|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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 |
Ads |
#482
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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 |
#483
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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/falla...d-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/falla...d-hominem.html Clarke is obviously a liar, based on nothing more than his own statements. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...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 |
#484
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(JP) wrote: What act are you talking about? The rules you referenced were released as required under the existing Clean Air Act. Nothing new there, except for the rules that the Sierra Club forced the Bush administration to revise. Sure if you consider the portion of the Clean Air Act that the Clinton administration slipped in AFTER Bush was elected, but before he actually took office. Clinton did nothing to actually improve air quality. Bush reworked the act to make it both evironmentally AND economically viable, and turned it into law. Like it or not, it's the biggest improvement in over a decade (spin it as you will). You really don't know what you're talking about. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between the Clean Air Act and EPA rule-making, statute and regulation. Such confusion is practically a requirement for you to twist history in this way. Yes, as a lame duck, the Clinton Administration did try to implement some EPA rules which Bush promptly rolled back. I believe this included the arsenic drinking water regulations. Contrary to the implication in your tangled statement above, these were not rushed. They had been studied for years and the rules were made final as a last bit of business for the outgoing administration. There was nothing wrong with Clinton finalizing rules for issues that had been carefully studied. What was stupid was for Bush to rescind them arbitrarily simply because they were created by Clinton and were at odds with some of the Bush corporate backers. For God's sake, that maybe the US Senate is not the last word on whether Kyoto "is a really, really bad idea". The whole premise of the Kyoto accord is to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As written, a HUGE portion of the cost for doing this falls to the US - a crippling amount, actually. Probably because a HUGE portion of greenhouse gasses are emited by the US, way out of proportion to its population. We went over (and over and over) this subject recently. In the end, carbon dioxide in the atmoshere - if the worst-case scenario is played out - will result in warming totalling a whopping 0.2 degrees C in the next century. The computer models used to justify Kyoto predict HUGE increases in temperature over the last 25 years - increases that simply didn't happen. This is just plain nonsense. The computer models are being refined daily to take into account the latest observations and better understanding of the variables involved. As the models get more sophisticated, the situation looks worse. You might wanna check with the folks at NASA to see what the real "warming trends" look like... http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d13aug98_1.htm Which should I consider NASA to be an independent source? Under the Bush administration there have been numerous instances of government agencies removing web sites that contained information at odds with the official right-wing party line on the environment. 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). ;-) A. It only requires registration, not subscription. B. You should register just to read their apology for their misrepresentation of the intelligence on WMD before the war. You would be hard put to provide any proof that the NYT actually has any of the liberal bias that the right wing so loves to attribute to it. If you want liberal bias in a daily newspaper, you pretty much have to go to the UK Guardian or Independent. C. Paul Krugman is without a doubt a progressive economist. He is also without a doubt widely respected in his field, with a PhD from MIT in Economics, holding an endowed chair at Princeton, and the recipient of an important economics prize. You'd better have your ducks in a row if you're going to try to make an argument counter to his (or talk really, really loud). I posted figures - investment increased dramatically following the tax cuts. What figures? From where? This isn't the link I used, but it has reams of information on the increasae in investment... http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...al/optimal.htm Hardly a definitive document. It was issued by a Republican-controlled Congressional Committee to support a decrease in the capital gains tax. I am not qualified to critique it, but it is not exactly a peer-reviewed article from a major journal of economics. Furthermore, it is discussing the relationship between the capital gains tax specifically and economic growth. It has almost nothing to do with the question we were discussing, whether investment increased enough after the Bush taxcuts to stimulate the economy significantly. The document you reference dates to 1997, so it obviously does NOT show that "investment increased dramatically following the (Bush) tax cuts". I already did. It takes into account the 900k gained since last August. Again, see Krugman. Lessee... 2 million minus 900 thousand equals 2 million. Is Krugman the guy in charge of their subscription statistics? ;-) No, it is more like about 3 million jobs lost minus 900 thousand (crappy) jobs gained back. Or, you could just throw more money at the failing public schools and expect them to get better. They won't - it's clear there's little correlation between money spent and results. Show your evidence. I think that if you made an effort to correlate an INCREASE in spending to results you would find there is quite a strong positive correlation. Washington DC has the highest spending per student and the worst results. This isn't evidence, it's what a statistician would call an anecdote. But besides that, to test your thesis, that "there's little correlation between money spent and results", we would have to try spending (statistically significant) more money in the DC public schools to see whether kids' performance improves. The fact that there is a lot of money spent there now does not prove that it could not be helped by more money. (My daughter goes to a top private school in the DC suburbs, and believe me, we pay a lot more than DC spends per student- I wonder what results DC would get if it spent the same amount per student.) 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. No one has ever actually tried spending more money on schools to fix them. What has happened over the last 25 years or so is that the property tax revolt begun in California has pretty much spread everywhere and reduced the spending (adjusted for inflation) per student. Of course, some places have always been poor and have always had crappy schools. 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. Then why is George Bush talking about cutting that return? Answer: because the money is being spent as general revenue to cover deficit spending, and the government will be unable to repay the Trust Fund without a major tax increase if they do not eventually significantly reduce the benefits. What happens to the premiums is an entirely different issue - you won't get a refund on your car insurance if part of the premiums are spent on something other than paying out accident claims, for example. Where do you come up with this stuff? It sounds good on the surface but it is completely delusional. Are you being deluded or are you trying to delude us? That is a completely false analogy. The money we pay in Social Security taxes is earmarked SOLELY for Social Security. When it is used to cover the deficit, the US Treasury loans money from the Trust Fund to a general revenue account; the Trust Fund receives Tresury Bonds in return. In the real world, when someone borrows money from an institution with no intention of repaying it, it is called fraud. A better analogy would be if I invested my money in a stock, let's call it Enron, and the management of Enron sucked all the value out of the company leaving me with nothing but worthless paper stock certificates. 