Re: Why they hate us, was (Re: funny things to do on a bike)

[Pete]

"ML" > wrote
>
> Lying would be my bet, along with almost everyone else in the
> administration being guilty of the same. We can only hope that November
> brings someone else to power.

Why do you expect that any replacement administration would be any better?

Pete

[ML]

Pete wrote:
> "ML" > wrote
>
>>Lying would be my bet, along with almost everyone else in the
>>administration being guilty of the same. We can only hope that November
>>brings someone else to power.
>
>
> Why do you expect that any replacement administration would be any better?
>
> Pete
>
>

Pete:

We've never had an administration this intent on total secrecy. Where
there is secrecy there is doubt. I doubt everything the Bush
administration says, because they have shown me over & over again that
they will not tell the truth in any circumstance if it disputes any of
their allegations. They have also shown me that they wouldn't know the
truth (or fully choose to ignore it) if it bit 'em in the derriere.

I would personally vote for a snake (or gorilla) before I would vote for
George Bush. I'm not a big fan of Kerry but I would trust him to
generally tell the truth, not be in all big businesses back pocket, and
above all to make intelligent decisions based on all the best
information at that time. George Bush's decisions are based on which
business friends will benefit the most, or which conservative honcho is
bending his ear. I don't consider this a good mix for my president.

MOO,
Matt

[Mark Hickey]

ML > wrote:

>I would personally vote for a snake (or gorilla) before I would vote for
>George Bush.

Which speaks volumes.

>I'm not a big fan of Kerry but I would trust him to
>generally tell the truth, not be in all big businesses back pocket, and
>above all to make intelligent decisions based on all the best
>information at that time. George Bush's decisions are based on which
>business friends will benefit the most, or which conservative honcho is
>bending his ear. I don't consider this a good mix for my president.

Yeah, look how GWB let Enron run out of control. Errrr, no, that was
before him. Well look at how he let 'em get away with everything.
Oops, no they were taken down under GWB's administration.

I know - look at how he relaxed polutions standards lovingly put in
place by the Clinton administration so the energy companies could make
big bucks. Errrr, no... it seems that while Clinton actually did
nothing to reduce polution from power plants, Bush actually passed
legislation to reduce mercury (and other) emissions by 70%.

Besides, Kerry is the one promising BIGGER tax cuts to businesses than
Bush.

Oh, the irony.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Yeah, look how GWB let Enron run out of control. Errrr, no, that was
> before him. Well look at how he let 'em get away with everything.
> Oops, no they were taken down under GWB's administration....

Enron failed on its own accord, and was not put out of business by the
US government.

Why have no criminal charges been filed against long time Bush supporter
(and personal friend) former Enron chairman "Kenny Boy" Lay?

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities

[ML]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> ML > wrote:
>
>
>>I would personally vote for a snake (or gorilla) before I would vote for
>>George Bush.
>
>
> Which speaks volumes.
>
>
>>I'm not a big fan of Kerry but I would trust him to
>>generally tell the truth, not be in all big businesses back pocket, and
>>above all to make intelligent decisions based on all the best
>>information at that time. George Bush's decisions are based on which
>>business friends will benefit the most, or which conservative honcho is
>>bending his ear. I don't consider this a good mix for my president.
>
>
> Yeah, look how GWB let Enron run out of control. Errrr, no, that was
> before him. Well look at how he let 'em get away with everything.
> Oops, no they were taken down under GWB's administration.
>
> I know - look at how he relaxed polutions standards lovingly put in
> place by the Clinton administration so the energy companies could make
> big bucks. Errrr, no... it seems that while Clinton actually did
> nothing to reduce polution from power plants, Bush actually passed
> legislation to reduce mercury (and other) emissions by 70%.
>
> Besides, Kerry is the one promising BIGGER tax cuts to businesses than
> Bush.
>
> Oh, the irony.
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark:

You're living in a dream world if you believe Bush's mercury programs
will actually reduce emissions. Enron taken down! I don't think you've
got the economics thing understood. The market took Enron down, and
once they were down only then did the government jump on them.

MOO,
Matt

[Mark Hickey]

ML > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>Mark:
>
>You're living in a dream world if you believe Bush's mercury programs
>will actually reduce emissions.

I agree that reducing the emissions by 70% really doesn't matter much
in the grand scheme of things (only a fraction of a percent of the
mercury in the environment comes from US power plants anyway).

But the previous administration did nothing (other than to slap
together an impossible and hugely expensive standard AFTER Bush was
elected), yet it's Bush who is accused of being
"anti-environmentalist" for actually DOING something. Go figure.

> Enron taken down! I don't think you've
>got the economics thing understood. The market took Enron down, and
>once they were down only then did the government jump on them.

My point was that the Bush administration is the one who actually did
something about corporate maleasance and prosecuted those guilty of
it. Yet he's the one "in bed with big business".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[JP]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> ML > wrote:

> Yeah, look how GWB let Enron run out of control. Errrr, no, that was
> before him. Well look at how he let 'em get away with everything.
> Oops, no they were taken down under GWB's administration.

What a load of horse****. Bush didn't take down Enron. His appointees
made sure that FERC stood around twiddling their thumbs while Enron
and others were manipulating the California energy markets, bringing
about the state's budget crisis that eventually led to the impeachment
of Davis and his replacement with a GOP stooge. Then Bush's appointees
in the SEC played every game they could think of to make sure that
there was no significant revision of the accounting standards that
allowed Enron to cook the books. I could go on and on about how the
GOP was practically an unindicted co-conspirator with Enron's
management, dating back to the early '90s. And, still, no charges
brought against Ken Lay, who even now ranks #10 on the "Pioneer" list
of Bush's all-time biggest campaign contributors.

> I know - look at how he relaxed polutions standards lovingly put in
> place by the Clinton administration so the energy companies could make
> big bucks. Errrr, no... it seems that while Clinton actually did
> nothing to reduce polution from power plants, Bush actually passed
> legislation to reduce mercury (and other) emissions by 70%.

So Rush would say. Nobody who actually believes in protecting the
environment would agree with any of this.

> Besides, Kerry is the one promising BIGGER tax cuts to businesses than
> Bush.

Kerry is promising to rollback most of the taxcuts that Bush gave to
his ultrawealthy clientele.

> Oh, the irony.

Oh, the bull****.

JP

[gwhite]

Tom Sherman wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Yeah, look how GWB let Enron run out of control. Errrr, no, that was
>> before him. Well look at how he let 'em get away with everything.
>> Oops, no they were taken down under GWB's administration....
>
>
> Enron failed on its own accord, and was not put out of business by the
> US government.


Of course. The point was rhetorical and was only intended to counter
the claims regarding which particular politician is in which particular
special interest group's back pocket.


> Why have no criminal charges been filed against long time Bush supporter
> (and personal friend) former Enron chairman "Kenny Boy" Lay?


Because stupidity is not criminal. Fastow has been convicted and
Skilling is on trial. Lay was pretty much out of the Enron operational
picture when Fastow and Skilling did their "magic." In certain
professions, *civil* suits can be brought against professional
malpractice and reach beyond the corporate veil of legal protection.
For example, lawyers, doctors, and PE Civil Engineers (where a bridge
falls down and kills someone.) But even then, it is not criminal law.
I doubt charges will ever be brought against Lay because for what I've
read (and not recently), he was ignorant and that simply is not against
the law. The stupidity defense works. It will be hard to recover
anything from Lay even in civil court, although I'm not a lawyer and so
would not say it is impossible.

The implication that Bush has something to do with non-prosecution of
Lay is ridiculous. Lay is fallen. Politicians throw that sort to the
wolves whenever expedient. There is no conceivable reason why Bush, a
politician, would not do the same. The fact is that stupidity is not
illegal. That's the only reason why charges would not be filed -- the
government would be wasting time and money _attempting_ to get a
conviction they know they'll never get based on the actual law (not that
wasting time and money typically stop them, hah hah). Bush probably
wishes Lay could be charged because politicins love to look "tough on
crime," even when they don't have jack to do with it one way or the
other. Bush has millions in his campaign chest. The last thing he
needs is to explain a significant contribution from a fallen public, but
not criminal, villian.

But who knows, maybe Bush is that stupid. I suppose I can't be
surprised anymore.

[Mark Hickey]

(JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote...
>
> I could go on and on about how the
>GOP was practically an unindicted co-conspirator with Enron's
>management, dating back to the early '90s. And, still, no charges
>brought against Ken Lay, who even now ranks #10 on the "Pioneer" list
>of Bush's all-time biggest campaign contributors.

Lay won't be charged because there's nothing much to charge him with.
Charges have been brought against those who can be convicted (and
hopefully that list will grow). While you're at it, check Enron's
political contributions (42% were to Democrats - more to Texas
Democrats than Texas Republicans).

>> I know - look at how he relaxed polutions standards lovingly put in
>> place by the Clinton administration so the energy companies could make
>> big bucks. Errrr, no... it seems that while Clinton actually did
>> nothing to reduce polution from power plants, Bush actually passed
>> legislation to reduce mercury (and other) emissions by 70%.
>
>So Rush would say. Nobody who actually believes in protecting the
>environment would agree with any of this.

While there are those who would count your reply as a real argument,
I'd have to ask you to try to disprove a word of what I said. You
can't, can you?

>> Besides, Kerry is the one promising BIGGER tax cuts to businesses than
>> Bush.
>
>Kerry is promising to rollback most of the taxcuts that Bush gave to
>his ultrawealthy clientele.
>
>> Oh, the irony.
>
>Oh, the bull****.

So you're saying Kerry did NOT promise additional tax cuts to
businesses? Of course, that was a few weeks ago - maybe he's
flip-flopped on that issue by now.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Kyle.B.H]

> 2. Kerry has promised to rollback most of the portions of the Bush
> taxcuts that benefit the ultrawealthy.

Kerry's definition of ultra-wealthy is an income if $200,000.

