Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
.....
............ "You guys (especially Gary) are all fulminating and it wearies me."
....but then again ...........................................................................................
....that's been my ( exaggerate to make a ) point all along .......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
..alienation and disapproval was always a risk.........but, yes, i do hear ya.
............ "You guys (especially Gary) are all fulminating and it wearies me."
....but then again ...........................................................................................
....that's been my ( exaggerate to make a ) point all along .......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
..alienation and disapproval was always a risk.........but, yes, i do hear ya.
...
to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of congress, go f___ yourself. in that one case i actually respected the man for laying it out and expressing his thoughts honestly.
'mind you, i'm not advocating that all conversations are to take place on this level, CERTAINLY NOT, YOU DUMB mo_th__ - __ck_rs! (that was a 'joke' - an exaggeration to make the point of self awareness, if you will allow me)... it's just that when a certain level of bulls__t (read dishonesty, disingenuity(is that a word?), and obfuscation) is occurring, it strikes me as pointless to not call a spade a @%^%&*&$$@ SPADE! (that exaggeration thing again (not meaning to be patronizing, as it may sound, but just having some fun)).
...now, this may be coming across as supercilious, however it's offered as an explanation from someone humbled and concerned that i indeed have probably(?) offended the sensibilities and a 'community' standard by interjecting myself in this fashion.
.....as before... i hear ya and thanks. gary
to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of congress, go f___ yourself. in that one case i actually respected the man for laying it out and expressing his thoughts honestly.
'mind you, i'm not advocating that all conversations are to take place on this level, CERTAINLY NOT, YOU DUMB mo_th__ - __ck_rs! (that was a 'joke' - an exaggeration to make the point of self awareness, if you will allow me)... it's just that when a certain level of bulls__t (read dishonesty, disingenuity(is that a word?), and obfuscation) is occurring, it strikes me as pointless to not call a spade a @%^%&*&$$@ SPADE! (that exaggeration thing again (not meaning to be patronizing, as it may sound, but just having some fun)).
...now, this may be coming across as supercilious, however it's offered as an explanation from someone humbled and concerned that i indeed have probably(?) offended the sensibilities and a 'community' standard by interjecting myself in this fashion.
.....as before... i hear ya and thanks. gary
Bush Haters and Income taxes--
Hey Joe, you said <<in quotes>>
<<Why do you always say "everyone" who disagrees with Bush is a Bush hater?>>
Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore, George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being. Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush, which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with most his policies, which is certainly your right.
The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters' highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal opposition is supposed to promulgate.
<<Joe's Reply --regarding reform of SS & M/M
How could they? The Republicans control congress and won't even let the Democrats in many meeting for the work of the congress. They don't really have any say in what is going on in Washington.>>
Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct, which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
<<Joe's Reply:
Do you honestly believe people should not have to pay taxes as the Repbulicans have convinced most people? Can we have a country without taxes? Get real. >>
Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed, and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the following questions:
1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be a social welfare agent?
2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then" were too high.
Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
Marco
<<Why do you always say "everyone" who disagrees with Bush is a Bush hater?>>
Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore, George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being. Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush, which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with most his policies, which is certainly your right.
The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters' highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal opposition is supposed to promulgate.
<<Joe's Reply --regarding reform of SS & M/M
How could they? The Republicans control congress and won't even let the Democrats in many meeting for the work of the congress. They don't really have any say in what is going on in Washington.>>
Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct, which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
<<Joe's Reply:
Do you honestly believe people should not have to pay taxes as the Repbulicans have convinced most people? Can we have a country without taxes? Get real. >>
Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed, and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the following questions:
1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be a social welfare agent?
2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then" were too high.
Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
Marco
...oh, i almost forgot my main point.deveil wrote:...
to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of congress, go f___ yourself.
that this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was straining to be....( well....it wasn't really all THAT much of a strain, it's really sort of a gift).
...anyhow, that's my story...i'm sticking to it...and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is a... ah.....ah... a divider and not a uniter!...... and, and... just playing the blame game!
having not read through the days forum-forwarded emails until this moment, it occurred to me that i might state that any avatars created by me, this day, were not knowingly intended to portray any persons, real or fictional, and were meant to convey a meaning to be associated with the posting of the moment... except for that devil looking one...not meaning to belabor the obvious but i did use a mirror for that one (as some would have surmised). gary what's his face
Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 30
Location: Bel Air
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:02 pm Post subject: Bush Haters and Income taxes--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Joe, you said <<in quotes>>
<<Why do you always say "everyone" who disagrees with Bush is a Bush hater?>>
Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore, George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being. Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush, which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with most his policies, which is certainly your right.
The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters' highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at every opportunity.
They are not viewing issues with the priority of "what's best for the country", ...
Marco: I would strongly disagree. Using your logic, if you had been a Jew in Germany in the 1930 you would be expecting them to use " constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal opposition is supposed to promulgate. How can anyone provide "loyal Opposition" when they see the leaders destroying the very fabric of the country and the principles on which it was founded.
Joe
<<Joe's Reply --regarding reform of SS & M/M
How could they? The Republicans control congress and won't even let the Democrats in many meeting for the work of the congress. They don't really have any say in what is going on in Washington.>>
Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct, which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs.
Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
Lets see didn't the Repbulicans control congress in 99 and 00 or at least the house?
Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame for this situation.....who else....Bush.
Not surprisingly, their percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
Marco this is just plan BS.
<<Joe's Reply:
Do you honestly believe people should not have to pay taxes as the Repbulicans have convinced most people? Can we have a country without taxes? Get real. >>
Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than 140 years !!!
Marco: My question was about taxes in general not just the income tax. The Republican party preaches NO TAXEs. Is this what you believe?
If not, do you believe in some taxes? That is ARE TAXES NECESSARY? If so which ones and for what purpose?
Do you believe Social Security is a successful system for the country and its citizens? I certainly do. Or would you just have people work till they die on the job at minimum wages?
Joe
That is a historical fact. The world has changed, and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers.
That is you assumption that everyone who benefits from some social program is a non-producer and that is just not true. In fact most who benefit have contributed to society most of their lives. There will in any system be those who will abuse a system but there is no system that can prevent all frauds.
Joe
It begs the following questions:
1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be a social welfare agent?
2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then" were too high.
Marco: Sounds like your view is "it is all about me" I want to keep every dollar I earn and I expect the government to provide me services but it is not my responsibility to contribute to pay for those services. There is no love thy neighbor in this philosophy.
Joe
Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
Marco
Posts: 30
Location: Bel Air
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:02 pm Post subject: Bush Haters and Income taxes--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Joe, you said <<in quotes>>
<<Why do you always say "everyone" who disagrees with Bush is a Bush hater?>>
Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore, George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being. Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush, which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with most his policies, which is certainly your right.
The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters' highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at every opportunity.
They are not viewing issues with the priority of "what's best for the country", ...
Marco: I would strongly disagree. Using your logic, if you had been a Jew in Germany in the 1930 you would be expecting them to use " constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal opposition is supposed to promulgate. How can anyone provide "loyal Opposition" when they see the leaders destroying the very fabric of the country and the principles on which it was founded.
