"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Cheney
V for Vendicar
<orang...@googlemail.com> wrote
> as ron paul explains
> "individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of
> federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget
> would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion -- a sum
> greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone
> seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000
> levels?"
http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg
As you can see from the following chart. Total non-defense spending in the
U.S. is 983 billion.
By the way, can you find U.S. forign aid anywhere on that chart?
Ahahahahahahahahah
So you want to cut U.S. spending by 33 precent do you?
Here is how Budget 2009 breaks down
24% - Medicade and medical services
13% - Interest on the public debt
19% - Social Security
19% - DOD
26% - All other government programs.
You gonna reduce Social Security payments for the elderly?
How about cutting Medicade?
Zero out the U.S. military?
Gee, you can't cut interest on the public debt, soooo How do you get to 33%
How about zeroing out a bit of the 3 cuttable categories and then shut down
the rest of the government?
You gonna Close down everything contained under "Other:" 26% government
spending.
The FBI,
The CIA,
The Department of Homeland Security,
The Department of Jusice,
The State Department,
The Treasury Department,
The Department of Vetrans Affairs,
The Department of Agriculture,
The Department of Education,
The National Instiute of Health,
The Federal Aviation Administration,
The Department of Housing and Development,
All Infrastructure construction,
The Department of health and Human Services,
The Interior Department,
NASA,
The National Science Foundation,
The U.S. postal service,
The EPA
<AND> Every other Government program.
And of course after your cuts, the U.S. deficit will still be an estimated
619 billion dollars this year alone since you have cut revenues.
So Come on boy. Tell us what you are going to cut to get to the 33%
reduction.
And how are you going to cope with the massive unemployment problem you
create in those spending reductions?
Come on little boy. Tells us your plan.
Ahahahahahaahahah
(David P.)
> <orangata...@googlemail.com> wrote
> > as ron paul explains:
> > "individual income taxes account for only
> > approx. 1/3 of fedrev. Eliminating 1/3 of
> > the proposed 2007 budget would still leave
> > fedspend at roughly $1.8 trillion -- a sum
> > greater than the budget just 6 years ago
> > in 2000! Does anyone believe we can't find
> > ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?"
> http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg
> As you can see from the following chart.
> Total non-defense spending is 983 billion.
> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
> anywhere on that chart?
19% - DOD (World's policeman)
> Here's how Budget 2009 breaks down
> 24% - Medicaid and medical services
> 13% - Interest on the public debt
> 19% - Social Security
> 19% - DOD
> 26% - All other government programs.
> what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
Stop suppressing influenza!
.
.
--
V for Vendicar
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
>> anywhere on that chart?
>
> 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
Not to mention a "police force" that has been caught using terrorism to
attack the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, Afghanistan and a
host of other nations.
If AmeriKKKa's murderers and torturers are a police force then they are
the most corrupt police force that has ever existed.
orang...@googlemail.com
interest on the national debt - over 40% national debt is owed to the
privatley owned federal reserve. this portion of the national debt
could be cancelled at no cost. this would have the side effect of
moving the dollar off a debt standard and allowing the rest of the
national debt to be paid off over a five year period. this was last
done by president jackson who was the only president to pay off the
national debt. - 13% saved
half the size of the military -another 10% saved.
now cut the budget of all remaining programs by about 12%. this will
save the final 10%
now the income tax can be scrapped.
Christopher Helms
The cost of invading and occupying Iraq and Afganistan is well over a
trillion dollars and is "off-budget." Also, money paid in FICA taxes
goes into the general fund while IUO's for that FICA money go into the
Social Security "Trust Fund." Those IOU's get counted as revenue, even
though they are not revenue any more than a maxed out credit card bill
is revenue. When Kudlow, Sewell or some other Republican flack starts
blathering about "The deficit is within historical limits" or "A tiny
fraction of GNP" or something like that, they can only arrive at that
by ignoring a hellish amount of spending and debt.
Whenever some rightard starts telling you that deficits don't matter,
or it's "Just the left pocket owing the right pocket money," just
remember that the "left pocket" is ultimately your bank account and
the "right pocket" is somebody else's. There is still no such thing as
a free lunch and no amount of Republican bullshit can change that.
Eddie Haskell
"V for Vendicar" <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:JAShk.18$Wm...@read2.cgocable.net...
Build a time machine and go back and assassinate FDR and Johnson who saddled
this nation with onerous programs that will never cease to grow until they
bankrupt the nation.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
>
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
>>> anywhere on that chart?
>>
>> 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
>
> This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
Go fuck yourself with your grossly exaggerated claims and typical democrat
lies, cocksucker.
-Eddie Haskell
hanson
"Eddie Haskell" <hh...@rrat.com> cranked himself in message
news:Kj2ik.6381$P8....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> Scoptt Nudds aka VD Scotty aka "VD for Vendicar"
> news:XZThk.38$in...@read1.cgocable.net...
>>
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
>>>> anywhere on that chart?
>>> 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
>>
>> This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
>> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
>
> Go fuck yourself with your grossly exaggerated claims and typical democrat
> lies, cocksucker.
> -Eddie Haskell
.... ahahahaha... Did VD Scotty crank you?... ahahaha...
Listen Eddie, don't be so hard on VD Scotty when he
Scuttles his Nutts. The poor sod can't even fuck right.
You'll know that you have won when VD Scotty post his
phony & ridiculous chart after your post ... ahahahaha....
Post this following item to get to VD Scotty:
===== VD Scotty loves to hear this about himself: ====
>
Gauche & loud communist, US-expatriate & pauper Scott Nudds
aka "VD-for-Vendicar" <JusticeatExecuteTheBushTraitor.com>
aka <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com>
aka VD-Scotty, member of the Reality Based Community aka
RBC, the ReBorn Communists, aka #1 Little Ghreen idiot who
bragged that he **never** drove & much less ever owned an
automobile, was told the following by Naomi Goldstein in:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/44eac74649636806>
wherein Naomi says:
--- Dear Vendi---,
Vendi, I read some more of your archive and it excited me greatly,
Vendi. Especially your post yesterday where you advertised very
cautiously that you are into blowing doggies. Really, Vendi?
Zoo stuff? That's impressive Vendi. What kind of dogs do you prefer
to nosh off? Vendi you would be the center attraction piece of the
parties when you would blow some dogs amongst some other kind
of kinky stuff. We will make a movie from it of course and you could
have a piece of the action. It's money, and money don't are, Vendi.
Let's party, Vendi. You suck off the doggies and do me doggie style.
I knew I had a winner in you, Vendi. Grand show, Vendi.
Like I said, Vendi, you are invited to party. PRIYARI.
With love,
Naomi Goldstein-Goldman
>
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/0d934ebcc7b3fd1f>
wherein Naomi says:
--- Dear Vendi ----,
... you creamed in your pants when I took my bra off and then the
other guys laughed at you and called you "Scuttle Nutts". So, See,
Short-dick/Quick-cumers like you are not best sellers in the adult
movie biz. I hope you'll understand that. Biz is biz. I'm sorry, dear.
With love,
--- Naomi Goldstein-Goldman
>
hanson wrote:
More fun with ped-odiuos VD Scotty, the LibratArian here
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/d6461b8201270e1d>
and here, VD-Scotty blowing dogs:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/c279ff07079e8f16>
Wherein Scott Nudds aka VD-for-Vendicar scuttled his Nutts.... ahahaha..
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/msg/b767cbbb...>
Pauper VD Scotty and his lack of money... ahahaha...
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.libertarian/msg/af3f9cc5...>
VD Scotty on governance... AHAHAHAHA....
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/cde0da4d1f38222d>
>
Google/groups --[ author:han...@quick.net Nudds ]--
ENJOY! ... Great fun!... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
PS... a special Enviro treat for VD Scotty from Al Gore, both of
whom proselytize the Green Bible that which compels them
to say:
-- Green Genesis --:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
3= "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds,
= I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and **Sea Shepherd**
-- Revelations --:
4 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
5 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
6 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
7 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
8 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
9 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
>
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones, in "environmental
groups" who think they do something for the "environment",
when in fact they are only the enablers and facilitators for
(2) who are harvesting the green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
>
The most intriguing fact though is that during the past 40 years
**EVERYBODY** has adopted the Green Bible & learned,
by now how to uses these machination principles for their
own agenda by now.... ahahaha....ALL of'em use and do it...
from the far Left to the far Right, from Lenders to Creditors,
from Union bosses to Wallstreet CEO, from Jews to Muslims,
from secular Heads of State to the Pope, & most ominously
of all ... from Elementary School pupils to their Teachers...
WORLDWIDE!...
>
Strange enough though, the original hard core class 3 enviros
the first tier disciples of environmentalism are in full denial on this,
....ahahahaha... ahahanson
V for Vendicar
"Eddie Haskell" <hh...@rrat.com> wrote
> Build a time machine and go back and assassinate FDR and Johnson who
> saddled this nation with onerous programs that will never cease to grow
> until they bankrupt the nation.
Shit Sucker RepubliKKKans just can't seem to comprehend that fact that the
U.S. debt is a <DIRECT> result of the tax reductions of the AmreiKKKan
TRAITORS Ronald Reagan (a Financial backer of Global Terrorism) , WAR
CRIMINALS Bush1 and Crack addict Bush2.
In any case, KKKonervative Haskell being another AmeriKKKan who is
incapable of adding and subtracting would rather childishly whine about
"going back in time" than think about how to provide AmeriKKKa with a
solution to it's ongoing financial collapse.
AmeriKKKa is dead as a nation because AmeriKKKans are so stupid, they
can't even add and subtract anymore.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
Be compassionate to the AmeriKKKan state.Exterminate it quickly and put it
out of it's mysery.
V for Vendicar
>> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
"Eddie Haskell" <hh...@rrat.com> wrote in message
news:Kj2ik.6381$P8....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Go fuck yourself with your grossly exaggerated claims and typical democrat
> lies, cocksucker.
Poor KKKonservative Traitor Haskell. He can't add or subtract, but he
knows that a million is a big number, but he just can't bring himself to
accept the truth that his beloved leader - who has put food on the family of
every AmeriKKKan - is a murderous War Criminal, responsible for the murder
of over 1 million Iraqi Civilians - and several thousand of his fellow
AmeriKKKunts.
Oh man. It has been so funny watching his Illegitimate President - while
stoned out of his gourd on Valium - and now Ritalin - give Bin Laden,
everything Bin Laden ever dreamed of. And a spectacular Victory for
AlQuada.
8 years ago I predicted that the Failure currently occupying the White
House would leave AmeriKKKa with a debt of 11.5 Trillion dollars.
At hearing this, AmeriKKKan RepubliKKKunts gnashed their toothless gums
and called me a Communist, a Liar, a Faggot, a Loser, a Communist, a pig, a
dog, a "cock sucking liberal faggot." etc.
And now, according to the AmeriKKKa's own OMB, Bush will leave AmeriKKKa
with a debt of 11.4 trillion dollars.
Ahahahahahahahaah.....
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSS
V for Vendicar
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
-------------------------------------------> Temperature
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
V for Vendicar
> > Here's how Budget 2009 breaks down
> > 24% - Medicaid and medical services
> > 13% - Interest on the public debt
> > 19% - Social Security
> > 19% - DOD
> > 26% - All other government programs.
"Christopher Helms" <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The cost of invading and occupying Iraq and Afganistan is well over a
> trillion dollars and is "off-budget." Also, money paid in FICA taxes
> goes into the general fund while IUO's for that FICA money go into the
> Social Security "Trust Fund." Those IOU's get counted as revenue, even
> though they are not revenue any more than a maxed out credit card bill
> is revenue. When Kudlow, Sewell or some other Republican flack starts
> blathering about "The deficit is within historical limits" or "A tiny
> fraction of GNP" or something like that, they can only arrive at that
> by ignoring a hellish amount of spending and debt.
> Whenever some rightard starts telling you that deficits don't matter,
> or it's "Just the left pocket owing the right pocket money," just
> remember that the "left pocket" is ultimately your bank account and
> the "right pocket" is somebody else's. There is still no such thing as
> a free lunch and no amount of Republican bullshit can change that.
Actually, the total cost of Bush's war crime in Iraq is estimated to cost
the AmeriKKKan people.
$3 trillion to $4 trillion.
Ahahahahahaha
And Bush told you AmeriKKKan suckers that it was going to cost you $40
billion tops.
Ahahahahahaahahh
SUCKERS....................
orang...@googlemail.com
> the AmeriKKKan people.
> $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
>
> Ahahahahahaha
>
> And Bush told you AmeriKKKan suckers that it was going to cost you $40
> billion tops.
>
> Ahahahahahaahahh
>
> SUCKERS....................
i am slowly coming to the conclusion that you are insane.
beav
so please explain to me why the democrats have 'won the day' by
securitizing private debt with public funds?
if they are pandering for votes now, what'll it be like when they come
to power?
they have no plan. no vision. no goal other than to get elected.
i'm not particularly pleased with the republicans, but, 'rightards' or
not, the democrats have nothing. no. they have worse than nothing.
governance by brownian motion?
i'm not getting a good feeling about any of this.
The Trucker
We may have a break in the wall of elephants! A Republican apologist
that admits to the reality that the Republicans are still in control of
the US government. They have the oval office and the Senate is D49
R49+Cheney=R50
> they have no plan. no vision. no goal other than to get elected.
They are not about to allow the Republican fascist pigs to be able to
claim that they (the Republicans) have any ideas other than bad ideas.
There have been numerous proposals to address the energy problem(s) and
the Republicans have simply displayed their lust for oil company
funding of Republican campaign chests. The Republicans believe that by
keeping the pump price of fuel very high, they can justify __**GIVING**__
_OUR_ American oil to the multinational oil companies. The oil companies,
the bought and paid for media, and the Republican administration are all
working day and night for this last big gift to the oil companies before
the Republicans are run out of town on a rail. The Democrats have
repeatedly stressed alternative energy and conservation as the proper
course and have suggested using the SPR to mitigate and control
__**SPECULATIVE**__ prices. But none of it is going anywhere because
Republicans must have that big lollipop of oil company fascism.
> i'm not particularly pleased with the republicans, but, 'rightards' or
> not, the democrats have nothing. no. they have worse than nothing.
> governance by brownian motion?
>
> i'm not getting a good feeling about any of this.
I am getting the opposite. Nothing is happening because the Republicans
still control the government well enough to block any substantive change
in the _non_ governance that has been being practiced by the Republicans.
I think it rather a cheap shot to claim Democrats are a failure when the
Republicans still control the government, blocking any progressive
initiatives.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
V for Vendicar
"beav" <BEAV...@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote
> i'm not getting a good feeling about any of this.
Hahahahahahahaahah...
You are begining to clue in - Just now?
Ahahahahahahahahahahaahah
Dense.
V for Vendicar
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
> I am getting the opposite. Nothing is happening because the Republicans
> still control the government well enough to block any substantive change
> in the _non_ governance that has been being practiced by the Republicans.
> I think it rather a cheap shot to claim Democrats are a failure when the
> Republicans still control the government, blocking any progressive
> initiatives.
And you can expect that resistance to progress for the next 2 decades.
Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal is claiming that the movie Batman is
really all about the RepubliKKKan war on terror and Bush is playing the role
of Batman.
Ahahahahahahah... Talk about desparation.
Wall Street Journal... Ahahahahahahahaah....
LLLLLOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS
Remids me of the Colon Powell tricking the Stupid AmeriKKKan public into
thinking that Saddam had WMD, by using a cartoon show at the U.N.
SUCKERS..................
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> they have no plan. no vision. no goal other than to get elected.
>
Hi, and welcome to the august company
of "Those Who Have Discovered the Anthropic Principle".
>
> i'm not getting a good feeling about any of this.
>
Nicely said, Han.
--
Les Cargill
John Galt
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.25....@verizon.net...
Without OVERLY rejecting the argument above, the Democrats are contributing
to their own lack of popularity in this regard. Here are three 2006 promises
that were abandoned after election:
1) "Take on excessive hedge fund manager compensation" After the election,
Chuck Shumer read Harry Reid the riot act, told him to forget it. Charlie
Rangel was the other half of the NYC tag-team to tell Reid that any such
suggestion wasn't going to see the light of day. (Apparenly the hedge fund
managers have taken care of this for them, with 80% of the funds losing
money this year.) So, the Dems never brought this to a vote.
2) "Change house rules to prevent lobbyists from having access and other
changes." Murtha submarined Pelosi on this one. Nancy P made some changes,
but the big kahuna -- making the congresscritters live under the same regs
the rest of the government -- died. No GOP involment here.
3) "Reinstate Pay-Go". This one died with the 150B giveaway. There have been
other transgressions, but that was the big one. GOP amendments to that bill
to force Pay-Go were voted down by the Dems, IIRC. So, in this weird, turn
of events, the GOP ended up trying to make the Dems follow their own
campaign promise, and the Dems rejected the idea.
But, let's also remember the power of the purse, here. The Dems made a lot
of hullabaloo about Iraq, and took all the money and love and support from
the Pink Ladies and likeminded organizations using tacit promises to end the
Adventure. The Dems can stop the war anytime they want by refusing to pass
these budget resolutions funding the war, and there isn't shit the GOP could
do about it if they did. But, they don't, because (1) they can only turn the
"switch" on or off -- and (2) turning it "off" scares them to death because
it reinforces their pacifist reputation and gives the GOP something to play
off on.
This country is in drastic need of a gutsy politician on any side of the
aisle to make hard choices, to do the hard work of explaining unpopular
decisions, etc. There are none on the horizon. McCain used to be that kind
of guy, but he's way past his shelf life.
JG
(David P.)
Rod Speed
No presidential candidate has ever attempted that except in a full depression.
> There are none on the horizon.
And there wont be either.
> McCain used to be that kind of guy, but he's way past his shelf life.
Nope, he's noticed what it takes to get elected Prez.
V for Vendicar
>> This country is in drastic need of a gutsy politician on any side of the
>> aisle to make hard choices, to do the hard
>> work of explaining unpopular decisions, etc.
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> No presidential candidate has ever attempted that except in a full
> depression.
>
>> There are none on the horizon.
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> And there wont be either.
Rod Speed is right. There is NO HOPE for AMERIKKKA
AmeriKKKa is a failed nation that is morally, intellectually and fiscally
bankrupt.
Lloyd
Mondale tried -- he said "I will raise your taxes; the difference is,
I tell you I will and my opponent [Reagan] won't tell you." Got
trounced. Turns out he was right.
V for Vendicar
>>
>> Here's how Budget 2009 breaks down
>> 24% - Medicaid and medical services
>> 13% - Interest on the public debt
>> 19% - Social Security
>> 19% - DOD
>> 26% - All other government programs.
>>
>> what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
"(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
> Stop suppressing influenza!
Which would only lower the U.S. tax base, reduce taxes and drive up
medical costs, and make it more difficult
for the U.S. to pay interest on it's massive federal debt.
So what you gonna cut to get the 33% reduction?
Rod Speed
> Mondale tried
Nope.
> -- he said "I will raise your taxes;
Thats nothing like what he wants.
> the difference is, I tell you I will and my opponent [Reagan] won't tell you."
Thats nothing like what he wants.
> Got trounced.
Yep, because doing that wont get you elected.
> Turns out he was right.
Corse he was. But he was completely irrelevant because the voters wouldnt buy him.
The Trucker
Follow the link in my signature. I totally disagree with your solution,
i.e. "we need __**a**__ gutsy politician ... to make decisions ...
explaining unpopular decisions, etc." What we need is a lot more
_*CHOICE*_ as to who we will send to Congress and a lot less difficulty in
replacing and less impact from replacing the, so called, representatives
that do us wrong.
The Trucker
I like Obama. "Change does not happen from the top down. It happens from
the bottom up". The (P)residential office was not to be conducted as FDR
did it or as Reagan or Bush did it. The Congress makes the laws and the
(P)resident is to enforce those laws whether he like em or not. All the
left wing whiners need to focus on their congressional representatives
that have betrayed them. And what we will find is that only by
dramatically increasing the majority position of Democrats in the
Congress can we then hold their feet to the fire.
In a House where the Democrats have a 50 seat majority, replacing Nancy
Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer with two low power Republicans (a couple of
winos off the street) is the best medicine in the world. We can
Liebermanize the turncoats very easily. Follow the link in my signature
for the stone cold hammer on this deal.
Rod Speed
>>>>> Christopher Helms <Chrish...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> (David P.) <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Vendicar <Ex...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> <orangata...@googlemail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> as ron paul explains:
Wanks, actually.
> I like Obama.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you may or may not like in spades.
> "Change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up".
That is complete and utter drivel.
Plenty of very dramatic changes have happened from the top down.
Have a look at what Adolf got up to some time.
Ghenghis in spades.
> The (P)residential office was not to be conducted as FDR did it or as Reagan or Bush did it.
Then there's the real world...
> The Congress makes the laws and the (P)resident
> is to enforce those laws whether he like em or not.
Pity about Iraq.
> All the left wing whiners need to focus on their congressional
> representatives that have betrayed them. And what we will find
> is that only by dramatically increasing the majority position of
> Democrats in the Congress can we then hold their feet to the fire.
That was tried the last time and it didnt work.
And there is no fire and no feet either. Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> In a House where the Democrats have a 50 seat majority,
> replacing Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer with two low power
> Republicans (a couple of winos off the street) is the best medicine
> in the world. We can Liebermanize the turncoats very easily.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> Follow the link in my signature
No thanks, my usenet client has flushed it where it belongs.
> for the stone cold hammer on this deal.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Steve Thomas
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> >> anywhere on that chart?
>
> > 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
>
> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
War Criminal? How so? Got anything other than hot air on that? Iv
already asked you what the evidence was for this, you came up empty
and ran from your keyboard like a little bitch.
>
> ย Not to mention a "police force" that has been caught using terrorism to
> attack the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, Afghanistan and a
> host of other nations.
KKKommie lies and smear, just like a good little DhimmiKKK-rat.
>
> ย ย If AmeriKKKa's murderers and torturers are a police force then they are
> the most corrupt police force that has ever existed.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry
christmass. I also hate to break it to you Vendicar, but America even
when spelled correctly is not a country therefore has no "police
force." So your essentially a
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Thomas
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Eddie Haskell" <hh...@rrat.com> wrote
>
> > Build a time machine and go back and assassinate FDR and Johnson who
> > saddled this nation with onerous programs that will never cease to grow
> > until they bankrupt the nation.
>
> ย Shit Sucker RepubliKKKans just can't seem to comprehend that fact that the
> U.S. debt is a <DIRECT> result
direct result of the deadbeats who get gov't handouts, and
crooKKKed DhimmiKKK-rats
of the tax reductions
you mean they let people who made the money keep it.
of the AmreiKKKan
> TRAITORS Ronald Reagan (a Financial backer of Global Terrorism) , WAR
> CRIMINALS Bush1 and Crack addict Bush2.
KKKommie bullshit rant, nothing to see here!
>
> ย In any case, KKKonervative Haskell being another AmeriKKKan who is
> incapable of adding and subtracting would rather childishly whine about
> "going back in time" than think about how to provide AmeriKKKa with a
> solution to it's ongoing financial collapse.
You dont have to go back in time jackass, there is a process by
which the programs can be eliminated. You know? Congress pass,
President sign? URAH FUCKIN
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ย AmeriKKKa is dead as a nation because AmeriKKKans are so stupid, they
> can't even add and subtract anymore.
Never heard of a country called AmeriKKKa or America for that
matter. Vendicar cant even read a map. He is indeed a FUCKIN
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ย Ahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
>
> ย Be compassionate to the AmeriKKKan state.Exterminate it quickly and put it
> out of it's mysery.
Never existed to begin with dumb fuck.
Steve Thomas
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>
> > I am getting the opposite. ย Nothing is happening because the Republicans
> > still control the government well enough to block any substantive change
Change? like what?
> > in the _non_ governance that has been being practiced by the Republicans.
> > I think it rather a cheap shot to claim Democrats are a failure when the
> > Republicans still control the government, blocking any progressive
> > initiatives.
As Dhimmi-KKK-rats have done, its the way Washington works jackass.
>
> ย And you can expect that resistance to progress for the next 2 decades.
Lets hope so. The last thing we need is more Dhimmi-KKK-rat
spending and tax raising.
>
> ย Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal is claiming that the movie Batman is
> really all about the RepubliKKKan war on terror and Bush is playing the role
> of Batman.
You post this garbage and want people to take you seriously?
Batman?
>
> ย Ahahahahahahah... Talk about desparation.
>
> ย Wall Street Journal... Ahahahahahahahaah....
>
> ย LLLLLOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS
>
> ย Remids me of the Colon Powell tricking the Stupid AmeriKKKan public into
> thinking that Saddam had WMD, by using a cartoon show at the U.N.
>
> ย SUCKERS..................
Who were the suckers? the UN? Looks like we showed them, now
theres a Democracy in Iraq, and its only going to spread to other
countries from there. You can thank GWB for that Vendicar, but i guess
cause your a KKKommi your not into people voting for leaders and
stuff. O well fuck you, we won and URAH FUCKIN
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Thomas
<Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> This country is in drastic need of a gutsy politician on any side of the
> >> aisle to make hard choices, to do the hard
> >> work of explaining unpopular decisions, etc.