[gwhite]

Kyle.B.H wrote:
>>2. Kerry has promised to rollback most of the portions of the Bush
>>taxcuts that benefit the ultrawealthy.
>
>
> Kerry's definition of ultra-wealthy is an income if $200,000.


LOL, although you probably added one too many zeros.

[Jonesy]

(JP) wrote in message >...

[snip]

> The tedium of it is arguing with a True Believer
> who will not be convinced by anything.

[snip]

That is indeed the case. Conservatives today add up to a big echo
chamber, in which only true things are said, and where everything Not
True(tm) is denounced as socialist/liberal/terrorist/unpatriotic, or
some combination thereof. You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.
--
Jonesy

[Mark Hickey]

(Jonesy) wrote:

>You will notice Mark even defends the
>spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
>doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
>you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
>says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
>never wrong, on anything, ever.

What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
(contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
the veracity of that fact.

If you consider that "defending the spewings"... you missed the point
it seems.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> I have always had trouble
> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.

And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes. Unless, of
course, one is hoping to garner political contributions from them.

> Read it and weep...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25175-2004Mar25.html

What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
position!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>
> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> the veracity of that fact.
>
> If you consider that "defending the spewings"... you missed the point
> it seems.

Let me quote you:

"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
not
forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."

You didn't say "fact", you said "something." Even when Rush states
facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
must be So(tm).

If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
and not true in the least.
--
Jonesy

[Mark Hickey]

Frank Krygowski > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> I have always had trouble
>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>
>And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
>of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes. Unless, of
>course, one is hoping to garner political contributions from them.

I agree - those making hundreds of thousands of dollars shouldn't pay
LESS taxes than those who don't (proportionally).

The fact is, in 2001 the top 5% of taxpayers paid 53.3% of the total
tax burden, while the bottom 50% paid only 3.9% - so by definition the
top 5% are paying 137 times as much on a per capita basis (not really
my argument, but an interesting data point). How "filthy rich" did
you have to be to make that top 5% threshold? An AGI of $127,913
(hardly "rich" if you live in the California or the northeast).

You suspect that the only reason the tax cuts were made was to garner
favor from a very small group of voters.

The administration claims it was to bolster investment in business to
reverse the recession.

Look at the pre-tax cut non-residential fixed investment statistics...

3rd Q 2002: -1.1%
4th Q 2002: -0.1%
1st Q 2003: -0.6%

Then the quarters after the tax cut...

2nd Q 2003: +7.0%
3rd Q 2003: +12.8%
4th Q 2003: +6.9%

>> Read it and weep...
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25175-2004Mar25.html
>
>What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
>he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
>position!

Hardly. That link was in response to JP (SocSecTrainWreck)'s
challenge to:

JP>Give me a reference on Kerry's so-called taxcuts for businesses and
JP>we'll talk specifics- if you dare.

.... though he's gone strangely silent on the issue when presented
with the data.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> I have always had trouble
>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>
>
> And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
> of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.

How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
how much? What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
less taxes?

Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution ends
up in your very own pocket as a state university employee. Special
interest groups really do look after their own interests. This is why
you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.

Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of the
people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.

> Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
> political contributions from them.

Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
presidential election without getting large contributions from those
able to make them.

>> Read it and weep...
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25175-2004Mar25.html
>
>
> What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
> he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
> position!

Wow.

[Mark Hickey]

(Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote...

>Let me quote you:
>
>"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
>not
>forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
>(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
>won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."
>
>You didn't say "fact", you said "something."

I said both, actually...

>Even when Rush states
>facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
>audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
>listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
>they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
>implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
>exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
>must be So(tm).

Your logic escapes me. I said what I said, nothing more.

Did I imply that Rush is likely to state *facts* that Dan Rather
won't? You bet I did (I doubt you'd bother to try to deny that). I
was not implying that the statement of facts was mutually exclusive to
one (or the other), but that Rush brings up information you won't get
from Dan Rather (and vice versa).

>If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
>it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
>that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
>Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
>and not true in the least.

Sigh... if it makes you feel better, change "probably" to "often" in
my statement. Can we drop this rabbit trail now, please?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>> I have always had trouble
>>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>>
>>
>>
>> And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
>> of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.
>
>
> How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
> how much?

"Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

> What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
> less taxes?

Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
levies, library levies, etc. These (and many others) are things I am
happy to support with my money.

I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community.


> Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution ends
> up in your very own pocket as a state university employee. Special
> interest groups really do look after their own interests. This is why
> you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.

Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
they'll say the same.

(By the way, that was sarcasm.)


> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of the
> people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.

I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."


>
> > Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
> > political contributions from them.
>
> Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
> presidential election without getting large contributions from those
> able to make them.

Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have always had trouble
>>>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have always had trouble understanding why people making
>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
>> how much?
>
>
> "Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>
>> less taxes?
>
>
> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
> ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
> social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do. I have no
idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is. Once again we have
another rbt arbiter of "worth."

If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
guvmint if one does not have to. We don't need the guvmint to decide
how to redistribute the wealth, nor do we need grandstanders to decide
the appropriate social causes and force it through political rent
seeking. Giving money to the federal monolith guvmint amounts to a
concentration of economic power, which only leads to crushing political
power. For justifiable taxes, better pay the state than the federal,
and better pay the local than the state. In any case, justify the
taxation and *keep* justifying it (or else lose it).

> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
> levies, library levies, etc.

My inclination is *not* to do so, even though the proclaimed goals
(rather than achieved goals) are often noble. What are these "big
dollar amounts," both in absolute and comparative (fractional) terms?

> These (and many others) are things I am
> happy to support with my money.

_You do not need to pay taxes to assist noble causes_.

> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
> give any of their money to the community.

They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there -- you simply believe you are entitled to state when, where, and
how their money gets distributed. I have no idea what you have against
houses in cornfields. Just because *you* think the school levies are a
good idea doesn't mean someone else does. It is irrelevent what they
can afford compared to what you can afford. If you want the schools to
have more money, earn it and give it.

>> Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution
>> ends up in your very own pocket as a state university employee.
>> Special interest groups really do look after their own interests.
>> This is why you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.
>
> Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
> they'll say the same.

It sounds like you want to be in the business of someone else's money,
which isn't all that noble of a cause.

>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>
> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."

You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble. I
believe you mean well, but unfortunately you are not educated in the
matter of political economy. If you were, you would change your tune.
You'll do more for schools and society by starting with your own
education. I suggest Hayek as a start.

http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore/hayek/hayek_books.html

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/who.html
Who is Hayek?
1. Lead role in the global revival of liberalism*

If you were to know only a single thing about Hayek, you might start
with this -- Hayek is regarded as a key figure in the 20th century
revival of liberalism. This has led some folks to suggest that the
works of Hayek are playing a role in our time something like the role
the works of Adam Smith and John Locke played in their own -- meaning
that Hayek's ideas are at the forefront of the movement towards a
society based on freedom of association and exchange according to the
rule of law, and away from the control of society from the center
according to the whim of government. So the first thing to know about
Hayek is that he has played a lead role in the current tide change away
from statism and back to liberalism* -- regarded by many as a defining
event of the 20th century."


http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/qs-20th.htm
Milton Friedman* (Economics, U. of Chicago)

" . . I think the Adam Smith role was played in this cycle
by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."

"Over the years, I have again and again asked fellow believers in a free
society how they managed to escape the contagion of their collectivist
intellectual environment. No name has been mentioned more often as the
source of enlightenment and understanding than Friedrich Hayek's . . I,
like the others, owe him a great debt . . his powerful mind . . his
lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen
my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society."

J. Bradford De Long* (Economics, UC-Berkeley)

"Hayek's adversaries -- Oskar Lange and company -- argued that a market
system had to be inferior to a centrally-planned system: at the very
least, a centrally-planned economy could set up internal decision-making
procedures that would mimic the market, and the central planners could
also adjust things to increase social welfare and account for external
effects in a way that a market system could never do. Hayek, in
response, argued that the functionaries of a central-planning board
could never succeed, because they could never create both the incentives
and the flexibility for the people-on-the-spot to exercise what Scott
calls metis.

Today all economists -- even those who are very hostile to Hayek's other
arguments .. agree that Hayek and company hit this particular nail
squarely on the head. Looking back at the seventy-year trajectory of
Communism, it seems very clear that Hayek .. right: that its
principal flaw is its attempt to concentrate knowledge, authority, and
decision-making power at the center rather than pushing the power to
act, the freedom to do so, and the incentive to act productively out to
the periphery where the people-on-the-spot have the local knowledge to
act effectively."

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~

Do not confuse true liberalism with that co-opted by today's socialists;
they bear no resemblance:

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/liberalism.html
Liberalism

The word 'liberalism' is used around the world to
indicate a system of social organization characterized
by freedom of association & rule according to law
and not according to the caprice of authority. Liberalism
is also associated with a system of social organization
that provides for individual freedom, equality before the
law, representative decision-making in matters of law,
private property, and constitutionally secured limits on
governmental power.*

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~
[i][i]
>> > Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
>> > political contributions from them.
>>
>> Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
>> presidential election without getting large contributions from those
>> able to make them.
>
> Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
> problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.

Oh, it is a problem all right. But in the matter of tradeoffs (and not
the elusive "solutions"), I don't know that there is anything better.


Also:
http://www.mises.org/

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have always had trouble
>>>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have always had trouble understanding why people making
>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
>> how much?
>
>
> "Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>
>> less taxes?
>
>
> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
> ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
> social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do. I have no
idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is. Once again we have
another rbt arbiter of "worth."

If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
guvmint if one does not have to. We don't need the guvmint to decide
how to redistribute the wealth, nor do we need grandstanders to decide
the appropriate social causes and force it through political rent
seeking. Giving money to the federal monolith guvmint amounts to a
concentration of economic power, which only leads to crushing political
power. For justifiable taxes, better pay the state than the federal,
and better pay the local than the state. In any case, justify the
taxation and *keep* justifying it (or else lose it).

> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
> levies, library levies, etc.