Joe
<<Joe's Reply --regarding reform of SS & M/M
How could they? The Republicans control congress and won't even let the Democrats in many meeting for the work of the congress. They don't really have any say in what is going on in Washington.>>
Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct, which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs.
Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
Lets see didn't the Repbulicans control congress in 99 and 00 or at least the house?
Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame for this situation.....who else....Bush.
Not surprisingly, their percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
Marco this is just plan BS.
<<Joe's Reply:
Do you honestly believe people should not have to pay taxes as the Repbulicans have convinced most people? Can we have a country without taxes? Get real. >>
Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than 140 years !!!
Marco: My question was about taxes in general not just the income tax. The Republican party preaches NO TAXEs. Is this what you believe?
If not, do you believe in some taxes? That is ARE TAXES NECESSARY? If so which ones and for what purpose?
Do you believe Social Security is a successful system for the country and its citizens? I certainly do. Or would you just have people work till they die on the job at minimum wages?
Joe
That is a historical fact. The world has changed, and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers.
That is you assumption that everyone who benefits from some social program is a non-producer and that is just not true. In fact most who benefit have contributed to society most of their lives. There will in any system be those who will abuse a system but there is no system that can prevent all frauds.
Joe
It begs the following questions:
1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be a social welfare agent?
2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then" were too high.
Marco: Sounds like your view is "it is all about me" I want to keep every dollar I earn and I expect the government to provide me services but it is not my responsibility to contribute to pay for those services. There is no love thy neighbor in this philosophy.
Joe
Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
Marco
Noble Cause
Marco and Rance.
Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
This should be soo easy for you two to answer.
Joe
Question that Our Great President seems unable to answer.
What is the Noble cause that our service members are dieing for in Iraq?
This should be soo easy for you two to answer.
Joe
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
So Marco, is it just about political gamesmanship, what will play to
the American people's infantile sense of entitlement to benefits
without having to pay for them, or is it about leadership? Clinton
balanced the budget, taking a political hit and losing the House and,
almost, the Senate - and that was the right thing to do. A
responsible political party would pay down the national debt
(conserve the "trust fund") in anticipation of the boomers'
retirement. My prediction: the powerful voting bloc of retirees
will force politicians to shore up Medicare and Social Security by
raising taxes. Corporations in particular are undertaxed currently.
As for "rugged individualists": are you talking about the ranchers
out west who graze their animals on public lands for pennies a year?
I wonder how much risk entrepreneurs would take if they knew that
betting their retirement fund on a start-up company - and losing
their shirts - would condemn them to eating dog food in their final
years because there's no such thing as Social Security. Or is it the
disability insurance part of SS that offends your social Darwinist
sensibility? Should we let people who get disabled become street
beggars, as in the Third World? If Intelligent Design is such a
great alternative to Darwin, why can't we have it in social policy,
too? Taxes are the price we pay for civilization; entrepreneurs
wouldn't find it so easy to make it in this country if they didn't
have our excellent infrastructure, police, fire, government-sponsored
research and development, enforceable contracts, engineering
standards (yes! regulation!), transparency of financial dealings
(more regulation!) etc. - all paid for by taxes. If you really want
to go back to the "wild west" of the 1880s, I invite you to move to
Russia or China today. Notice that Bush sure isn't singing that
rugged individualist song now in the face of the hurricane victims.
He's shoveling the money out there as fast as he can. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 12:52, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Marc said
> Reply: This exactly proves my point,....there are liberal (and
> proud of it, as Hugh says) Bush haters who do not trust Bush in any
> manner, shape, or form, and therefore reflexively oppose whatever
> he does. These Bush haters have failed to convince the American
> public to hate Bush OR to embrace their liberal agenda. Thanks
> Marc for your honesty and forthrightfulness. Were you a Dean or
> Kucinich supporter last time around?
>
> The political battles in this country are usually fought for the
> voters "in the middle", so as to win their "hearts and minds" .
> Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just
> hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free
> to continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the
> utter lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit
> the people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an
> agenda.
>
> Let's see how the "middle" feels about Iraq after the two elections
> this year.....stay tuned.
>
> Joe, you said:
>
>
> Reply: Joe, without serious reform to SS and Medicare/Medicaid,
> these programs will go belly up in a few short years. THIS IS A
> FACT. There is only disagreement of exactly how many years it
> will take before they go bankrupt, but they are DEFINITELY heading
> that way. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY BABY BOOMERS FOR THE SYSTEM TO
> HANDLE. If liberals don't want reform of these programs,
> fine, .....then let them demand higher taxes to pay for the
> program, OR, let them propose a reduction of benefits. Go
> ahead..but at least be honest that that is what you are
> seeking.....higher taxes to pay for your social "comprehensive
> care", not a safety net.
> The American people already believe that they pay too much in
> taxes, so go ahead and feel free to run on your "Impeach Bush and
> Higher Taxes" platform.....it's a political loser.
>
> Joe said:
>
> Reply: As of today, SS is solvent...unfortunately, every cent that
> has been collected for SS is GONE however....completely SPENT by
> general revenues every year. The SS "Trust Fund" has zero
> cash....nothing but IOU's.
> The moral values "of this country from the beginning" were
> never based on the government providing SS, Medicare, Medicaid to
> its citizens.....good grief. The early settlers who survived did
> so by being self reliant, and "rugged individualists". This is how
> the country was formed....not by some notion that people flocked
> here for its availability of social programs and governmental
> "cradle-to-grave" care. Did you know that the federal government
> did not even collect an income tax until 1920 (or so)? The first
> 145 years of this country had basically little if any "social"
> programs....I don't know how we ever survived, much less flourished
> LOL.
>
> Gotta run guys....thanks for the posts....I am enjoying them
> all...Joe and Hugh, I'll catch up with you later....
>
> Marco
>
the American people's infantile sense of entitlement to benefits
without having to pay for them, or is it about leadership? Clinton
balanced the budget, taking a political hit and losing the House and,
almost, the Senate - and that was the right thing to do. A
responsible political party would pay down the national debt
(conserve the "trust fund") in anticipation of the boomers'
retirement. My prediction: the powerful voting bloc of retirees
will force politicians to shore up Medicare and Social Security by
raising taxes. Corporations in particular are undertaxed currently.
As for "rugged individualists": are you talking about the ranchers
out west who graze their animals on public lands for pennies a year?
I wonder how much risk entrepreneurs would take if they knew that
betting their retirement fund on a start-up company - and losing
their shirts - would condemn them to eating dog food in their final
years because there's no such thing as Social Security. Or is it the
disability insurance part of SS that offends your social Darwinist
sensibility? Should we let people who get disabled become street
beggars, as in the Third World? If Intelligent Design is such a
great alternative to Darwin, why can't we have it in social policy,
too? Taxes are the price we pay for civilization; entrepreneurs
wouldn't find it so easy to make it in this country if they didn't
have our excellent infrastructure, police, fire, government-sponsored
research and development, enforceable contracts, engineering
standards (yes! regulation!), transparency of financial dealings
(more regulation!) etc. - all paid for by taxes. If you really want
to go back to the "wild west" of the 1880s, I invite you to move to
Russia or China today. Notice that Bush sure isn't singing that
rugged individualist song now in the face of the hurricane victims.