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > No presidential candidate has ever attempted that except in a full
> > depression.
>
> >> There are none on the horizon.
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > And there wont be either.
>
> ย Rod Speed is right. ย There is NO HOPE for AMERIKKKA
You mean Barak Obama is a liar?
>
> ย AmeriKKKa is a failed nation that is morally, intellectually and fiscally
> bankrupt.
Never heard of a country AmeriKKKa or America, where is it on a
map?
John Galt
I've read your page in the past. Suffice to say that I don't see how more
gutless polticians is better than fewer gutless politicians.
JG
The Trucker
Not much wrong with "gutless politicians" so long as they do as the people
tell em. The actual __**JOB**__ of a representative is to inform
the people as to what is happening in their government and to represent
the people that elect him/her and _VOTE_ on pending legislation in a
manner consistent with the actual wishes of the voters in the
representative's district. It has much less to do with riding a big white
horse and doing what (s)he thinks is riiiiiiiggggthhhhhttttt than the
current small membership House as desired by the TwoParty would have us
believe. The ability to consider great national designs and to have a
capacity for deliberation in grand excess of the common people may well
change somewhat with actual committee members and officers of the House of
Representatives or even with members of the Senate. But the regular
vanilla representatives of the House are to damned well vote as the
constituency wants them to vote. And __**THAT**__ is the big thing that
must be accomplished. We must insist on better accountability
__**to_us**__ for those who are to be our agents and who cast the votes in
our stead.
The Trucker
For you I am sure it is. But I think it is you that is becoming less and
less visible each day. More like a bad smell than anything else.
> Plenty of very dramatic changes have happened from the top down.
>
> Have a look at what Adolf got up to some time.
>
> Ghenghis in spades.
That is the way if fascism. That is your way.
>> The (P)residential office was not to be conducted as FDR did it or as Reagan or Bush did it.
>
> Then there's the real world...
>
>> The Congress makes the laws and the (P)resident
>> is to enforce those laws whether he like em or not.
>
> Pity about Iraq.
>
>> All the left wing whiners need to focus on their congressional
>> representatives that have betrayed them. And what we will find
>> is that only by dramatically increasing the majority position of
>> Democrats in the Congress can we then hold their feet to the fire.
>
> That was tried the last time and it didnt work.
>
> And there is no fire and no feet either. Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Accountability has never been tried. The TwoParty keeps the majority
small and the ideological gulf very wide so as to make any real
accountability at the popular (democratic) level in general elections
almost impossible.
>> In a House where the Democrats have a 50 seat majority,
>> replacing Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer with two low power
>> Republicans (a couple of winos off the street) is the best medicine
>> in the world. We can Liebermanize the turncoats very easily.
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
I see no problem with this final part at all. Getting the big majority is
the hard part. Right now the Democrats are working as hard as they can to
make sure that their majority remains quite small. If they can manage it
then the Republicans will give them plenty of cover.
>> Follow the link in my signature
>
> No thanks, my usenet client has flushed it where it belongs.
>
>> for the stone cold hammer on this deal.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>> as ron paul explains:
>> Wanks, actually.
>>> I like Obama.
For anyone with a clue it is.
> But I think it is you that is becoming less and less visible each day.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> More like a bad smell than anything else.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>> Plenty of very dramatic changes have happened from the top down.
>> Have a look at what Adolf got up to some time.
>> Ghenghis in spades.
> That is the way if fascism.
So the obummer got it completely wrong, as always.
> That is your way.
You wouldnt know what a real fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.
>>> The (P)residential office was not to be conducted as FDR did it or as Reagan or Bush did it.
>> Then there's the real world...
>>> The Congress makes the laws and the (P)resident
>>> is to enforce those laws whether he like em or not.
>> Pity about Iraq.
>>> All the left wing whiners need to focus on their congressional
>>> representatives that have betrayed them. And what we will find
>>> is that only by dramatically increasing the majority position of
>>> Democrats in the Congress can we then hold their feet to the fire.
>> That was tried the last time and it didnt work.
>> And there is no fire and no feet either. Thats just
>> another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Accountability has never been tried.
It isnt even possible to try it.
> The TwoParty keeps the majority small and the ideological gulf very wide
That last is just plain wrong.
> so as to make any real accountability at the popular
> (democratic) level in general elections almost impossible.
Like that or lump it.
Churchill was right. It may well be a rather flawed system, but it leaves the rest for dead.
>>> In a House where the Democrats have a 50 seat majority,
>>> replacing Nancy Pelosi and Stenny Hoyer with two low power
>>> Republicans (a couple of winos off the street) is the best medicine
>>> in the world. We can Liebermanize the turncoats very easily.
>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> I see no problem with this final part at all.
There might just be a problem achieving it, stupid.
> Getting the big majority is the hard part. Right now the Democrats are working
> as hard as they can to make sure that their majority remains quite small.
Its nothing like small.
> If they can manage it then the Republicans will give them plenty of cover.
Wrong again.
>>> Follow the link in my signature
>> No thanks, my usenet client has flushed it where it belongs.
>>> for the stone cold hammer on this deal.
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
Nope, bores the hell out of me, actually. Just like all your mindless raving has always done.
Rod Speed
They never do, stupid.
> The actual __**JOB**__ of a representative is to inform
> the people as to what is happening in their government
Wrong again. Thats the job of the media.
> and to represent the people that elect him/her and _VOTE_
> on pending legislation in a manner consistent with the actual
> wishes of the voters in the representative's district.
Its never that mindlessly parochial.
> It has much less to do with riding a big white horse and doing what
> (s)he thinks is riiiiiiiggggthhhhhttttt than the current small membership
> House as desired by the TwoParty would have us believe.
Then you had better do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.
That should get their attention if you're careful to do that when nothing much else is going on.
> The ability to consider great national designs and to have a capacity for
> deliberation in grand excess of the common people may well change
> somewhat with actual committee members and officers of the House of
> Representatives or even with members of the Senate. But the regular
> vanilla representatives of the House are to damned well vote as the
> constituency wants them to vote.
Its never that mindlessly parochial.
> And __**THAT**__ is the big thing that must be accomplished.
> We must insist on better accountability __**to_us**__ for those
> who are to be our agents and who cast the votes in our stead.
Not even possible.
Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno
<misled...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 11:58ย am, "V for Vendicar"
><Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "(David P.)" <imb...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>
>> >> By the way, can you find U.S. foreign aid
>> >> anywhere on that chart?
>>
>> > 19% - DOD (World's policeman)
>>
>> ย This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
>> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
>
>
>
>
> War Criminal? How so? Got anything other than hot air on that? Iv
>already asked you what the evidence was for this, you came up empty
>and ran from your keyboard like a little bitch.
It's amazing how denial runs deep with republicunts who refuse to see
reality
Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno
wrote:
>> Actually, the total cost of Bush's war crime in Iraq is estimated to cost
>> the AmeriKKKan people.
>> $3 trillion to $4 trillion.
>>
>> Ahahahahahaha
>>
>> And Bush told you AmeriKKKan suckers that it was going to cost you $40
>> billion tops.
>>
>> Ahahahahahaahahh
>>
>> SUCKERS....................
>
>
>i am slowly coming to the conclusion that you are insane.
insane
insanity means repeating the same thing and expecting different
results
Bush and his cabal of war criminals war mongers exemplifies this
perfectly
DENIAL RUNS DEEP WITH REPUBLICUNTS
Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno
wrote:
>But, let's also remember the power of the purse, here. The Dems made a lot
>of hullabaloo about Iraq, and took all the money and love and support from
>the Pink Ladies and likeminded organizations using tacit promises to end the
>Adventure. The Dems can stop the war anytime they want by refusing to pass
>these budget resolutions funding the war, and there isn't shit the GOP could
>do about it if they did. But, they don't, because (1) they can only turn the
>"switch" on or off -- and (2) turning it "off" scares them to death because
>it reinforces their pacifist reputation and gives the GOP something to play
>off on.
If the dems would have turned the purse off to end the war in Iraq
like you said the GOP would have used this to no end to crucify them.
How disingeneous; do you expect the dem to commit political suicide
and play right into the GOP not.
However, the sent bill after bill after bill to Bush to bring back the
troops with a definite timetable which bush vetoed again and again
John Galt
Then the logical thing to do is to ditch the entire mass of them and govern
by referendum only.
JG
John Galt
"Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno"
<violencebre...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:er1o84hssiu80tua5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:45:37 +0800, "John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But, let's also remember the power of the purse, here. The Dems made a lot
>>of hullabaloo about Iraq, and took all the money and love and support from
>>the Pink Ladies and likeminded organizations using tacit promises to end
>>the
>>Adventure. The Dems can stop the war anytime they want by refusing to pass
>>these budget resolutions funding the war, and there isn't shit the GOP
>>could
>>do about it if they did. But, they don't, because (1) they can only turn
>>the
>>"switch" on or off -- and (2) turning it "off" scares them to death
>>because
>>it reinforces their pacifist reputation and gives the GOP something to
>>play
>>off on.
>
> If the dems would have turned the purse off to end the war in Iraq
> like you said the GOP would have used this to no end to crucify them.
Exactly my point. It takes courage to do the right thing. We have a
definable lack of courage in politics these days, both parties.
> How disingeneous; do you expect the dem to commit political suicide
> and play right into the GOP not.
Well, where do we go with that little comment? :-)
I suppose I ought to point out the obvious: that if the Dems are so
completely cowed by the possibility of "political suicide" that they do what
the GOP wants them to do, it makes precisely no difference if we are
governed by Dems or Republicans.
I mean, just check out this Fannie and Freddie bailout. Now the investor
class has a big "put" in place that allows them to take even MORE risk in
the mortgage market, when liquidity comes back. It's just asking for another
bubble. Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie
with THAT dividend when they know that the government will print money and
bail them out rather than see them go into recievership? Geez, talk about a
giveaway to the rich --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints
on it than Republican.
Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I
suspect not.
>
> However, the sent bill after bill after bill to Bush to bring back the
> troops with a definite timetable which bush vetoed again and again.
Did timetable bills actually reach the President? I thought they were
inclusions into the funding bills that were pulled out before being sent up
due to the aforementioned "courage" issue above.
But, no matter. I find the pursuit of the timetable issue interesting, in
that it's about the only issue opposed by the GOP that the American public
agrees with the GOP on. With a clear majority of the public opposing Iraq,
it's odd that they choose that issue to legislate from.
JG
Rod Speed
Not even possible.
No budget would ever fly that way.
Rod Speed
Beats a full depression that would result if they were allowed to go bust.
> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie with THAT dividend when they know that the
> government will print money and bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
They've already known that for a long time now.
> Geez, talk about a giveaway to the rich
It aint just the rich that have invested in them indirectly, its all of us.
> --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints on it than Republican.
> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I suspect not.
Irrelevant what he hoped for.
John Galt
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2kbbF...@mid.individual.net...
Obviously. However, 99% of their loans are performing (99.38% is typical)
because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes. They are
"insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the
mortgage business.
>
>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie with
>> THAT dividend when they know that the government will print money and
>> bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
>
> They've already known that for a long time now.
Not formally. Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio
risk management standpoint.
>
>> Geez, talk about a giveaway to the rich
>
> It aint just the rich that have invested in them indirectly, its all of
> us.
>
>> --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints on it than
>> Republican.
>
>> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I
>> suspect not.
>
> Irrelevant what he hoped for.
To you, perhaps.
JG
V for Vendicar
> Rod Speed is right. There is NO HOPE for AMERIKKKA
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote
> You mean Barak Obama is a liar?
He is mistaken, and once he gets his hands on the controls of the
AmeriKKKan ship of state
he will quickly come to realize that the situation is hopeless as Rod
REPUBLIKKKAN Speeed has indicated.
AmeriKKKa will never recover from the last 30 years of RepubliKKKan
TREASON.
> AmeriKKKa is a failed nation that is morally, intellectually and fiscally
> bankrupt.
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote
> Never heard of a country AmeriKKKa or America, where is it on a
> map?
We see yet another AmeriKKKan who can't find his own country on a map of
the world.
Modern map makers are now labeling the FORMER U.S. as "BanglaBush".
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno <violencebre...@whitehouse.gov> wrote
For now...
> (99.38% is typical)
For now...
> because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes.
It aint just about sub primes anymore.
Now that property values have slumped so much, with so many now upside down,
and with so many of them non recourse loans, there is one hell of a problem.
> They are "insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
Yet...
> But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the mortgage business.
It does need to be NOW.
Just like it needs to be in the banking business NOW.
>>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie
>>> with THAT dividend when they know that the government will print
>>> money and bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
>> They've already known that for a long time now.
> Not formally.
Doesnt need to be formally. It was always obvious that operations of
that size would have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
> Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio risk management standpoint.
Nope. What matters is that operations of that size would
have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>>> Geez, talk about a giveaway to the rich
>> It aint just the rich that have invested in them indirectly, its all of us.
>>> --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints on it than Republican.
>>> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I suspect not.
>> Irrelevant what he hoped for.
> To you, perhaps.
To everyone.
V for Vendicar
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
> Follow the link in my signature. I totally disagree with your solution,
> i.e. "we need __**a**__ gutsy politician ... to make decisions ...
> explaining unpopular decisions, etc."
You want someone who has the guts to solve AmeriKKKa's problems?
No problem, Appoint me President and in 8 years I will put AmeiKKKa back
on the path to existance.
Step 1. Publicly Execute the former President and the war criminals who
assisted him in War Crimes, Mass Murder, Torture, and the Rape of the
AmeriKKKan state.
V for Vendicar
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
> I've read your page in the past. Suffice to say that I don't see how more
> gutless polticians is better than fewer gutless politicians.
Well as the Libertarians say... The only good Politician is one you can
purchase.
V for Vendicar
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
> Then the logical thing to do is to ditch the entire mass of them and
> govern by referendum only.
Why not set the budget by referrendum?
Ask
Defense % change -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
Healthcare % change -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
....
Overall Budget (taxation change) -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
Normalize the first set, scale by the second set. Go with the median of
the results.
V for Vendicar
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
> You wouldnt know what a real fascist was if one bit you on your lard arse.
Said the Fascist.
Rod Speed
>> Then the logical thing to do is to ditch the entire mass of them and govern by referendum only.
> Why not set the budget by referrendum?
Because that wouldnt work.
> Ask
> Defense % change -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
> Healthcare % change -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
> Overall Budget (taxation change) -10% -5% 0% +5% +10%
> Normalize the first set, scale by the second set. Go with the median of the results.
Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.
John Galt
There's no indication that their portfolios, which consist of qualified
buyers who verified income and employment and met ratios, will show
significant deviation from the norm. Could their delinquincies double from
1%? Sure. Triple? Quadruple? Doubtful.
>
>> (99.38% is typical)
>
> For now...
99.38% is historically typical.
>
>> because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes.
>
> It aint just about sub primes anymore.
>
> Now that property values have slumped so much, with so many now upside
> down,
> and with so many of them non recourse loans, there is one hell of a
> problem.
Granted. If you purchased a home on the upside of the bubble in any of the
high appreciation locales, you're underwater. Some of these people will take
the short view and walk on their mortgages, to be sure. Others will take a
long view and hold.
>
>> They are "insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
>
> Yet...
Yet they're in no danger of missing payroll, which is the business standard.
>
>> But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the
>> mortgage business.
>
> It does need to be NOW.
It does because it has been. I'd agree that you can't move out of the
business at a crisis point. However, you'll note that Fannie and Freddie are
having no trouble raising money on their own, prior to the bailout bill,
because the quality of their portfolios is well known.
>
> Just like it needs to be in the banking business NOW.
The government's not in the banking business. The two banks that failed
yesterday were sold on takeover. Big ones take a little longer, but they'll
be sold, too.
>
>>>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie
>>>> with THAT dividend when they know that the government will print
>>>> money and bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
>
>>> They've already known that for a long time now.
>
>> Not formally.
>
> Doesnt need to be formally. It was always obvious that operations of
> that size would have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>
>> Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio risk
>> management standpoint.
>
> Nope. What matters is that operations of that size would
> have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
Sorry, that's not how good investors work. They measure all possibilities.
>
>>>> Geez, talk about a giveaway to the rich
>
>>> It aint just the rich that have invested in them indirectly, its all of
>>> us.
>
>>>> --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints on it than
>>>> Republican.
>
>>>> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006?
>>>> I suspect not.
>
>>> Irrelevant what he hoped for.
>
>> To you, perhaps.
>
> To everyone.
Rubbish. People who vote for a party expect specific outcomes. If they
didn't, they wouldn't bother to vote. YMMV.
JG
Rod Speed
>> For now...
Wrong when property values have slumped so dramatically.
> Could their delinquincies double from 1%? Sure. Triple? Quadruple? Doubtful.
Nope, not now that properly values have slumped so dramatically.
>>> (99.38% is typical)
>> For now...
> 99.38% is historically typical.
We havent had the sub prime fiasco before.
>>> because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes.
>> It aint just about sub primes anymore.
>> Now that property values have slumped so much, with so many now upside down,
>> and with so many of them non recourse loans, there is one hell of a problem.
> Granted. If you purchased a home on the upside of the bubble in any of the high appreciation locales, you're
> underwater.
And there is no real penalty if you just walk.
> Some of these people will take the short view and walk on their mortgages, to be sure. Others will take a long view
> and hold.
And enough of them will walk for that to be one hell of a problem for Fanny and Freddy.
>>> They are "insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
>> Yet...
> Yet they're in no danger of missing payroll, which is the business standard.
Like hell it is with insolvency.
>>> But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the mortgage business.
>> It does need to be NOW.
> It does because it has been.
Nope, because thats the alternative to a full depression.
> I'd agree that you can't move out of the business at a crisis point. However, you'll note that Fannie and Freddie are
> having no trouble raising money on their own, prior to the bailout bill, because the quality of their portfolios is
> well known.
If that was true, they wouldnt have needed the bailout.
>> Just like it needs to be in the banking business NOW.
> The government's not in the banking business.
Yes it is.
> The two banks that failed yesterday were sold on takeover.
And that was forced by the govt.
> Big ones take a little longer, but they'll be sold, too.
Fanny and Freddy wont be, you watch.
>>>>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie with THAT dividend when they know that the
>>>>> government will print money and bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
>>>> They've already known that for a long time now.
>>> Not formally.
>> Doesnt need to be formally. It was always obvious that operations of
>> that size would have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>>> Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio risk management standpoint.
>> Nope. What matters is that operations of that size would
>> have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
> Sorry, that's not how good investors work.
Wrong.
> They measure all possibilities.
They dont care about whats formal, they care about what will happen.
>>>>> Geez, talk about a giveaway to the rich
>>>> It aint just the rich that have invested in them indirectly, its all of us.
>>>>> --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints on it than Republican.
>>>>> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I suspect not.
>>>> Irrelevant what he hoped for.
>>> To you, perhaps.
>> To everyone.
> Rubbish.
Nope. No one cares what that particular individual hoped for.
> People who vote for a party expect specific outcomes.
Some do, plenty dont.
> If they didn't, they wouldn't bother to vote.
Wrong again.
> YMMV.
REDSW.
John Galt
That's your opinion. It's not shared by many.
>
>> Could their delinquincies double from 1%? Sure. Triple? Quadruple?
>> Doubtful.
>
> Nope, not now that properly values have slumped so dramatically.
>
>>>> (99.38% is typical)
>
>>> For now...
>
>> 99.38% is historically typical.
>
> We havent had the sub prime fiasco before.
Freddie and FNMA don't carry subprimes in their portfolio.
>
>>>> because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes.
>
>>> It aint just about sub primes anymore.
>
>>> Now that property values have slumped so much, with so many now upside
>>> down,
>>> and with so many of them non recourse loans, there is one hell of a
>>> problem.
>
>> Granted. If you purchased a home on the upside of the bubble in any of
>> the high appreciation locales, you're underwater.
>
> And there is no real penalty if you just walk.
Depends.
>
>> Some of these people will take the short view and walk on their
>> mortgages, to be sure. Others will take a long view and hold.
>
> And enough of them will walk for that to be one hell of a problem for
> Fanny and Freddy.
>
>>>> They are "insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
>
>>> Yet...
>
>> Yet they're in no danger of missing payroll, which is the business
>> standard.
>
> Like hell it is with insolvency.
That's what insolvency is.
>
>>>> But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the
>>>> mortgage business.
>
>>> It does need to be NOW.
>
>> It does because it has been.
>
> Nope, because thats the alternative to a full depression.
If we had never owned them, there wouldn't have been any mortgage
underwriters as large as they.
>
>> I'd agree that you can't move out of the business at a crisis point.
>> However, you'll note that Fannie and Freddie are having no trouble
>> raising money on their own, prior to the bailout bill, because the
>> quality of their portfolios is well known.
>
> If that was true, they wouldnt have needed the bailout.
They bluntly told the goverment they didn't need it. To prove the point,
Freddie raised 3B on the 18th.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auCzH3jARWPU&refer=home
>>> Just like it needs to be in the banking business NOW.
>
>> The government's not in the banking business.
>
> Yes it is.
How?
>
>> The two banks that failed yesterday were sold on takeover.
>
> And that was forced by the govt.
The sale wasn't forced.
>
>> Big ones take a little longer, but they'll be sold, too.
>
> Fanny and Freddy wont be, you watch.
They won't need to be.
>
>>>>>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie
>>>>>> with THAT dividend when they know that the government will print
>>>>>> money and bail them out rather than see them go into recievership?
>
>>>>> They've already known that for a long time now.
>
>>>> Not formally.
>
>>> Doesnt need to be formally. It was always obvious that operations of
>>> that size would have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>
>>>> Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio risk
>>>> management standpoint.
>
>>> Nope. What matters is that operations of that size would
>>> have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>
>> Sorry, that's not how good investors work.
>
> Wrong.
Right.
>
>> They measure all possibilities.
>
> They dont care about whats formal, they care about what will happen.
Always. That's why you measure everything.
JG
The Trucker
No. It is not logical or historically or empirically valid, nor would
could it be done within the confines of our Constitution. We have
"initiative" here in Washington State and it sucks. It is just a way for
the rich to run a big add campaign and get what they want by lying through
their teeth.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php
We need the agency and the full time attention to detail that
representative government gives us. I do not want to stare at C-Span all
day every day and I do not want to get the "news" from Faux.
>
> The actual __**JOB**__ of a representative is to inform
>> the people as to what is happening in their government and to represent
>> the people that elect him/her and _VOTE_ on pending legislation in a
>> manner consistent with the actual wishes of the voters in the
>> representative's district. It has much less to do with riding a big white
>> horse and doing what (s)he thinks is riiiiiiiggggthhhhhttttt than the
>> current small membership House as desired by the TwoParty would have us
>> believe. The ability to consider great national designs and to have a
>> capacity for deliberation in grand excess of the common people may well
>> change somewhat with actual committee members and officers of the House of
>> Representatives or even with members of the Senate. But the regular
>> vanilla representatives of the House are to damned well vote as the
>> constituency wants them to vote. And __**THAT**__ is the big thing that
>> must be accomplished. We must insist on better accountability
>> __**to_us**__ for those who are to be our agents and who cast the votes in
>> our stead.
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
The Trucker
And that is the point where the Democrats actually failed. It was the
proper CONSTITUTIONAL method for terminating the occupation and Bush
should have been impeached for it. The Congress declares war, not the
(P)resident. The Congress also ends the war, not the (P)resident. What
the Congress cannot do is to terminate the war other than withholding
funds because the "Commander in Chief" must be able to terminate the
activity in a way that best preserves American interests. That is what
the Congress did in the initial 2007 Iraq spending bill. The Bush veto of
that bill was un-Constitutional and the Democrats did not impeach him for
it.
--
The Trucker
>
> "Bush is Diabolical Terrorist Numero Uno"
> <violencebre...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:er1o84hssiu80tua5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:45:37 +0800, "John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>But, let's also remember the power of the purse, here. The Dems made a lot
>>>of hullabaloo about Iraq, and took all the money and love and support from
>>>the Pink Ladies and likeminded organizations using tacit promises to end
>>>the
>>>Adventure. The Dems can stop the war anytime they want by refusing to pass
>>>these budget resolutions funding the war, and there isn't shit the GOP
>>>could
>>>do about it if they did. But, they don't, because (1) they can only turn
>>>the
>>>"switch" on or off -- and (2) turning it "off" scares them to death
>>>because
>>>it reinforces their pacifist reputation and gives the GOP something to
>>>play
>>>off on.
>>
>> If the dems would have turned the purse off to end the war in Iraq
>> like you said the GOP would have used this to no end to crucify them.
>
> Exactly my point. It takes courage to do the right thing. We have a
> definable lack of courage in politics these days, both parties.
They know that they will have all the money they need to retain their
seats. And Campaign finance reform is nothing but a diversion. Free
speech will not be set aside. Ergo, it is not possible to remove the
offenders. The only choice you have is ideological and religious. The
wedge issues and the lock step nature of the Republicans keep the
Democrats in their seats as funded by the lobby. The opposite is also
true. Finding issues that are evenly balanced across the population and
then using massive advertising to sway the people back and forth between
the two evils is the mainstay of the current TwoParty. The only real
solution is a closer relationship between the, so called, representative
and the people that (s)he is supposed to be representing. The key is much
smaller electoral districts.