My inclination is *not* to do so, even though the proclaimed goals
(rather than achieved goals) are often noble. What are these "big
dollar amounts," both in absolute and comparative (fractional) terms?

> These (and many others) are things I am
> happy to support with my money.

_You do not need to pay taxes to assist noble causes_.

> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
> give any of their money to the community.

They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there -- you simply believe you are entitled to state when, where, and
how their money gets distributed. I have no idea what you have against
houses in cornfields. Just because *you* think the school levies are a
good idea doesn't mean someone else does. It is irrelevent what they
can afford compared to what you can afford. If you want the schools to
have more money, earn it and give it.

>> Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution
>> ends up in your very own pocket as a state university employee.
>> Special interest groups really do look after their own interests.
>> This is why you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.
>
> Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
> they'll say the same.

It sounds like you want to be in the business of someone else's money,
which isn't all that noble of a cause.

>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>
> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."

You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble. I
believe you mean well, but unfortunately you are not educated in the
matter of political economy. If you were, you would change your tune.
You'll do more for schools and society by starting with your own
education. I suggest Hayek as a start.

http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore/hayek/hayek_books.html

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/who.html
Who is Hayek?
1. Lead role in the global revival of liberalism*

If you were to know only a single thing about Hayek, you might start
with this -- Hayek is regarded as a key figure in the 20th century
revival of liberalism. This has led some folks to suggest that the
works of Hayek are playing a role in our time something like the role
the works of Adam Smith and John Locke played in their own -- meaning
that Hayek's ideas are at the forefront of the movement towards a
society based on freedom of association and exchange according to the
rule of law, and away from the control of society from the center
according to the whim of government. So the first thing to know about
Hayek is that he has played a lead role in the current tide change away
from statism and back to liberalism* -- regarded by many as a defining
event of the 20th century."


http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/qs-20th.htm
Milton Friedman* (Economics, U. of Chicago)

" . . I think the Adam Smith role was played in this cycle
by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."

"Over the years, I have again and again asked fellow believers in a free
society how they managed to escape the contagion of their collectivist
intellectual environment. No name has been mentioned more often as the
source of enlightenment and understanding than Friedrich Hayek's . . I,
like the others, owe him a great debt . . his powerful mind . . his
lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen
my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society."

J. Bradford De Long* (Economics, UC-Berkeley)

"Hayek's adversaries -- Oskar Lange and company -- argued that a market
system had to be inferior to a centrally-planned system: at the very
least, a centrally-planned economy could set up internal decision-making
procedures that would mimic the market, and the central planners could
also adjust things to increase social welfare and account for external
effects in a way that a market system could never do. Hayek, in
response, argued that the functionaries of a central-planning board
could never succeed, because they could never create both the incentives
and the flexibility for the people-on-the-spot to exercise what Scott
calls metis.

Today all economists -- even those who are very hostile to Hayek's other
arguments .. agree that Hayek and company hit this particular nail
squarely on the head. Looking back at the seventy-year trajectory of
Communism, it seems very clear that Hayek .. right: that its
principal flaw is its attempt to concentrate knowledge, authority, and
decision-making power at the center rather than pushing the power to
act, the freedom to do so, and the incentive to act productively out to
the periphery where the people-on-the-spot have the local knowledge to
act effectively."

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~

Do not confuse true liberalism with that co-opted by today's socialists;
they bear no resemblance:

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/liberalism.html
Liberalism

The word 'liberalism' is used around the world to
indicate a system of social organization characterized
by freedom of association & rule according to law
and not according to the caprice of authority. Liberalism
is also associated with a system of social organization
that provides for individual freedom, equality before the
law, representative decision-making in matters of law,
private property, and constitutionally secured limits on
governmental power.*

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~
[i][i]
>> > Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
>> > political contributions from them.
>>
>> Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
>> presidential election without getting large contributions from those
>> able to make them.
>
> Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
> problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.

Oh, it is a problem all right. But in the matter of tradeoffs (and not
the elusive "solutions"), I don't know that there is anything better.


Also:
http://www.mises.org/

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote...
>
> >Let me quote you:
> >
> >"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
> >not
> >forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
> >(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
> >won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."
> >
> >You didn't say "fact", you said "something."
>
> I said both, actually...

This is a refutation, how?

> >Even when Rush states
> >facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
> >audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
> >listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
> >they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
> >implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
> >exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
> >must be So(tm).
>
> Your logic escapes me. I said what I said, nothing more.

You claimed to say one thing, but said another. Clear enough?

> Did I imply that Rush is likely to state *facts* that Dan Rather
> won't? You bet I did (I doubt you'd bother to try to deny that).

I do not deny the implication, but I do not believe it is correct.
Rush is not a news source, but an entertainer. He has very little
credibility as a source of facts, because it's sometimes difficult to
separate his facts from his opinion. Facts are facts - if Rush states
them or Dan Rather states them. Suggesting that somehow Dan Rather
doesn't state certain facts requires you to prove that assertion.

> I
> was not implying that the statement of facts was mutually exclusive to
> one (or the other), but that Rush brings up information you won't get
> from Dan Rather (and vice versa).

Hogwash. The thing you get from Rush that you don't get with Dan is a
conservative, opinionated spin on the available facts. You should
listen more often, so that you have the clue you are clearly in need
of.

> >If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
> >it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
> >that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
> >Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
> >and not true in the least.
>
> Sigh... if it makes you feel better, change "probably" to "often" in
> my statement.

It still doesn't make the statement true. You'll have to provide a
whole bunch of examples, or else is just more dittohead blather on
your part.
--
Jonesy

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote...
>
> >Let me quote you:
> >
> >"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
> >not
> >forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
> >(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
> >won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."
> >
> >You didn't say "fact", you said "something."
>
> I said both, actually...

This is a refutation, how?

> >Even when Rush states
> >facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
> >audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
> >listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
> >they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
> >implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
> >exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
> >must be So(tm).
>
> Your logic escapes me. I said what I said, nothing more.

You claimed to say one thing, but said another. Clear enough?

> Did I imply that Rush is likely to state *facts* that Dan Rather
> won't? You bet I did (I doubt you'd bother to try to deny that).

I do not deny the implication, but I do not believe it is correct.
Rush is not a news source, but an entertainer. He has very little
credibility as a source of facts, because it's sometimes difficult to
separate his facts from his opinion. Facts are facts - if Rush states
them or Dan Rather states them. Suggesting that somehow Dan Rather
doesn't state certain facts requires you to prove that assertion.

> I
> was not implying that the statement of facts was mutually exclusive to
> one (or the other), but that Rush brings up information you won't get
> from Dan Rather (and vice versa).

Hogwash. The thing you get from Rush that you don't get with Dan is a
conservative, opinionated spin on the available facts. You should
listen more often, so that you have the clue you are clearly in need
of.

> >If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
> >it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
> >that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
> >Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
> >and not true in the least.
>
> Sigh... if it makes you feel better, change "probably" to "often" in
> my statement.

It still doesn't make the statement true. You'll have to provide a
whole bunch of examples, or else is just more dittohead blather on
your part.
--
Jonesy

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:

>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>

>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
>> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>
>
> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
> paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
absolutely impossible to follow.

>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>> less taxes?
>>
>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>
> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
> course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.

Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.

> I have no
> idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

You seem to admire the latter. Fine. But I don't think my kids and
grandkids should be facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
> guvmint if one does not have to.

If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
to murder.

That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
>> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>
> My inclination is *not* to do so...

I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
>> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
>> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
>> give any of their money to the community.
>
>
> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
> there

Absolutely false.

>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>>
>>
>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>
>
> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

Sorry, but I am not a socialist. You are once again jumping to
unwarranted conclusions.

It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
little for you.

Buzz off.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:

>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>

>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
>> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>
>
> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
> paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
absolutely impossible to follow.

>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>> less taxes?
>>
>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>
> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
> course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.

Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
ages. Pay us no mind.

> I have no
> idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
really need?

There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

You seem to admire the latter. Fine. But I don't think my kids and
grandkids should be facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
> guvmint if one does not have to.

If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
to murder.

That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
>> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>
> My inclination is *not* to do so...

I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
>> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
>> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
>> give any of their money to the community.
>
>
> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
> there

Absolutely false.

>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>>
>>
>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>
>
> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

Sorry, but I am not a socialist. You are once again jumping to
unwarranted conclusions.

It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
little for you.

Buzz off.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[JP]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>
> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> the veracity of that fact.

Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

JP

[JP]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>
> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> the veracity of that fact.

Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

JP

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>
>>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut."
>>> I'm surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>>
>> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to
>> be paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.
>
> Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
> absolutely impossible to follow.

I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

>>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>>
>>>> less taxes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>>
>>
>> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description,
>> of course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.
>
>
> Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
> ages. Pay us no mind.

Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>
> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
> fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
> XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
> reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
> really need?
>
> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
> donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
> quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

> You seem to admire the latter.

You are cracked. I made no statement that could be inferred as admiration.

> Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break. You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

>> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
>> guvmint if one does not have to.
>
> If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
> to murder.

It causes a concentration of power. I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

> That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
> misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

The deliberate misspelling is accorded to your lemming style of "it is
right because they told me it was." Yes, the lemming is certainly lacking.

>>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts
>>> back from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>>
>> My inclination is *not* to do so...
>
> I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

You're punching air.

>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but
>>> they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>
>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>> there
>
> Absolutely false.

You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL. Again, it is
simply that they apparently don't pay as much as one who deems himself
on the moral high ground (you) think they should.

>>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>>
>> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.
>
> Sorry, but I am not a socialist.

You are.

> You are once again jumping to
> unwarranted conclusions.

Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders and the socialist way. My
condolances, it must be tough to be in your shoes.

You are not even aware of your own ideological foundations. I can tell
you mine: they "start" (no such real thing) with works like Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ and the _Federalist Papers_. If you want to attack
the foundations, now you know where to start.