He's shoveling the money out there as fast as he can. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 12:52, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Marc said
> Reply: This exactly proves my point,....there are liberal (and
> proud of it, as Hugh says) Bush haters who do not trust Bush in any
> manner, shape, or form, and therefore reflexively oppose whatever
> he does. These Bush haters have failed to convince the American
> public to hate Bush OR to embrace their liberal agenda. Thanks
> Marc for your honesty and forthrightfulness. Were you a Dean or
> Kucinich supporter last time around?
>
> The political battles in this country are usually fought for the
> voters "in the middle", so as to win their "hearts and minds" .
> Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just
> hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free
> to continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the
> utter lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit
> the people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an
> agenda.
>
> Let's see how the "middle" feels about Iraq after the two elections
> this year.....stay tuned.
>
> Joe, you said:
>
>
> Reply: Joe, without serious reform to SS and Medicare/Medicaid,
> these programs will go belly up in a few short years. THIS IS A
> FACT. There is only disagreement of exactly how many years it
> will take before they go bankrupt, but they are DEFINITELY heading
> that way. THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY BABY BOOMERS FOR THE SYSTEM TO
> HANDLE. If liberals don't want reform of these programs,
> fine, .....then let them demand higher taxes to pay for the
> program, OR, let them propose a reduction of benefits. Go
> ahead..but at least be honest that that is what you are
> seeking.....higher taxes to pay for your social "comprehensive
> care", not a safety net.
> The American people already believe that they pay too much in
> taxes, so go ahead and feel free to run on your "Impeach Bush and
> Higher Taxes" platform.....it's a political loser.
>
> Joe said:
>
> Reply: As of today, SS is solvent...unfortunately, every cent that
> has been collected for SS is GONE however....completely SPENT by
> general revenues every year. The SS "Trust Fund" has zero
> cash....nothing but IOU's.
> The moral values "of this country from the beginning" were
> never based on the government providing SS, Medicare, Medicaid to
> its citizens.....good grief. The early settlers who survived did
> so by being self reliant, and "rugged individualists". This is how
> the country was formed....not by some notion that people flocked
> here for its availability of social programs and governmental
> "cradle-to-grave" care. Did you know that the federal government
> did not even collect an income tax until 1920 (or so)? The first
> 145 years of this country had basically little if any "social"
> programs....I don't know how we ever survived, much less flourished
> LOL.
>
> Gotta run guys....thanks for the posts....I am enjoying them
> all...Joe and Hugh, I'll catch up with you later....
>
> Marco
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
I think it shows he is incapable of understanding the situation of
people from outside his in-group of good old boy millionaire
politicians. His mom has the same problem: thinks the Superdome is
a step up for the people living there. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 13:04, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Trent Lott's house was 150 years old and built on 8 foot stilts.
> It survived mother nature for all of those 150 years, but has been
> completely demolished by Katrina. GONE.
> I think this clearly demonstrates that Katrina has been the worst
> natural disaster to hit this area in the past 150 years. Bush
> isn't concerned about his house....Lott will "get by"....he simply
> uses this example to exemplify the obvious....the historical
> severity of this incredible storm.
>
people from outside his in-group of good old boy millionaire
politicians. His mom has the same problem: thinks the Superdome is
a step up for the people living there. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 13:04, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Trent Lott's house was 150 years old and built on 8 foot stilts.
> It survived mother nature for all of those 150 years, but has been
> completely demolished by Katrina. GONE.
> I think this clearly demonstrates that Katrina has been the worst
> natural disaster to hit this area in the past 150 years. Bush
> isn't concerned about his house....Lott will "get by"....he simply
> uses this example to exemplify the obvious....the historical
> severity of this incredible storm.
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
The conservatives brought the level of political debate to a new low
of nastiness when they went after Clinton. Funny they resent it so
much when the shoe is on the other foot.
But Bush is writing his own historical obituary as perhaps the 2nd or
3rd worst president in history. Calvin Coolidge is still in first
place, but Bush still has time... - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 13:44, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> How about the Bush folks spewing hatred for certain people based
> on 'moral' stands? That ok? Using the gay marriage ticket simply
> as a way of bringing out the anti-gay vote, is that ok with you?
>
> Where's the proof that the American people believe they pay too
> much in taxes? Please provide. Anecdotal evidence isn't good
> enough. I think a split system for Social Security might be
> doable, but I don't trust Bush to set it up so that it's fair
> across all income levels. His lies about the 'death tax' showed me
> he can't be trusted when it comes to helping those who aren't in
> the top 1% income level.
>
> What was the average life expectancy for people in this country in
> the first 50 years, 100 years, during the Depression? Do you think
> it's ok that the infant mortality rate in this country is well
> below just about every industrialized nation out there?
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html (http://
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0004393.html)
>
> George Washington wasn't willing to free his slaves (300 of them)
> and he's the father of this country. I believe we've come a long
> way from back then and I don't think too many people would like to
> go back to that era. If you are, let me get my time machine up and
> running. Just kidding.
>
> If you haven't read the 3 volume bio of Lyndon Johnson, I
> recommend you all do. Fascinating account of how one Texan was able
> to make it to the top. What's really amazing is that another Texan
> used the same techniques and the same dang companies. As I said
> before, it's the water.
>
> Christy
>
>
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just
> hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free to
> continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the utter
> lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit the
> people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an agenda.
>
>
>
> The American people already believe that they pay too much in
> taxes, ...
>
>
>
> The early settlers who survived did so by being self reliant, and
> "rugged individualists". ...The first 145 years of this country
> had basically little if any "social" programs....I don't know how
> we ever survived, much less flourished LOL.
>
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
of nastiness when they went after Clinton. Funny they resent it so
much when the shoe is on the other foot.
But Bush is writing his own historical obituary as perhaps the 2nd or
3rd worst president in history. Calvin Coolidge is still in first
place, but Bush still has time... - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 13:44, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> Marco,
>
> How about the Bush folks spewing hatred for certain people based
> on 'moral' stands? That ok? Using the gay marriage ticket simply
> as a way of bringing out the anti-gay vote, is that ok with you?
>
> Where's the proof that the American people believe they pay too
> much in taxes? Please provide. Anecdotal evidence isn't good
> enough. I think a split system for Social Security might be
> doable, but I don't trust Bush to set it up so that it's fair
> across all income levels. His lies about the 'death tax' showed me
> he can't be trusted when it comes to helping those who aren't in
> the top 1% income level.
>
> What was the average life expectancy for people in this country in
> the first 50 years, 100 years, during the Depression? Do you think
> it's ok that the infant mortality rate in this country is well
> below just about every industrialized nation out there?
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html (http://
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0004393.html)
>
> George Washington wasn't willing to free his slaves (300 of them)
> and he's the father of this country. I believe we've come a long
> way from back then and I don't think too many people would like to
> go back to that era. If you are, let me get my time machine up and
> running. Just kidding.
>
> If you haven't read the 3 volume bio of Lyndon Johnson, I
> recommend you all do. Fascinating account of how one Texan was able
> to make it to the top. What's really amazing is that another Texan
> used the same techniques and the same dang companies. As I said
> before, it's the water.