>> How disingeneous; do you expect the dem to commit political suicide
>> and play right into the GOP not.
>
> Well, where do we go with that little comment? :-)
>
> I suppose I ought to point out the obvious: that if the Dems are so
> completely cowed by the possibility of "political suicide" that they do what
> the GOP wants them to do, it makes precisely no difference if we are
> governed by Dems or Republicans.
Yep.
> I mean, just check out this Fannie and Freddie bailout. Now the investor
> class has a big "put" in place that allows them to take even MORE risk in
> the mortgage market, when liquidity comes back. It's just asking for another
> bubble. Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and Freddie
> with THAT dividend when they know that the government will print money and
> bail them out rather than see them go into recievership? Geez, talk about a
> giveaway to the rich --- and the thing has a lot more Democrat fingerprints
> on it than Republican.
>
> Is that the outcome you hoped for when the Dems took Congress in 2006? I
> suspect not.
This analysis contains at least two huge mistakes. One is the focus of
inquiry along only one plane while the legislation (even the general idea)
has several facets. And the other is the continuing mistake made by
almost all conservatives and Republicans and most certainly by all left
wing moonbats that the Democratic party is actually a political party in
the common sense.
The ideological facet of the FF deal is that government will be doing a
lot more regulating of the mortgage industry so as to protect the tax
payers from further theft at the hands of the financial thieves. It may
well be that "stocks" in FF may take on more of the characteristics of
government bonds.
On the political part, the country really has only one actual lock step
organized political party and that is the Republicans. The Democrats are
usually all over the place on the issues. IMHO the Democratic concept is
much more suitable for discerning the will of the people as opposed to the
will of the rich.
>>
>> However, the sent bill after bill after bill to Bush to bring back the
>> troops with a definite timetable which bush vetoed again and again.
>
> Did timetable bills actually reach the President? I thought they were
> inclusions into the funding bills that were pulled out before being sent up
> due to the aforementioned "courage" issue above.
Nope. The initial funding bill had timetables. Bush vetoed it.
> But, no matter. I find the pursuit of the timetable issue interesting, in
> that it's about the only issue opposed by the GOP that the American public
> agrees with the GOP on. With a clear majority of the public opposing Iraq,
> it's odd that they choose that issue to legislate from.
I think you need to reconsider what you wrote and explain it. I sure as
hell can't follow the rationale.
The Trucker
> Congress authorized the war. Democrats and Republicans alike.
The majority of the Democrats voted against the resolution. As usual the
Republicans voted in favor of Der Fuhrer.
> You must have been asleep that day.
No. I certainly was not.
> A presidential veto is not unconstitutional.. Failed civics in high
> school did ya?
Always finding a nit seems to be a Republican mainstay. The proper course
of action would have inevitably been a Bush acceptance of the terms or an
impeachment. It should have been made very clear to Bush and to the press
and to the American people that the conditional bill was the only bill he
was going to get and that for each veto there would be an escalation of
the conditions in the bill. After 3 iterations the issue should have been
resolved by the Supreme court or the impeachment process or both. There
were adequate funds already in the pipe to take the time to do it right.
The Democrats simply failed to do what they were elected to do. It is the
system. The system has been corrupted by the TwoParty to a point where
the people have no real control over their government.
Rod Speed
> That's your opinion.
Nope, its fact.
> It's not shared by many.
Wrong again. Have fun explaining why Freddy and Fanny have just been bailed out.
>>> Could their delinquincies double from 1%? Sure. Triple? Quadruple? Doubtful.
>> Nope, not now that properly values have slumped so dramatically.
>>>>> (99.38% is typical)
>>>> For now...
>>> 99.38% is historically typical.
>> We havent had the sub prime fiasco before.
> Freddie and FNMA don't carry subprimes in their portfolio.
Irrelevant. Its the sub prime fiasco that has produced the dramatic
slump in property values that are causing Fanny and Freddy their
current problem that needs to see them bailed out.
>>>>> because they were the guys in town who didn't do subprimes.
>>>> It aint just about sub primes anymore.
>>>> Now that property values have slumped so much, with so many now upside down,
>>>> and with so many of them non recourse loans, there is one hell of a problem.
>>> Granted. If you purchased a home on the upside of the bubble in any of the high appreciation locales, you're
>>> underwater.
>> And there is no real penalty if you just walk.
> Depends.
Nope.
>>> Some of these people will take the short view and walk on their
>>> mortgages, to be sure. Others will take a long view and hold.
>> And enough of them will walk for that to be one hell of a problem for Fanny and Freddy.
>>>>> They are "insolvent" by banking standards, not business standards.
>>>> Yet...
>>> Yet they're in no danger of missing payroll, which is the business standard.
>> Like hell it is with insolvency.
> That's what insolvency is.
Nope.
>>>>> But, the key point here is that the government has no need to be in the mortgage business.
>>>> It does need to be NOW.
>>> It does because it has been.
>> Nope, because thats the alternative to a full depression.
> If we had never owned them, there wouldn't have been any mortgage underwriters as large as they.
Irrelevant to the fact that they cant be allowed to go under now.
>>> I'd agree that you can't move out of the business at a crisis point.
>>> However, you'll note that Fannie and Freddie are having no trouble
>>> raising money on their own, prior to the bailout bill, because the
>>> quality of their portfolios is well known.
>> If that was true, they wouldnt have needed the bailout.
> They bluntly told the goverment they didn't need it.
And the govt decided to piss all that money against the wall when there was no point in doing that eh ?
Yeah, right.
> To prove the point, Freddie raised 3B on the 18th.
They wouldnt have got that without the bailout.
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auCzH3jARWPU&refer=home
>>>> Just like it needs to be in the banking business NOW.
>>> The government's not in the banking business.
>> Yes it is.
> How?
Its forcing those bogus 'mergers'
>>> The two banks that failed yesterday were sold on takeover.
>> And that was forced by the govt.
> The sale wasn't forced.
Corse it was.
>>> Big ones take a little longer, but they'll be sold, too.
>> Fanny and Freddy wont be, you watch.
> They won't need to be.
Yep, they had a bailout instead.
>>>>>>> Why they hell would any investor not want to own Fannie and
>>>>>>> Freddie with THAT dividend when they know that the government
>>>>>>> will print money and bail them out rather than see them go into
>>>>>>> recievership?
>>>>>> They've already known that for a long time now.
>>>>> Not formally.
>>>> Doesnt need to be formally. It was always obvious that operations
>>>> of that size would have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>>>>> Having it unsaid and having it said matters, from a portfolio risk
>>>>> management standpoint.
>>
>>>> Nope. What matters is that operations of that size would
>>>> have to be bailed out when that became necessary.
>>> Sorry, that's not how good investors work.
>> Wrong.
> Right.
Wrong.
>>> They measure all possibilities.
>> They dont care about whats formal, they care about what will happen.
> Always. That's why you measure everything.
Not even possible with something like that.
John Galt
That's not the point. I understand the Constitutional issues.
The POINT is that the justification for your idea is to broaden
representation, the ultimate manifestation of which is referendum style
goverment. However, that's not the point. The larger issue is that your
musing "do as the people tell them" ALSO misses the point, since it ignores
the fact that one of the reasons for representative government is
(theoretically) to provide a *knowledgable* representative to make decisions
on the citizen's behalf, understanding that many citizens have neither the
time, experience, nor inclination in keeping abreast of issues as leading to
an educated vote.
We have
> "initiative" here in Washington State and it sucks. It is just a way for
> the rich to run a big add campaign and get what they want by lying through
> their teeth.
Well, we often have to choose between the rich running ads and lying and the
poor running ads and lying (albeit through their proxies). It's the
responsiblity of the citizen to sort out the signal to noise ratio, and what
you've admitted above is that the citizen can be manipulated, else the "big
ad campaign" wouldn't matter.
But, we know that gutless politicians are manipuated too, by their financial
masters. Which is worse? Well, I expect that those who wish to manipulate a
vote find it cheaper to manipulate legislators (even if you double them)
than the general public.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php
>
> We need the agency and the full time attention to detail that
> representative government gives us. I do not want to stare at C-Span all
> day every day and I do not want to get the "news" from Faux.
But if the politicians are gutless, they'll be manipulated, and thus you
won't get what you expect from them.
JG
John Galt
The key is federalism, not more politicians. If the decisions that lobbyists
care about are dispersed amongst the 50 states, then the lobbying
organization has to fund 50 separate organizations under 50 different sets
of laws to have the same effect that they currently get from one
organization under one law. The proportionate effect of the lobbyist is thus
diminished, as the influence of the state senator and representative
increases.
Further, the corporate tax code needs to be flattened. If the majority of
deductions were to disappear (with a commensurate decrease in tax rates so
as to be revenue-neutral) then most of the things that corporate lobbyists
lobby over would vanish overnight.
That's too vague to respond to.
>
> The ideological facet of the FF deal is that government will be doing a
> lot more regulating of the mortgage industry so as to protect the tax
> payers from further theft at the hands of the financial thieves. It may
> well be that "stocks" in FF may take on more of the characteristics of
> government bonds.
The reality of the matter is that FF will now be able to take subprimes onto
their books, which they didn't want to do in the first place. This exposes
the american taxpayer to risk they didn't have before, and indemnifies the
lenders against loss.
It's a put for the rich.
>
> On the political part, the country really has only one actual lock step
> organized political party and that is the Republicans. The Democrats are
> usually all over the place on the issues. IMHO the Democratic concept is
> much more suitable for discerning the will of the people as opposed to the
> will of the rich.
If you continue to contend that the people's interests never coincide with
that of business, that would be correct.
>
>>>
>>> However, the sent bill after bill after bill to Bush to bring back the
>>> troops with a definite timetable which bush vetoed again and again.
>>
>> Did timetable bills actually reach the President? I thought they were
>> inclusions into the funding bills that were pulled out before being sent
>> up
>> due to the aforementioned "courage" issue above.
>
> Nope. The initial funding bill had timetables. Bush vetoed it.
OK, thanks. Forgot.
>
>> But, no matter. I find the pursuit of the timetable issue interesting, in
>> that it's about the only issue opposed by the GOP that the American
>> public
>> agrees with the GOP on. With a clear majority of the public opposing
>> Iraq,
>> it's odd that they choose that issue to legislate from.
>
> I think you need to reconsider what you wrote and explain it. I sure as
> hell can't follow the rationale.
The point is that there is no rationale for the action. The American public
wants out of Iraq, but they don't want timetables. So, what do the Dems
push? Timetables (so much for your assertion that the Dem system is better
at ascertaining the will of the people.)
What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who* won't
let it come up for a vote?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
"Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the people."
Great line. Best laugh I've had all day. (I do agree, however, that the GOP
is *much* better at staying on their script, where it often appears the
Democrats don't have one. I'm not crazy about the GOP script, but at least
they stick to it.)
JG
John Galt
The "fact" is that the FF portfolios don't contain subprimes (today), and
further, most don't believe that the economy is heading for nuclear
meltdown.
>
>> It's not shared by many.
>
> Wrong again. Have fun explaining why Freddy and Fanny have just been
> bailed out.
Already explained. And it was easy.
Since you seem to be one of the chicken littles on the economy, I've leave
the discussion at this point. Most of this is argumentation about what
*will* happen in the future, and since neither of us have a crystal ball,
it's all speculation. Suffice to say that I'm a buyer of the stocks of the
financial companies and investment banks at these valuations.
JG
Rod Speed
>>> That's your opinion.
>> Nope, its fact.
They dont need to when property values have slumped so dramatically.
> and further, most don't believe that the economy is heading for nuclear meltdown.
Doesnt need to for Freddy and Fanny to have a problem that needed the bailout.
>>> It's not shared by many.
>> Wrong again. Have fun explaining why Freddy and Fanny have just been bailed out.
> Already explained.
Nope, just mindlessly waffled.
> And it was easy.
Nope, you couldnt even explain why they had to be bailed out.
> Since you seem to be one of the chicken littles on the economy,
I've not. Even someone as stupid as you should be able to
find where I have said the exact opposite using groups.google.
> I've leave the discussion at this point.
You're always welcome to run up that white flag.
> Most of this is argumentation about what *will* happen in the future,
Nope, its actually about the bailout that has actually happened.
> and since neither of us have a crystal ball, it's all speculation.
The FF bailout aint.
> Suffice to say that I'm a buyer of the stocks of the financial companies and investment banks at these valuations.
Irrelevant to the FACT that the FF bailout happened, whatever you claim about them.
John Galt
Or take the position that you're just a troll with a shtick, and let the
assembled multitude make that determination. However, you are free to
classify the encounter in any way your ego demands.
JG
Rod Speed
>>>>> That's your opinion.
>>>> Nope, its fact.
>>> Already explained.
>> Nope, just mindlessly waffled.
>>> And it was easy.
Or have them realise that thats just you running up the white flag, just like you always do.
> However, you are free to classify the encounter in any way your ego demands.
And we're all free to consider your lie about the future and crystal balls
and your terminal footshot about my position on the economy in spades.
The Trucker
While I believe we _MUST_ provide more representation for the common
people of the USA in their government I am not inclined to throw away
the Constitution, the benefits of agency, and the notion of a large
enough constituency to provide for the selection if individuals more
suited to the requisite deliberations and focus necessary to the actual
task. It is not a binary issue.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php --
The following is an expert from "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the
Constitutional Convention Debates" authored by Ralph Ketcham
(...)
Equally discredited was "mere democracy" which still meant, as Aristotle
had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated "voice
of the people". This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy,
and finally tyranny. Hence, virtually all shades of opinion reviled
monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism.
(...)
In 1787, republicanism then was positioned between monarchy and "mere
democracy". As it benefited from experience of the years after 1776 and
struggled to contain the tension between "inalienable rights", and
majority rule, republicanism became both more moderate and more intricate.
A broadly based lower house of a legislature continued to be basic to
government by consent, but increasingly, the election of other officials
came to be regarded as good republican practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Further To quote Madison in Federalist 10:
http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php#fed10
Proper historical context is necessary here: When Madison is arguing for
larger "spheres" of electors he is arguing for electoral districts of
thirty thousand or even forty thousand. There was much resistance at the
time to such large districts. In Britain and in the various states,
representative government was based on groups of electors (districts) of
less than 5 thousand.
Madison was also aware of inconveniences imposed by large legislative
bodies, yet, as we will see later, he was not disposed to sacrifice
adequate representation for fear of inconvenience.
From Federalist 10:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the
republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain
number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that,
however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in
order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the
number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to
that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the
small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters
be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will
present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a
fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater
number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will
be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success
the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the
suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to
centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most
diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a
mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By
enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the
representatives too little acquainted with all their local
circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you
render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend
and pursue great and national objects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have long since enlarged the electoral districts to a point where the
representatives no longer represent anything other than the lobby and the
party. The people get to chose between the two bought an paid for
"candidates".
> We have
>> "initiative" here in Washington State and it sucks. It is just a way for
>> the rich to run a big add campaign and get what they want by lying through
>> their teeth.
>
> Well, we often have to choose between the rich running ads and lying and the
> poor running ads and lying (albeit through their proxies). It's the
> responsiblity of the citizen to sort out the signal to noise ratio, and what
> you've admitted above is that the citizen can be manipulated, else the "big
> ad campaign" wouldn't matter.
The proxies of the common people were, in fact, designed by the
constitution to be their representatives. And whereas those
representatives actually do represent the common people then they will
represent neither the rich nor the poor, but the middle.
http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php#fed57 --------------
In this particular essay Madison is again defending a constituency size
of thirty thousand. If we were to project a constituency of seven hundred
thousand into what Madison has to say here, then Madison's error is
easily revealed. In constituencies of such magnitude the amount of
finance available to good men is wanting and the parrots of the rich will
be the only persons who need apply. While Madison is correct in his
regard for larger constituencies producing a better selection of capable
people he overlooks his own warning from Federalist 10 above. "It must be
confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both
sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie."
The first census did produced one representative for thirty three
thousand and this has not been noted as being inconvenient to the
producing class. The real inconveniences occur later as the government
refuses to enlarge the membership to keep pace with the growing
population and as the size of the constituencies exceed one hundred
thousand.
Let me now ask what circumstance there is in the constitution of the
House of Representatives that violates the principles of republican
government, or favors the elevation of the few on the ruins of the
many? Let me ask whether every circumstance is not, on the contrary,
strictly conformable to these principles, and scrupulously impartial
to the rights and pretensions of every class and description of
citizens?
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the
rich, more than the poor; not the learned, more than the ignorant;
not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble
sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to be
the great body of the people of the United States. They are to be the
same who exercise the right in every State of electing the
corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.
Who are to be the objects of popular choice? Every citizen whose
merit may recommend him to the esteem and confidence of his country.
No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil
profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the
inclination of the people.
In answer to Madison's questions we see that in constituencies of seven
hundred thousand that the last quoted paragraph is simply untrue; that not
"Every citizen whose merit may recommend him" is eligible. We know that
the finance necessary to become an "object of popular choice" is a barrier
to entry into an election by the people. And thus, the claim that such
large constituencies will be "scrupulously impartial to the rights and
pretensions of every class and description of citizens" is falsified as
this financial necessity does in fact, favor "the elevation of the few on
the ruins of the many".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have a deep and abiding respect for the Constitution and the way our
nation was designed to work. And what was sold to the people who said yes
to the Constitution is that they would have control of __**THEIR**__
government through __**THEIR**__ House of Representatives.
> But, we know that gutless politicians are manipuated too, by their financial
> masters. Which is worse? Well, I expect that those who wish to manipulate a
> vote find it cheaper to manipulate legislators (even if you double them)
> than the general public.
The Iraq crap is a fine example of a media propaganda blitz to force the
"unconnected and unfamiliar" so called representatives to capitulate. The
calls to Norm Dicks' office were 100 to 1 against giving Pinocchio Bush
any war prerogative at all. Yet Dicks voted to let the chimperor do as he
would. It is all party politics all the time and to hell with the people.
I can vote for Dicks or I get a stinking Republican. I'd like to have an
Independent.
>>
>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php
>>
>> We need the agency and the full time attention to detail that
>> representative government gives us. I do not want to stare at C-Span all
>> day every day and I do not want to get the "news" from Faux.
>
> But if the politicians are gutless, they'll be manipulated, and thus you
> won't get what you expect from them.
No. I __**WILL**__ get what I want, because If I don't I will vote for
someone who will run a campaign based on the actual record of the person
in office and swear that (s)he will not vote against what the
constituents actually want. 100 to 1 and the prancing pig still
authorized the chimp. In a district of 200k he would be history. It just
doesn't cost that much to run for office in that small a district. All the
money from the lobby and the party is not going to save him against a
known and honest local candidate.
>>
>>>
>>> The actual __**JOB**__ of a representative is to inform
>>>> the people as to what is happening in their government and to represent
>>>> the people that elect him/her and _VOTE_ on pending legislation in a
>>>> manner consistent with the actual wishes of the voters in the
>>>> representative's district. It has much less to do with riding a big
>>>> white
>>>> horse and doing what (s)he thinks is riiiiiiiggggthhhhhttttt than the
>>>> current small membership House as desired by the TwoParty would have us
>>>> believe. The ability to consider great national designs and to have a
>>>> capacity for deliberation in grand excess of the common people may well
>>>> change somewhat with actual committee members and officers of the House
>>>> of
>>>> Representatives or even with members of the Senate. But the regular
>>>> vanilla representatives of the House are to damned well vote as the
>>>> constituency wants them to vote. And __**THAT**__ is the big thing that
>>>> must be accomplished. We must insist on better accountability
>>>> __**to_us**__ for those who are to be our agents and who cast the votes
>>>> in
>>>> our stead.
--
John Galt
Nothing ever is. We're essentially discussing where to draw the line between
two polar extremes. At one end is a single representative for *all* the
people -- the other is referendum government.
I don't disagree. I simply don't see your solution as a good one. There are
other structural elements that should precede any extension of the
bureacracy in order for said extension to be effective.
>
>> We have
>>> "initiative" here in Washington State and it sucks. It is just a way
>>> for
>>> the rich to run a big add campaign and get what they want by lying
>>> through
>>> their teeth.
>>
>> Well, we often have to choose between the rich running ads and lying and
>> the
>> poor running ads and lying (albeit through their proxies). It's the
>> responsiblity of the citizen to sort out the signal to noise ratio, and
>> what
>> you've admitted above is that the citizen can be manipulated, else the
>> "big
>> ad campaign" wouldn't matter.
>
> The proxies of the common people were, in fact, designed by the
> constitution to be their representatives.
Unions. Advocacy groups for the poor. The AARP. The NEA. None of these were
designed by the Constitution, but they "lobby" in the same way as corporate
advocacy.
JG
The Trucker
Where you been? That was debated and resolved in 1776 or 1777.
> If the decisions that lobbyists
> care about are dispersed amongst the 50 states, then the lobbying
> organization has to fund 50 separate organizations under 50 different sets
> of laws to have the same effect that they currently get from one
> organization under one law.
At a minimum you will need to repeal the 17th amendment, but it sounds
like you want to just abandon the current Constitution and the current
United States of America.
> The proportionate effect of the lobbyist is thus
> diminished, as the influence of the state senator and representative
> increases.
Yes. A states rights sort of fellow. So repeal the 16th and the 17th and
you would be getting there. But that really has nothing to do with
America as it is defined in the United States Constitution that _IS_
America. The people were to control this government. Not the state
legislatures or the (P)resident or the Senate.
> Further, the corporate tax code needs to be flattened. If the majority of
> deductions were to disappear (with a commensurate decrease in tax rates so
> as to be revenue-neutral) then most of the things that corporate lobbyists
> lobby over would vanish overnight.
So if we did away with all the laws then there would be no crime. WOW!
Ive often thought that Corporate taxes should be much more progressive
such that there would be a real incentive to not grow and take over the
world. Imagine that..... Actual competition.
I have never so contended and will not start now.
>>
>>>>
>>>> However, the sent bill after bill after bill to Bush to bring back the
>>>> troops with a definite timetable which bush vetoed again and again.
>>>
>>> Did timetable bills actually reach the President? I thought they were
>>> inclusions into the funding bills that were pulled out before being sent
>>> up
>>> due to the aforementioned "courage" issue above.
>>
>> Nope. The initial funding bill had timetables. Bush vetoed it.
>
> OK, thanks. Forgot.
>>
>>> But, no matter. I find the pursuit of the timetable issue interesting, in
>>> that it's about the only issue opposed by the GOP that the American
>>> public
>>> agrees with the GOP on. With a clear majority of the public opposing
>>> Iraq,
>>> it's odd that they choose that issue to legislate from.
>>
>> I think you need to reconsider what you wrote and explain it. I sure as
>> hell can't follow the rationale.
>
> The point is that there is no rationale for the action. The American public
> wants out of Iraq, but they don't want timetables. So, what do the Dems
> push? Timetables (so much for your assertion that the Dem system is better
> at ascertaining the will of the people.)
If you were to have read the actual bill you would have found that there
was more then enough vagueary in it to allow Bush to move things around
and even ignore the request to pull out. It was the principle that
mattered. The principal was that Bush was instructed by the Congress that
the Congress would be funding less and less expecting Bush to steadily
and responsibly withdraw.
> What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who* won't
> let it come up for a vote?
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
>
> "Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the people."
So what happened here? The rich have been able to run another Iraq scam
on a lot of people and to pay off some pollsters. No different that
ab-using 9/11 to get all the sap suckers to wave pom poms over Iraq.
This is where representative democracy is better then mob rule. This is
where the representatives will be held accountable for their actions and
where the representatives will be held accountable. We will see after the
representatives actually conduct their own polls what they will do. If
you believe a poll bought an paid for by Karl Rove, Inc. I can't help ya.
> Great line. Best laugh I've had all day. (I do agree, however, that the GOP
> is *much* better at staying on their script, where it often appears the
> Democrats don't have one. I'm not crazy about the GOP script, but at least
> they stick to it.)
I like the Democratic way of doing things, thank you. If the people have
bought all the lies of the Republican party then the Democrats will have
to fold it up and that is the way it will be. But I also say that any,
so called, Democrat that is not actively seeking at least a doubling of
the membership of the House is actually a Republican dressed in a Democrat
suit.
The Trucker
What "extension of the bureaucracy" are you talking about? It takes no
longer to count 1740 electronic votes than it does to count 435. But I am
interested in what additional measure you would think might prevent this
non-existent "bureaucracy".
>>
>>> We have
>>>> "initiative" here in Washington State and it sucks. It is just a way
>>>> for
>>>> the rich to run a big add campaign and get what they want by lying
>>>> through
>>>> their teeth.
>>>
>>> Well, we often have to choose between the rich running ads and lying and
>>> the
>>> poor running ads and lying (albeit through their proxies). It's the
>>> responsiblity of the citizen to sort out the signal to noise ratio, and
>>> what
>>> you've admitted above is that the citizen can be manipulated, else the
>>> "big
>>> ad campaign" wouldn't matter.
>>
>> The proxies of the common people were, in fact, designed by the
>> constitution to be their representatives.
>
> Unions. Advocacy groups for the poor. The AARP. The NEA. None of these were
> designed by the Constitution, but they "lobby" in the same way as corporate
> advocacy.