> It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
> discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
> little for you.

I know bull**** when I smell it. It did that for me.

> Buzz off.

Sounds like you've been coasting for a little too long. Time to muscle up.

[gwhite]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>
>>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut."
>>> I'm surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
>>
>> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to
>> be paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.
>
> Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
> absolutely impossible to follow.

I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

>>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>>
>>>> less taxes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
>>
>>
>> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description,
>> of course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.
>
>
> Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
> ages. Pay us no mind.

Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>
> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
> fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
> XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
> reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
> really need?
>
> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
> donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
> quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

> You seem to admire the latter.

You are cracked. I made no statement that could be inferred as admiration.

> Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

Give me a ****ing break. You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

>> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
>> guvmint if one does not have to.
>
> If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
> to murder.

It causes a concentration of power. I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

> That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
> misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.

The deliberate misspelling is accorded to your lemming style of "it is
right because they told me it was." Yes, the lemming is certainly lacking.

>>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts
>>> back from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>>> school levies, library levies, etc.
>>
>> My inclination is *not* to do so...
>
> I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.

You're punching air.

>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but
>>> they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>
>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>> there
>
> Absolutely false.

You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL. Again, it is
simply that they apparently don't pay as much as one who deems himself
on the moral high ground (you) think they should.

>>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
>>
>> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.
>
> Sorry, but I am not a socialist.

You are.

> You are once again jumping to
> unwarranted conclusions.

Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders and the socialist way. My
condolances, it must be tough to be in your shoes.

You are not even aware of your own ideological foundations. I can tell
you mine: they "start" (no such real thing) with works like Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ and the _Federalist Papers_. If you want to attack
the foundations, now you know where to start.

> It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
> discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
> little for you.

I know bull**** when I smell it. It did that for me.

> Buzz off.

Sounds like you've been coasting for a little too long. Time to muscle up.

[G.T.]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.
>

He probably is but that's not the point. It's clear that those people
Frank are talking about wouldn't pay ANYTHING if given the choice. What
the **** is wrong about people paying to best of their ability. I know
plenty of rich democrats and rich republicans, and it sure ain't the
republicans who are contributing to the upkeep of our communities.


>
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
> defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>

There's not just a few filthy rich folks, if you haven't noticed the middle
class is disappeaing.

>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?

Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.

>
> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
> I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
> (democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
> must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
> millions of highly moral religious leaders

"Millions of highly moral religious leaders"? You're joking, right? Or do
you mean war-mongering, greedy, intolerant, hypocritical Christians that
are so far from Christ's path that it's pathetic?

Greg

[G.T.]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.
>

He probably is but that's not the point. It's clear that those people
Frank are talking about wouldn't pay ANYTHING if given the choice. What
the **** is wrong about people paying to best of their ability. I know
plenty of rich democrats and rich republicans, and it sure ain't the
republicans who are contributing to the upkeep of our communities.


>
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
> defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>

There's not just a few filthy rich folks, if you haven't noticed the middle
class is disappeaing.

>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?

Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.

>
> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
> I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
> (democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
> must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
> millions of highly moral religious leaders

"Millions of highly moral religious leaders"? You're joking, right? Or do
you mean war-mongering, greedy, intolerant, hypocritical Christians that
are so far from Christ's path that it's pathetic?

Greg

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.

Hmmm. I don't see where I said that. Such a transparent straw man
argument isn't likely to fool anyone with any intelligence.

>> [fk:] Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
>> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
>> ages. Pay us no mind.
>
>
> Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
> don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
> someone makes sense, which you do not.

Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!


>
>>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>>
>>
>> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the
>> personal fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer
>> history, Louis XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not
>> "spending in a reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or
>> small family) really need?
>>
>> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly
>> and donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who
>> live quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).

For me, those are parts of "the question." Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

> On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

> You are cracked.

Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!


>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
> Give me a ****ing break...

.... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

> You could confiscate all his wealth and not
> put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
> grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
> Preposterous!

To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich. Partly
as a result of those tax cuts, the federal deficity soared. It will
have to be repaid.

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks
>> close to murder.
>
> It causes a concentration of power.

Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

> I'm not saying there are no
> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
> concentration of power as much as possible.

That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money. In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

>>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't)
>>>> but they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>>> there
>>
>>
>> Absolutely false.
>
>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.

There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers. Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way. And
again, they've refused to help with even local school levies on several
occasions.


> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.

It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective. The last
time I took a survey on my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center. Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge. From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!

You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position. It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Frank Krygowski]

gwhite wrote:
>
>
>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.

Hmmm. I don't see where I said that. Such a transparent straw man
argument isn't likely to fool anyone with any intelligence.

>> [fk:] Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
>> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
>> ages. Pay us no mind.
>
>
> Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
> don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
> someone makes sense, which you do not.

Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!


>
>>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.
>>
>>
>> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the
>> personal fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer
>> history, Louis XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not
>> "spending in a reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or
>> small family) really need?
>>
>> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly
>> and donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who
>> live quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).

For me, those are parts of "the question." Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

> On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

> You are cracked.

Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!


>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
> Give me a ****ing break...

.... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

> You could confiscate all his wealth and not
> put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
> grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
> Preposterous!

To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich. Partly
as a result of those tax cuts, the federal deficity soared. It will
have to be repaid.

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks
>> close to murder.
>
> It causes a concentration of power.

Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

> I'm not saying there are no
> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
> concentration of power as much as possible.

That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money. In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

>>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't)
>>>> but they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>>> there
>>
>>
>> Absolutely false.
>
>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.

There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers. Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way. And
again, they've refused to help with even local school levies on several
occasions.


> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.

It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective. The last
time I took a survey on my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center. Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge. From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!

You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position. It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Tim McNamara]

gwhite > writes:

> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
a politcal philosophy that works.

[Tim McNamara]

gwhite > writes:

> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
a politcal philosophy that works.

[Tim McNamara]

Tim McNamara > writes:

> gwhite > writes:
>
>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
>> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
>> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
>> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
>> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
>> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
> government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
> rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
> seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
> a politcal philosophy that works.

I apologize for my poor proofreading of this before I posted it.
Sheesh, how embarrassing.

[Tim McNamara]

Tim McNamara > writes:

> gwhite > writes:
>
>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
>> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
>> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
>> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
>> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
>> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
> government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
> rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
> seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
> a politcal philosophy that works.

I apologize for my poor proofreading of this before I posted it.
Sheesh, how embarrassing.

[Mark Hickey]

(JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>> (Jonesy) wrote:
>>
>> >You will notice Mark even defends the
>> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
>> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
>> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
>> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
>> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>>
>> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
>> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
>> the veracity of that fact.
>
>Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
>how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
>known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
>one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
>Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
>that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

I tripped over the history of that incident a while ago. I don't
recall the source of the confusion (as I recall, Ken Lay DID stay at
the White House, but not in the Lincoln bedroom). It was a great
"story" and made the rounds in pretty short order.

Still, if we discount any sources of "news" (op-ed or otherwise) that
has an occasional gaff, we're going to have to be rely on our own eyes
(and even they'll let us down occasionally).

FWIW... I look at Rush as mainly entertainment.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>> (Jonesy) wrote:
>>
>> >You will notice Mark even defends the
>> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
>> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
>> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
>> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
>> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
>>
>> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
>> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
>> the veracity of that fact.
>
>Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
>how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
>known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
>one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
>Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
>that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

I tripped over the history of that incident a while ago. I don't
recall the source of the confusion (as I recall, Ken Lay DID stay at
the White House, but not in the Lincoln bedroom). It was a great
"story" and made the rounds in pretty short order.

Still, if we discount any sources of "news" (op-ed or otherwise) that
has an occasional gaff, we're going to have to be rely on our own eyes
(and even they'll let us down occasionally).

FWIW... I look at Rush as mainly entertainment.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"G.T." > wrote:

>> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?
>
>Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
>Absolutely.

Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.

(the above based on 2001 tax data - there is a wealth of statistical
information about actual income vs. tax trends there that surpise most
people who read it...)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"G.T." > wrote:

>> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?
>
>Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
>Absolutely.

Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.

(the above based on 2001 tax data - there is a wealth of statistical
information about actual income vs. tax trends there that surpise most
people who read it...)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "G.T." > wrote:
>
>
>>>You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>>>taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?
>>
>>Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
>>Absolutely.
>
>
> Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
> 32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
> Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
> since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.
>

Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
to pay so much.

Greg

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "G.T." > wrote:
>
>
>>>You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>>>taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?
>>
>>Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
>>Absolutely.
>
>
> Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
> 32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
> Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
> since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.
>

Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
to pay so much.

Greg

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
rich to the middle and lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....

Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
rich to the middle and lower classes.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[JP]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> >> (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
> >>
> >> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> >> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> >> the veracity of that fact.
> >
> >Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
> >how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
> >known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
> >one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
> >Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
> >that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.
>
> I tripped over the history of that incident a while ago. I don't
> recall the source of the confusion (as I recall, Ken Lay DID stay at
> the White House, but not in the Lincoln bedroom). It was a great
> "story" and made the rounds in pretty short order.

Ken Lay never stayed at the White House when Clinton was president; he
did, however, stay at the Governor's Mansion in Austin while Bush was
governor. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

It *was* a great story that made the rounds long enough to help
deflect Bush's relationship with Lay as Enron was tanking. Petit
critics like myself found ourselves defending Clinton rather than
talking about Bush and the GOP's close relationship with Enron. It was
a great story, it served its masters well, and was then buried with
full honors.

The widespread lie to deflect attention from Bush is a favorite of
Karl Rove, and it works.

JP

[JP]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (JP) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> >> (Jonesy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >> >never wrong, on anything, ever.
> >>
> >> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> >> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> >> the veracity of that fact.
> >
> >Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
> >how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
> >known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
> >one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
> >Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
> >that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.
>
> I tripped over the history of that incident a while ago. I don't
> recall the source of the confusion (as I recall, Ken Lay DID stay at
> the White House, but not in the Lincoln bedroom). It was a great
> "story" and made the rounds in pretty short order.