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. What power, what fame? He didn't get power, he was already famous. Clarke is obviously a liar, based on nothing more than his own statements. Give an example of where he lied. Give them a refund on their Social Security Tax. Do we cut their benefit as well then? They are already paying enough to receive the current Social Security benefit and more. What we are doing already is talking about cutting the Social Security benefit so that the wealthy can get income tax cuts. Why not a Social Security taxcut, then? 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. Are you suggesting that we should rework the system so that some pay in a lot more than others for the same benefits? No. I am suggesting that we should rework the US tax structure so that we do not have to rob the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to pay for taxcuts to the very wealthy. 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. I don't think they are subsidizing my tax bill or should. I think their affluence benefits in a manner that is all out of proportion to their relatively low tax rates. I don't see a direct connection - the jobs we're sending overseas tend to be those Americans don't really want to do. That is a distortion. The jobs we are sending overseas are jobs that we don't want to do for the wages that they are paying to the workers in the Third World. No, the fact is that they are taking jobs that paid a "living wage" in the US and offshoring them to people for wages that would not even be legal if they paid them here. It goes right back to what I said- it extrapolates to an averaged standard of living between the US and the Third World. Yes, there are exceptions - some of which are getting a LOT of visibility (especially in the computer industry). But no matter what we do, the global economy will continue to change and adapt - the move will be away from the manufacturing sector to the service sector. The manufacturing sector will grow as long as the worldwide standard of living increases. We could impose artificial limits on sending production overseas, but that would only mean that our ability to remain competitive would dwindle. Not at all. I guess I'm a believer that the economy will always adjust to the situation at hand. It will but a lot of people will be unhappey with the adjustments. Permit me to suggest that it's just "what you've been told". There are certainly localized issues, but overall I don't see anything worthy of the word "crisis" going on. It has nothing to do with what we've been told and everything to do with the reality of the job market. I would hardly try to extrapolate a single anecdotal data point into a nationwide trend, personally. It was an illustration of a point, not an extrapolation. Besides, they are using me for something else I'm very good at (making me more valuable to them than I would be in Iraq). And they've got all the poor slobs they need in Iraq already, which certainly indicates something to me- a lot of desperate people. (There have been some things written in the aftermath of Berg's murder about how economic conditions here are driving people to seek their fortune in Iraq.) So if I were to extrapolate the trend, it would have to show 100% employment at higher-than-ever salaries. ;-) You must be very proud. Perhaps your good fortune, which runs counter to the real trend for the middle class (longer periods of unemployment, less job mobility, lower real salaries) has something to do with why you are so callous about the economic realities of 2004 and the future. JP |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
(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 |
#487
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
(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 |
#488
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
(Jonesy) wrote:
As long as your lips are surgically attached to Shrub's anus, you'll never be able to see or speak truth. See, all that research on ad hominem attacks has done you some good. You're getting better at them. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
#489
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
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 |
#490
|
|||
|
|||
Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)
Hunrobe wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: Well, since the current rationalization for our $100 billion adventure is that Saddam was evil, somebody needs to explain how we decide exactly which evil dictators are evil enough to justify invasion. Apparently, not everyone on the "evil dictator" list qualifies. And not every terribly repressive country gets invaded. Some of the repressive countries just serve as sources for inexpensive bike frames. Others serve as sources for oil. Others, with no major resources to sell us, go completely unnoticed. Leaving aside your unsupported hyperbole describing the Saudi Crown Prince as "one of the world's worst dictators"... Try googling dictators, or worst dictators, or similar topics. His name will come up. I've seen it in several such lists. Absent truly evil acts like genocide, we haven't the right to interfere with other nations' internal affairs through military force... Sorry for interrupting, but you know as well as I that genocide has NOT been a criterion. We've ignored genocide quite nicely. And if you ask most Native Americans, they'd say we did worse than ignore it. ... *unless* those nations' activities pose a threat to our own nation's security either militarily or economically. I'd hope you'd want to rephrase that. Because, as it reads, if Saudi Arabia decided they wouldn't sell us any more oil (yes, far fetched), that would pose a threat to our nation's security "economically." Your statement would justify an invasion in that case. Surely you don't mean that. Also, from what I understand, it was a similar action on our part - cutting off oil, hurting Japan's security both militarily and economically - that triggered the Pearl Harbor attack. Most people in America think that attack was not justified. As you well know the decision to use or not use military force in either type of offending nation- truly evil regimes or those that pose a threat to us- is now and has always been a matter of weighing the possible consequences of such action or inaction. Or rather, the consequences of one action versus another. Which brings us back to the fact that damned near the entire world thought that applying just enough pressure on Iraq to continue UN inspections was a suitable action. Damned near the entire world thought at the time that it was a better action than the one we performed, considering the possible consequences. And even more of the world thinks so now. I don't doubt your intelligence but your overly-simplistic request for a 'formula' for those decisions certainly leads me to question your sincerity. And I don't doubt your intelligence, which is why I'm sure you recognized that as a rhetorical device. The world isn't black and white and you darn well know that. The guy who said "You're either with us or against us" (I think that's a direct quote) doesn't seem to think so. Perhaps you should write him a letter. If he could learn to perceive shades of grey, he might be better at his job. -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
buying my first road bike | Tanya Quinn | General | 28 | June 17th 10 10:42 AM |
True Cost of a Supermarket Bike | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 41 | January 25th 04 04:18 AM |
Secure Bike Parking.? | M. Barbee | General | 14 | January 6th 04 02:00 AM |
my new bike | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | October 19th 03 03:00 PM |
Best Way to Travel with a Bike on an Airplane | F1 | General | 5 | August 14th 03 10:39 PM |