>
> Christy
>
>
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> Spewing hatred of Bush as an idiot, cowboy, frat boy, etc... just
> hasn't cut it with the American voters and public. But feel free to
> continue your rants, as it demonstrates and reinforces the utter
> lack of any serious plans or agendas by liberals to benefit the
> people of our country and the world. Hatred for Bush is not an agenda.
>
>
>
> The American people already believe that they pay too much in
> taxes, ...
>
>
>
> The early settlers who survived did so by being self reliant, and
> "rugged individualists". ...The first 145 years of this country
> had basically little if any "social" programs....I don't know how
> we ever survived, much less flourished LOL.
>
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Hmmm - I actually think it's kinda cool that in the "People's
Republic of Takoma Park" illegal aliens are allowed to vote in
municipal elections. I'm in favor of a realistic immigration policy
that recognizes that we need more people to work construction and
wash dishes and harvest crops and pick crab (and work on
nanotechnology, recombinant DNA etc.) than there are native born
Americans willing/able to do those jobs. Let more people in, then
crack down on illegals. Our current policy is a hash of conflicting
interests: nativists want to slam the door shut on immigration, but
businesses don't want rigorous enforcement because they need the
labor. Immigrants are what we have going for us to meet the
challenge of a rising China and India. Visit any university
engineering or science library on a Saturday night and see who's
there - no native-born Americans. But if we get those smart
energetic and ambitious Asians to stay here and get rich, we all
win! I think it is reasonable to expect people to demonstrate some
degree of English proficiency, knowledge of the Constitution, etc. to
get citizenship. Probably ought to test native-born Americans on
that too... Seems to me the big problem has been getting people to
vote even once, not prevent them from voting multiple times. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 19:41, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> I believe we should do everything possible to stop voter fraud.
>
> Why do liberals oppose a bill requiring that all voters provide a
> PHOTO ID and proof of citizenship before they can vote?????
>
> This would eliminate a big chunk of voter fraud by stopping people
> from a) voting on multiple occasions, and b) voting illegally by
> non-citizens.
>
> Do you all remember the Lackawanna 6 ? They were the Al-Quada cell
> outside of Buffalo that got busted shortly after 9/11. They were
> all foreigners, but each had a voter registration card.....and I've
> got to say it.......they were all registered
> DEMOCRATS .....LOL......another one of my selective facts and spin
> LOL. Just the facts ma'am.
>
> But certainly, I would hope that everyone wants only citizens of
> the USA to vote in the US elections, and photo ID's and proof of
> citizenship SHOULD be a "minimum" requirement before being allowed
> to vote.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Joe, I am glad to hear that you are not "holding your breath"
> awaiting someone to overturn the 120,000 vote margin in Ohio. My
> gosh, if they couldn't find 550 votes to overturn the Florida
> election in 2000, how are they gonna find 120,000 votes to overturn
> Ohio in 2004? It's time to move on Joe.
>
Republic of Takoma Park" illegal aliens are allowed to vote in
municipal elections. I'm in favor of a realistic immigration policy
that recognizes that we need more people to work construction and
wash dishes and harvest crops and pick crab (and work on
nanotechnology, recombinant DNA etc.) than there are native born
Americans willing/able to do those jobs. Let more people in, then
crack down on illegals. Our current policy is a hash of conflicting
interests: nativists want to slam the door shut on immigration, but
businesses don't want rigorous enforcement because they need the
labor. Immigrants are what we have going for us to meet the
challenge of a rising China and India. Visit any university
engineering or science library on a Saturday night and see who's
there - no native-born Americans. But if we get those smart
energetic and ambitious Asians to stay here and get rich, we all
win! I think it is reasonable to expect people to demonstrate some
degree of English proficiency, knowledge of the Constitution, etc. to
get citizenship. Probably ought to test native-born Americans on
that too... Seems to me the big problem has been getting people to
vote even once, not prevent them from voting multiple times. - Hugh
On 7 Sep 2005, at 19:41, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> I believe we should do everything possible to stop voter fraud.
>
> Why do liberals oppose a bill requiring that all voters provide a
> PHOTO ID and proof of citizenship before they can vote?????
>
> This would eliminate a big chunk of voter fraud by stopping people
> from a) voting on multiple occasions, and b) voting illegally by
> non-citizens.
>
> Do you all remember the Lackawanna 6 ? They were the Al-Quada cell
> outside of Buffalo that got busted shortly after 9/11. They were
> all foreigners, but each had a voter registration card.....and I've
> got to say it.......they were all registered
> DEMOCRATS .....LOL......another one of my selective facts and spin
> LOL. Just the facts ma'am.
>
> But certainly, I would hope that everyone wants only citizens of
> the USA to vote in the US elections, and photo ID's and proof of
> citizenship SHOULD be a "minimum" requirement before being allowed
> to vote.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Joe, I am glad to hear that you are not "holding your breath"
> awaiting someone to overturn the 120,000 vote margin in Ohio. My
> gosh, if they couldn't find 550 votes to overturn the Florida
> election in 2000, how are they gonna find 120,000 votes to overturn
> Ohio in 2004? It's time to move on Joe.
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Right on, Christy. That's why we have a "republic" - meaning that
decisions are made by elected representatives (including judges who
are indirectly elected because they are chosen by the elected ones -
now surely Marco isn't gonna say Bush should hold a poll on whether
to make Roberts Chief Justice) who are supposed to actually study
things more than average citizens have time for - and not a pure
democracy. Sometimes this works. But elected representatives can be
pretty stupid, too. As they say, democracy (or a republic) is a
terrible form of government - it just beats every other form that's
been tried. It takes wise, responsible leaders to make it work.
We've had some in the past; the current crop are not among them. - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:43, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> I don't think taxes was the issue for the voters on any of these
> elections. And in the last one, the deteriorating economic state
> of the middle class wasn't either. Bush has cut the taxes on the
> rich, thus winning support from the major campaign contributors,
> while using the morality card to win the others.
>
> Three years ago I calculated how long the CEO of a home building
> company would have to work to pay for one of the houses his company
> was building in Clarksburg MD and how long one of the finish
> carpenters would have to work for same. The carpenter would have
> had to put in 42 years of work, with every penny (including what
> should have gone for taxes) to pay for one of the single family
> houses. The CEO, his boss, would have had to work 57 hours. I'd say
> this country is in a lot of trouble with this incredibly wide gap
> between what people are making (I won't say earning). Bush's tax
> cuts have only been exacerbating the problem. No doubt you think
> this is fair and will say it's the free market and the American way.
>
> I think the gay marriage issue in Mass didn't spread to the polls
> without major help from Republicans. I'm sure they saw is as manna
> from heaven. Interesting that they were also running around saying
> that this was a legislative and not a judicial matter. Now that
> the CA legislature has approved a bill allowing gay marriage, we're
> hearing that it isn't a legislative matter, but one for the voters.