Ken Lay never stayed at the White House when Clinton was president; he
did, however, stay at the Governor's Mansion in Austin while Bush was
governor. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

It *was* a great story that made the rounds long enough to help
deflect Bush's relationship with Lay as Enron was tanking. Petit
critics like myself found ourselves defending Clinton rather than
talking about Bush and the GOP's close relationship with Enron. It was
a great story, it served its masters well, and was then buried with
full honors.

The widespread lie to deflect attention from Bush is a favorite of
Karl Rove, and it works.

JP

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Mark Hickey

>FWIW... I look at Rush as mainly entertainment.

Like calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog"?

http://tinyurl.com/2vrjk

Rush is scum. --Tom Paterson

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Mark Hickey

>FWIW... I look at Rush as mainly entertainment.

Like calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog"?

http://tinyurl.com/2vrjk

Rush is scum. --Tom Paterson

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"G.T." > wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "G.T." > wrote:

> > Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
> > 32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
> > Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
> > since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.
> >
>
> Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
> to pay so much.

I think you (for a joke?) misunderstand Mark. If you look at the 95th
percentile of income earners in the US, as a group they account for 53%
of the income tax revenue.

There is a bit of the US tax code which sets a minimum income tax rate
for people above a certain income. If you make more than X and your
deductions take you below Y% of your income as tax paid, then you pay Y%
anyways.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article >,
"G.T." > wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "G.T." > wrote:

> > Errrr, then why do the upper 5% pay 53.3% of the total income tax (on
> > 32% of the income)? Doesn't sound like they really "escaped" to me.
> > Their percentage of the total tax burden has been steadily climbing
> > since it was in the mid-30 percentages back in the early 1980s.
> >
>
> Well, if so many of them weren't evading taxes maybe those 5% wouldn't have
> to pay so much.

I think you (for a joke?) misunderstand Mark. If you look at the 95th
percentile of income earners in the US, as a group they account for 53%
of the income tax revenue.

There is a bit of the US tax code which sets a minimum income tax rate
for people above a certain income. If you make more than X and your
deductions take you below Y% of your income as tax paid, then you pay Y%
anyways.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

[gwhite]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> gwhite > writes:
>
>
>>The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>>individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
>>designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
>>of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
>>perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
>>balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
>>not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
>
> Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
> government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
> rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
> seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
> a politcal philosophy that works.


No one is a serf of Bill Gates. Microcraps success is not guaranteed.
I don't think you and any of the other resident socialists are ones to
complain about "binary thinking."

[gwhite]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> gwhite > writes:
>
>
>>The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>>individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
>>designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
>>of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
>>perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
>>balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
>>not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
>
> Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
> government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
> rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
> seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
> a politcal philosophy that works.


No one is a serf of Bill Gates. Microcraps success is not guaranteed.
I don't think you and any of the other resident socialists are ones to
complain about "binary thinking."

[gwhite]

Not really tuning in, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
>>
>> superior to evil rich folks.
>
>
> Hmmm. I don't see where I said that.

"And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes."

"I'd think that people who had more money than they could ever hope of
spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of social
conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes."

"But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school levies, library levies,
etc. These (and many others) are things I am happy to support with my
money."

[Funny, it's like a physical law for you. So "always" follow the
equation: "I _always_ vote..."]

"I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community."

> Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
> avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!

My personal opinion of one of the many vices isn't what I'm talking about.

>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).
>
> For me, those are parts of "the question."

Sure you do. That's how you justify sticking your hand in someone
else's pocket.

> Clearly, you care much more
> about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

Yes. I have better things to do than glad-hand myself about how moral I
am while thinking of how rotten someone else more well off than I is,
and who lives out in the cornfield. I have better things to do than
moral grandstanding because they don't have pet socialist projects they
want to force everyone else to buy into where there is no market failure.

>> On the balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral
>> or not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
> rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
> won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

You can thank capitalism and the market system for taming the beast.
Freedom is a delicate. It is certainly more important than a few
cornfield millionaires. Armageddon already happened. More than once.
Millions upon millions died.

You grossly misrepresent the point. There is no implied (or other)
appreciation in and of itself of anyone getting rich or of any
appreciation of unequal wealth distribution. Again, it is only a
tradeoff accepted that some fortunes will occur, when considering the
political economy as a whole. It isn't about perfection, it is about
avoiding something worse: concentration of power.

>> You are cracked.
>
> Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!

Frank, again you misunderstand. I wasn't being witty.

>>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
>> Give me a ****ing break...
>
> ... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
> more.

Okay, let me put it the old way: You are cracked.

>> You could confiscate all his wealth and not put a dent in the debt.
>> And by the way, it isn't your kids and grandkids money that is paying
>> for the mansion, it is his money. Preposterous!
>
> To spell it out more slowly for you:
>
> Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich.

Who is talking about Bill Gates taxes or George Bush's tax cuts?

> Partly as a result of those tax cuts,
> the federal deficity soared.

Of course, politicians can't control themselves, which is why I say to
take them out of the picture as much as possible and not to blindly pay
taxes. Sure, Washington spending should be cut, so the current deficit
is smaller. (It is normal to run a deficit in wartime.)

The downsizing won't happen though if we keep voting for tweedledee or
tweedledum. Like David Stockman said "sacred cows run in herds."

> It will
> have to be repaid.

I'm surprised you finally nailed one. Horray for Frank!

> In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
> bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

What a crock. It isn't *your* money Frank. Get that through your
noggin. If you are so high and mighty, and have all the good ideas, why
not test them in the real world by _making your own money_ and putting
it wherever you please? You can't. Why get your own money when you can
simply confiscate someone elses?

>>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks close to murder.
>>
>> It causes a concentration of power.
>
> Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
> as bad as murder??

I believe that people of good will can unwittingly set the stage for
persons of a different type.

"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own weapons. . . . If democracy is so stupid as to
give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its
affair. . . . We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come
as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."
-- Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), German Nazi leader, minister of
propaganda. Der Angriff (Berlin, 30 April 1928).

Freedom is a delicate.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson

> > I'm not saying there are no
>
>> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
>> concentration of power as much as possible.
>
> That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
> power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
> in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
> of money.

You are ignorant. No one remotely stated that government and the rule
of law ("Absent government intervention") should "disappear." No one
has remotely proposed anarchy.

> In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
> exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
> think of the Mafia running the country.

tap...tap...tap...twiddle...twiddle...twiddle

> One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
> dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
> people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
> the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
> likes of Al Capone.

Thanks for making that quick.

>> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.
>
>
> There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
> developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
> budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
> maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
> buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
> personnel, all make these things money losers.

LOL. Maybe they are "money losers." Maybe just like when the community
built that infrastructure that supports the house you live in all those
years ago.

Of course, once one group "gets theirs," they want to lock out the same
benefit to others. Corruption is rampant. So the solution is: get the
goverment out of as much of that infrastructure business as possible.
Let *you* pay for the road to your house. Let the cornfield
millionaires pay for the road to their house. Let *you* pay for the cop
in your town. Let the cornfield millionaires pay for the cop in the
cornfield.

I'm all for folks paying for their own stuff, including you. Gosh,
you're almost suggesting people should pay for what they get. I think
we have a natal libertarian on our hands.

> Simultaneously, they
> lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
> thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
> suburbs.

Crock. They didn't "cause" the undesireability of any existing housing.
Its undesireability is why they didn't go there in the first place.

> So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way.

I doubt you paid your way either when they built your street.

> And again, they've refused to help with even
> local school levies on several occasions.

So what if they did? Maybe they have a good reason.

These "horrible rich folks" were probably doing the most moral thing
possible in resisting more levies for the public school monolith: caring
about the education of our children. And you condemn them for it.

>> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.
>
> It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective.

It really isn't.

> The last time I took a survey on
> my economic views, I placed quite close to the
> nation's center.

No ****. That only says there are a lot of people whose beliefs have
roots in socialist ideology. Don't waste time denying it. Use your
time justifying it: it is your belief system!

> Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
> libertarian edge.

LOL.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1976/index.html
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1974/index.html

Your argument is not appeal to authority, but to run-of-the-mill
commonality. "Lots of other folks believe it, so it is therefore
correct." So when you grade student's papers you simply call out the
correct answer as the most common one. No wonder the cornfield
millionaires don't want to pay more levies for public schools.

> From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
> look like a socialist!`
> You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
> that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
> that come from hard thinking.
>
> So I won't try to convert you to any rational position.
>
> It would be a
> waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
> throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.
>
> Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
> readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

Frank, I don't give a crap what you decide to do, one way or the other.

[gwhite]

Not really tuning in, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
>>
>> superior to evil rich folks.
>
>
> Hmmm. I don't see where I said that.

"And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes."

"I'd think that people who had more money than they could ever hope of
spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of social
conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes."

"But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school levies, library levies,
etc. These (and many others) are things I am happy to support with my
money."

[Funny, it's like a physical law for you. So "always" follow the
equation: "I _always_ vote..."]

"I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community."

> Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
> avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!

My personal opinion of one of the many vices isn't what I'm talking about.

>> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
>> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).
>
> For me, those are parts of "the question."

Sure you do. That's how you justify sticking your hand in someone
else's pocket.

> Clearly, you care much more
> about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

Yes. I have better things to do than glad-hand myself about how moral I
am while thinking of how rotten someone else more well off than I is,
and who lives out in the cornfield. I have better things to do than
moral grandstanding because they don't have pet socialist projects they
want to force everyone else to buy into where there is no market failure.

>> On the balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral
>> or not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>
> I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
> rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
> won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

You can thank capitalism and the market system for taming the beast.
Freedom is a delicate. It is certainly more important than a few
cornfield millionaires. Armageddon already happened. More than once.
Millions upon millions died.