And the result of the smaller districts, the more direct accountability
of the representatives to their electoral base very much diminishes
the control of these "special interests" that ARE NOT PART OF THE
REPRESENTATIVE'S ELECTORAL BASE.
Like, "water is wet".
John Galt
I assume you're intentionally playing stupid. Surely you've noticed noticed
that the Federal goverment has assumed more and more responsibilities of the
states over time?
>
>> If the decisions that lobbyists
>> care about are dispersed amongst the 50 states, then the lobbying
>> organization has to fund 50 separate organizations under 50 different
>> sets
>> of laws to have the same effect that they currently get from one
>> organization under one law.
>
> At a minimum you will need to repeal the 17th amendment, but it sounds
> like you want to just abandon the current Constitution and the current
> United States of America.
What a ridiculous statement. My position is simply that the most efficient
government takes place closer to the people.
>
>> The proportionate effect of the lobbyist is thus
>> diminished, as the influence of the state senator and representative
>> increases.
>
> Yes. A states rights sort of fellow. So repeal the 16th and the 17th and
> you would be getting there. But that really has nothing to do with
> America as it is defined in the United States Constitution that _IS_
> America. The people were to control this government. Not the state
> legislatures or the (P)resident or the Senate.
>
>> Further, the corporate tax code needs to be flattened. If the majority of
>> deductions were to disappear (with a commensurate decrease in tax rates
>> so
>> as to be revenue-neutral) then most of the things that corporate
>> lobbyists
>> lobby over would vanish overnight.
>
> So if we did away with all the laws then there would be no crime. WOW!
> Ive often thought that Corporate taxes should be much more progressive
> such that there would be a real incentive to not grow and take over the
> world. Imagine that..... Actual competition.
Both objectives are met with flattening the corporate tax code. You remove
the tax motivation of lobbying, and companies that would normally pay a
higher tax rate can't dodge it with exemptions and loopholes.
See above. We're discussion public perception, and the % of the public who
reads the bills isn't very high. Thus, it's a matter principle (both pro and
con).
>
>> What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who*
>> won't
>> let it come up for a vote?
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
>>
>> "Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the people."
>
> So what happened here? The rich have been able to run another Iraq scam
> on a lot of people and to pay off some pollsters.
That's one possibility. The more likely one is that it accurately reflects
the will of the people.
No different that
> ab-using 9/11 to get all the sap suckers to wave pom poms over Iraq.
> This is where representative democracy is better then mob rule. This is
> where the representatives will be held accountable for their actions and
> where the representatives will be held accountable. We will see after the
> representatives actually conduct their own polls what they will do. If
> you believe a poll bought an paid for by Karl Rove, Inc. I can't help ya.
>
>> Great line. Best laugh I've had all day. (I do agree, however, that the
>> GOP
>> is *much* better at staying on their script, where it often appears the
>> Democrats don't have one. I'm not crazy about the GOP script, but at
>> least
>> they stick to it.)
>
> I like the Democratic way of doing things, thank you. If the people have
> bought all the lies of the Republican party then the Democrats will have
> to fold it up and that is the way it will be. But I also say that any,
> so called, Democrat that is not actively seeking at least a doubling of
> the membership of the House is actually a Republican dressed in a Democrat
> suit.
Which goes back to my original point. There is no difference between a
GOP-run government and a Democratic-run goverment if the Democrats are
terrified of the minority.
JG
John Galt
It doesn't take any longer to count 300M, either, but we've already been
through all that. My suggestion, as phrased in the other post, is that
moving functions from the government to the states (closer to the people)
decreases the size of the federal bureacracy.
No objection there. The question is whether or not it is workable in
practice.
JG
The Trucker
No. I just made a mistake on the dates. It was 1786-1787 that the
Constitution was created that replaced the Articles of Confederation.
But the 14th and 15th Amendments and the 16th and 17th amendments
primarily were the ones that did a way with most "states rights".
Even now I sometimes think the world would be a better place if the south
had been allowed to secede and create two nations instead of one. I
sometimes think that if the taxes were apportioned among the states based
on population (representation in the House) then the states would each
decide how they would tax. The smart people would use land value taxation
and the stupid ones would have other tax methods to enforce both chattel
and distorted capitalism wage slavery. The idiot states would probably be
building "Berlin walls" to keep the slaves in.
>>
>>> If the decisions that lobbyists
>>> care about are dispersed amongst the 50 states, then the lobbying
>>> organization has to fund 50 separate organizations under 50 different
>>> sets
>>> of laws to have the same effect that they currently get from one
>>> organization under one law.
>>
>> At a minimum you will need to repeal the 17th amendment, but it sounds
>> like you want to just abandon the current Constitution and the current
>> United States of America.
>
> What a ridiculous statement. My position is simply that the most efficient
> government takes place closer to the people.
Yet, the House and the Senate are what they are and they were made that
way by the Constitution. It isn't a federation. The Articles of
Federation/Confederation were left aside and a new nation was created in
1786-87.
>>
>>> The proportionate effect of the lobbyist is thus
>>> diminished, as the influence of the state senator and representative
>>> increases.
>>
>> Yes. A states rights sort of fellow. So repeal the 16th and the 17th and
>> you would be getting there. But that really has nothing to do with
>> America as it is defined in the United States Constitution that _IS_
>> America. The people were to control this government. Not the state
>> legislatures or the (P)resident or the Senate.
>>
>>> Further, the corporate tax code needs to be flattened. If the majority of
>>> deductions were to disappear (with a commensurate decrease in tax rates
>>> so
>>> as to be revenue-neutral) then most of the things that corporate
>>> lobbyists
>>> lobby over would vanish overnight.
>>
>> So if we did away with all the laws then there would be no crime. WOW!
>> Ive often thought that Corporate taxes should be much more progressive
>> such that there would be a real incentive to not grow and take over the
>> world. Imagine that..... Actual competition.
>
> Both objectives are met with flattening the corporate tax code. You remove
> the tax motivation of lobbying, and companies that would normally pay a
> higher tax rate can't dodge it with exemptions and loopholes.
It doesn't work. All the power just concentrates and you end up with one
giant corporation controlling the world. I know you think that would be
Nirvana, but I don't. Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that represented
the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
common good. The central blessing of majority rule is that it
marginalizes special interests along with the ideological extremes. But
when that system becomes corrupted as it is now, and the representatives
actually represent the party and the moneyed interests, then it is a very
broken and harmful system.
>> was more then enough vagary in it to allow Bush to move things around
>> and even ignore the request to pull out. It was the principle that
>> mattered. The principal was that Bush was instructed by the Congress that
>> the Congress would be funding less and less and expecting Bush to
>> steadily and responsibly withdraw.
>
> See above. We're discussion public perception, and the % of the public
> who reads the bills isn't very high. Thus, it's a matter principle (both
> pro and con).
It is as it is. The Democratic Congress should have stood its ground at
that point and just passed the bill again with even more strict demands.
And failing to do that then there would be no money. Bush should have
been made absolutely aware that this would happen before he vetoed the
first bill. That bill had every nickle asked and he was put on notice
that further funds would be curtailed. His veto of it was truly an act of
unconstitutional behavior.
But Nancy Pelosi had put "impeachment off the table". And she should be
thrown out of the Democratic party for it. She should be removed from
government entirely at the national level. Her action was irresponsible
and harmful to this country. Both her and Stenny Hoyer continue to work
against the best interests of the common people. They voted for the telco
immunity bill in direct opposition to the will of their constituents and
the majority of the Democratic members of the House. That is corruption
pure and simple. There is no other way to explain what they did.
>>
>>> What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who*
>>> won't
>>> let it come up for a vote?
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
>>>
>>> "Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the people."
>>
>> So what happened here? The rich have been able to run another Iraq scam
>> on a lot of people and to pay off some pollsters.
>
> That's one possibility. The more likely one is that it accurately reflects
> the will of the people.
Oh horseshit. It is the job of a true representative to council his
constituents instead of letting Faux News do it for him. There is no
excuse for the Democrats to not have video on demand for the constituency
to get the real stuff on this as opposed to the Republican and oil
company bullshit. And it is also the place where the representatives
should not bend to mob rule. All the people who look at this know damned
well that increased drilling today will not reduce pump prices by the end
of this year or next. Yet that is what Faux news and Rush Limbaugh have
been spreading. Standing your ground on something like this will get you
re-elected when you are right. If you want lower prices then it is time to
release some oil out of the reserves to pop the speculative bubble. Most
of the people don't understand that, but that doesn't mean that they can't
understand it. Each representative should be held accountable. When I call
my representative's office I should get a web address that tells my how my
representative will be leaning and voting on this sort of thing and
exactly why (s)he is doing what (s)he is doing. Accountability SHOULD
come in November. It won't because all the Democratic rep needs to do is
cave in and that rep will still retain the seat. His constituents are
not going to vote for a Republican and he knows it. If, however, the
districts were smaller then there would be independents and non affiliated
people in the fray and the current rep would have to actually have a spine.
> No different that
>> ab-using 9/11 to get all the sap suckers to wave pom poms over Iraq.
>> This is where representative democracy is better then mob rule. This is
>> where the representatives will be held accountable for their actions and
>> where the representatives will be held accountable. We will see after the
>> representatives actually conduct their own polls what they will do. If
>> you believe a poll bought an paid for by Karl Rove, Inc. I can't help ya.
>>
>>> Great line. Best laugh I've had all day. (I do agree, however, that the
>>> GOP
>>> is *much* better at staying on their script, where it often appears the
>>> Democrats don't have one. I'm not crazy about the GOP script, but at
>>> least
>>> they stick to it.)
>>
>> I like the Democratic way of doing things, thank you. If the people have
>> bought all the lies of the Republican party then the Democrats will have
>> to fold it up and that is the way it will be. But I also say that any,
>> so called, Democrat that is not actively seeking at least a doubling of
>> the membership of the House is actually a Republican dressed in a Democrat
>> suit.
>
> Which goes back to my original point. There is no difference between a
> GOP-run government and a Democratic-run goverment if the Democrats are
> terrified of the minority.
A point with which I will agree ..... again. But does this disrupt my
central thesis? I think not. This cowing of the Democratic
representatives comes from the unwillingness of the Democratic party to
eschew the same funding sources that support the Republicans. The message
sent to the public on the issues that matter economically is not
normally sent by the parties. It is sent by the special interests that
have the most to gain by government action or inaction. That will not
normally be the common people because, as a whole, they have no special
interest. Yet the common people are ever the target of the messages
because they hold the votes needed to control the politicians/law makers.
There is a point where the relationship between the representative (House)
and the constituency is _best_ able to survive the propaganda onslaught.
I do not pretend to know what number of people per representative that
would be. But I am not pretending when I submit that it certainly isn't
one representative for every seven hundred thousand. That relationship is
simply not working.
John Galt
Monopolies are free-market nightmares.
But, more to the point -- explain how corporations paying more in taxes ends
up with one corporation controlling the world. Right now, large corporations
pay less than some smaller ones because they can afford the loopholes and
shelters.
Please be specific.
Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that represented
> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
> common good.
The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their corporate
masters.
Hm? The Dems get cowardly and the POTUS acts in a constitutional way, and
it's "unconstitional?"
I suspect you believe that the definition "unconstitutional" is "anything
that's against what Truck believes is correct."
>
> But Nancy Pelosi had put "impeachment off the table". And she should be
> thrown out of the Democratic party for it.
Well, yea. There are only two possibilities -- that they don't have the
evidence, or she shirked her constitutional duty for political purposes.
She should be removed from
> government entirely at the national level. Her action was irresponsible
> and harmful to this country. Both her and Stenny Hoyer continue to work
> against the best interests of the common people. They voted for the telco
> immunity bill in direct opposition to the will of their constituents and
> the majority of the Democratic members of the House. That is corruption
> pure and simple. There is no other way to explain what they did.
>
>>>
>>>> What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who*
>>>> won't
>>>> let it come up for a vote?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
>>>>
>>>> "Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the
>>>> people."
>>>
>>> So what happened here? The rich have been able to run another Iraq scam
>>> on a lot of people and to pay off some pollsters.
>>
>> That's one possibility. The more likely one is that it accurately
>> reflects
>> the will of the people.
>
> Oh horseshit.
Without evidence to the contrary, the simplest and most direct explanation
stands.
Nice rant, though.
The point that it's not working is agreed. The fix is what is in doubt. Can
we take on gerrymandering first?
JG
The Trucker
>>>> *!*!***********!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases,
>>>> there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be
>>>> found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you
>>>> render the representatives too little acquainted with all their
>>>> local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too
>>>> much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit
>>>> to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.
>>>> *!*!************!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> We have long since enlarged the electoral districts to a point where
>>>> the representatives no longer represent anything other than the lobby
>>>> and the party. The people get to chose between the two bought an
>>>> paid for "candidates".
>>>
>>> I don't disagree. I simply don't see your solution as a good one.
>>> There are
>>> other structural elements that should precede any extension of the
>>> bureacracy in order for said extension to be effective.
>>
>> What "extension of the bureaucracy" are you talking about? It takes no
>> longer to count 1740 electronic votes than it does to count 435. But I
>> am interested in what additional measure you would think might prevent
>> this non-existent "bureaucracy".
>
> It doesn't take any longer to count 300M, either, but we've already been
> through all that. My suggestion, as phrased in the other post, is that
> moving functions from the government to the states (closer to the
> people) decreases the size of the federal bureacracy.
From the actual web page in which I propose expansion:
http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/ -------------------------
These Constitutional goals of improved representation are achieved by
physically locating the increased voting membership in offices much closer
to the people they represent. The Committee members of the current House
of Representatives remain officed in Washington DC where they function
exactly as they do now. For the extended representation video conferencing
allows them to function as they would if they were in the nation's
capital. The Committee members of the current House of Representatives
remain officed in Washington DC where they function exactly as they do
now. For the extended representation video conferencing allows them to
function as they would if they were in the nation's capital. The extended
representation should be officed in the districts they represent or in the
state capitals but locating them within the Washington DC beltway would
just continue the undue influence to the lobby and the political parties.
The extended representatives will become aware of pending "bills" exactly
as members do now, by secure electronic means. They will observe floor
debates exactly as members do now, on monitors in their offices. And they
will vote on the "bills" as members do now, without ever entering the
House chamber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have proposed no alteration that would increase the bureaucracy.
However:
Again from Federalist 10:
http://www.greatervoice.org/extend/Madison.php#fed10 ---------
Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a
consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always
checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is
necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see you get an "earmark" through this gang.
But I am still interested in any "structural elements" that you believe
would be needed or beneficial in preventing increased bureaucracy.
Thank you.
The Trucker
There is no need to be specific at this point. You have nor been specific
regarding the "loopholes" that promote the dodge. My position is that a
proper House of Representatives would not allow such "loopholes', and if
it did then the members would be exposed and removed by people who
actually wanted to earn the very good salary of a representative for doing
the actual job of representation.
> Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
>> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that represented
>> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
>> common good.
>
> The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their corporate
> masters.
And that is why I want to expand the House and reduce the size of the
electoral districts. In smaller districts the supporters of the special
interests will not survive. We have been over this already. You _KNOW_
I'm right about it.
Nope. I believe that the Constitution is clear that the funding/defunding
of long term military action is the province of the Congress and not the
(P)resident. The Constitution clearly states that the Congress declares
war and not the (P)resident. That the Congress controls the state of war
or not state of war is also made clear by that one statement. While the
"Commander in Chief" has control of what the military does in the war
theater, the Congress controls the actual STATE of war itself and it does
so via the funding. Rational people do not jerk the funding all at once.
Only fascist rightarded Republicans would do something like that.
Madison again:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/WarAndTheExecutive.php ----
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper
or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or
concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle in government, analogous to that which separates the sword
from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting
laws.
Helvidius No. 1,24 Aug. 1793 -- PJM 15:71
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> But Nancy Pelosi had put "impeachment off the table". And she should be
>> thrown out of the Democratic party for it.
>
> Well, yea. There are only two possibilities -- that they don't have the
> evidence, or she shirked her constitutional duty for political purposes.
Believe me. It was the latter and she should be removed for it. And the
point is not one of evidence of previous wrongdoing. The point has been
made above. The continuation of unconstitutional activity is the point.
Having removed impeachment from the table there is no way to control the
continuing power transgressions of the executive.
> She should be removed from
>> government entirely at the national level. Her action was irresponsible
>> and harmful to this country. Both her and Stenny Hoyer continue to work
>> against the best interests of the common people. They voted for the telco
>> immunity bill in direct opposition to the will of their constituents and
>> the majority of the Democratic members of the House. That is corruption
>> pure and simple. There is no other way to explain what they did.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> What's the public sentiment on drilling now? 70% in favor? And, *who*
>>>>> won't
>>>>> let it come up for a vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/24/AR2008072403506.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Democratic concept better suited for discerning the will of the
>>>>> people."
>>>>
>>>> So what happened here? The rich have been able to run another Iraq scam
>>>> on a lot of people and to pay off some pollsters.
>>>
>>> That's one possibility. The more likely one is that it accurately
>>> reflects
>>> the will of the people.
>>
>> Oh horseshit.
>
> Without evidence to the contrary, the simplest and most direct explanation
> stands.
>
> Nice rant, though.
Thank you. But it is ever the same --- a disconnect between the people
and the representative.
I am all for reinstating the requirement that districts be compact and of
equal population which were destroyed in 1929:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. ยง 2a,
enacted 1929-06-18) was a combined census and reapportionment bill passed
by the United States Congress which established a permanent method for
apportioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives
according to each census. The bill neither repealed nor restated the
requirements of the previous apportionment acts -- that districts be
contiguous, compact, and equally populated.
It was not clear if these requirements were still in effect until the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the matter of Wood v. Broom,
287 U.S. 1 (1932) that the provisions of each apportionment act affected
only the apportionment for which they were written. Thus the size and
population requirements, last stated in the Apportionment Act of 1911,
expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent Apportionment
Act.
The permanent Act of 1929 gave little direction concerning congressional
districting. It merely established a system in which House seats would be
reallocated to states which have shifts in population. The lack of
recommendations concerning districts had several significant effects.
The Reapportionment Act of 1929 allowed states to draw districts of
varying size and shape. It also allowed states to abandon districts
altogether and elect at least some representatives at large, which several
states chose to do, including New York, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and
New Mexico. For example, in the 88th Congress (in the early 1960s) 22 of
the 435 representatives were elected at-large.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of this crap is, while not specifically forbidden by the letter of the
Constitution, certainly at odds with that which was SOLD to the people
who ratified. That is obvious to anyone who has read the surrounding
history or even just the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that
concern themselves with the issue. The supposed intent of the founders as
expressed in their debates, letters, and writings outside the Constitution
itself was for single member compact districts. I say "supposed intent"
because I cannot know what evil lurked in the minds of these people. I
can only go by what they wrote.
Federalist 55 - 58 are very pointedly addressed to the issue and Madison
claims that the large states will ever insist on expanding the membership
and that this would automatically assure the expansion in step with
population. Political parties are not well served by such expansion as I
have already noted. That was the death of what Madison sold us. What is
interesting is that Madison and Jefferson formed the Democratic Republican
party to fight off the financial fascist of the day -- Hamilton. And this
actually terminated the force that Madison claimed would prevail in
keeping the representation adequate.
John Galt
Then the comment can be discarded as meaningless.
> You have nor been specific
> regarding the "loopholes" that promote the dodge.
What dodge? Larger companies, who work multinationally, have the ability to
leave money earned overseas there, without incurring US taxes in
repatriation. Smaller companies do not, and thus often end up paying more
than the large companies. That's why the US government declared a
"repatriation amnesty" allowing companies to bring those funds home tax
free, or at reduced rates.
Everyone knows about that.
> My position is that a
> proper House of Representatives would not allow such "loopholes', and if
> it did then the members would be exposed and removed by people who
> actually wanted to earn the very good salary of a representative for doing
> the actual job of representation.
How can you prevent earned money overseas from being left overseas?
>
>> Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
>>> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that
>>> represented
>>> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
>>> common good.
>>
>> The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their
>> corporate
>> masters.
>
> And that is why I want to expand the House and reduce the size of the
> electoral districts. In smaller districts the supporters of the special
> interests will not survive. We have been over this already. You _KNOW_
> I'm right about it.
As I've said, we agree on the problem, not the solution.
What you have, then, is a constitutional issue, not behavior which is
blatantly unconstitutional. The president can veto any bill -
constitutionally. If the position is that the president can't veto a funding
meaasure, then that has to be decided by the SCOTUS. Which Democrat is
taking the matter to the SCOTUS, then?
I suspect that MANY of the negative behaviors we see out of the House would
be solved by this.
JG
The Trucker
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/glossary/Asset_Tax_System.php
Taxing corporate income in a global economy is pretty stupid. So too is
the lack of any repatriation taxes on goods coming into the country from
offshore ownerships by America based companies. And I am sure that you
will tell me that all the companies will move to some other tax
jurisdiction to avoid the tax. I will go down to the boat docks and throw
flowers as the slime crawl away to Bimini.
>> My position is that a
>> proper House of Representatives would not allow such "loopholes', and if
>> it did then the members would be exposed and removed by people who
>> actually wanted to earn the very good salary of a representative for doing
>> the actual job of representation.
>
> How can you prevent earned money overseas from being left overseas?
Not a problem so long as the money isn't owned by fat ass rich bitches
here in the states.
>>
>>> Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
>>>> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that
>>>> represented
>>>> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
>>>> common good.
>>>
>>> The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their
>>> corporate
>>> masters.
>>
>> And that is why I want to expand the House and reduce the size of the
>> electoral districts. In smaller districts the supporters of the special
>> interests will not survive. We have been over this already. You _KNOW_
>> I'm right about it.
>
> As I've said, we agree on the problem, not the solution.
Yet you have offered nothing to indicate that mine is not the right
solution to achieve the goals I have stated, i.e. a higher level of
representative democracy.
That is exactly my point. An impeachment should have ensued based on the
unconstitutional nature of the act. If there was a question of
constitutionality it was the province of the Supremes to sort it out. But
that never happened because Pelosi took the only control of His
Assholiness off the table. Politically speaking -- Game over.
The point of all this stuff is that the Congress can __**NEVER**__ take
impeachment off the table because it is the best tool, and sometimes the
only tool as in this case, that the Congress has to stop a runaway
executive. This had nothing to do with impeaching Bush for committed past
transgressions. It gave him a free pass to do even more. The "surge" was
a very nice "spit in the face" of the Congress executed with the intent of
proving that he could do whatever he damned well pleased. And Pelosi just
sucked on it because it was politically impossible for her to do
otherwise. The troops are held hostage to the moron in chief because
Pelosi threw away the only tool to stop it.
And BTW if you read the rules the Supremes have concocted for themselves
it is almost impossible to get "standing" to take such a thing to the
them for hearing. Impeachment would have done it very quickly.
John Galt
I'll be glad to answer for myself, thanks.
If the US corporate tax system were to be brought up to 21st century
standards (the global trend is flatter with lower rates) in a revenue
neutral fashion, that would adequately address the situation.
However, keep in mind that without the slime, there is markedly less job
opportunity in the US.
>
>>> My position is that a
>>> proper House of Representatives would not allow such "loopholes', and if
>>> it did then the members would be exposed and removed by people who
>>> actually wanted to earn the very good salary of a representative for
>>> doing
>>> the actual job of representation.
>>
>> How can you prevent earned money overseas from being left overseas?
>
> Not a problem so long as the money isn't owned by fat ass rich bitches
> here in the states.
It's owned by shareholders. Some of them might have fat asses, others might
be rich, but most are regular guys.
>
>>>
>>>> Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
>>>>> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that
>>>>> represented
>>>>> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
>>>>> common good.
>>>>
>>>> The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their
>>>> corporate
>>>> masters.
>>>
>>> And that is why I want to expand the House and reduce the size of the
>>> electoral districts. In smaller districts the supporters of the special
>>> interests will not survive. We have been over this already. You _KNOW_
>>> I'm right about it.
>>
>> As I've said, we agree on the problem, not the solution.
>
> Yet you have offered nothing to indicate that mine is not the right
> solution to achieve the goals I have stated, i.e. a higher level of
> representative democracy.
Sure I have. Kill the gerrymandering and see if that solves the problem.
Always enact the lowest impact options first. That's just good risk
management.
That's fine in holding that opinion. But it's not unconstitutional until its
ruled so. Up to this point, all presidents in split administrations have
found themselves vetoing budgetary resolutions. Nothing new here, folks,
move along........
If there was a question of
> constitutionality it was the province of the Supremes to sort it out. But
> that never happened because Pelosi took the only control of His
> Assholiness off the table. Politically speaking -- Game over.
I wholly sympathize with this level of frustration.
>
> The point of all this stuff is that the Congress can __**NEVER**__ take
> impeachment off the table because it is the best tool, and sometimes the
> only tool as in this case, that the Congress has to stop a runaway
> executive. This had nothing to do with impeaching Bush for committed past
> transgressions. It gave him a free pass to do even more. The "surge" was
> a very nice "spit in the face" of the Congress executed with the intent of
> proving that he could do whatever he damned well pleased. And Pelosi just
> sucked on it because it was politically impossible for her to do
> otherwise. The troops are held hostage to the moron in chief because
> Pelosi threw away the only tool to stop it.