> Last I saw the voters voted for the legislature. Having lived
> previously in CA (23 years), I know that the voters have the right
> to pass initiatives (not something granted to all voters throughout
> the USA) and that they've had no problem passing initiatives that
> have been found to be (immediately) unconstitutional. They've also
> passed a fair number that could be considered shots to the foot,
> including Proposition 13 which limited tax increases and tax
> assessments, except upon sale of a property. So today, you can have
> someone owning a recently purchased dinky townhouse paying much more
> in property taxes than a movie star on his 7 acre property on the
> Malibu beach. Residential property owners now foot a bigger and
> bigger share of the property tax bill compared to commercial
> property owners, because the latter don't turn over as often. I
> think voters can be snookered. Just takes enough money for enough
> half truths on TV ads.
> Christy
>
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> Christy,
> Lets review.....Mondale ran on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform
> and barely won his homestate of Minnesota by 5000
> votes.....unfortunately he lost the other 49 states by a huge margin.
>
> Clinton ran in 1992 on a "middle class tax cut" , which he never
> delivered, and in fact gave us the largest tax increase in US
> history. By 1994, the Dems lost six senate seats ( not sure of
> exact #) and lost the House of Representatives for the first time
> if 40 years after losing over 50 house seats.
>
> Gore did not run on a "higher taxes" platform, nor did Kerry. Why?
> Because their internal polls showed that it is not desired by the
> American people. If the polls showed support, the Dems would have
> been "pedal to the metal" proposing it.
>
> If people want to pay more taxes, they can...... simply forego your
> deductions on your tax return. Don't take that Home Mortgage
> deduction...don't take that child tax credit....don't take that
> State Tax deduction. Sure, people are foregoing these deductions
> CONSTANTLY LOL.
>
> I don't have any current polls to support this assertion, but
> certainly history provides a pretty clear view of this issue. Do
> you have any polls that show Americans feel "undertaxed"?
>
> Lastly , the gay marriage issue became such a huge topic in last
> election because 4 of 7 Massachussetts judges decided that gays
> should have a right to marriage. Then they ORDERED the legislature
> to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. What audacity !!! The people
> of Massachussets did not request this, or pass a law saying
> this....it was done by liberal judicial activists, not by a vote or
> desire of people of Massachusetts. In all eleven states with gay
> marriage on the ballot, every "Gay Marriage" bill was defeated
> handily by the voters.
>
> The bottom line is: the VOTERS should make these decisions....not a
> handful of unelected judges.
>
> Very lastly, Can you give me any quotes of Bush or his campaign, or
> the RNC "spewing hatred for gays"? I am not aware of any.
>
> Thanks for the posts,
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind velocities ?
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
decisions are made by elected representatives (including judges who
are indirectly elected because they are chosen by the elected ones -
now surely Marco isn't gonna say Bush should hold a poll on whether
to make Roberts Chief Justice) who are supposed to actually study
things more than average citizens have time for - and not a pure
democracy. Sometimes this works. But elected representatives can be
pretty stupid, too. As they say, democracy (or a republic) is a
terrible form of government - it just beats every other form that's
been tried. It takes wise, responsible leaders to make it work.
We've had some in the past; the current crop are not among them. - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 08:43, Christy Huddle wrote:
>
> I don't think taxes was the issue for the voters on any of these
> elections. And in the last one, the deteriorating economic state
> of the middle class wasn't either. Bush has cut the taxes on the
> rich, thus winning support from the major campaign contributors,
> while using the morality card to win the others.
>
> Three years ago I calculated how long the CEO of a home building
> company would have to work to pay for one of the houses his company
> was building in Clarksburg MD and how long one of the finish
> carpenters would have to work for same. The carpenter would have
> had to put in 42 years of work, with every penny (including what
> should have gone for taxes) to pay for one of the single family
> houses. The CEO, his boss, would have had to work 57 hours. I'd say
> this country is in a lot of trouble with this incredibly wide gap
> between what people are making (I won't say earning). Bush's tax
> cuts have only been exacerbating the problem. No doubt you think
> this is fair and will say it's the free market and the American way.
>
> I think the gay marriage issue in Mass didn't spread to the polls
> without major help from Republicans. I'm sure they saw is as manna
> from heaven. Interesting that they were also running around saying
> that this was a legislative and not a judicial matter. Now that
> the CA legislature has approved a bill allowing gay marriage, we're
> hearing that it isn't a legislative matter, but one for the voters.
> Last I saw the voters voted for the legislature. Having lived
> previously in CA (23 years), I know that the voters have the right
> to pass initiatives (not something granted to all voters throughout
> the USA) and that they've had no problem passing initiatives that
> have been found to be (immediately) unconstitutional. They've also
> passed a fair number that could be considered shots to the foot,
> including Proposition 13 which limited tax increases and tax
> assessments, except upon sale of a property. So today, you can have
> someone owning a recently purchased dinky townhouse paying much more
> in property taxes than a movie star on his 7 acre property on the
> Malibu beach. Residential property owners now foot a bigger and
> bigger share of the property tax bill compared to commercial
> property owners, because the latter don't turn over as often. I
> think voters can be snookered. Just takes enough money for enough
> half truths on TV ads.
> Christy
>
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> Christy,
> Lets review.....Mondale ran on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform
> and barely won his homestate of Minnesota by 5000
> votes.....unfortunately he lost the other 49 states by a huge margin.
>
> Clinton ran in 1992 on a "middle class tax cut" , which he never
> delivered, and in fact gave us the largest tax increase in US
> history. By 1994, the Dems lost six senate seats ( not sure of
> exact #) and lost the House of Representatives for the first time
> if 40 years after losing over 50 house seats.
>
> Gore did not run on a "higher taxes" platform, nor did Kerry. Why?
> Because their internal polls showed that it is not desired by the
> American people. If the polls showed support, the Dems would have
> been "pedal to the metal" proposing it.
>
> If people want to pay more taxes, they can...... simply forego your
> deductions on your tax return. Don't take that Home Mortgage
> deduction...don't take that child tax credit....don't take that
> State Tax deduction. Sure, people are foregoing these deductions
> CONSTANTLY LOL.
>
> I don't have any current polls to support this assertion, but
> certainly history provides a pretty clear view of this issue. Do
> you have any polls that show Americans feel "undertaxed"?
>
> Lastly , the gay marriage issue became such a huge topic in last
> election because 4 of 7 Massachussetts judges decided that gays
> should have a right to marriage. Then they ORDERED the legislature
> to pass a law legalizing gay marriage. What audacity !!! The people
> of Massachussets did not request this, or pass a law saying
> this....it was done by liberal judicial activists, not by a vote or
> desire of people of Massachusetts. In all eleven states with gay
> marriage on the ballot, every "Gay Marriage" bill was defeated
> handily by the voters.
>
> The bottom line is: the VOTERS should make these decisions....not a
> handful of unelected judges.
>
> Very lastly, Can you give me any quotes of Bush or his campaign, or
> the RNC "spewing hatred for gays"? I am not aware of any.
>
> Thanks for the posts,
>
> Marco
>
> PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind velocities ?
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Try a caffeinated beverage. - Hugh
P.S. Or Ben and Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch ice cream!
On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:35, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> I got tired of the whole discussion. You guys (especially Gary)
> are all
> fulminating and it wearies me.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind
>> velocities ?