You grossly misrepresent the point. There is no implied (or other)
appreciation in and of itself of anyone getting rich or of any
appreciation of unequal wealth distribution. Again, it is only a
tradeoff accepted that some fortunes will occur, when considering the
political economy as a whole. It isn't about perfection, it is about
avoiding something worse: concentration of power.

>> You are cracked.
>
> Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!

Frank, again you misunderstand. I wasn't being witty.

>>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.
>
>> Give me a ****ing break...
>
> ... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
> more.

Okay, let me put it the old way: You are cracked.

>> You could confiscate all his wealth and not put a dent in the debt.
>> And by the way, it isn't your kids and grandkids money that is paying
>> for the mansion, it is his money. Preposterous!
>
> To spell it out more slowly for you:
>
> Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich.

Who is talking about Bill Gates taxes or George Bush's tax cuts?

> Partly as a result of those tax cuts,
> the federal deficity soared.

Of course, politicians can't control themselves, which is why I say to
take them out of the picture as much as possible and not to blindly pay
taxes. Sure, Washington spending should be cut, so the current deficit
is smaller. (It is normal to run a deficit in wartime.)

The downsizing won't happen though if we keep voting for tweedledee or
tweedledum. Like David Stockman said "sacred cows run in herds."

> It will
> have to be repaid.

I'm surprised you finally nailed one. Horray for Frank!

> In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
> bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

What a crock. It isn't *your* money Frank. Get that through your
noggin. If you are so high and mighty, and have all the good ideas, why
not test them in the real world by _making your own money_ and putting
it wherever you please? You can't. Why get your own money when you can
simply confiscate someone elses?

>>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks close to murder.
>>
>> It causes a concentration of power.
>
> Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
> as bad as murder??

I believe that people of good will can unwittingly set the stage for
persons of a different type.

"We enter parliament in order to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of
democracy, with its own weapons. . . . If democracy is so stupid as to
give us free tickets and salaries for this bear's work, that is its
affair. . . . We do not come as friends, nor even as neutrals. We come
as enemies. As the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come."
-- Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), German Nazi leader, minister of
propaganda. Der Angriff (Berlin, 30 April 1928).

Freedom is a delicate.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-- Thomas Jefferson

> > I'm not saying there are no
>
>> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
>> concentration of power as much as possible.
>
> That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
> power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
> in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
> of money.

You are ignorant. No one remotely stated that government and the rule
of law ("Absent government intervention") should "disappear." No one
has remotely proposed anarchy.

> In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
> exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
> think of the Mafia running the country.

tap...tap...tap...twiddle...twiddle...twiddle

> One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
> dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
> people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
> the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
> likes of Al Capone.

Thanks for making that quick.

>> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
>> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.
>
>
> There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
> developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
> budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
> maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
> buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
> personnel, all make these things money losers.

LOL. Maybe they are "money losers." Maybe just like when the community
built that infrastructure that supports the house you live in all those
years ago.

Of course, once one group "gets theirs," they want to lock out the same
benefit to others. Corruption is rampant. So the solution is: get the
goverment out of as much of that infrastructure business as possible.
Let *you* pay for the road to your house. Let the cornfield
millionaires pay for the road to their house. Let *you* pay for the cop
in your town. Let the cornfield millionaires pay for the cop in the
cornfield.

I'm all for folks paying for their own stuff, including you. Gosh,
you're almost suggesting people should pay for what they get. I think
we have a natal libertarian on our hands.

> Simultaneously, they
> lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
> thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
> suburbs.

Crock. They didn't "cause" the undesireability of any existing housing.
Its undesireability is why they didn't go there in the first place.

> So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way.

I doubt you paid your way either when they built your street.

> And again, they've refused to help with even
> local school levies on several occasions.

So what if they did? Maybe they have a good reason.

These "horrible rich folks" were probably doing the most moral thing
possible in resisting more levies for the public school monolith: caring
about the education of our children. And you condemn them for it.

>> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.
>
> It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective.

It really isn't.

> The last time I took a survey on
> my economic views, I placed quite close to the
> nation's center.

No ****. That only says there are a lot of people whose beliefs have
roots in socialist ideology. Don't waste time denying it. Use your
time justifying it: it is your belief system!

> Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
> libertarian edge.

LOL.
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1976/index.html
http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1974/index.html

Your argument is not appeal to authority, but to run-of-the-mill
commonality. "Lots of other folks believe it, so it is therefore
correct." So when you grade student's papers you simply call out the
correct answer as the most common one. No wonder the cornfield
millionaires don't want to pay more levies for public schools.

> From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
> look like a socialist!`
> You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
> that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
> that come from hard thinking.
>
> So I won't try to convert you to any rational position.
>
> It would be a
> waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
> throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.
>
> Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
> readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

Frank, I don't give a crap what you decide to do, one way or the other.

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....
>
>Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
>indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

>In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
>from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
>as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
>federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
>rich to the middle and lower classes.

Do you have any stats on that? In states I've lived in the state
taxes aren't more regressive (or they're non-existent).

But your argument is setting up a hopeless Catch-22. Cut taxes and
you're hurting the poor because they get taxed even more at the local
level? I don't buy that for a second - the more local the collection
and disbursement of public funds remains, the more effective and
efficient it is.

I don't really want the federal government taking over more and more
of the responsibility and control that should lie with the state and
local governments. It's just not an efficient way to do things, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....
>
>Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
>indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.

You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

>In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
>from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
>as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
>federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
>rich to the middle and lower classes.

Do you have any stats on that? In states I've lived in the state
taxes aren't more regressive (or they're non-existent).

But your argument is setting up a hopeless Catch-22. Cut taxes and
you're hurting the poor because they get taxed even more at the local
level? I don't buy that for a second - the more local the collection
and disbursement of public funds remains, the more effective and
efficient it is.

I don't really want the federal government taking over more and more
of the responsibility and control that should lie with the state and
local governments. It's just not an efficient way to do things, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[gwhite]

JP wrote:
>
> Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
> plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
> NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm


> > It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
> > political silly season
>
> The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> white collar jobs.

Nonsense. It has always gotten a lot of attention.

> When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> they be retrained for?

For wherever the new jobs are.

http://tinyurl.com/29j32
http://tinyurl.com/yseny


> Perhaps as a "food service worker"?

I suppose, if that's all they can find, or want to do.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1916/

[gwhite]

JP wrote:
>
> Everyone knows that Kyoto is flawed, but as an alternative to the Bush
> plan, pretending that global warming doesn't exist and therefore doing
> NOTHING, it's got a lot to recommend it.

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm


> > It's just gotten a lot of added interest during the
> > political silly season
>
> The reason it's gotten a lot of interest is that it's now happening to
> white collar jobs.

Nonsense. It has always gotten a lot of attention.

> When an accountant's job is off-shored, what should
> they be retrained for?

For wherever the new jobs are.

http://tinyurl.com/29j32
http://tinyurl.com/yseny


> Perhaps as a "food service worker"?

I suppose, if that's all they can find, or want to do.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1916/

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>>>are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....
>>
>>Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
>>indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.
>
>
> You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

I know nothing of the sort. I have observed that it is often not wise to
try to guess what was in the mind of Usenet posters.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
>>>are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....
>>
>>Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
>>indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.
>
>
> You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

I know nothing of the sort. I have observed that it is often not wise to
try to guess what was in the mind of Usenet posters.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> ...
> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> that well-plowed land again....

No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
global warming is a significant threat to US security.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[David Kerber]

In article >, says...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> > cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> > at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> > (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> > that well-plowed land again....
>
> No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
> funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
> global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
> attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
> left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
> global warming is a significant threat to US security.

ROTFL!


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
>> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
>> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
>> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
>> that well-plowed land again....
>
>No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
>funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
>global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
>attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
>left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
>global warming is a significant threat to US security.

You need to do some more reading on the subject. The best data on the
subject shows that there has been a net cooling trend - not a warming
trend. If you are as old as I am, you should remember the hysteria
that we were entering another ice age from a couple decades ago.

Those pushing the global warming agenda tend to be those who are
raking in lots of research dollars doing it. There are petitions
signed by tens of thousands of scientists who believe the science and
methods used to come to the conclusion that global warming is
happening are flawed.

But don't take my word for it - look up the NOAA data on temperature
trends.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Frank Krygowski]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> You need to do some more reading on the subject. The best data on the
> subject shows that there has been a net cooling trend - not a warming
> trend. If you are as old as I am, you should remember the hysteria
> that we were entering another ice age from a couple decades ago.

I probably am at least as old as you are. Here's what I remember from
that time period.

The worry was about "Nuclear Winter." Carl Sagan was one of the
scientists prominently discussing this. At the time, between the US and
the USSR, there were enough nuclear warheads to thoroughly destroy world
civilization several times over. But Sagan and others pointed out that
a similar effect could happen without literally exploding civilization away.

They pointed out that nuclear explosions loft dust and soot into the
upper atmosphere, and that the effect of a moderately large number of
such explosions would be shading the earth from the sun's rays.
Depending on the volume of dust and soot, this could cause anything from
some disastrous harvests to severe climate changes to an ice age.

For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known
as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted
with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.)

People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
that sort of catastrophe.

Massive nuclear war and the attendant nuclear winter never happened.
But that's hardly jusification for saying that global warming isn't
occurring.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[David Kerber]

In article >, says...

....

> For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
> triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
> At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known
> as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted
> with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.)
>
> People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
> top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
> diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
> that sort of catastrophe.

Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited
in it's then-popular form...


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Frank Krygowski]

David Kerber wrote:

> In article >, says...
>
> ...
>
>
>>For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
>>triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
>> At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known
>>as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted
>>with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.)
>>
>>People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
>>top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
>>diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
>>that sort of catastrophe.
>
>
> Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited
> in it's then-popular form...

And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even more
irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark.