I don't disagree.
>
> And BTW if you read the rules the Supremes have concocted for themselves
> it is almost impossible to get "standing" to take such a thing to the
> them for hearing. Impeachment would have done it very quickly.
Uh, I recall well the 10 seconds immediately following the enactment of
campaign finance reform. Mitch McConnell had a fast-track lawsuit that went
to the Supremes and had parts of the act overturned. I suspect that a
constitutional challenge to the vetoing of a budgetary resolution could get
traction.
But, either way. I think you're absolutely correct that if the majority
party in the House feels that the President has acted in an unconstitutional
fashion (or high crimes and misdemeanors) they are oath-bound to act, and
using "political reality" as an excuse makes them an accessory to the crime.
JG
The Trucker
Yet I can see no correlation here between what you call flat tax and or no
tax and the realization of any good. I see the claim, but that is all it
is. The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently runs
on nothing but debt. Yet you seem to want to go even further down that
path. There is no way to cut the taxes in a revenue neutral fashion and I
would maintain that the corporations need to pay more in taxes and not
less. When we look at the actual budget of the government honestly (that
means that the FICA tax and the SS outlays are not part of the budget) we
find that the greater part of the spending is for property rights
enforcement on a world wide scale. Not only do we defend patents,
copyrights, trade names, and the like right here in River City, but all
over the globe. And not only are we providing property rights protections
to American corporations but to all corporations multinational or not. The
American policeman is very expensive and the multinational and exporting
corporations are not paying for it. Even the American products
corporations that do not export and that use local labor are not paying
adequately for the property rights services they must have from government
in order to acquire their incomes.
> However, keep in mind that without the slime, there is markedly less job
> opportunity in the US.
Currently the corporations must realize their income _somewhere_ and
pay taxes _somewhere_. And you indicate that they chose to move some
desks and a filing cabinet to Bimini and claim that as the home office and
claim the income at that point. That is all accounting and pretty easy to
do and so they do it. Somehow you believe that you can wave a magic wand
and level the tax system all across the world so that the corporations
can't escape the tax. Even more laughable you think that by lowering the
US tax that you remove the incentive to move the point of profit
realizations. Of course, if you made the tax rate zero that would
certainly do what you want but there is no way to do that in a "revenue
neutral" way.
You also cling to the false notion that these corporations being officed
in the USA are providing some benefit to the common people of the USA.
Whereas they provide jobs offshore and not here then the only benefit they
might provide will be in the taxes they pay. The problem is that any
corporation that exports goods or jobs or anything else (other than
agriculture or ore) will consume more in government services than they
currently pay in taxes and that is true even if they do not realize
their income in Bimini but instead realize it right here in the USA.
If you equalized the tax rate in every nation on the planet it would make
no difference. The other nations would use the tax proceeds to do
infrastructure and health care and we would use the proceeds to invade
Iraq or do whatever it might take to be the world greatest fascists.
If there is to be a global policemen then all the people should have to
pay and not just the American people. The UN offered such a mechanism
to provide a world policeman but it was never realized and perhaps it
can't be realized. The global policeman cannot continue to be funded
by Americans alone even if we get our fiscal house in order. The problem
is not the tax system actually. It is the fascist imperialism system that
causes the problem.
Each time I look at this I see that if we did not have to depend on oil
then we would not have to be the world policeman and we would not need to
export or import a damned thing. So the oil we have must be nationalized
and owned by the common people (this is the oil that is in the commons)
and we must proceed to develop alternative fuels using the resources we
have. We must lock the doors and stop the immigration of people who have
babies at astounding rates. We must be isolationists until the world is
willing to do the United Nations approach and fund the world policeman in
that way (everybody pays a fair share). And we must also be self
sustaining and not be sucking up the entire world's oil supplies so we can
live exorbitant life styles. If we can maintain a high level of living on
our own nickle then that is cool. The current fascism is not the answer.
>>
>>>> My position is that a
>>>> proper House of Representatives would not allow such "loopholes', and if
>>>> it did then the members would be exposed and removed by people who
>>>> actually wanted to earn the very good salary of a representative for
>>>> doing
>>>> the actual job of representation.
>>>
>>> How can you prevent earned money overseas from being left overseas?
>>
>> Not a problem so long as the money isn't owned by fat ass rich bitches
>> here in the states.
>
> It's owned by shareholders. Some of them might have fat asses, others might
> be rich, but most are regular guys.
Irrelevant. The asset tax system is a much better way to manage the
taxation. It is a flat tax. People with no assets of very few will pay
little or no tax and the people that own the means of production will pay
for their property rights protection in proportion to the amount that own.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Those exemptions and loopholes are created in the
>>>>>> House of Representatives. And a House of Representatives that
>>>>>> represented
>>>>>> the common people would not create such devices unless they served the
>>>>>> common good.
>>>>>
>>>>> The House doesn't represent the common good. They represent their
>>>>> corporate
>>>>> masters.
>>>>
>>>> And that is why I want to expand the House and reduce the size of the
>>>> electoral districts. In smaller districts the supporters of the special
>>>> interests will not survive. We have been over this already. You _KNOW_
>>>> I'm right about it.
>>>
>>> As I've said, we agree on the problem, not the solution.
>>
>> Yet you have offered nothing to indicate that mine is not the right
>> solution to achieve the goals I have stated, i.e. a higher level of
>> representative democracy.
>
> Sure I have. Kill the gerrymandering and see if that solves the problem.
> Always enact the lowest impact options first. That's just good risk
> management.
That is a proposal to do something other than what I have recommended. It
is not any criticism of what I have recommended. You have offered _NO_
supposed downside or harm that would be caused by what I propose and no
real argument that it will not achieve its stated purposes. Those
purposes are primarily identified as taking the country back from the
corporations and the very powerful families and individuals and restoring
a true "republican form of government" where the common people have more
control over their lives.
And BTW... Smaller districts are more difficult to gerrymander.
This was a war resolution and it is addressed as such in the Constitution
and admitted and recognized as such by the current government and the
people. The rightards chortle every day about how Bush has his
congressional "bitches" give him the money to run his Iraq scam. The
manner in which the Congress is to assert its war powers is through the
funding and Bush is acting unconstitutionally when he vetoes the money he
requested because it has language instructing him to begin a termination
of the hostilities. "The congress has the power to declare war". Not His
Assholines.
John Galt
I suggest you take a look at the Asian economies.
But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as the
nose at the end of your face. A system which is tolerant of loopholes and
shelters is ripe to be gamed by lobbyists desiring MORE loophones and
shelters (case in point -- the reclassification of Starbucks as a
MANUFACTURER rather than a retailer to take advantage of manufacturing tax
breaks, an initiative driven by Starbuck's lobbyists and having their water
carried by the state of Washington's congresscritters, who by the way are
not Republican). Further, since it's the LARGE corporations which can afford
lobbyist representation, it will be the larger corporations promoting their
interests over that of the smaller.
I'll simply note here that you promote taxation systems which benefit the
rich individuals and large corporations while at the same time you criticize
the same and move on.
The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently runs
> on nothing but debt.
Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a tax
stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit. Surplus and deficit have
to do with tax receipts vs. tax expenditures. The Reagan tax flattening was
revenue - neutral to the goverment. The deficit was due to a radical
increase in defense spending without any correlating increase in tax
receipts. Spending more than you take in results in deficits every time.
Want further proof? Clinton balanced the budget without "unflattening" the
system. If you were correct, that would have been impossible.
>Yet you seem to want to go even further down that
> path. There is no way to cut the taxes in a revenue neutral fashion and I
> would maintain that the corporations need to pay more in taxes and not
> less.
Why is there no way to cut rates in a revenue neutral fashion? You flatten
the tax, calculate the corresponding increase in expected receipts, then
lower the rates to be revenue neutral. A high school kid can do *that* math.
> When we look at the actual budget of the government honestly (that
> means that the FICA tax and the SS outlays are not part of the budget) we
> find that the greater part of the spending is for property rights
> enforcement on a world wide scale. Not only do we defend patents,
> copyrights, trade names, and the like right here in River City, but all
> over the globe. And not only are we providing property rights protections
> to American corporations but to all corporations multinational or not. The
> American policeman is very expensive and the multinational and exporting
> corporations are not paying for it. Even the American products
> corporations that do not export and that use local labor are not paying
> adequately for the property rights services they must have from government
> in order to acquire their incomes.
With that section I have no significant quarrel.
>
>> However, keep in mind that without the slime, there is markedly less job
>> opportunity in the US.
>
> Currently the corporations must realize their income _somewhere_ and
> pay taxes _somewhere_. And you indicate that they chose to move some
> desks and a filing cabinet to Bimini and claim that as the home office and
> claim the income at that point. That is all accounting and pretty easy to
> do and so they do it. Somehow you believe that you can wave a magic wand
> and level the tax system all across the world so that the corporations
> can't escape the tax.
That is incorrectly phrased. The point is that compliance simply increases
for taxes that are perceived as fairly priced. That fact has been observed
since the advent of the income tax, and is fairly obvious. The article I
posed about the goverment's tax repatriation holiday proves the point -- if
the tax rate on repatriated monies is 30%, the corporations leave the money
out there and invest it in foreign real estate, bonds, etc, and if they need
money on the domestic front, they will float debt or issue stock. WHAT WOULD
BE BEST FOR BOTH CORPORATION AND THE USA, HOWEVER, is if they could use
those funds in the US without floating debt OR stock dilution. SO, lowering
the tax makes it financially beneficial to bring the money home.
> Even more laughable you think that by lowering the
> US tax that you remove the incentive to move the point of profit
> realizations. Of course, if you made the tax rate zero that would
> certainly do what you want but there is no way to do that in a "revenue
> neutral" way.
What's laugable is your naivete about what factors drive corporations.
>
> You also cling to the false notion that these corporations being officed
> in the USA are providing some benefit to the common people of the USA.
That's because it is not false. If nothing else, they pay taxes that you
admit they would not if they were Bimini-based, and you MAY have noticed
that we need the money.
> Whereas they provide jobs offshore and not here then the only benefit they
> might provide will be in the taxes they pay. The problem is that any
> corporation that exports goods or jobs or anything else (other than
> agriculture or ore) will consume more in government services than they
> currently pay in taxes and that is true even if they do not realize
> their income in Bimini but instead realize it right here in the USA.
>
> If you equalized the tax rate in every nation on the planet it would make
> no difference. The other nations would use the tax proceeds to do
> infrastructure and health care and we would use the proceeds to invade
> Iraq or do whatever it might take to be the world greatest fascists.
>
> If there is to be a global policemen then all the people should have to
> pay and not just the American people. The UN offered such a mechanism
> to provide a world policeman but it was never realized and perhaps it
> can't be realized. The global policeman cannot continue to be funded
> by Americans alone even if we get our fiscal house in order. The problem
> is not the tax system actually. It is the fascist imperialism system that
> causes the problem.
Suffice to say that I don't agree we should be the world's cops (OR the
world's lawyers, for that matter.)
>
> Each time I look at this I see that if we did not have to depend on oil
> then we would not have to be the world policeman and we would not need to
> export or import a damned thing. So the oil we have must be nationalized
> and owned by the common people (this is the oil that is in the commons)
> and we must proceed to develop alternative fuels using the resources we
> have.
I think we've agreed on that. Just don;'t use the term "nationalized".
(First off, nothing with the term "nationalized" will ever get passed, but
secondly, it's inaccurate -- the resources on federal lands are ALREADY
nationalized in sense that the government owns them. You don't have to
"nationalize" anything by having the government CHOOSE to hire Apache to go
out and drill them for you, in a model where WE keep the oil, and pay Apache
a nice commission per barrel retrieved.
> We must lock the doors and stop the immigration of people who have
> babies at astounding rates. We must be isolationists until the world is
> willing to do the United Nations approach and fund the world policeman in
> that way (everybody pays a fair share). And we must also be self
> sustaining and not be sucking up the entire world's oil supplies so we can
> live exorbitant life styles. If we can maintain a high level of living on
> our own nickle then that is cool. The current fascism is not the answer.
So what kind of fascism do you prefer? In order to change the US in that
way, some facism is going to be required. :-) (Actually, not facism,
assuming you're using the term properly and not in the way it's normally
used on the Internet, but another sort of coercive totalitarianism.)
You really don't read, do you? We started the entire thread with a
refutation -- that hiring more gutless politicians is not a solution to
fewer gutless politicians. It's just a wing and a prayer that beleives
(WITHOUT PROOF) that the fact that you'll be able to walk into the
congressional office of somebody representing 175,000 people and get more
attention than doing the same for a congressperson representing 650,000
people. IF THE GUY IS GUTLESS, HE STILL WON"T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU, BECUASE
YOU'RE BROKE AND BOEING ISN'T. The notion that this wet dream of yours will
improve anything in goverment is a faith-based proposition, and when it
comes to faith, I find it more logical to believe in a virgin birth and a
resurrection than the idea that your plan will improve politics.
So, the next time you toss out your one-line bumper sticker comment about
"you've offered no proof that it won't work" keep in mind that you HAVE NO
PROOF THAT IT WILL WORK, either, simply because it's never been done. Where
you see "better representation", I see 1750 people in the same room as one
another all talking at the same time. Good luck.
JG
The Ghost In The Machine
<misled...@aol.com>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
<a4c6e4c8-49e9-4ab9...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
> On Jul 27, 1:11๏ฟฝam, "V for Vendicar"
> <Execute_The_Traitor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> This country is in drastic need of a gutsy politician on any side of the
>> >> aisle to make hard choices, to do the hard
>> >> work of explaining unpopular decisions, etc.
>>
>>
>> > No presidential candidate has ever attempted that except in a full
>> > depression.
>>
>> >> There are none on the horizon.
>>
>>
>> > And there wont be either.
>>
>> ๏ฟฝ Rod Speed is right. ๏ฟฝThere is NO HOPE for AMERIKKKA
>
>
>
> You mean Barak Obama is a liar?
>
Politicians misstep occasionally, and in some cases
routinely. Mr. Obama is no exception, though I think he's
trying to take the high road whenever possible, at least
in his public speeches. I'd frankly have to check.
Of course John McCain hasn't quite got his act together yet,
but when the Republican Money Machine gets engaged, watch out.
This will probably happen at the convention (on September 1-4).
>
>
>
>
>>
>> ๏ฟฝ AmeriKKKa is a failed nation that is morally, intellectually and fiscally
>> bankrupt.
>
>
> Never heard of a country AmeriKKKa or America, where is it on a
> map?
>
AmeriKKKan (uh-mer-ik-ik-ik-uh): adj.
1. Of or relating to a country consisting of 56 [*]
principalities, territories, or regions, 50 of which are
full states, the other 6 of which are in varying degrees of
representation in what is purported to be a representative
republic, but which is in reality a republic representing
corporate lobbyists (with some rare exceptions). Most of
these principalities or regions are in fact in North
America, hence the confusion over the term "American",
though the more proper terms "USAian" or "citizen/resident
of the US" are both rather unwieldly. The KKK refers to
the Ku Klux Klan, a civic organization noted for (fairly
or unfairly) its brutality against non-whites; the general
connotation is a racially divided country.
2. Of or relating to the executive branch of AmeriKKKa
(there are no others functioning at this time, though the
Legislature is still attempting to write certain laws when
not filibustering itself, and the Judicial is attempting
adjudication, when not sidestepped by Executive Orders or
signing statements).
[*] there are 48 contiguous states, 2 additional states
(Alaska, Hawaii), 2 commonwealths (Northern Marinara
Islands, Puerto Rico), 2 organized territories (Guam,
US Virgin Islands), 1 unorganized but self-governing
territory (American Samoa), and 1 region which is in the
process of being handed over to an autonomous government
(Iraq). This process has been long, hard, and fraught with
misestimations and problems, and the costs are very large
-- more than 4000 US servicepeople, trillions of dollars.
It is not clear where Obama's other 2 regions came from
to me at this time.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
The Trucker
Why would I do that? I am no the least bit interested in emulating the
life styles of the Asians.
>
> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as the
> nose at the end of your face.
It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope of
what you chose to submit.
> A system which is tolerant of loopholes and
> shelters is ripe to be gamed by lobbyists desiring MORE loophones and
> shelters (case in point -- the reclassification of Starbucks as a
> MANUFACTURER rather than a retailer to take advantage of manufacturing tax
> breaks, an initiative driven by Starbuck's lobbyists and having their water
> carried by the state of Washington's congresscritters, who by the way are
> not Republican).
You can always tell when a supply-sider is trapped. The sentences get
vary log including the kitchen sink and asteroids and lots of other chafe
and fodder. I chose to address the flattening of the taxes and the
lowering of the taxes and you run away to the loophole gambit. But
looking back on it your chosen loophole was the expatriation of income
so as to avoid taxation. I addressed that pretty well below and so now
you turn back to the undefined ubiquitous loopholes. And I have already
addressed the undefined ubiquitous loopholes with a House of
Representatives that is accountable to the people. In a House of
Representatives that is actually accountable to the people it is not
possible for a representative to retain a seat in the House while serving
up these loopholes. I think I have already shown why that would be true.
> Further, since it's the LARGE corporations which can afford
> lobbyist representation, it will be the larger corporations promoting their
> interests over that of the smaller.
Follow the link in my signature for the solution to this problem.
> I'll simply note here that you promote taxation systems which benefit the
> rich individuals and large corporations while at the same time you criticize
> the same and move on.
LIE
> The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
>> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently runs
>> on nothing but debt.
>
> Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a tax
> stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit.
While it may be that the cause of the debt may be something other than the
tax code flattening there can be no doubt as to the correlation.
> Surplus and deficit have
> to do with tax receipts vs. tax expenditures. The Reagan tax flattening was
> revenue - neutral to the goverment. The deficit was due to a radical
> increase in defense spending without any correlating increase in tax
> receipts. Spending more than you take in results in deficits every time.
All of the numbers comprising the following data are taken straight from
budget data and fed data. No numbers from Cato or Move-On.
Revenue, deficits, and spending:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
Another look:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/finances.jpg
This shows us that tax revenue went flat during Reagan's first 2 years
while spending increased thus creating the deficits. It is important to
notice that __**NOWHERE**__ else on this history do revenues not increase
year over year. Although revenue in 1990 - 1992 were not rising as fast
as the rest of the time seen on the graph, the revenue did not flatten out
or decrease. We also see that spending did not accelerate during the
Reagan years and that spending increased at all times other than 86 - 87.
The Regan deficits are clearly a reflection of poor revenue collection and
not any drastic alteration to spending. Those are the facts of history.
Here are the tax alterations:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
We see that the rich got a tax decrease from 70% down to 50% at square one.
we then started some more flattening by reducing the brackets. And as wee
did this we can observe the effects on incomes:
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/incomes.html
It is almost impossible to ignore the divergence in the incomes and the
outright theft perpetrated on the middle class by Republican trickle down
thievery.
And it all starts with the removal of that 70% rate that made people
actually __**INVEST**__ instead of just sucking on government bonds:
http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php
So you will not be selling any snake oil today.
>
> Want further proof? Clinton balanced the budget without "unflattening" the
> system. If you were correct, that would have been impossible.
It's the Congress that made the Clinton years and not Clinton personally.
In 1987 the Democrats were able to remove the Republican majority in the
Senate and they forced a tax increase past the "Read My Lips" of daddy
bush in 1990 raising the top rate to 31% from the flattened Reagan rate of
28%. Then in 1991 Clinton managed to take the veto pen away from Daddy
Bush and in 1993 on a tie breaking Senate vote by Al Gore, the Democrats
raised the top rate to 39.5% as the Republicans screeched "Largest Tax
increase in History", and whined and predicted a recession. The economy
picked up and rocked along very well, thank you. So where is the
historical data that backs up this claim that Clinton balanced the budget
without "unflattening" the tax code? The history and the data do not say
that at all.
>>Yet you seem to want to go even further down that
>> path. There is no way to cut the taxes in a revenue neutral fashion and I
>> would maintain that the corporations need to pay more in taxes and not
>> less.
>
> Why is there no way to cut rates in a revenue neutral fashion? You flatten
> the tax, calculate the corresponding increase in expected receipts, then
> lower the rates to be revenue neutral. A high school kid can do *that* math.
It is not called "fuzzy math". It is called "rosy scenario" math and it
simply doesn't work. The increased revenue (should it even appear) is
one time cash ins on capital gains gimme's and that is all you get. Now
if you think that trading stocks and land deeds back and forth is some
sort of economic health indicator then you are about hopeless any way.
It does not work because they are not paying adequately now. If you give
them a further tax break then they will still not be paying adequately.
>> Even more laughable you think that by lowering the
>> US tax that you remove the incentive to move the point of profit
>> realizations. Of course, if you made the tax rate zero that would
>> certainly do what you want but there is no way to do that in a "revenue
>> neutral" way.
>
> What's laugable is your naivete about what factors drive corporations.
I assume the fuckers will leave altogether. And that is just peachy with
me.
>>
>> You also cling to the false notion that these corporations being officed
>> in the USA are providing some benefit to the common people of the USA.
>
> That's because it is not false. If nothing else, they pay taxes that you
> admit they would not if they were Bimini-based, and you MAY have noticed
> that we need the money.
That gets us around to the other side of this nickle. For a preview and a
hint let us say that if Microsoft is an Indian company than the protection
if Microsoft's IP rights is the responsibility of the Indian government.
And when China copies MS disks and sells MS stuff to me in America the
Indians can go to war with the Chinese. Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a
damn. If we did not spend all our money protecting corporate PI rights
and stealing other people's oil we would not need that money.
Yes... We do agree on that. It just does not cost too much for
government to hire competent geologists to advise Apache (or work with
Apache) to figure our where to drill. There are also independent
geophysical people too and there could be a lot more of them.
>> We must lock the doors and stop the immigration of people who have
>> babies at astounding rates. We must be isolationists until the world is
>> willing to do the United Nations approach and fund the world policeman in
>> that way (everybody pays a fair share). And we must also be self
>> sustaining and not be sucking up the entire world's oil supplies so we can
>> live exorbitant life styles. If we can maintain a high level of living on
>> our own nickle then that is cool. The current fascism is not the answer.
>
> So what kind of fascism do you prefer? In order to change the US in that
> way, some facism is going to be required. :-) (Actually, not facism,
> assuming you're using the term properly and not in the way it's normally
> used on the Internet, but another sort of coercive totalitarianism.)
I assure you that I am using the term properly. I often give a link to
the 1932 stuff by Mussolini and that _IS_ what fascism is. However, I
disagree entirely about coercive totalitarianism being necessary to do
what is needed. Honesty, and fairness and justice is what is needed most
of all. I always get back to a proper republican form of government with
a very large House of Representatives in which the reps are more easily
removed for doing/allowing crap like lobby/special interest legislation.
When you put that together with a charismatic and intelligent leader such
as Obama, or Kennedy, or Roosevelt, or even a hands off dude like
Eisenhower you can get a lot done in a short time. The real trick is in
people KNOWING they are responsible for what their representative does and
in them being able to remove that representative when (S)he fails to
represent. We do not have a lot of lazy people. We have a lot of
disenfranchised people.
You are now refusing to know what I taught you. Let me be clear: If the
size of my current electoral district was 175k people then Norm Dicks
would not be my representative. I would probably be the representative
from my district or it would be someone that I KNOW and someone with whom
I have had some discussions. And if that individual or I cut a deal with
Boeing (and the web page tells you why that wouldn't happen anyway) then
the next election would see a new representative in the slot. The salary
of a representative is $175K per annum (or somewhere there about). And
all that person has to do is make damn sure that (s)he is informing the
constituents and voting with due regard for their welfare AS THEY SEE IT.
That is a pretty sweet job. I could kick Dicks out of that seat in a
heartbeat if I had only to convince 175K people. I would need only to use
his voting record and he would be gone. There is no reason to think
otherwise. It is sort of like impossible to see it otherwise unless you
have your head in a very dark place. That is a job that a lot of people
would want and there is no reason to cheat. Please note that I would
not be required to be in Washington DC. Only a very stupid person would
cheat at that job.
> So, the next time you toss out your one-line bumper sticker comment about
> "you've offered no proof that it won't work" keep in mind that you HAVE NO
> PROOF THAT IT WILL WORK, either, simply because it's never been done. Where
> you see "better representation", I see 1750 people in the same room as one
> another all talking at the same time. Good luck.
Only problem is that the proposal is to NOT have them all in the same
room and to not change the committee structure at all. Why are you lying?
John Galt
Because you asked for evidence that flat taxation develops good economies.
What you want or do not what to "emulate" is entirely besides the point.
>
>>
>> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as
>> the
>> nose at the end of your face.
>
> It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope of
> what you chose to submit.
ROTF. What's obvoius is that at the same time you complain that all you see
are "claims", that you're not interested in evidence when it's presented.
The above "I am not the least bit....." rubbish above is proof of that
attitude.
>
>> A system which is tolerant of loopholes and
>> shelters is ripe to be gamed by lobbyists desiring MORE loophones and
>> shelters (case in point -- the reclassification of Starbucks as a
>> MANUFACTURER rather than a retailer to take advantage of manufacturing
>> tax
>> breaks, an initiative driven by Starbuck's lobbyists and having their
>> water
>> carried by the state of Washington's congresscritters, who by the way are
>> not Republican).