>>
>>
>
>
>
P.S. Or Ben and Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch ice cream!
On 8 Sep 2005, at 09:35, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:
>
>
> I got tired of the whole discussion. You guys (especially Gary)
> are all
> fulminating and it wearies me.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>
>>
>> PS: Where is Brian with his KE = 1/2 mvv formula for wind
>> velocities ?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
It's worth my time at least to rebut the Republican "big
lies" (Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often and vehemently
enough, people will believe it). The right has done a better job of
selling its ideas in the last couple of decades than the left. We
gotta get better. Let me stipulate that there is such a thing as a
responsible conservative point of view - I like the Cato Institute
for that. It's the right wing demagoguery that has to be confronted
and shown up. "Non illegitimi carborundum." (Don't let the bastards
grind you down.) - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 12:06, deveil wrote:
>
> ...
> to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they
> hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the
> forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not
> screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned
> opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a
> legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one
> to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or
> as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of
> congress, go f___ yourself. in that one case i actually respected
> the man for laying it out and expressing his thoughts honestly.
> 'mind you, i'm not advocating that all conversations are to take
> place on this level, CERTAINLY NOT, YOU DUMB mo_th__ - __ck_rs!
> (that was a 'joke' - an exaggeration to make the point of self
> awareness, if you will allow me)... it's just that when a certain
> level of bulls__t (read dishonesty, disingenuity(is that a word?),
> and obfuscation) is occurring, it strikes me as pointless to not
> call a spade a @%^%&*&$$@ SPADE! (that exaggeration thing again
> (not meaning to be patronizing, as it may sound, but just having
> some fun)).
> ...now, this may be coming across as supercilious, however it's
> offered as an explanation from someone humbled and concerned that i
> indeed have probably(?) offended the sensibilities and a
> 'community' standard by interjecting myself in this fashion.
>
> .....as before... i hear ya and thanks. gary
>
lies" (Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie often and vehemently
enough, people will believe it). The right has done a better job of
selling its ideas in the last couple of decades than the left. We
gotta get better. Let me stipulate that there is such a thing as a
responsible conservative point of view - I like the Cato Institute
for that. It's the right wing demagoguery that has to be confronted
and shown up. "Non illegitimi carborundum." (Don't let the bastards
grind you down.) - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 12:06, deveil wrote:
>
> ...
> to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they
> hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the
> forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not
> screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned
> opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a
> legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one
> to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or
> as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of
> congress, go f___ yourself. in that one case i actually respected
> the man for laying it out and expressing his thoughts honestly.
> 'mind you, i'm not advocating that all conversations are to take
> place on this level, CERTAINLY NOT, YOU DUMB mo_th__ - __ck_rs!
> (that was a 'joke' - an exaggeration to make the point of self
> awareness, if you will allow me)... it's just that when a certain
> level of bulls__t (read dishonesty, disingenuity(is that a word?),
> and obfuscation) is occurring, it strikes me as pointless to not
> call a spade a @%^%&*&$$@ SPADE! (that exaggeration thing again
> (not meaning to be patronizing, as it may sound, but just having
> some fun)).
> ...now, this may be coming across as supercilious, however it's
> offered as an explanation from someone humbled and concerned that i
> indeed have probably(?) offended the sensibilities and a
> 'community' standard by interjecting myself in this fashion.
>
> .....as before... i hear ya and thanks. gary
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Yup, I think a lot of the brouhaha over the tardy federal response to
the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
region after the hurricane...)
No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
what you call me.)
- Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Joe, you said
>
> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>
>
>
> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>
> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>
>
>
> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
> following questions:
> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
> a social welfare agent?
> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
> were too high.
>
> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>
> Marco
>
the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
region after the hurricane...)
No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
what you call me.)
- Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hey Joe, you said
>
> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>
>
>
> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>
> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>
>
>
> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
> following questions:
> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
> a social welfare agent?
> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
> were too high.
>
> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>
> Marco
>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Funny how Bush, who ran the first time as a "compassionate
conservative" and a "uniter" - has succeeded in polarizing the nation
more than at any time since Vietnam... - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:02, deveil wrote:
>
>
> deveil wrote:
> ...
> to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they
> hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the
> forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not
> screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned
> opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a
> legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one
> to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or
> as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of
> congress, go f___ yourself.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> ...oh, i almost forgot my main point.
>
> that this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was
> straining to be....( well....it wasn't really all THAT much of a
> strain, it's really sort of a gift).
>
> ...anyhow, that's my story...i'm sticking to it...and anyone who
> tries to claim otherwise is a... ah.....ah... a divider and not a
> uniter!...... and, and... just playing the blame game!
>
conservative" and a "uniter" - has succeeded in polarizing the nation
more than at any time since Vietnam... - Hugh
On 8 Sep 2005, at 15:02, deveil wrote:
>
>
> deveil wrote:
> ...
> to expand...IMHO - people very often seem to think that if they
> hide behind enough trees they can deny the existence of the
> forest... 'finesse' the language enough and maintain they are not
> screaming insults, only delicately whispering learned
> opinions...maintain that if it can't be tortuously proven in a
> legalistic fashion then indeed it's not what was heard...tell one
> to go and perform an impossible sexual act upon ones own body, or
> as our v.p. so famously suggested to a colleague in the halls of
> congress, go f___ yourself.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> ...oh, i almost forgot my main point.
>
> that this type of dealing is as obnoxious and outrageous as i was
> straining to be....( well....it wasn't really all THAT much of a
> strain, it's really sort of a gift).
>
> ...anyhow, that's my story...i'm sticking to it...and anyone who
> tries to claim otherwise is a... ah.....ah... a divider and not a
> uniter!...... and, and... just playing the blame game!
>
Wow Hugh !!!
Hugh,
you are amazing...it's gonna take me hours to reply to all of those posts !
As always, some interesting observations. Hey Rance,...how bout some help here....my wife is giving me grief for spending so much time writing all these responses. LOL. She's got more household chores for me to do here. Does anyone else "feel my pain"? But like Hugh said, exposing and rebutting liberal lies, distortions, and misconceptions is worth it to me too.
Quickly, let me take issue with one point you made:
<<Funny how Bush, who ran the first time as a "compassionate
conservative" and a "uniter" - has succeeded in polarizing the nation
more than at any time since Vietnam... - Hugh>>
Last time I checked, Bush received 51% of the vote, and more than 60 million votes, the most ever by ANY president. By comparison, Clinton, who I would assume you think is one of the greatest Presidents ever, only received 43% and 49% of the vote when he won, hardly a ringing endorsement from the American public, but he sure could bite his lip, and tear up (cry) on cue.....what a great guy!!! So inspiring !!! That being said, Bush has not succeeded in uniting the country as he desired, but like you said, the Dems were itching to bash Bush after Clinton got bashed by the Repubs, and had NO DESIRE to unite with Bush, especially after Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
I tell ya,..I kinda feel bad for Al Gore,...he got more votes then Bush in 00, and more votes than Clinton recieved in both of his victories.....both Clinton and Bush got to serve two terms....but, Gore gets nothing....what a cruel twist of fate. No wonder he went over the deep end. Has he said that he is running in 2008 yet ? I hope he runs.