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

[Bernie]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> David Kerber wrote:
>
>> In article >, says...
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
>>> triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark
>>> Ages. At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano
>>> later known as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible.
>>> (Krakatoa erupted with much less force in the 1800s, but still
>>> caused significant turmoil.)
>>>
>>> People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at
>>> the top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads
>>> has diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to
>>> trigger that sort of catastrophe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been
>> discredited in it's then-popular form...
>
>
> And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even
> more irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark.
>
>
David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the
"Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a
ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age.
Bernie

>

[Mark Hickey]

Frank Krygowski > wrote:

>David Kerber wrote:
>
>> In article >, says...

>>>For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
>>>triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark Ages.
>>> At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano later known
>>>as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible. (Krakatoa erupted
>>>with much less force in the 1800s, but still caused significant turmoil.)
>>>
>>>People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
>>>top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
>>>diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
>>>that sort of catastrophe.
>>
>> Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited
>> in it's then-popular form...
>
>And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even more
>irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark.

I wasn't talking about "nuclear winter" but about the absolutely
positively terrifying scientific reality of (drum roll...) "global
cooling" that was just as popular in the 70's as the "global warming"
theory is today. Give it another 30 years, and I predict we'll all be
worried about hoarding polypro underwear again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[David Kerber]

In article >, says...

....

> >>People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at the
> >>top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads has
> >>diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to trigger
> >>that sort of catastrophe.
> >
> >
> > Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been discredited
> > in it's then-popular form...
>
> And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even more
> irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark.

Definitely!


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Kerber]

In article >, bmcilvan@mouse-
potato.com says...
>
>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > David Kerber wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, says...
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> >>> For reference, something like this is now widely thought to have
> >>> triggered a worldwide economic crash at the beginning of the Dark
> >>> Ages. At that time, it was an earlier explosion of the volcano
> >>> later known as Krakatoa that is thought to have been responsible.
> >>> (Krakatoa erupted with much less force in the 1800s, but still
> >>> caused significant turmoil.)
> >>>
> >>> People took the Nuclear Winter issue seriously, including people at
> >>> the top of the relevant governments. The number of nuclear warheads
> >>> has diminished greatly - although we probably still retain enough to
> >>> trigger that sort of catastrophe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, since then the "nuclear winter" theory has been
> >> discredited in it's then-popular form...
> >
> >
> > And we can chase that issue down another sub-thread. But it's even
> > more irrelevant than Mark's recurring "ice age" remark.
> >
> >
> David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the
> "Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a
> ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age.

It wasn't me who said that; look at the indenting level, it was two
levels of posts before mine.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Bernie]

David Kerber wrote:

>>>
>>David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the
>>"Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a
>>ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age.
>>
>
>It wasn't me who said that; look at the indenting level, it was two
>levels of posts before mine.
>
>
Right you are. Sorry bout that. I see Frank wasn't quite saying that
either. Volcanoes have caused dark years at times.
Bernie

[David Kerber]

In article >, bmcilvan@mouse-
potato.com says...
>
>
> David Kerber wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the
> >>"Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a
> >>ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age.
> >>
> >
> >It wasn't me who said that; look at the indenting level, it was two
> >levels of posts before mine.
> >
> >
> Right you are. Sorry bout that. I see Frank wasn't quite saying that
> either. Volcanoes have caused dark years at times.

That is certainly true, but I don't know if the "mini ice age" was
connected to one or not. There was a time in the early 1800's which was
called "the year without a summer" in New England, which IIRC was caused
by the eruption of Tambora.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Here's a clue... global warming doesn't exist. There's been a net
> >> cooling trend for decades, and the effect of the Kyoto accord would be
> >> at best a small fraction of 1 degree centigrade over the next century
> >> (at a truly horrendous cost to the US economy). But let's not go over
> >> that well-plowed land again....
> >
> >No climatologists believe the above except those on the payrolls (or
> >funded by) the hydrocarbon extraction industry. The consensus is that
> >global warming is taking place, but the US corporate media pays undue
> >attention to the few climatoligists that disagree. Even that hotbed of
> >left-wing radicals, the US Department of Defense now believes that
> >global warming is a significant threat to US security.
>
> You need to do some more reading on the subject.

Good advice. You should take it. Include in your research real,
peer-reviewed studies, not some quote from the Rush Limbaugh website.

> The best data on the
> subject shows that there has been a net cooling trend - not a warming
> trend.

Tell that to the permafrost, glaciers and polar ice caps. They will
be quite relieved to hear that all this time they have been growing,
instead of shrinking, in size.

> Those pushing the global warming agenda tend to be those who are
> raking in lots of research dollars doing it.

Ad hominem commentary means that your argument is lost:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

> There are petitions
> signed by tens of thousands of scientists who believe the science and
> methods used to come to the conclusion that global warming is
> happening are flawed.

"Scientists" is nebulous term. Climatologists?

> But don't take my word for it - look up the NOAA data on temperature
> trends.

What about the data on shrinking glaciers and ice caps? Maybe physics
are different in Right-Wing-Land?
--
Jonesy

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>
> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.

I suppose trying to reverse Clinton's declaration of National Monument
status for Escalante (mining interests want coal there) and
overturning national forest roadless rules somehow count as
environmentalism?

Go figure.
--
Jonesy

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Right... (what's your point?). The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts mean there
> >> are 4 million more people who pay no taxes at all....
> >
> >Really? So these people pay no sales, payroll, property (directly or
> >indirectly through rent payments), excise and other taxes? News to me.
>
> You KNOW I meant "federal income taxes".

Those are not the only federal taxes folks pay.

> >In many cases tax cuts at the Federal level merely shift the tax burden
> >from progressive income taxes to more regressive state and local taxes,
> >as the state and local governments compensate for the reduction in
> >federal funding. A portion of the overall tax burden is shifted from the
> >rich to the middle and lower classes.
>
> Do you have any stats on that? In states I've lived in the state
> taxes aren't more regressive (or they're non-existent).

Sales taxes are thought to be regressive. I'm not sure about that -
they seem pretty fair to me. But they certainly are not progressive.
One might say that since they are not as progressive, they are more
regressive, but that's just pedantic word-play, and we don't want
that, now do we?

> But your argument is setting up a hopeless Catch-22. Cut taxes and
> you're hurting the poor because they get taxed even more at the local
> level? I don't buy that for a second

If local property, sales and excise taxes are raised, then yes, indeed
you're passing the burden down the economic ladder.

> the more local the collection
> and disbursement of public funds remains, the more effective and
> efficient it is.

A claim without a shred of proof. Local corruption can be widespread,
but federal-level corruption is much more isolated and rare.

> I don't really want the federal government taking over more and more
> of the responsibility and control that should lie with the state and
> local governments. It's just not an efficient way to do things, IMHO.

Efficient and equitable might not be the same thing. It would be much
more efficient to have a national sales tax on everything. And that
certainly would be equitable - maybe. But the places with the
highests costs would be paying more (if the sales tax were a
percentage) and the places with lowest costs would pay less. Which
might not be equitable. In addition, it would stimulate conservation,
which wouldn't be good in a consumer-based economy.

But I take from your comment above that you are opposed to No Child
Left Behind?
--
Jonesy

[Jonesy]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> (JP) wrote:
> >Mark Hickey > wrote...
>
> >See Paul Krugman ins today's NYT:
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
>
> Can't - it requires a subscription. Besides, the NYT isn't the most
> reliable, unbiased source of news on the planet (akin to me posting a
> link to something on Rush's blog). ;-)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

> >It's a farce. It is severely underfunded because it does not do the
> >fundamental thing that is needed to improve our public schools:
> >provide money for teaching, as opposed to providing some (but not
> >enough, even) money for testing students. You want the students to
> >pass the tests, you gotta pay for the facilities and teachers they
> >need to learn. (Or you could just cheat, like they do in Texas.)
>
> Or, you could just throw more money at the failing public schools and
> expect them to get better.

Like national security or intelligence?

> They won't - it's clear there's little
> correlation between money spent and results. Washington DC has the
> highest spending per student and the worst results.

Why? Does correlation imply causation?

> Until the schools are held accountable to some measurable standard,
> it's NOT going to get better. I wish there was another alternative
> (one that would work, that is). Throwing money at the problem
> certainly won't fix it.

Like national security or intelligence?

> >> I think we covered that pretty well. It was a broad based tax cut -
> >> top to bottom... what portion of the US taxpayers did it miss (other
> >> than - obviously - the large number who already didn't pay US federal
> >> income tax).
> >
> >The large number who don't pay federal income tax nevertheless pay
> >Medicare and Social Security payroll tax. Their tax revenues are being
> >used to cover part of the deficit created by the Bush taxcuts. In
> >other words, those payroll taxes are being used as general tax revenue
> >by the government. Why shouldn't they be entitled to a taxcut as well?
>
> Because the two programs are funded in expectation of receiving an
> eventual return.

Except that's not the way they actually run, as if that actually
mattered.

> >> >Amazing to what degree the Bush administration depends on character
> >> >assisnation to defend its policies.
> >>
> >> Right... exposing the fallacies presented in O'Neill's and Clarke's
> >> books is "character assassination". Both of these guys were demoted
> >> of fired under the Bush presidency. Both made a lot of money writing
> >> a Bush-bashing book.
> >
> >O'Neill did not write a book, he gave extensive interview; and he was
> >already incredibly wealthy. It strains credulity to suggest that he
> >criticized the policy-making process in the Bush White House for the
> >money.
>
> Money, power, fame - whatever.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

> Clarke is obviously a liar, based on nothing more than his own
> statements.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

> >> How else are they going to get $750 ahead via the tax cut?
> >
> >Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax.
>
> Do we cut their benefit as well then?

What does one thing have to do with another? As long as there is no
account in which the money is saved, it's just another income tax,
named something else. We all get SOME return out of all of our tax
dollars. Roads, military, etc. As long as it all goes into one pot,
one tax cut should look like another, right?

> >> What's your point? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay only around 4% of
> >> the total US federal income taxes. How much less can they pay?
> >
> >They pay a lot more than 4% federal income taxes. Just because you
> >refuse to admit that Social Security and Medicare taxes are income
> >taxes does not mean that they are not. Social Security and Medicare
> >taxes ARE federal income taxes.
>
> They are programs that return value directly to the investors - just
> like any other insurance policies / annuities.