>
> You can always tell when a supply-sider is trapped.
First off, I'm not a supply-sider, and secondly, what you can really tell
from the above is that when you are challenged, you resort to logically
fallacious argumentation and hope nobody notices.
The sentences get
> vary log including the kitchen sink and asteroids and lots of other chafe
> and fodder. I chose to address the flattening of the taxes and the
> lowering of the taxes and you run away to the loophole gambit. But
> looking back on it your chosen loophole was the expatriation of income
> so as to avoid taxation. I addressed that pretty well below and so now
> you turn back to the undefined ubiquitous loopholes. And I have already
> addressed the undefined ubiquitous loopholes with a House of
> Representatives that is accountable to the people. In a House of
> Representatives that is actually accountable to the people it is not
> possible for a representative to retain a seat in the House while serving
> up these loopholes. I think I have already shown why that would be true.
>
>> Further, since it's the LARGE corporations which can afford
>> lobbyist representation, it will be the larger corporations promoting
>> their
>> interests over that of the smaller.
>
> Follow the link in my signature for the solution to this problem.
>
>> I'll simply note here that you promote taxation systems which benefit the
>> rich individuals and large corporations while at the same time you
>> criticize
>> the same and move on.
>
> LIE
Conclusively proven. You can't have it both ways. You hold an ideology which
desires a complex tax system wherein the government can manipulate the
economy. The existence and efficacy of corporate lobbyists lobbying for tax
breaks proves that THEY AGREE with you in that position. Thus, you're on the
same side as the corporate lobbyist.
Nice.
>
>> The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
>>> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently runs
>>> on nothing but debt.
>>
>> Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a
>> tax
>> stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit.
>
> While it may be that the cause of the debt may be something other than the
> tax code flattening there can be no doubt as to the correlation.
There is no correlation. The deficit increased during the 80's and decreased
during the 90's. Statistically, the correlation is "ZERO" between those two
decades.
>
>> Surplus and deficit have
>> to do with tax receipts vs. tax expenditures. The Reagan tax flattening
>> was
>> revenue - neutral to the goverment. The deficit was due to a radical
>> increase in defense spending without any correlating increase in tax
>> receipts. Spending more than you take in results in deficits every time.
>
> All of the numbers comprising the following data are taken straight from
> budget data and fed data. No numbers from Cato or Move-On.
>
> Revenue, deficits, and spending:
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
> Another look:
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/finances.jpg
>
> This shows us that tax revenue went flat during Reagan's first 2 years
> while spending increased thus creating the deficits.
Yes, that's what I said. The tax package was revenue neutral.
It is important to
> notice that __**NOWHERE**__ else on this history do revenues not increase
> year over year.
Nowhere else in that history were you dealing with double-digit inflation,
double-digit intrest rates, and double-digit unemployment. What you see in
those two columns (Recepts and Outlays) are affected by economic conditions
AND tax policy, with tax policy being (usually) the lesser of the two
variables.
To claim that tax receipts are affected by tax policy alone would be the
height of intellectually dishonest statistical manipulation. And,
unfortunatly, there is no OFFICIAL way to parse out the relative effects of
the two variables. We're left with organizations (like Cato and MoveOn) to
do that for us, with analysis adhering to their own ideological view.
> Although revenue in 1990 - 1992 were not rising as fast
> as the rest of the time seen on the graph, the revenue did not flatten out
> or decrease. We also see that spending did not accelerate during the
> Reagan years and that spending increased at all times other than 86 - 87.
Outlays were up 37% between 81 and 88. That's 4.6% per annum. During the
Carter years, from your own data given, the rate between 77 and 80 was 3.9%
per annum. So, spending accelerated 15% under Reagan relative to the Carter
years. When you're talking about the size of the federal goverment, that's a
pretty significant acceleration.
Further, this entire line of reasoning is questionable because it does not
account for our government's nasty habit of putting one-time outlays "off
budget". The sources you're pulling from usually include these off-budget
figures. Is there a reason you don't have them on your page?
> The Regan deficits are clearly a reflection of poor revenue collection and
> not any drastic alteration to spending. Those are the facts of history.
You need to work on your math. Spending accelerated 15% relative to Carter,
and no off-budget figures are included -- this matters, since the GOP
normally uses off-budget outlays more than Democrats do because of increased
military spending.
>
> Here are the tax alterations:
> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
>
> We see that the rich got a tax decrease from 70% down to 50% at square
> one.
> we then started some more flattening by reducing the brackets. And as wee
> did this we can observe the effects on incomes:
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/incomes.html
OK, first, you know that when I say "flattening" I am NOT talking about
rate-flattening, but deduction flattening, correct? (I assumed you'd pick
that up from context, but not I'm not so sure.)
>
> It is almost impossible to ignore the divergence in the incomes and the
> outright theft perpetrated on the middle class by Republican trickle down
> thievery.
Wow. You proved what Adam Smith said -- that unfettered capitalism enriches
the upper income classes at a higher rate than the lower. Congratulations.
I've never argued otherwise.
What I'd think, however, you'd be even more interested in is how your
numbers prove MY contention -- that regulated capitalism provides for anemic
growth over the unregulated. If you break your table down into two 12 year
periods ending in 1992 (Reagan/Bush, and the 12 years prior), you get some
interesting results.
If you look back at the 12 years PRIOR to Reagan, to your point, the lowest
wage bracket did the best -- they managed an average 1.5% per year wage
increase over those 12 years. The second to lowest quintile did the worst --
.16% per year. Remember these numbers, because they underscore the anemia of
a highly tax bracket, highly regulated economy.
Now, look at the same measurement from Reagan through to Bush. To your
point, the lowest quntile showed flat wage growth over the period, and the
highest were the upper 5%, showing 2.9% real wage growth. The more you made,
the better you did. HOWEVER, the overall economy did MUCH better in terms of
wage, ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS, under the lowered bracket, flattened
deduction, lower regulatory envrionment in those years.
So, using that data, I can say AGAIN, what I've said all along. The best
thing for the ECONOMY is unfettered free market capitalism. It is up to the
GOVERNMENT to divide up the spoils as they see it. However, it is not the
fault of the rich that Adam Smith was right, and it is not the fault of the
poor that Adam Smith is right. The inequity is the fault of the GOVERNMENT,
in that the government delivers this inequity through a failing educational
system and inadequate/inefficient redistrubative policies.
>
> And it all starts with the removal of that 70% rate that made people
> actually __**INVEST**__ instead of just sucking on government bonds:
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php
>
> So you will not be selling any snake oil today.
Nope. No snake oil. You made my point. Thanks.
>
>>
>> Want further proof? Clinton balanced the budget without "unflattening"
>> the
>> system. If you were correct, that would have been impossible.
>
> It's the Congress that made the Clinton years and not Clinton personally.
> In 1987 the Democrats were able to remove the Republican majority in the
> Senate and they forced a tax increase past the "Read My Lips" of daddy
> bush in 1990 raising the top rate to 31% from the flattened Reagan rate of
> 28%. Then in 1991 Clinton managed to take the veto pen away from Daddy
> Bush and in 1993 on a tie breaking Senate vote by Al Gore, the Democrats
> raised the top rate to 39.5% as the Republicans screeched "Largest Tax
> increase in History", and whined and predicted a recession. The economy
> picked up and rocked along very well, thank you. So where is the
> historical data that backs up this claim that Clinton balanced the budget
> without "unflattening" the tax code? The history and the data do not say
> that at all.
Again, we have a misundertsanding on what I meant by "flattened". HOWEVER, I
will point out to you that USING YOUR NUMBERS, the upper quintile
accelerated their earnings at precisely the same rate as they did for the
eight years prior. The tax increase under Bush and Clinton made no
difference.
>
>>>Yet you seem to want to go even further down that
>>> path. There is no way to cut the taxes in a revenue neutral fashion and
>>> I
>>> would maintain that the corporations need to pay more in taxes and not
>>> less.
>>
>> Why is there no way to cut rates in a revenue neutral fashion? You
>> flatten
>> the tax, calculate the corresponding increase in expected receipts, then
>> lower the rates to be revenue neutral. A high school kid can do *that*
>> math.
>
> It is not called "fuzzy math". It is called "rosy scenario" math and it
> simply doesn't work. The increased revenue (should it even appear) is
> one time cash ins on capital gains gimme's and that is all you get. Now
> if you think that trading stocks and land deeds back and forth is some
> sort of economic health indicator then you are about hopeless any way.
As I said, any high school kid can do that math. There are no "one times"
involved. It's pretty simple.
Define "adequately."
>
>>> Even more laughable you think that by lowering the
>>> US tax that you remove the incentive to move the point of profit
>>> realizations. Of course, if you made the tax rate zero that would
>>> certainly do what you want but there is no way to do that in a "revenue
>>> neutral" way.
>>
>> What's laugable is your naivete about what factors drive corporations.
>
> I assume the fuckers will leave altogether. And that is just peachy with
> me.
Well, we'll leave you to become India, then.
>
>>>
>>> You also cling to the false notion that these corporations being officed
>>> in the USA are providing some benefit to the common people of the USA.
>>
>> That's because it is not false. If nothing else, they pay taxes that you
>> admit they would not if they were Bimini-based, and you MAY have noticed
>> that we need the money.
>
> That gets us around to the other side of this nickle. For a preview and a
> hint let us say that if Microsoft is an Indian company than the protection
> if Microsoft's IP rights is the responsibility of the Indian government.
> And when China copies MS disks and sells MS stuff to me in America the
> Indians can go to war with the Chinese. Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a
> damn. If we did not spend all our money protecting corporate PI rights
> and stealing other people's oil we would not need that money.
IP rights are entirely different sticky wicket. The with your argument that
you are, at the same time, wanting to raise taxes on corporation then
promoting policies that cut the incomes on which those taxes are based. MSFT
rightly looks at pirated disks as lost corporate revenue. If they HAD that
revenue, they would pay taxes on it, and you'd be getting more money out of
them without raising rates.
What is your objective? To obtain more money for the goverment, or not?
OK. So, you're basing your programe on hypotheticals. Got it.
JG
The Trucker
Your definition of "good" is obviously not the same as mine because my
concept of a "good" economy is very much based on the quality of life of
the median individual in the society. China has a very long road to get
anywhere close, and Japan does not measure up either, or didn't until
Reagan came along.
>>
>>>
>>> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as
>>> the
>>> nose at the end of your face.
>>
>> It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope of
>> what you chose to submit.
>
> ROTF. What's obvoius is that at the same time you complain that all you see
> are "claims", that you're not interested in evidence when it's presented.
> The above "I am not the least bit....." rubbish above is proof of that
> attitude.
The "evidence" does not address the issue.
ONE MO TIME!!! A proper House of Representatives solves this problem.
And there really isn't much doubt in me that until __**THAT**__ problem is
fixed we will never have a government that works. Of course, that is what
you actually want. You want to let the "free market" rule totally even
though the facts tell us that this does not work.
>>
>>> The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
>>>> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently runs
>>>> on nothing but debt.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a
>>> tax
>>> stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit.
>>
>> While it may be that the cause of the debt may be something other than the
>> tax code flattening there can be no doubt as to the correlation.
>
> There is no correlation. The deficit increased during the 80's and decreased
> during the 90's. Statistically, the correlation is "ZERO" between those two
> decades.
The correlation is with the tax code. The Reagan - Bush tax code
correlates with growing debt and deficit. The Clinton tax code correlates
with a return to fiscal sanity.
I agree!!! But that is not what you claimed. You claimed that the tax
adjustments were revenue neutral and yet tax revenue that would normally
increase year over year did not.
> And,
> unfortunatly, there is no OFFICIAL way to parse out the relative effects of
> the two variables. We're left with organizations (like Cato and MoveOn) to
> do that for us, with analysis adhering to their own ideological view.
I do not subscribe to either. My data comes straight out of the pipe.
And you are right. There is no way to parse out the effects of Volcker's
total destruction of the economy from the effects of Reagan's tax cuts for
the rich when it comes to tax revenues. So the claim of revenue
neutrality cannot be substantiated and it is just a claim.
>> Although revenue in 1990 - 1992 were not rising as fast
>> as the rest of the time seen on the graph, the revenue did not flatten out
>> or decrease. We also see that spending did not accelerate during the
>> Reagan years and that spending increased at all times other than 86 - 87.
>
> Outlays were up 37% between 81 and 88. That's 4.6% per annum. During the
> Carter years, from your own data given, the rate between 77 and 80 was 3.9%
> per annum. So, spending accelerated 15% under Reagan relative to the Carter
> years. When you're talking about the size of the federal goverment, that's a
> pretty significant acceleration.
I will accept that without looking. But the tax revenue is affected by
the spending. If Reagan (and the Congress never spent as much as he
wanted) had not boosted spending the tax revenues would have been much
less.
> Further, this entire line of reasoning is questionable because it does not
> account for our government's nasty habit of putting one-time outlays "off
> budget". The sources you're pulling from usually include these off-budget
> figures. Is there a reason you don't have them on your page?
It's your skunk. You need to run it down. The reason my numbers look
like they do is because they come right out of the governments on budget
data. Income from arm sales to Iran and illegal drugs and outflows to the
dudes in So. America obviously are not on the books.
>> The Regan deficits are clearly a reflection of poor revenue collection and
>> not any drastic alteration to spending. Those are the facts of history.
>
> You need to work on your math. Spending accelerated 15% relative to Carter,
> and no off-budget figures are included -- this matters, since the GOP
> normally uses off-budget outlays more than Democrats do because of increased
> military spending.
It is your skunk and you need to run it down. Repetition is not what we
need. And I am not really interested in the Carter numbers. I am
interested in the Reagan-Bush numbers and the Clinton numbers. I am also
not real interested in the Roosevelt numbers or the Napoleon numbers.
>>
>> Here are the tax alterations:
>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
>>
>> We see that the rich got a tax decrease from 70% down to 50% at square
>> one.
>> we then started some more flattening by reducing the brackets. And as wee
>> did this we can observe the effects on incomes:
>>
>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/incomes.html
>
> OK, first, you know that when I say "flattening" I am NOT talking about
> rate-flattening, but deduction flattening, correct? (I assumed you'd pick
> that up from context, but not I'm not so sure.)
I am not going to get sucked down that rathole you are trying to create.
The "flattening" of the tax code means less progressivity in the tax code.
That is what it means, like when we say that water is wet we are not
talking about how heavy it is.
>>
>> It is almost impossible to ignore the divergence in the incomes and the
>> outright theft perpetrated on the middle class by Republican trickle down
>> thievery.
>
> Wow. You proved what Adam Smith said -- that unfettered capitalism enriches
> the upper income classes at a higher rate than the lower. Congratulations.
> I've never argued otherwise.
We have a totally different definition of what "good" means.
> What I'd think, however, you'd be even more interested in is how your
> numbers prove MY contention -- that regulated capitalism provides for anemic
> growth over the unregulated. If you break your table down into two 12 year
> periods ending in 1992 (Reagan/Bush, and the 12 years prior), you get some
> interesting results.
I am not interested in the carter crap. Go sell that stuff somewhere else.
I am also not in agreement that the growth in upper incomes and GDP is a
sign of an improving economy. Distribution matters.
> If you look back at the 12 years PRIOR to Reagan, to your point, the lowest
> wage bracket did the best -- they managed an average 1.5% per year wage
> increase over those 12 years. The second to lowest quintile did the worst --
> .16% per year. Remember these numbers, because they underscore the anemia of
> a highly tax bracket, highly regulated economy.
There is no reason to look at those numbers. We all know that the War on
Poverty helped the lowest on the pole and that it was not real good for
the next quintile. I have been over this many times. WOP was horseshit.
> Now, look at the same measurement from Reagan through to Bush. To your
> point, the lowest quntile showed flat wage growth over the period, and the
> highest were the upper 5%, showing 2.9% real wage growth. The more you made,
> the better you did. HOWEVER, the overall economy did MUCH better in terms of
> wage, ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS, under the lowered bracket, flattened
> deduction, lower regulatory envrionment in those years.
NO. That interpretation is totally wrong. These are income numbers and not
wage numbers and they are pretax numbers. The workers got the absolute
shaft because of the FICA tax increases decreasing benefits and decreasing
paid time off. They also got the shaft because of increased state and
local taxes and increased excise taxes. But the worst part of it is that
these numbers that you see are purchased by debt. The rich people own the
bonds, not the workers. So what is going on is that the rich got a lot
richer and the middle class owe the debt. The rich, instead of paying
taxes, just loaned money to the government that was deficit spending.
Take a look at the actual tax system and hos it screwed the middle class:
1981 - The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) passes. Otherwise
known as Reagan's supply-side tax cuts. They included: An
across-the-board reduction in individual income tax rates of
approximately 23 percent, phased in over 33 months. A reduction in the
maximum top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, beginning in 1982. (Only
unearned income - from interest and dividends - had been taxed at 70
percent. Wage and salary income was already taxed at 50 percent.)
Inflation-indexing for the individual income tax brackets, the zero
bracket amount and the personal exemption, beginning in 1985. The
accelerated cost recovery system (ACRS), which provided depreciation
write-off periods ranging from 3 years for equipment to 15 years for
structures. Reduction of the maximum tax rate on capital gains to 20
percent.
1982 - Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) passes.
Institutes a half-basis adjustment for investment tax credits in
calculating depreciation. Repeals the acceleration of depreciation
scheduled in 1985 and 1986 by ERTA. Raises the federal unemployment tax
(FUTA) wage base from $6,000 to $7,000 and the FUTA tax rate from 0.7
percent to 0.8 percent. Increases airport, airway, cigarette and
telephone excise taxes. Reduces tax-free contributions to a
defined-contribution pension plan from $45,475 to $30,000 and reduced
limits on benefits from a defined-benefit plan from $136,425 to $90,000.
1983 - Social Security Amendment Act of 1983 passes. This drastically
accelerates the schedule of tax hikes in Social Security originally
passed in 1977. The schedule is to be completed by 1990 instead of the
year 2030.
1984 - The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) passes. A repeal,
beginning in 1985, of the provision that allowed an exclusion from income
tax of 15 percent of up to $3,000 in interest income for a single
taxpayer ($6,000 for couples). A $2 per gallon increase in the excise tax
on alcohol and a one-year extension of the 3 percent telephone excise
tax. An increase in the minimum recovery period for real property from 15
to 18 years. A reduction in the holding period for long-term capital
gains from one year to six months for assets acquired between June 1984
and January 1988.
1986 - The Tax Reform Act of 1986 passes. A reduction in the number of
individual income tax brackets to two - 15 percent and 28 percent.
Increases in the zero bracket amount and personal exemptions. Repeal of
the two-earner deduction, income averaging, and the state and local sales
tax deduction. Repeal of the 60 percent capital gains exclusion for
individuals. Reduction in the maximum corporate income tax rate from 46
percent to 34 percent. Broadening of the corporate tax base through
repeal of the investment tax credit, limiting depreciation deductions,
restricting the use of net operating losses, etc. Capital gains, top
rate: 28 percent. Corporate tax: from 46 to 34 percent.
1990 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 passes. Income tax, top
rate: 31 percent.
1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 passes. Income tax, top
rate: 39.6 percent. Corporate tax: 35 percent.
1997 - Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 passes. Capital gains taxes are
slashed
in a complicated schedule. After July 29, 1997, assets that have been held
for a year are taxed at 28 percent. For assets held over a year and a
half, the rate is 20 percent (10 percent for individuals that were earlier
taxed at the 15 percent rate). After the year 2000, assets that have been
held for 5 years will be taxed at 18 percent (or 8 percent). The
Alternative Minimum Tax is removed for C Corporations that earn less than
$7.5 million in receipts after 1997. Also included: a $500 per child tax
credit, tax breaks for college expenses and tuition, a higher exemption
for estate taxes and expanded Individual Retirement Accounts.
> So, using that data, I can say AGAIN, what I've said all along. The best
> thing for the ECONOMY is unfettered free market capitalism.
And you are flat wrong. You are simply doing the same thing that
neoclassical economists and Republican apologists typically do in that you
are measuring the wrong stuff. The _REAL_ wages (the amount that can be
invested in ones future) of the not rich people went down. The GDP went
up but it went up more during the 90's than it did in the 80's, and the
wages also went up in the 90's very slightly and not at all ion the 80's.
> It is up to the
> GOVERNMENT to divide up the spoils as they see it. However, it is not the
> fault of the rich that Adam Smith was right, and it is not the fault of the
> poor that Adam Smith is right. The inequity is the fault of the GOVERNMENT,
> in that the government delivers this inequity through a failing educational
> system and inadequate/inefficient redistrubative policies.
And the Republican government fails because it gives tax breaks to the
rich and screws the middle class. It fails because those tax cuts for the
rich and pretty numbers for GDP are delivered by saddling the the middle
class with debt.
>>
>> And it all starts with the removal of that 70% rate that made people
>> actually __**INVEST**__ instead of just sucking on government bonds:
>>
>> http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php
>>
>> So you will not be selling any snake oil today.
>
> Nope. No snake oil. You made my point. Thanks.
No. You just live the lie. The Republicans run a fake economy on debt
and they transfer wealth to the top at at all times. Every bit of GDP
growth and nice looking numbers are built on debt.
>>
>>>
>>> Want further proof? Clinton balanced the budget without "unflattening"
>>> the
>>> system. If you were correct, that would have been impossible.
>>
>> It's the Congress that made the Clinton years and not Clinton personally.
>> In 1987 the Democrats were able to remove the Republican majority in the
>> Senate and they forced a tax increase past the "Read My Lips" of daddy
>> bush in 1990 raising the top rate to 31% from the flattened Reagan rate of
>> 28%. Then in 1991 Clinton managed to take the veto pen away from Daddy
>> Bush and in 1993 on a tie breaking Senate vote by Al Gore, the Democrats
>> raised the top rate to 39.5% as the Republicans screeched "Largest Tax
>> increase in History", and whined and predicted a recession. The economy
>> picked up and rocked along very well, thank you. So where is the
>> historical data that backs up this claim that Clinton balanced the budget
>> without "unflattening" the tax code? The history and the data do not say
>> that at all.
>
> Again, we have a misundertsanding on what I meant by "flattened". HOWEVER, I
> will point out to you that USING YOUR NUMBERS, the upper quintile
> accelerated their earnings at precisely the same rate as they did for the
> eight years prior. The tax increase under Bush and Clinton made no
> difference.
Those increases made a HUUUUUUUUUUGE difference. Even with your happiness
over the divergence in incomes the deficits were greatly reduced with the
higher tax rates on ordinary income and interest. There was also major
improvements in employment and a small increase in wages (not shown). You
seem to think that debt and deficits don't matter. That is a Republican
religious position as opposed to any real economics.
>>
>>>>Yet you seem to want to go even further down that
>>>> path. There is no way to cut the taxes in a revenue neutral fashion and
>>>> I
>>>> would maintain that the corporations need to pay more in taxes and not
>>>> less.
>>>
>>> Why is there no way to cut rates in a revenue neutral fashion? You
>>> flatten
>>> the tax, calculate the corresponding increase in expected receipts, then
>>> lower the rates to be revenue neutral. A high school kid can do *that*
>>> math.
>>
>> It is not called "fuzzy math". It is called "rosy scenario" math and it
>> simply doesn't work. The increased revenue (should it even appear) is
>> one time cash ins on capital gains gimme's and that is all you get. Now
>> if you think that trading stocks and land deeds back and forth is some
>> sort of economic health indicator then you are about hopeless any way.
>
> As I said, any high school kid can do that math. There are no "one times"
> involved. It's pretty simple.
I agree. The 90's had a good economy and the Reagan and Bush borrow and
bubble crap sucks.
John Galt
"The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.07.30....@verizon.net...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:28:28 +0800, John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Why would I do that? I am no the least bit interested in emulating the
>>> life styles of the Asians.
>>
>> Because you asked for evidence that flat taxation develops good
>> economies.
>> What you want or do not what to "emulate" is entirely besides the point.
>
> Your definition of "good" is obviously not the same as mine because my
> concept of a "good" economy is very much based on the quality of life of
> the median individual in the society. China has a very long road to get
> anywhere close, and Japan does not measure up either, or didn't until
> Reagan came along.
I include job growth and increasing disposable income.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as
>>>> the
>>>> nose at the end of your face.
>>>
>>> It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope
>>> of
>>> what you chose to submit.
>>
>> ROTF. What's obvoius is that at the same time you complain that all you
>> see
>> are "claims", that you're not interested in evidence when it's presented.
>> The above "I am not the least bit....." rubbish above is proof of that
>> attitude.
>
> The "evidence" does not address the issue.
Becuase you've limited the definition,
Sure. So would dying and going to heaven. But, we don't have a fix to the
problem, and unless a serious proposal is currently in the works to address
the issue, we have no choice but to assume that the lobbyist influence will
remain as it is until both of us are dead.
> And there really isn't much doubt in me that until __**THAT**__ problem is
> fixed we will never have a government that works. Of course, that is what
> you actually want. You want to let the "free market" rule totally even
> though the facts tell us that this does not work.