As for deficit spending, both parties are avoiding the tough decisions out of fear of losing their political perches: Dems want to raise taxes, but won't run on this position fearing the "Mondale effect". Repubs want to freeze spending until the budget can become balanced, but cannot run on a "cut spending" program for fear of being called "uncaring, millionaire loving, dupes of big corporations" who want to screw the poor and downtrodden. So what happens, BOTH parties "agree" to deficit spend, then hope that economic growth will overcome the deficit, which is what happened after Newt and the Repubs held the line of spending after the 1994 elections.
So, don't expect to see any Dems running on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform, AND don't expect to see any Repubs running on a "I"ll cut federal spending" platform. They are both too frightened to tell the "painful" truth.
In the meantime, the national debt continues to rise, with the costs of SS, M&M growing exponentially. And we are all stuck with the bill.
If I were King (and what a lovely idea that is) I would freeze all non-military/ national security expenditures until the budget is balanced AND the national debt is paid off. But, of course, I could never be elected on this platform....I would have to take over the government by force LOL. OK,....Who's with me???? How bout you Gary...you seem like a rebellious type LOL. I'll make you one of my Generalissimo's, perhaps in charge of the Air Force, given your aeronautical expertise. LOL.
More later,
Marco
you are amazing...it's gonna take me hours to reply to all of those posts !
As always, some interesting observations. Hey Rance,...how bout some help here....my wife is giving me grief for spending so much time writing all these responses. LOL. She's got more household chores for me to do here. Does anyone else "feel my pain"? But like Hugh said, exposing and rebutting liberal lies, distortions, and misconceptions is worth it to me too.
Quickly, let me take issue with one point you made:
<<Funny how Bush, who ran the first time as a "compassionate
conservative" and a "uniter" - has succeeded in polarizing the nation
more than at any time since Vietnam... - Hugh>>
Last time I checked, Bush received 51% of the vote, and more than 60 million votes, the most ever by ANY president. By comparison, Clinton, who I would assume you think is one of the greatest Presidents ever, only received 43% and 49% of the vote when he won, hardly a ringing endorsement from the American public, but he sure could bite his lip, and tear up (cry) on cue.....what a great guy!!! So inspiring !!! That being said, Bush has not succeeded in uniting the country as he desired, but like you said, the Dems were itching to bash Bush after Clinton got bashed by the Repubs, and had NO DESIRE to unite with Bush, especially after Gore won the popular vote in 2000.
I tell ya,..I kinda feel bad for Al Gore,...he got more votes then Bush in 00, and more votes than Clinton recieved in both of his victories.....both Clinton and Bush got to serve two terms....but, Gore gets nothing....what a cruel twist of fate. No wonder he went over the deep end. Has he said that he is running in 2008 yet ? I hope he runs.
As for deficit spending, both parties are avoiding the tough decisions out of fear of losing their political perches: Dems want to raise taxes, but won't run on this position fearing the "Mondale effect". Repubs want to freeze spending until the budget can become balanced, but cannot run on a "cut spending" program for fear of being called "uncaring, millionaire loving, dupes of big corporations" who want to screw the poor and downtrodden. So what happens, BOTH parties "agree" to deficit spend, then hope that economic growth will overcome the deficit, which is what happened after Newt and the Repubs held the line of spending after the 1994 elections.
So, don't expect to see any Dems running on a " I'll raise your taxes" platform, AND don't expect to see any Repubs running on a "I"ll cut federal spending" platform. They are both too frightened to tell the "painful" truth.
In the meantime, the national debt continues to rise, with the costs of SS, M&M growing exponentially. And we are all stuck with the bill.
If I were King (and what a lovely idea that is) I would freeze all non-military/ national security expenditures until the budget is balanced AND the national debt is paid off. But, of course, I could never be elected on this platform....I would have to take over the government by force LOL. OK,....Who's with me???? How bout you Gary...you seem like a rebellious type LOL. I'll make you one of my Generalissimo's, perhaps in charge of the Air Force, given your aeronautical expertise. LOL.
More later,
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Marco,
You write as though deficit spending were inevitable, but we
have a recent example of politicians biting the bullet and doing
what's right in the mid-90s. It was a bargain between left and right
for the good of the country. Needs to happen again - but this time,
the Republicans don't really need the Democrats as much - they have
to "negotiate with themselves". Responsible Republicans (there are a
few) have to bring their own crazies and village idiots to heel.
Ah, so it's the Democrats' fault things are so polarized? You don't
think it has anything to do with Tom Delay and the use of brute force
tactics in the House? And trying to turn the Senate into a smaller
version of the House, eliminating rules that forced compromise? Or
the taunting triumphalist stance of conservatives such as yourself?
Where's the magnanimity of the majority party that will bring the
minority on board for a compromise? Seems like the conservatives are
still carrying that big chip on their shoulder. Sure it's fun to rub
your opponents' faces in the dirt - until you need them for a deal.
Just as in foreign policy where the U.S. standing in the world is at
an all-time low, this administration has burned its bridges with
potential partners in compromise. This is reality, don't bother
fantasizing about being king. The Republican party has to deal with
reality or eventually the people will wake up and throw them out.
Last time that happened (1932), they wandered in the political
wilderness for 40 years... - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 02:35, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh,
> you are amazing...it's gonna take me hours to reply to all of those
> posts !
> As always, some interesting observations. Hey Rance,...how bout
> some help here....my wife is giving me grief for spending so much
> time writing all these responses. LOL. She's got more household
> chores for me to do here. Does anyone else "feel my pain"? But
> like Hugh said, exposing and rebutting liberal lies, distortions,
> and misconceptions is worth it to me too.
>
> Quickly, let me take issue with one point you made:
>
>
> Last time I checked, Bush received 51% of the vote, and more than
> 60 million votes, the most ever by ANY president. By comparison,
> Clinton, who I would assume you think is one of the greatest
> Presidents ever, only received 43% and 49% of the vote when he won,
> hardly a ringing endorsement from the American public, but he sure
> could bite his lip, and tear up (cry) on cue.....what a great
> guy!!! So inspiring !!! That being said, Bush has not succeeded
> in uniting the country as he desired, but like you said, the Dems
> were itching to bash Bush after Clinton got bashed by the Repubs,
> and had NO DESIRE to unite with Bush, especially after Gore won the
> popular vote in 2000.
>
> I tell ya,..I kinda feel bad for Al Gore,...he got more votes then
> Bush in 00, and more votes than Clinton recieved in both of his
> victories.....both Clinton and Bush got to serve two terms....but,
> Gore gets nothing....what a cruel twist of fate. No wonder he went
> over the deep end. Has he said that he is running in 2008 yet ? I
> hope he runs.
>
> As for deficit spending, both parties are avoiding the tough
> decisions out of fear of losing their political perches: Dems
> want to raise taxes, but won't run on this position fearing the
> "Mondale effect". Repubs want to freeze spending until the budget
> can become balanced, but cannot run on a "cut spending" program for
> fear of being called "uncaring, millionaire loving, dupes of big
> corporations" who want to screw the poor and downtrodden. So what
> happens, BOTH parties "agree" to deficit spend, then hope that
> economic growth will overcome the deficit, which is what happened
> after Newt and the Repubs held the line of spending after the 1994
> elections.