I would consider good roads a direct return on my gas tax dollar as
well. Just because you wish to define SS/MC as something different
does not mean they actually are. They are federal programs funded by
taxes on income. The fact that they return fungible assets at some
later time doesn't make them substantially different from oh,
education spending.

> Are you suggesting
> that we should rework the system so that some pay in a lot more than
> others for the same benefits?

How about those making over ~$80k pay percentage just like those
under?

> >But I'm not even saying that they should pay less; I'm saying that the
> >top 2% should pay more. Those people making a quarter of a million a
> >year under the old tax rates were actually living pretty comfortably.
> >I think they'll survive. Probably won't even have to cut back on their
> >maid service.
>
> What entitles you to demand that they subsidize your tax bill? Just
> curious. I personally think that ~28% is more than enough for anyone
> to pay.

The same right that gives them the idea that somehow they are "owed"
something just because they already have more. If my kids and
grandkid have to pay off the debt incurred because these folks got
their guys into power, then I (and my descendents) are indeed
subsidizing their tax bills.

> >> >
> >> >Please don't try to tell us that things are as good now as they were
> >> >in '96. We know better, and it makes you look like a liar.
> >>
> >> Those were the days all right - but they were being artificially
> >> bolstered by the dot-com bubble.
> >
> >There was not a significant bubble in 96.

It's always odd that somehow Clinton never did anything right, and
that somehow when something happened right, it was just dumb luck or
circumstance that cause the goodness. Nevermind that he disproved the
supply-side economic theory...

--
Jonesy

[Mark Hickey]

(Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:

>> You need to do some more reading on the subject.
>
>Good advice. You should take it. Include in your research real,
>peer-reviewed studies, not some quote from the Rush Limbaugh website.

I never realized that Rush ran NASA. When did that happen?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Jonesy) wrote:

>> Are you suggesting
>> that we should rework the system so that some pay in a lot more than
>> others for the same benefits?
>
>How about those making over ~$80k pay percentage just like those
>under?

Whoo hoo! Sign me up for THAT one.

In case you're wondering, here are the average actual percentages of
adjusted gross income paid by the various income groups... (for 2001):

Top 1% (above 292K) - 27.5%
Top 5% (above 128K) - 23.7%
Top 10% (above 93K) - 21.4%
Top 25% (above 56K) - 18.1%
Top 50% (above 28.5K) - 15.9%
Bottom 50% (below 28.5K) - 4.1%

That's not the gross rate - that's the average percentage of the
income that those paying it never got back.

I don't think you're going to have any trouble convincing the top 10%
to pay "just like those under".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Jonesy) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>>
>> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
>> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.
>
>I suppose trying to reverse Clinton's declaration of National Monument
>status for Escalante (mining interests want coal there) and
>overturning national forest roadless rules somehow count as
>environmentalism?
>
>Go figure.

You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
"environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
summer.

This summer is going to be the worst ever from the looks of it.

But rather than allowing the loggers to (gasp) make a buck (because
the government can't afford to cut down the trees), the
environmentalists would rather lose the entire forest.

Go figure indeed.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Bernie]

David Kerber wrote:

>In article >, bmcilvan@mouse-
>potato.com says...
>
>>
>>David Kerber wrote:
>>
>>>>David are you saying that an earlier eruption of Krakatoa caused the
>>>>"Little Ice Age"? Can you post a reference? I thought it was just a
>>>>ripple in a larger wave - the slow ending of the last real ice age.
>>>>
>>>It wasn't me who said that; look at the indenting level, it was two
>>>levels of posts before mine.
>>>
>>>
>>Right you are. Sorry bout that. I see Frank wasn't quite saying that
>>either. Volcanoes have caused dark years at times.
>>
>
>That is certainly true, but I don't know if the "mini ice age" was
>connected to one or not. There was a time in the early 1800's which was
>called "the year without a summer" in New England, which IIRC was caused
>by the eruption of Tambora.
>
Ya, those "black summers" were caused by big volcanic events, the Little
Ice Age otoh was a 400+ year event starting in the 14th century. It
drove the Norsemen out of Greenland. They had "modern" cities there at
the time, grew grain, erected cathedrals, etc. It appears to be a
ripple in a much bigger wave: near the end of a great ice age, then the
Little Ice Age cooled the northern climate for a few centuries.
Global warming? Maybe, maybe we are just getting back in sync with that
very long warming trend that began with the end of the last great ice age.
Bernie

[G.T.]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey > wrote in message
>...
> >>
> >> But it's interesting you don't find the biggest air pollution
> >> reduction act in over a decade significant. Go figure.
> >
> >I suppose trying to reverse Clinton's declaration of National Monument
> >status for Escalante (mining interests want coal there) and
> >overturning national forest roadless rules somehow count as
> >environmentalism?
> >
> >Go figure.
>
> You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
> liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
> "environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
> resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
> intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
> summer.
>

I don't know what environMENTALists are but environmentalists would have let
the fires burn long before the forests got to be tinderboxes and let nature
run it's course. Unfortunately there were too many influential capitalists
worried about protecting their stolen property to let that happen.

Greg

[Tom Sherman]

JP wrote:

> ...
> No, it is more like about 3 million jobs lost minus 900 thousand
> (crappy) jobs gained back....

A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
businesses.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[Mark Hickey]

"G.T." > wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" > wrote

>> You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
>> liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
>> "environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
>> resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
>> intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
>> summer.
>
>I don't know what environMENTALists are but environmentalists would have let
>the fires burn long before the forests got to be tinderboxes and let nature
>run it's course.

That would have probably been the best approach - but it's too late
now unless we want to just burn it all to the ground (literally) and
wait a couple centuries for it to come back to its natural state.

I don't have *quite* that much patience... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Tom Sherman > wrote:

>A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
>agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
>businesses.

So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
growth".

I suppose by that accounting unemployment must be at well over 100% by
now accumulatively. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark South]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
> >A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
> >agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
> >businesses.
>
> So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
> they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
> growth".

You just broke the code. Standard governmental-type methods, used by G's
everywhere.

> I suppose by that accounting unemployment must be at well over 100% by
> now accumulatively. ;-)

Expect the black helicopters imminently!
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>

[andres muro]

There was a titanium bike thread started a few days ago. Not a peep
from Mark to instruct us about titanium. instead he continues to be
entangled in a purely rhetorical exercise, which at this point is most
likely futile to all parties involved.

So, Mark: if you are engaging in this dialogue purely for fun, please
continue, but do not neglect your duties in this group as a ti expert.

Everyone else: if you are doing this for fun, again, please continue.
However, in reading some of the posts, I can sense the frustration
that some of you may feel. So, how about some titanium?

Andres

Tom Sherman > wrote in message >...
> JP wrote:
>
> > ...
> > No, it is more like about 3 million jobs lost minus 900 thousand
> > (crappy) jobs gained back....
>
> A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
> agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
> businesses.

[Mark Hickey]

(andres muro) wrote:

>There was a titanium bike thread started a few days ago. Not a peep
>from Mark to instruct us about titanium. instead he continues to be
>entangled in a purely rhetorical exercise, which at this point is most
>likely futile to all parties involved.
>
>So, Mark: if you are engaging in this dialogue purely for fun, please
>continue, but do not neglect your duties in this group as a ti expert.

Heh... you must mistake me for an OLD ti expert (ahem...). I think it
was Terry Morse who came up with what I believe is the right answer -
the Teledyne (Titan I think...) was the first production ti bike I am
aware of. That was well before I thought about getting into the bike
business (not long after I learned to RIDE a bike actually...). My
recollection is that they were not overly reliable, and that there
were no "braze-ons" but everything (including the down tube shift
bosses) were bolt-ons.

>Everyone else: if you are doing this for fun, again, please continue.
>However, in reading some of the posts, I can sense the frustration
>that some of you may feel.

I hope I don't "sound" frustrated. Far from it.

>So, how about some titanium?

Yes, please. Whichever candidate shows up on national news riding a
Habby gets MY vote... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "G.T." > wrote:
>
>
>>"Mark Hickey" > wrote
>
>
>>>You should come on out to Arizona to find out how much we all like
>>>liberal northeast environmentalists out here, and what their
>>>"environMENTAL" actions have done to HUGE areas of the forest (now
>>>resembling the surface of the moon). With a few forest roads, some
>>>intelligent thinning of trees we wouldn't lose entire ecosystems every
>>>summer.
>>
>>I don't know what environMENTALists are but environmentalists would have let
>>the fires burn long before the forests got to be tinderboxes and let nature
>>run it's course.
>
>
> That would have probably been the best approach - but it's too late
> now unless we want to just burn it all to the ground (literally) and
> wait a couple centuries for it to come back to its natural state.
>
> I don't have *quite* that much patience... ;-)
>

Damn, I didn't set that hook very well.

Greg

[Tom Sherman]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
>
>>A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
>>agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
>>businesses.
>
>
> So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
> they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
> growth"....

My point is that a jump in employment due to seasonal factors should not
be seen as a sign of economic recovery or long-term job growth. One
needs to factor out regular seasonal variations to determine the true
employment situation.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

[David Kerber]

In article >, says...


> >>A lot of the "job growth" over the last two months are positions in
> >>agriculture and construction. In most of the US, these are seasonal
> >>businesses.
> >
> >
> > So let's see if I understand the principle - during the "off season"
> > they were "lost jobs" but then during the "on season" they're not "job
> > growth"....
>
> My point is that a jump in employment due to seasonal factors should not
> be seen as a sign of economic recovery or long-term job growth. One
> needs to factor out regular seasonal variations to determine the true
> employment situation.

They do; all jobs reports use the term "seasonally adjusted" in the
official announcement. Whether or not the news uses that term depends
on whom they want to look good.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.