ROTF.
>
>>>
>>>> The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
>>>>> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently
>>>>> runs
>>>>> on nothing but debt.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a
>>>> tax
>>>> stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit.
>>>
>>> While it may be that the cause of the debt may be something other than
>>> the
>>> tax code flattening there can be no doubt as to the correlation.
>>
>> There is no correlation. The deficit increased during the 80's and
>> decreased
>> during the 90's. Statistically, the correlation is "ZERO" between those
>> two
>> decades.
>
> The correlation is with the tax code. The Reagan - Bush tax code
> correlates with growing debt and deficit. The Clinton tax code correlates
> with a return to fiscal sanity.
The Clinton tax code did not reinstate pre-Reagain loopholes and deduction.
My observation stands unrefuted.
I claimed that they were inteded to be revenue neutral to the Treasury when
they were implmented. The statement has nothing to do with "year over year"
unless you are talking about 1980 to 1981 ALONE.
>
>> And,
>> unfortunatly, there is no OFFICIAL way to parse out the relative effects
>> of
>> the two variables. We're left with organizations (like Cato and MoveOn)
>> to
>> do that for us, with analysis adhering to their own ideological view.
>
> I do not subscribe to either. My data comes straight out of the pipe.
> And you are right. There is no way to parse out the effects of Volcker's
> total destruction of the economy from the effects of Reagan's tax cuts for
> the rich when it comes to tax revenues. So the claim of revenue
> neutrality cannot be substantiated and it is just a claim.
No. If you look at the materials on the Reagan tax package, you clearly and
quickly that the intent was not to give an EFFECTIVE tax decrease OR
increase to anyone. The INTENT was *simplification and fairness*, realizing
that the code permitted Americans in high income brackets to pay an
effective rate less than that of the middle class.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that when all this came down, I was in my second
year of business. All the older guys in the office (consider them upper
middle to lower upper class in wage earnings at the time) were pissed when
they found out they paid MORE in taxes AFTER their rates had been
drastically reduced than under the higher marginal rate.
Why? Well, there were all sorts of (legal, at the time) tax shelters they
were in to dodge taxes. Oil wells, ranches, cattle, farms -- those are the
ones I can remember. The Reagan package nullified all those deductions. So
although their marginal rate had dropped from forty something to twenty
something, they paid more. The PROBLEM with those shelters was that you had
to have CASH to get into them. So, they were available to the higher wage
earners, and not to the middle or lower.
This is exactly what Warren Buffet's been saying about the fact that his
effective tax rate is less than that of his secretary. Business owners and
fund managers have the wherewithal to take their wage as cap gains and not
regular salary. Different tax rate, a benefit available to the rich but not
the working stiff.
So, if you really think the pre-Reagan package was superior, fine. Put it
ALL back. The high marginal rates AND the shelters. Otherwise, you'd be
putting back in an effective tax rate higher than has EVER existed in this
country outside of wartime, and you'll cripple the economy. (And don't
forget that the lower quintile paid HIGHER taxes under pre-Reagan than they
do today -- you don't want to forget that.)
>
>>> Although revenue in 1990 - 1992 were not rising as fast
>>> as the rest of the time seen on the graph, the revenue did not flatten
>>> out
>>> or decrease. We also see that spending did not accelerate during the
>>> Reagan years and that spending increased at all times other than 86 -
>>> 87.
>>
>> Outlays were up 37% between 81 and 88. That's 4.6% per annum. During the
>> Carter years, from your own data given, the rate between 77 and 80 was
>> 3.9%
>> per annum. So, spending accelerated 15% under Reagan relative to the
>> Carter
>> years. When you're talking about the size of the federal goverment,
>> that's a
>> pretty significant acceleration.
>
> I will accept that without looking. But the tax revenue is affected by
> the spending. If Reagan (and the Congress never spent as much as he
> wanted) had not boosted spending the tax revenues would have been much
> less.
Government spending into the economy -- even the defense sector -- does
indeed have a positive impact on
>
>> Further, this entire line of reasoning is questionable because it does
>> not
>> account for our government's nasty habit of putting one-time outlays "off
>> budget". The sources you're pulling from usually include these off-budget
>> figures. Is there a reason you don't have them on your page?
>
> It's your skunk. You need to run it down. The reason my numbers look
> like they do is because they come right out of the governments on budget
> data. Income from arm sales to Iran and illegal drugs and outflows to the
> dudes in So. America obviously are not on the books.
I haven't the time. Let's just remind ourselves that the official balance
sheet isn't the only balance sheet, and there are times in our history
(like, now) where off budget expenditures, if included, might lead us to
different conclusions.
>
>>> The Regan deficits are clearly a reflection of poor revenue collection
>>> and
>>> not any drastic alteration to spending. Those are the facts of history.
>>
>> You need to work on your math. Spending accelerated 15% relative to
>> Carter,
>> and no off-budget figures are included -- this matters, since the GOP
>> normally uses off-budget outlays more than Democrats do because of
>> increased
>> military spending.
>
> It is your skunk and you need to run it down. Repetition is not what we
> need. And I am not really interested in the Carter numbers. I am
> interested in the Reagan-Bush numbers and the Clinton numbers. I am also
> not real interested in the Roosevelt numbers or the Napoleon numbers.
Carter immediately preceded Reagan. He is relevant to the discussion.
Nobody's asking you to look at a non-continguous dataset. I'm simply saying
that if you're bugaboo is the Reagan package, you need to look at data
immediately before and immediately after.
>
>>>
>>> Here are the tax alterations:
>>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
>>>
>>> We see that the rich got a tax decrease from 70% down to 50% at square
>>> one.
>>> we then started some more flattening by reducing the brackets. And as
>>> wee
>>> did this we can observe the effects on incomes:
>>>
>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/incomes.html
>>
>> OK, first, you know that when I say "flattening" I am NOT talking about
>> rate-flattening, but deduction flattening, correct? (I assumed you'd pick
>> that up from context, but not I'm not so sure.)
>
> I am not going to get sucked down that rathole you are trying to create.
> The "flattening" of the tax code means less progressivity in the tax code.
> That is what it means, like when we say that water is wet we are not
> talking about how heavy it is.
OK, then I'll simply refer to it as a "tax package with a minimum of
deductions, loopholes, and shelters." TPMDLS for short. Currently our
personal tax code is TPMDLS, compared to pre-Reagan. The corporate tax code
is not, which is why we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world
(almost -- I think Estonia is higher) but the rest of the world gets more
taxes from their corporate sector than we.
>
>>>
>>> It is almost impossible to ignore the divergence in the incomes and the
>>> outright theft perpetrated on the middle class by Republican trickle
>>> down
>>> thievery.
>>
>> Wow. You proved what Adam Smith said -- that unfettered capitalism
>> enriches
>> the upper income classes at a higher rate than the lower.
>> Congratulations.
>> I've never argued otherwise.
>
> We have a totally different definition of what "good" means.
Not really.
>
>> What I'd think, however, you'd be even more interested in is how your
>> numbers prove MY contention -- that regulated capitalism provides for
>> anemic
>> growth over the unregulated. If you break your table down into two 12
>> year
>> periods ending in 1992 (Reagan/Bush, and the 12 years prior), you get
>> some
>> interesting results.
>
> I am not interested in the carter crap. Go sell that stuff somewhere
> else.
> I am also not in agreement that the growth in upper incomes and GDP is a
> sign of an improving economy. Distribution matters.
I never said it didn't.
>
>> If you look back at the 12 years PRIOR to Reagan, to your point, the
>> lowest
>> wage bracket did the best -- they managed an average 1.5% per year wage
>> increase over those 12 years. The second to lowest quintile did the
>> worst --
>> .16% per year. Remember these numbers, because they underscore the anemia
>> of
>> a highly tax bracket, highly regulated economy.
>
> There is no reason to look at those numbers. We all know that the War on
> Poverty helped the lowest on the pole and that it was not real good for
> the next quintile. I have been over this many times. WOP was horseshit.
It's impossible to levy a value judgement (the economy was "good" or
"better" or somebody is "better off" without a relative comparison.
>
>> Now, look at the same measurement from Reagan through to Bush. To your
>> point, the lowest quntile showed flat wage growth over the period, and
>> the
>> highest were the upper 5%, showing 2.9% real wage growth. The more you
>> made,
>> the better you did. HOWEVER, the overall economy did MUCH better in terms
>> of
>> wage, ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS, under the lowered bracket, flattened
>> deduction, lower regulatory envrionment in those years.
>
> NO. That interpretation is totally wrong.
As you say, the numbers dont' lie. If you're going to contend that the
workers increased their income more than before but still got screwed, you
have to do better than yell "NO!"
These are income numbers and not
> wage numbers and they are pretax numbers. The workers got the absolute
> shaft because of the FICA tax increases decreasing benefits and decreasing
> paid time off. They also got the shaft because of increased state and
> local taxes and increased excise taxes. But the worst part of it is that
> these numbers that you see are purchased by debt. The rich people own the
> bonds, not the workers. So what is going on is that the rich got a lot
> richer and the middle class owe the debt. The rich, instead of paying
> taxes, just loaned money to the government that was deficit spending.
> Take a look at the actual tax system and hos it screwed the middle class:
>
> 1981 - The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) passes. Otherwise
> known as Reagan's supply-side tax cuts. They included: An
> across-the-board reduction in individual income tax rates of
> approximately 23 percent, phased in over 33 months. A reduction in the
> maximum top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, beginning in 1982. (Only
> unearned income - from interest and dividends - had been taxed at 70
> percent. Wage and salary income was already taxed at 50 percent.)
> Inflation-indexing for the individual income tax brackets, the zero
> bracket amount and the personal exemption, beginning in 1985. The
> accelerated cost recovery system (ACRS), which provided depreciation
> write-off periods ranging from 3 years for equipment to 15 years for
> structures. Reduction of the maximum tax rate on capital gains to 20
> percent.
Yes. AND, as I've already mentioned, the disparity between marginal and
effective rates was so large pre-Reagan that you have to use effective rates
per quintile else the explanation risks being misleading.
>
<snipped explation of reforms -- I'm quite aware>
>> So, using that data, I can say AGAIN, what I've said all along. The best
>> thing for the ECONOMY is unfettered free market capitalism.
>
> And you are flat wrong.
I think it obvious at this point. I can use any dataset you can throw
out --- I've done it before -- and it remains that wage, economic activity,
capital formation, markets, employment, inflation (...) all moved to
improved numbers after 1981.
Until you realize that what you are railing about is the inability (and
unwillingness) of the political entity (both parties) to distribute the free
market spoils across the quintles in an equitable manner, there's not much
hope.
You are simply doing the same thing that
> neoclassical economists and Republican apologists typically do in that you
> are measuring the wrong stuff. The _REAL_ wages (the amount that can be
> invested in ones future) of the not rich people went down. The GDP went
> up but it went up more during the 90's than it did in the 80's, and the
> wages also went up in the 90's very slightly and not at all ion the 80's.
Hm? I agreed with that above. See "you proved Adam Smith." In fact, I'm
disturbed that real wages really haven't moved that much since the 70's. Why
not look at the big picture instead of the partisan one for a change?
Dude. Even when I agree with you, you insist that I'm disagreeing. Why am i
bothering with all this?
>
>> It is up to the
>> GOVERNMENT to divide up the spoils as they see it. However, it is not the
>> fault of the rich that Adam Smith was right, and it is not the fault of
>> the
>> poor that Adam Smith is right. The inequity is the fault of the
>> GOVERNMENT,
>> in that the government delivers this inequity through a failing
>> educational
>> system and inadequate/inefficient redistrubative policies.
>
> And the Republican government fails because it gives tax breaks to the
> rich and screws the middle class. It fails because those tax cuts for the
> rich and pretty numbers for GDP are delivered by saddling the the middle
> class with debt.
And the Democratic government fails because it refuses to think outside the
box and deliver solutions other than "Duhhhh, let's raise the rates." NO
SANE PERSON wants to raise rates knowing that MOST of the increase will just
get sucked up into the military and bureacracy and be relatively ineffective
for wealth redistribution. SANE PEOPLE will accept TARGETED increases that
achieve SPECIFIC, AGREED UPON OBJECTIVES. JUST ONCE I'd like to see a
politician say "you know, we need a ***** or we need to improve ****" So,
what we're doing to do is pass a 2% tax surcharge on certian earners where
100% of the receipts are going to this project."
When Obama suggests raising the income tax rates just 'cause, I'll fight him
tooth and nail, because I'll have read his budget, and I'll know that
whatever he says he needs the money for, about .5% of what is taken in will
actually be used for that purpose. BUT, if he comes in and says that he
wants 2% for 5 years (finite rather than permanenent) because gasoline
prices necessitate an high speed train system in certain corridors,
I-might-be-with-him-on-that, depending on how its writ, AND I ALSO KNOW that
such a project will require manual labor that will be highly paid in
comparison to the other work out there.
>
>>>
>>> And it all starts with the removal of that 70% rate that made people
>>> actually __**INVEST**__ instead of just sucking on government bonds:
>>>
>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php
>>>
>>> So you will not be selling any snake oil today.
>>
>> Nope. No snake oil. You made my point. Thanks.
>
> No. You just live the lie. The Republicans run a fake economy on debt
> and they transfer wealth to the top at at all times. Every bit of GDP
> growth and nice looking numbers are built on debt.
As you said "data."
Gee, you'd think it would show up in the data, then :-).
JG
You'll have a consensus of Americans that both the 80's and 90s were good
years. The difference is deficit spending, which doesn't necessarily impact
the citizens when it's incurred.
The Trucker
>
> "The Trucker" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.30....@verizon.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:28:28 +0800, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>
> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Why would I do that? I am no the least bit interested in emulating the
>>>> life styles of the Asians.
>>>
>>> Because you asked for evidence that flat taxation develops good
>>> economies.
>>> What you want or do not what to "emulate" is entirely besides the point.
>>
>> Your definition of "good" is obviously not the same as mine because my
>> concept of a "good" economy is very much based on the quality of life of
>> the median individual in the society. China has a very long road to get
>> anywhere close, and Japan does not measure up either, or didn't until
>> Reagan came along.
>
> I include job growth and increasing disposable income.
The problem is that you actually don't. The numbers you use are bogus and
the word "real" in the vernacular of the neoclassical economist and the
Republican is anything but what the word implies to normal humans. "Real"
income is the money you can invest. The money paid in rent and taxes is
not "real" regardless of the inflation numbers conjured up with the
selected "basket of goods". Republican GDP is produced from debt and
military spending and then messaged into prettyness by jacking around with
the inflation rate,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious as
>>>>> the
>>>>> nose at the end of your face.
>>>>
>>>> It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope
>>>> of
>>>> what you chose to submit.
>>>
>>> ROTF. What's obvoius is that at the same time you complain that all you
>>> see
>>> are "claims", that you're not interested in evidence when it's presented.
>>> The above "I am not the least bit....." rubbish above is proof of that
>>> attitude.
>>
>> The "evidence" does not address the issue.
>
> Becuase you've limited the definition,
You chose the scope and that context you now have deleted. I have now done
the same thing above by broadening the scope. How you like it?
So now we move from "expansion will not work" to "you can't make it
happen". That is at least honest. The "will not work" is rationally
indefensible. i.e. no rationale can support the claim that it will not
work.
As to not being able to make it happen, you have a point. It is not an
easy thing to understand or it probably would have already happened. But
the real problem is the very intense hatred between the left and the right
and the manipulations of the TwoParty to keep it that way. Any sitting
representative has to commit a pretty vile act to be challenged and
removed by the opposition party. The Democrats are doing all they can do
to keep a landslide from happening. Because if it does then they will be
in a position where they can be challenged and removed by a decent
Republican (and there was a time when there actually was such a thing).
As long as it is close then they are protected simply by the vile nature
of latter day Republicans. The way to make expansion happen assumes a
very large Democratic majority and then an attack be the real democrats
asking "why do you hate democracy?", and asserting that any Democrat that
will not expand the House is actually a Republican. That would have to be
the politics.
>> And there really isn't much doubt in me that until __**THAT**__ problem is
>> fixed we will never have a government that works. Of course, that is what
>> you actually want. You want to let the "free market" rule totally even
>> though the facts tell us that this does not work.
>
> ROTF.
I suppose I can't include you in that "us". The data says you are wrong
yet you can't seem to grasp it. You have changed the definition of
"flattening" (as that word would be used by normal people) to try and
escape from the realities of the actual changes in the tax code. This is
the sort of thing that righties do continually. And then when we look at
the actual tax timeline and the changes in the code we see the
manipulations that you claim were removed in order to support your
concocted use of the word "flatten". But your ideological mindset will
simply not accept the actual data.
All sorts of alterations were undertaken to restore tax revenues after the
initial Reagan stupidity. Lots of accelerated depreciation, reductions in
capital gains holding periods, increased excise taxes, and cuts to state
revenue sharing that raised local taxes. The boys were trying everything
to get out of the mess Reagan's witch doctor tax code created.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Bush tax cuts which were a flattening of the tax structure and
>>>>>> the Reagan tax flattening created an economy that ran and currently
>>>>>> runs
>>>>>> on nothing but debt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit. You are operating under a mistaken notion. A flattening of a
>>>>> tax
>>>>> stucture is uncorrelated with surplus and deficit.
>>>>
>>>> While it may be that the cause of the debt may be something other than
>>>> the
>>>> tax code flattening there can be no doubt as to the correlation.
>>>
>>> There is no correlation. The deficit increased during the 80's and
>>> decreased
>>> during the 90's. Statistically, the correlation is "ZERO" between those
>>> two
>>> decades.
>>
>> The correlation is with the tax code. The Reagan - Bush tax code
>> correlates with growing debt and deficit. The Clinton tax code correlates
>> with a return to fiscal sanity.
>
> The Clinton tax code did not reinstate pre-Reagain loopholes and deduction.
> My observation stands unrefuted.
Your observation stands totally refuted in that the tax code was made more
progressive and less __**FLAT**__ by the tax acts of 1990 and 1993 and the
result was a dramatic reduction in the deficit during the 90's and a
drastic improvement in employment statistics. By your own admission there
were no other big changes in the code except the increased progressivity.
And it was that increased progressivity that enticed money that
would have been put into interest bearing mattresses called T-bills and
bonds back into actual investing. We also note that capital gains tax
breaks were not needed. All that was needed was in increase in taxation
on unearned income OTHER than capital gains.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Surplus and deficit have
>>>>> to do with tax receipts vs. tax expenditures. The Reagan tax flattening
>>>>> was
>>>>> revenue - neutral to the goverment. The deficit was due to a radical
>>>>> increase in defense spending without any correlating increase in tax
>>>>> receipts. Spending more than you take in results in deficits every
>>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> All of the numbers comprising the following data are taken straight from
>>>> budget data and fed data. No numbers from Cato or Move-On.
>>>>
>>>> Revenue, deficits, and spending:
>>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> Another look:
>>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/finances.jpg
>>>>
>>>> This shows us that tax revenue went flat during Reagan's first 2 years
>>>> while spending increased thus creating the deficits.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I said. The tax package was revenue neutral.
Horsecrap. Flat revenue is not "revenue neutral". Taxes normally
increase year over year and that is plain from looking at the graph. As I
recall these numbers are not inflation adjusted and they should not be
inflation adjusted. The fact that they are not adjusted with the rubber
basket of goods makes them correct numbers for analysis of actual
deficits. Once you allow the neoclassical tap dancer to adjust the data
to inflation based on his chosen basket of goods you are screwed. The
neoclassical tap dancer will select whatever "goods" it might take to
improve his rubber GDP.
>>> It is important to
>>>> notice that __**NOWHERE**__ else on this history do revenues not
>>>> increase
>>>> year over year.
>>>
>>> Nowhere else in that history were you dealing with double-digit
>>> inflation,
>>> double-digit intrest rates, and double-digit unemployment. What you see
>>> in
>>> those two columns (Recepts and Outlays) are affected by economic
>>> conditions
>>> AND tax policy, with tax policy being (usually) the lesser of the two
>>> variables.
>>>
>>> To claim that tax receipts are affected by tax policy alone would be the
>>> height of intellectually dishonest statistical manipulation.
>>
>> I agree!!! But that is not what you claimed. You claimed that the tax
>> adjustments were revenue neutral and yet tax revenue that would normally
>> increase year over year did not.
>
> I claimed that they were inteded to be revenue neutral to the Treasury when
> they were implmented. The statement has nothing to do with "year over year"
> unless you are talking about 1980 to 1981 ALONE.
The graph shows a decline in revenue from 81 to 83. I was kind enough to
call it flat.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/Newyeilds._html_2aaf0d1c.jpg
But we are now talking about the blasted economy caused by the Volcker
A-bomb on interest rates. Interestingly the interest rates were pumped to
the sky while Carter was in office and IMMEDIATELY reduced for Reagan.
Interest rates peaked in 1981 at about 16% and then fell dramatically to
9% by 83, returned to 13.5 % in 84 and then went down to 7%. If you look
at a 3 year average the interest rates were jacked up destroying Carter
and adjusted downward to help Reagan. So while we can say that factors
other than tax policy effect the economy those factors were totally
favorable to Reagan as regards claiming an improvement in economic
performance. Improving a totally destroyed economy is not to hard to do
because any improvement at all is a really big deal. The inflation
monster had been destroyed by Volcker and Reagan had a clean slate. He
fucked it up with tax breaks for the rich.
>>
>>> And,
>>> unfortunatly, there is no OFFICIAL way to parse out the relative effects
>>> of
>>> the two variables. We're left with organizations (like Cato and MoveOn)
>>> to
>>> do that for us, with analysis adhering to their own ideological view.
>>
>> I do not subscribe to either. My data comes straight out of the pipe.
>> And you are right. There is no way to parse out the effects of Volcker's
>> total destruction of the economy from the effects of Reagan's tax cuts for
>> the rich when it comes to tax revenues. So the claim of revenue
>> neutrality cannot be substantiated and it is just a claim.
>
> No. If you look at the materials on the Reagan tax package, you clearly and
> quickly that the intent was not to give an EFFECTIVE tax decrease OR
> increase to anyone. The INTENT was *simplification and fairness*, realizing
> that the code permitted Americans in high income brackets to pay an
> effective rate less than that of the middle class.
Oh... You mean like the current code where Buffet pays 15% and his
secretary pays 28%. No matter what you do in that little tap dance, the
facts are as they are. Reagan granted a decrease in the top rate for
UNEARNED income from 70% down to 50%. Using that 50% rate (the
big handout to the rich) as a basis the Republicans then claim across the
board tax reductions. And the same trap dance is repeated each time --
"We traded loopholes for reductions and it was revenue neutral." The
problem with that crap is seen in the actual data and the return to
storing money in interest bearing mattresses.
> Anecdotally, I can tell you that when all this came down, I was in my second
> year of business. All the older guys in the office (consider them upper
> middle to lower upper class in wage earnings at the time) were pissed when
> they found out they paid MORE in taxes AFTER their rates had been
> drastically reduced than under the higher marginal rate.
That may be the case, but the upper 5% got the big breaks and I do not
really get strung out on taxing the rich. My criticism of the tax cuts is
that they allow the very rich a positive after inflation and after
tax return from government backed savings vehicles. Such vehicles are not
__**INVESTMENT**__. And such a tax code along with reduced or repealed
estate taxes will create a nobility and an aristocracy. But that, of
course, is the real Republican goal.
> Why? Well, there were all sorts of (legal, at the time) tax shelters they
> were in to dodge taxes. Oil wells, ranches, cattle, farms -- those are the
> ones I can remember. The Reagan package nullified all those deductions. So
> although their marginal rate had dropped from forty something to twenty
> something, they paid more. The PROBLEM with those shelters was that you had
> to have CASH to get into them. So, they were available to the higher wage
> earners, and not to the middle or lower.
All of that is believable. Most of it was commercial real estate and an
"oil depletion allowance". Take those two out of the "loopholes" and you
have a pretty good tax system where "loopholes" like energy conservation
investments and solar and wind can get some real shots in the arm.
> This is exactly what Warren Buffet's been saying about the fact that his
> effective tax rate is less than that of his secretary. Business owners and
> fund managers have the wherewithal to take their wage as cap gains and not
> regular salary. Different tax rate, a benefit available to the rich but not
> the working stiff.
Yes. The reduction of the capital gains tax rate by the Gingrich congress
was a reward to the rich for certain. It also was the mayor cause of the
so called "Dot Com bubble", and it is currently a huge trap. The only
real escape from the ditch the Republicans have put us in is probably
going to be an asset tax as opposed to an income tax. And it won't be
revenue neutral. It will increase tax revenues.
> So, if you really think the pre-Reagan package was superior, fine. Put it
> ALL back. The high marginal rates AND the shelters. Otherwise, you'd be
> putting back in an effective tax rate higher than has EVER existed in this
> country outside of wartime,
Maybe...
> and you'll cripple the economy.
Nope. The Clinton progressive tax increase refutes that myth utterly.
> (And don't
> forget that the lower quintile paid HIGHER taxes under pre-Reagan than they
> do today -- you don't want to forget that.)
