now?
> Do you need a special law, with a special bureaucracy, to punish
> murder in the workplace?
>
Murder? Isn't that a tad extreme? But say I want to have Exit signs that
are made with Radium so that they glow in the dark? If a worker gets
cancer, let them sue me and try and prove it was the Exit sign that gave
them cancer.
>> Libertarians don't believe in safety regulations or unemployment
>> insurance?
>
> If you're going to continue to call yourself either a libertarian or
> a Libertarian, I suggest you look into that.
>
Well, other than a call to repeal OSHA, I can nothing that says the LP
platform opposes all laws regulating workplace safety. They also do not
call a repeal of unemployment insurance laws. On multiple planks in the
offical 2004 platform, they call for the government to protect the
individual's rights. Isn't the right to safe workplace among those
rights? I would say the LP is self-contradictory here. But it doesn't
bother me. Only mindless automatons need to march lock-step with the
party line. The best example is how the LP has strayed from its old
standing that reducing the size of government and the amount of
government spending is the prelude to reduction of taxes and now promotes
the exact opposite: that slashing or eliminating taxes is the way to
starve government. This is Goldwateronomics. But are you saying I have to
agree 100% with every plank in the party platform to be a libertarian?
Going down the list of planks under "Individual Rights and Civil Order"
(http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/i.html) I find myself agreeing
completely with about 20 out of 23 and at least partially with the other
3. On the economy (http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/ii.html) I find
myself in 100% agreement on points 5-10 (out of 10). I find myself in
partial agreement on 1 and 2 and primarily opposed to 3 and 4. I feel the
enactment of changes called for in 3 especially would lead to widespread
fraud. On "Domestic Ills" I find myself in complete agreement on about
half (7/15) and partial agreement on most of the rest. I find myself in
near complete agreement on all planks under "Foreign Affairs." Overall,
I'd say I am 65-75% in agreement with LP party platform.
But maybe you want to say that a person has to agree 100% with their
party's platform? Which party are you in?
Bert Hyman
> Are you flip-flopping on this now?
See? You're acting like an idiot again.
Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns9539A3919CABbi...@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Are you flip-flopping on this now?
>
> See? You're acting like an idiot again.
>
I noticed that snipped about 95% of my post. Since you falsely accused me
of not knowing what a libertarian was and not being an actual
libertarian, and since I had the common decency to go through the entire
LP platform and explain to you what I did and did not agree on, I would
say that snipping my post down to a single line just so you could call me
names makes you THE BIGGEST FUCKING LYING ASSHOLE ON USENET.
Cheney was right. I feel better now.
*PLONK*
Below is the entire text of the post Bert was too scared to address:
Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
news:Xns95399404091...@news.visi.com:
> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote in
> news:Xns9539983852F4Ebi...@130.133.1.4:
>> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns95398D18B73...@news.visi.com:
>>> bio_dud...@hotmail.com (Dick "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney) wrote
Are you flip-flopping on this now?
> Do you need a special law, with a special bureaucracy, to punish
--
The use of the word "fuck" in this post was authorized
by Dick Cheney, Vice-president of the United States.