I will not forget that the lower quintile paid lower taxes before Reagan
and the Republicans rode their big white horses into town. The lowest
quintiles paid much less in FICA, and state and local taxes before the
Republicans stopped funding the state programs and jacked up the FICA
taxes. When my kids first started out they paid no income taxes but had
to pay 15% self employment taxes. Reagan shifted taxes from the rich to
the poor and the middle. That FICA tax is paid ONLY by the productive
people. Reagan increased that and decreased the taxes paid by the rich. At
the same time he cut a lot of the welfare that was going from federal to
state and the states had to pick up the tab. That resulted in higher
sales taxes.
I would put the tax code back the way it was in 1959. But 1978 would
be OK with the commercial real estate and oil depletion taken out of it.
>>
>>>> Although revenue in 1990 - 1992 were not rising as fast
>>>> as the rest of the time seen on the graph, the revenue did not flatten
>>>> out
>>>> or decrease. We also see that spending did not accelerate during the
>>>> Reagan years and that spending increased at all times other than 86 -
>>>> 87.
>>>
>>> Outlays were up 37% between 81 and 88. That's 4.6% per annum. During the
>>> Carter years, from your own data given, the rate between 77 and 80 was
>>> 3.9%
>>> per annum. So, spending accelerated 15% under Reagan relative to the
>>> Carter
>>> years. When you're talking about the size of the federal goverment,
>>> that's a
>>> pretty significant acceleration.
I want to see your selection of data used to produce these percentages. I
have looked at the numbers at
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
and I can't make your percentages.
1988 861763
1981 543044
-----------
diff 318719 / 543044 = 58.7% / 7 years = 8% per annum Reagan
1980 476613
1977 328502
-----------
diff 148111 / 476613 = 31% / 3 years = 10% per annum Carter
The percentage of increase is based on where you start and not on where
you end. From the 543044 in 1981 spending increased 58.7% by 1988 And it
was a 7 year span. I do the Carter numbers the same exact way -- a 3 year
span. So if you want to do something different then show what you are
doing. The other thing that must be included to make these data a
reflection of reality is to adjust them for inflation. Nominal numbers
are the correct source for looking at deficits. But when you are looking
at spending and incomes it is more appropriate to use SOME SORT OF dollar
adjustment for inflation even though current adjustments are bogus. The
point that must be stressed is that during Carter the tax brackets were
not indexed to the CPI. As people climbed the income latter with
adjustments for COLA they moved up in tax brackets. Inflation increased
tax revenues and spending. With indexing this is no longer the case. The
10% increase in spending with Carter (without funny loopholes) would
have produced increase tax revenue as a matter of course. If Nixon, Ford,
and Carter would have controlled spending, the Volcker A-Bomb would not
have been necessary.
>>
>> I will accept that without looking. But the tax revenue is affected by
>> the spending. If Reagan (and the Congress never spent as much as he
>> wanted) had not boosted spending the tax revenues would have been much
>> less.
>
> Government spending into the economy -- even the defense sector -- does
> indeed have a positive impact on
Allow me: a positive impact on tax revenues.
>>
>>> Further, this entire line of reasoning is questionable because it does
>>> not
>>> account for our government's nasty habit of putting one-time outlays "off
>>> budget". The sources you're pulling from usually include these off-budget
>>> figures. Is there a reason you don't have them on your page?
>>
>> It's your skunk. You need to run it down. The reason my numbers look
>> like they do is because they come right out of the governments on budget
>> data. Income from arm sales to Iran and illegal drugs and outflows to the
>> dudes in So. America obviously are not on the books.
>
> I haven't the time.
Nor do I.
> Let's just remind ourselves that the official balance
> sheet isn't the only balance sheet, and there are times in our history
> (like, now) where off budget expenditures, if included, might lead us to
> different conclusions.
We will just use the numbers the way they are. That's called reality.
But I agree with you in your opinion that Republicans lie about the
government spending a lot more than do the Democrats.
>>
>>>> The Regan deficits are clearly a reflection of poor revenue collection
>>>> and
>>>> not any drastic alteration to spending. Those are the facts of history.
>>>
>>> You need to work on your math. Spending accelerated 15% relative to
>>> Carter,
>>> and no off-budget figures are included -- this matters, since the GOP
>>> normally uses off-budget outlays more than Democrats do because of
>>> increased
>>> military spending.
No. The GOP uses off budget spending to enhance apparent tax collections
while hiding the spending, the deficits and the borrowing. It is
generally called lying among honest people.
>> It is your skunk and you need to run it down. Repetition is not what we
>> need. And I am not really interested in the Carter numbers. I am
>> interested in the Reagan-Bush numbers and the Clinton numbers. I am also
>> not real interested in the Roosevelt numbers or the Napoleon numbers.
>
> Carter immediately preceded Reagan. He is relevant to the discussion.
> Nobody's asking you to look at a non-continguous dataset. I'm simply saying
> that if you're bugaboo is the Reagan package, you need to look at data
> immediately before and immediately after.
OK. The deficits were small during Carter and HUGE during Reagan. That's
pretty simple and obvious as hell. The Volcker destruction of the economy
by interest rate A-Bombs peaked in 1981 and the destructive interest rates
declined thereafter. I am willing to concede that these monetary actions
created a blighted economy and lower tax collections ensued. I am not
working in a vacuum on this. But the tax break for the rich (the decrease
from 70% to 50% and the removal of the "loopholes") did nothing for the
economy at all and these actions merely exacerbated the problems. The
reaction of the Fed to these nutty manipulations was to jack up the
interest rates again. Reagan's maniacal defense spending in search of
pumping the economy to get tax revenues rekindled a fear of inflation
causing a second monetary A-bomb and also producing a large deficit.
http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php -----------
1. Prior to Reagan the very rich were disinclined to sock their wealth
away in Treasury notes and government backed bonds (interest bearing
mattresses) because it would have actually COST them to do so. But under
the regressive Republican tax and interest system, the government protects
the rich and their money while paying them for the privilege of doing so.
And though it may appear at first glance that Reagan stopped inflation,
that accomplishment goes to Paul Volcker (A Carter Appointed Fed
Chairman), before Reagan entered the picture. Look at the actual dates and
the declining inflation. Reagan did not set foot in the White House until
81, his policies had no chance at being efficacious until 82 and his
shredding of the progressive income tax system was proposed as an economic
stimulus (the absolute opposite of a war on inflation). The net result of
the Volcker-Reagan two step was to create a government guaranteed gravy
train for the rich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Reagan, T-Bills and bonds returned an inflation adjusted
loss of 1%. After the Reagan rich bitch reward system, the return to NOT
INVESTING and simply stuffing money in an interest bearing mattress went
to a positive 2%. Why would the really rich take a chance on investing
when they get richer every year using government backed bonds? And the
dance of the bondholders takes place when they know the _REAL_ economy.
i.e. _REAL_ wages will be going in the toilet. All those big fat deficits
providing lots of T-Bill sales for the rich to employ their tax savings
-- oh such a deal.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are the tax alterations:
>>>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
>>>>
>>>> We see that the rich got a tax decrease from 70% down to 50% at square
>>>> one.
>>>> we then started some more flattening by reducing the brackets. And as
>>>> wee
>>>> did this we can observe the effects on incomes:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/incomes.html
>>>
>>> OK, first, you know that when I say "flattening" I am NOT talking about
>>> rate-flattening, but deduction flattening, correct? (I assumed you'd pick
>>> that up from context, but not I'm not so sure.)
>>
>> I am not going to get sucked down that rathole you are trying to create.
>> The "flattening" of the tax code means less progressivity in the tax code.
>> That is what it means, like when we say that water is wet we are not
>> talking about how heavy it is.
>
> OK, then I'll simply refer to it as a "tax package with a minimum of
> deductions, loopholes, and shelters." TPMDLS for short. Currently our
> personal tax code is TPMDLS, compared to pre-Reagan. The corporate tax code
> is not, which is why we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world
> (almost -- I think Estonia is higher) but the rest of the world gets more
> taxes from their corporate sector than we.
It was simple. Remove the offensive DLS and otherwise leave the tax code
alone.
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is almost impossible to ignore the divergence in the incomes and the
>>>> outright theft perpetrated on the middle class by Republican trickle
>>>> down
>>>> thievery.
>>>
>>> Wow. You proved what Adam Smith said -- that unfettered capitalism
>>> enriches
>>> the upper income classes at a higher rate than the lower.
>>> Congratulations.
>>> I've never argued otherwise.
>>
>> We have a totally different definition of what "good" means.
>
> Not really.
Oh yes. Absolutely really. And its very root is in the neoclassical lie
concerning "REAL" wages as being the wage levels adjusted to inflation.
To begin with the inflation adjustment is a lie based on a basket of goods
selected by the liars. And in the second case it does not reflect the
increase in taxation such as FICA (that more than offsets any cuts in
federal income tax) caused by the Republican tax shifts and more
importantly it does not reflect the increased rent caused by asset price
inflation (primarily urban and sub-urban land prices). Actual "real"
wages are the wages you can INVEST or spend or save.
>>
>>> What I'd think, however, you'd be even more interested in is how your
>>> numbers prove MY contention -- that regulated capitalism provides for
>>> anemic
>>> growth over the unregulated. If you break your table down into two 12
>>> year
>>> periods ending in 1992 (Reagan/Bush, and the 12 years prior), you get
>>> some
>>> interesting results.
>>
>> I am not interested in the carter crap. Go sell that stuff somewhere
>> else.
>> I am also not in agreement that the growth in upper incomes and GDP is a
>> sign of an improving economy. Distribution matters.
>
> I never said it didn't.
>>
>>> If you look back at the 12 years PRIOR to Reagan, to your point, the
>>> lowest
>>> wage bracket did the best -- they managed an average 1.5% per year wage
>>> increase over those 12 years. The second to lowest quintile did the
>>> worst --
>>> .16% per year. Remember these numbers, because they underscore the anemia
>>> of
>>> a highly tax bracket, highly regulated economy.
The numbers are looking at are pre-rent numbers with lower state
and local taxes and lower FICA taxes than the taxes after Reagan. The
data you are looking at do not include FICA taxes or any of the other
additional taxes with which Reagan saddled the lower middle class. I
cannot remember whether these income numbers are post income tax or pre
income tax. But in either case the standard stuff from Fed or Census
stuff only includes income taxes for the after tax data. If the displayed
data are after tax then they are after income tax ONLY. The data do not
include FICA tax and state and local taxes. The data are also not wage
data but income data. That means that retirees receiving income form
T-Bills and the like see increasing incomes yet they are still in the
lower 2 quintiles. The only applicability of this data to anything
__**REAL**__ is in the upper 3 quintiles. And in all but the top two we
see no significant increase in even the non FICA tax incomes.
>> There is no reason to look at those numbers. We all know that the War on
>> Poverty helped the lowest on the pole and that it was not real good for
>> the next quintile. I have been over this many times. WOP was horseshit.
>
> It's impossible to levy a value judgement (the economy was "good" or
> "better" or somebody is "better off" without a relative comparison.
Sure. Nonetheless, the WOP was a crock and the Reagan gift to the rich
was also a crock.
After actually looking at the real history and the real data I am fine
with the Carter era as far as _real_ middle class wages are concerned.
And the actual spending etc. Go ahead and point to the Carter years. The
middle class did much better during that period then they did post Reagan.
>>
>>> Now, look at the same measurement from Reagan through to Bush. To your
>>> point, the lowest quntile showed flat wage growth over the period, and
>>> the
>>> highest were the upper 5%, showing 2.9% real wage growth. The more you
>>> made,
>>> the better you did. HOWEVER, the overall economy did MUCH better in terms
>>> of
>>> wage, ACCORDING TO YOUR NUMBERS, under the lowered bracket, flattened
>>> deduction, lower regulatory envrionment in those years.
>>
>> NO. That interpretation is totally wrong.
>
> As you say, the numbers dont' lie. If you're going to contend that the
> workers increased their income more than before but still got screwed, you
> have to do better than yell "NO!"
>
> These are income numbers and not. The workers got the absolute
Nope. That is a lie unless you start at the beginning of the Volcker
recession and do not account for taxes other than income taxes.
> Until you realize that what you are railing about is the inability (and
> unwillingness) of the political entity (both parties) to distribute the free
> market spoils across the quintles in an equitable manner, there's not much
> hope.
The Gingrich capital gains tax cut and the Reagan tax cut on unearned
income from 70% to 50% are examples of Republican rich bitch tax cuts that
will not go away. And as those cuts are granted the deficits become huge
and so too do the state and local taxes. The income of the top 5% was 125k
in 1967 and in 1981 it was only 126K. A derisory increase. The 3rd
quintile went from 31k in 1967 to 34k in 1981 -- a 9.6% increase. Post
from 1981 to 1989 the top 5% rose 44%, while the middle quintile rose 12%
NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE INCREASED FICA TAXES AND SALES TAXES. People in
the top 5% DO NOT PAY FICA TAXES and sales taxes account for a far smaller
percentage of their tax burden.
> You are simply doing the same thing that
>> neoclassical economists and Republican apologists typically do in that you
>> are measuring the wrong stuff. The _REAL_ wages (the amount that can be
>> invested in ones future) of the not rich people went down. The GDP went
>> up but it went up more during the 90's than it did in the 80's, and the
>> wages also went up in the 90's very slightly and not at all ion the 80's.
>
> Hm? I agreed with that above. See "you proved Adam Smith." In fact, I'm
> disturbed that real wages really haven't moved that much since the 70's. Why
> not look at the big picture instead of the partisan one for a change?
The middle class has been shafted by the Republicans. The reality is what
it is. I am not going to be bipartisan about stuff that is partisan as
hell.
> Dude. Even when I agree with you, you insist that I'm disagreeing. Why am i
> bothering with all this?
>>
>>> It is up to the
>>> GOVERNMENT to divide up the spoils as they see it. However, it is not the
>>> fault of the rich that Adam Smith was right, and it is not the fault of
>>> the
>>> poor that Adam Smith is right. The inequity is the fault of the
>>> GOVERNMENT,
>>> in that the government delivers this inequity through a failing
>>> educational
>>> system and inadequate/inefficient redistrubative policies.
>>
>> And the Republican government fails because it gives tax breaks to the
>> rich and screws the middle class. It fails because those tax cuts for the
>> rich and pretty numbers for GDP are delivered by saddling the the middle
>> class with debt.
>
> And the Democratic government fails because it refuses to think outside the
> box and deliver solutions other than "Duhhhh, let's raise the rates." NO
> SANE PERSON wants to raise rates knowing that MOST of the increase will just
> get sucked up into the military and bureacracy and be relatively ineffective
> for wealth redistribution.
And no sane person claims that taxes have a damned thing to do with
Republican spending. Republicans will do war and fascist pig shit and
increase the size of government while granting tax relief to the rich.
That is their thing.
> SANE PEOPLE will accept TARGETED increases that
> achieve SPECIFIC, AGREED UPON OBJECTIVES. JUST ONCE I'd like to see a
> politician say "you know, we need a ***** or we need to improve ****" So,
> what we're doing to do is pass a 2% tax surcharge on certian earners where
> 100% of the receipts are going to this project."
>
> When Obama suggests raising the income tax rates just 'cause, I'll fight him
> tooth and nail, because I'll have read his budget, and I'll know that
> whatever he says he needs the money for, about .5% of what is taken in will
> actually be used for that purpose. BUT, if he comes in and says that he
> wants 2% for 5 years (finite rather than permanenent) because gasoline
> prices necessitate an high speed train system in certain corridors,
> I-might-be-with-him-on-that, depending on how its writ, AND I ALSO KNOW that
> such a project will require manual labor that will be highly paid in
> comparison to the other work out there.
It doesn't work that way. The (P)resident is not supposed to set the tax
and spend policies. The House of Representatives is supposed to do that.
And if you think the common people too stupid top do elect the right
people then yours is not to take it from them, but to educate and inform
such that you get the right stuff. We don't do emperors.
>>
>>>>
>>>> And it all starts with the removal of that 70% rate that made people
>>>> actually __**INVEST**__ instead of just sucking on government bonds:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.greatervoice.org/essays/MoneyForNothing.php
>>>>
>>>> So you will not be selling any snake oil today.
>>>
>>> Nope. No snake oil. You made my point. Thanks.
>>
>> No. You just live the lie. The Republicans run a fake economy on debt
>> and they transfer wealth to the top at at all times. Every bit of GDP
>> growth and nice looking numbers are built on debt.
>
> As you said "data."
enjoy.
They did. They turned continuing deficits into a surplus and they
improved the jobs market.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/OnBudget.html
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/data/unemployment.jpg
Are you blind?
As I said: The Reagan economy was a fake economy run on debt and the
Clinton economy was a real economy run on a decent tax system (until
Gingrich screwed it up).
The rationale and the logic don't seem to do any good. What the hell can
be done other than to present what the real government theorists have said
and to show that I am doing what they proposed to do and showing logically
and rationally why it should work. Then I will just add to that the
supposed "hypothetical" that I am pretty sure I could pull off. I can't
wave a magic wand and create a lab experiment. It doesn't work that way
in social science.
John Galt
Whether an economy is "good" or not is determined by the people living in
it, not economists. High unemployment and real income (your usage) are
correlated with negative sentiment.
You don't have a "good" economy if people are unhappy to be living in it.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, more to the point, what you call a "claim" is flat out obvious
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> nose at the end of your face.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not only an "obvious thing" it is total rubbish within the scope
>>>>> of
>>>>> what you chose to submit.
>>>>
>>>> ROTF. What's obvoius is that at the same time you complain that all you
>>>> see
>>>> are "claims", that you're not interested in evidence when it's
>>>> presented.
>>>> The above "I am not the least bit....." rubbish above is proof of that
>>>> attitude.
>>>
>>> The "evidence" does not address the issue.
>>
>> Becuase you've limited the definition,
>
> You chose the scope and that context you now have deleted. I have now done
> the same thing above by broadening the scope. How you like it?
At this point, I don't care.
The point is that the success or failure of the suggestion is unprovable
either way.
>
> As to not being able to make it happen, you have a point. It is not an
> easy thing to understand or it probably would have already happened. But
> the real problem is the very intense hatred between the left and the right
> and the manipulations of the TwoParty to keep it that way. Any sitting
> representative has to commit a pretty vile act to be challenged and
> removed by the opposition party. The Democrats are doing all they can do
> to keep a landslide from happening. Because if it does then they will be
> in a position where they can be challenged and removed by a decent
> Republican (and there was a time when there actually was such a thing).
> As long as it is close then they are protected simply by the vile nature
> of latter day Republicans. The way to make expansion happen assumes a
> very large Democratic majority and then an attack be the real democrats
> asking "why do you hate democracy?", and asserting that any Democrat that
> will not expand the House is actually a Republican. That would have to be
> the politics.
>
>>> And there really isn't much doubt in me that until __**THAT**__ problem
>>> is
>>> fixed we will never have a government that works. Of course, that is
>>> what
>>> you actually want. You want to let the "free market" rule totally even
>>> though the facts tell us that this does not work.
>>
>> ROTF.
>
> I suppose I can't include you in that "us". The data says you are wrong
> yet you can't seem to grasp it.
When I am presented to evidence that it does not, I'll analyze is as such.
Your argumentation is simply to toss out some numbers and think you've
proven something, when in fact there are reasonable interpretations of the
data that show both. Explain how ouflows were "flat" when an 8th grader can
see when went up 15%.
Here's my problem in life -- I always assume that when people miss the
obvious, they just made a mistake, and move on. However, it's now clear that
you just lie intentionally to make advance your ideology.
And, since you're a liar, you're a waste of my time. I took a couple of good
hours to point out the obvious errors in your data interpretation yesterday,
and all you did was shrug your shoulders and insist that it was irrrelevant.
Fair enough. So are you. Good luck with the tilting at windmills.
JG
V for Vendicar
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
> The Reagan tax flattening was revenue - neutral to the goverment. The
> deficit was due to a radical increase in defense spending without any
> correlating increase in tax receipts. Spending more than you take in
> results in deficits every time.
This could only be true if Reagan cut taxes and increased them somewhere
else.
Where were they increased?
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
David Stockman Resigned once it was discovered that he was fudging his
economic forecasts.
After being caught in that lie, another Reagan White House NeoKKKon said
"borrowing a trillion plus dollars was the best thing we ever did."
Ahahahahahaahah
V for Vendicar
>> And Bush told you AmeriKKKan suckers that it was going to cost you $40
>> billion tops.
<orang...@googlemail.com> wrote
> i am slowly coming to the conclusion that you are insane.
Estimates of Iraq War Cost Were Not Close to Ballpark
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: March 19, 2008
WASHINGTON - At the outset of the Iraq war, the Bush administration
predicted that it would cost $50 billion to $60 billion to oust Saddam
Hussein, restore order and install a new government.
Getting at the true cost of the war is difficult. Expenses like a troop
increase were paid from the base defense budget, not war bills.
The Costs So Far
Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600
billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist
and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion. The
Congressional Budget Office and other analysts say that $1 trillion to $2
trillion is more realistic, depending on troop levels and on how long the
American occupation continues.
...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html
V for Vendicar
> This would be a "police force" that is responsible for the murder of 1
> million people in Iraq, and who's commander and chief is a war criminal?
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote
> War Criminal? How so?
Through the commission of an unprovoked campaign of mass murder in
violation of U.S. law.
The only way AmeriKKKa will be excused for such a crime is through the
execution of all those RepubliKKKunts involved in the planning and
commission of those crimes.
Top on the list is George W. Bush.
Once convicted and sentenced by the court for his crimes, I offer my
services as executioner, and look forward to slitting his throat.
V for Vendicar
> Shit Sucker RepubliKKKans just can't seem to comprehend that fact that the
> U.S. debt is a <DIRECT> result
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote
> direct result of the deadbeats who get gov't handouts, and
> crooKKKed DhimmiKKK-rats
And these people are principally your grandmother and grandfather, and
AmeriKKKans dying of cancer and other diseases.
You are right. Those deadbeats don't deserve to live. Better to give
Exxon a tax break.
martycarbone
I quoted this group on my website
http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom/reductioninfederalspending.html
If David P. and the "unknown" writer want their names on our entry --
please let me know at <<martyc...@yahoo.com>>
Marty
Andy F.
"martycarbone" <martyc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b695efcd-501c-48cc...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
From the website:
"Interest on the national debt - over 40% national debt is owed to the
privatley owned federal reserve. this portion of the national debt
could be cancelled at no cost. This would have the side effect of
moving the dollar off a debt standard and allowing the rest of the
national debt to be paid off over a five year period. This was last
done by president jackson who was the only president to pay off the
national debt. - 13% saved"
The interest paid to the Fed is paid back to the Treasury. So cancelling
this debt would not produce the savings which the writer claims.
Governor Swill
> martycarbone wrote
>> Hello all,
>> I quoted this group on my website
>> http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom/reductioninfederalspending.html
>> If David P. and the "unknown" writer want their names on our entry --
>> please let me know at <<martyc...@yahoo.com>>
>From the website:
>"Interest on the national debt - over 40% national debt is owed to the
>privatley owned federal reserve. this portion of the national debt
>could be cancelled at no cost. This would have the side effect of
>moving the dollar off a debt standard and allowing the rest of the
>national debt to be paid off over a five year period. This was last
>done by president jackson who was the only president to pay off the
>national debt. - 13% saved"
What an idiot.
Swill
--
No, his mind is not for rent
To any God or government.
Always hopeful, yet discontent,
He knows changes arent permanent,
But change is. -- Geddy Lee/Rush
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
Andy F.
"Governor Swill" <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g63va4tf3cq5igk91...@4ax.com...
> This is Andy F.'s brain on drugs:
No, obviously it isn't. You haven't even managed to cut and paste what I
wrote.
>> martycarbone wrote
>>> Hello all,
>>> I quoted this group on my website
>>> http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom/reductioninfederalspending.html
>>> If David P. and the "unknown" writer want their names on our entry --
>>> please let me know at <<martyc...@yahoo.com>>
>
>>From the website:
>>"Interest on the national debt - over 40% national debt is owed to the
>>privatley owned federal reserve. this portion of the national debt
>>could be cancelled at no cost. This would have the side effect of
>>moving the dollar off a debt standard and allowing the rest of the
>>national debt to be paid off over a five year period. This was last
>>done by president jackson who was the only president to pay off the
>>national debt. - 13% saved"
>
> What an idiot.
>
> Swill
Good luck with the plans to abolish income tax.
Governor Swill
>No, obviously it isn't. You haven't even managed to cut and paste what I
>wrote.
>>> martycarbone wrote
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> I quoted this group on my website
>>>> http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom/reductioninfederalspending.html
>>>> If David P. and the "unknown" writer want their names on our entry --
>>>> please let me know at <<martyc...@yahoo.com>>
>>>From the website:
>>>"Interest on the national debt - over 40% national debt is owed to the
>>>privatley owned federal reserve. this portion of the national debt
>>>could be cancelled at no cost. This would have the side effect of
>>>moving the dollar off a debt standard and allowing the rest of the
>>>national debt to be paid off over a five year period. This was last
>>>done by president jackson who was the only president to pay off the
>>>national debt. - 13% saved"
>> What an idiot.
>Good luck with the plans to abolish income tax.
My idiot comment was directed to the author of the paragraph.
Who's trying to abolish the income tax?