>
> So, don't expect to see any Dems running on a " I'll raise your
> taxes" platform, AND don't expect to see any Repubs running on a
> "I"ll cut federal spending" platform. They are both too frightened
> to tell the "painful" truth.
>
> In the meantime, the national debt continues to rise, with the
> costs of SS, M&M growing exponentially. And we are all stuck with
> the bill.
>
> If I were King (and what a lovely idea that is) I would freeze all
> non-military/ national security expenditures until the budget is
> balanced AND the national debt is paid off. But, of course, I
> could never be elected on this platform....I would have to take
> over the government by force LOL. OK,....Who's with me???? How
> bout you Gary...you seem like a rebellious type LOL. I'll make you
> one of my Generalissimo's, perhaps in charge of the Air Force,
> given your aeronautical expertise. LOL.
>
> More later,
>
> Marco
>
You write as though deficit spending were inevitable, but we
have a recent example of politicians biting the bullet and doing
what's right in the mid-90s. It was a bargain between left and right
for the good of the country. Needs to happen again - but this time,
the Republicans don't really need the Democrats as much - they have
to "negotiate with themselves". Responsible Republicans (there are a
few) have to bring their own crazies and village idiots to heel.
Ah, so it's the Democrats' fault things are so polarized? You don't
think it has anything to do with Tom Delay and the use of brute force
tactics in the House? And trying to turn the Senate into a smaller
version of the House, eliminating rules that forced compromise? Or
the taunting triumphalist stance of conservatives such as yourself?
Where's the magnanimity of the majority party that will bring the
minority on board for a compromise? Seems like the conservatives are
still carrying that big chip on their shoulder. Sure it's fun to rub
your opponents' faces in the dirt - until you need them for a deal.
Just as in foreign policy where the U.S. standing in the world is at
an all-time low, this administration has burned its bridges with
potential partners in compromise. This is reality, don't bother
fantasizing about being king. The Republican party has to deal with
reality or eventually the people will wake up and throw them out.
Last time that happened (1932), they wandered in the political
wilderness for 40 years... - Hugh
On 9 Sep 2005, at 02:35, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> Hugh,
> you are amazing...it's gonna take me hours to reply to all of those
> posts !
> As always, some interesting observations. Hey Rance,...how bout
> some help here....my wife is giving me grief for spending so much
> time writing all these responses. LOL. She's got more household
> chores for me to do here. Does anyone else "feel my pain"? But
> like Hugh said, exposing and rebutting liberal lies, distortions,
> and misconceptions is worth it to me too.
>
> Quickly, let me take issue with one point you made:
>
>
> Last time I checked, Bush received 51% of the vote, and more than
> 60 million votes, the most ever by ANY president. By comparison,
> Clinton, who I would assume you think is one of the greatest
> Presidents ever, only received 43% and 49% of the vote when he won,
> hardly a ringing endorsement from the American public, but he sure
> could bite his lip, and tear up (cry) on cue.....what a great
> guy!!! So inspiring !!! That being said, Bush has not succeeded
> in uniting the country as he desired, but like you said, the Dems
> were itching to bash Bush after Clinton got bashed by the Repubs,
> and had NO DESIRE to unite with Bush, especially after Gore won the
> popular vote in 2000.
>
> I tell ya,..I kinda feel bad for Al Gore,...he got more votes then
> Bush in 00, and more votes than Clinton recieved in both of his
> victories.....both Clinton and Bush got to serve two terms....but,
> Gore gets nothing....what a cruel twist of fate. No wonder he went
> over the deep end. Has he said that he is running in 2008 yet ? I
> hope he runs.
>
> As for deficit spending, both parties are avoiding the tough
> decisions out of fear of losing their political perches: Dems
> want to raise taxes, but won't run on this position fearing the
> "Mondale effect". Repubs want to freeze spending until the budget
> can become balanced, but cannot run on a "cut spending" program for
> fear of being called "uncaring, millionaire loving, dupes of big
> corporations" who want to screw the poor and downtrodden. So what
> happens, BOTH parties "agree" to deficit spend, then hope that
> economic growth will overcome the deficit, which is what happened
> after Newt and the Repubs held the line of spending after the 1994
> elections.
>
> So, don't expect to see any Dems running on a " I'll raise your
> taxes" platform, AND don't expect to see any Repubs running on a
> "I"ll cut federal spending" platform. They are both too frightened
> to tell the "painful" truth.
>
> In the meantime, the national debt continues to rise, with the
> costs of SS, M&M growing exponentially. And we are all stuck with
> the bill.
>
> If I were King (and what a lovely idea that is) I would freeze all
> non-military/ national security expenditures until the budget is
> balanced AND the national debt is paid off. But, of course, I
> could never be elected on this platform....I would have to take
> over the government by force LOL. OK,....Who's with me???? How
> bout you Gary...you seem like a rebellious type LOL. I'll make you
> one of my Generalissimo's, perhaps in charge of the Air Force,
> given your aeronautical expertise. LOL.
>
> More later,
>
> Marco
>
.
in a bit of irony ( that i, myself, wasn't aware of at the time) brian v h's post may have been the vehicle that allowed me to bring my point home. perhaps i may have had a tad of my intended impact.
anywhoo...i'm spent for now.
trying to play the role of the original bob ( hatchet-man ) dole for the 'left' really IS wearing. i just thought that it was necessary for someone to get their hands dirty and I don't have to worry about who is on my launch crew
like the rest of you. just pls don't hate me for being ugly
i'll be rooting from the sidelines for now. (..... keeping my blade sharp.....
)
in a bit of irony ( that i, myself, wasn't aware of at the time) brian v h's post may have been the vehicle that allowed me to bring my point home. perhaps i may have had a tad of my intended impact.
anywhoo...i'm spent for now.
trying to play the role of the original bob ( hatchet-man ) dole for the 'left' really IS wearing. i just thought that it was necessary for someone to get their hands dirty and I don't have to worry about who is on my launch crew
like the rest of you. just pls don't hate me for being ugly i'll be rooting from the sidelines for now. (..... keeping my blade sharp.....
)garyDevan
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
So Marco, let's try to imagine an America with no social safety net such as you pine for. You are successful in that environment, but you have to avoid certain parts of the city at night (if you live in Baltimore that's true now), have to live in a gated community with armed guards, have to have armed chauffeurs to take your kids to school for fear of kidnapping for ransom. Is this what you really want? Take a look at the income distribution curve for the U.S. - just the shape of the curve, not the absolute amounts: it most closely resembles that of Bangladesh - a few very rich people and a much larger group with much less. I don't know about you, but I have visited the Third World, including Bangladesh. I prefer to live in a civilized society where I don't have to step over beggars on the sidewalk, don't have to make an on the spot assessment of whether giving alms will provide a meal or just the next fix. I want the government to take care of these people - that doesn't mean a free lunch for life; I want them put through rehab and job training and placed in the work force. The free market is great - but it has to be regulated (Enron). Conservatives seem to have this quasi-religious faith that market solutions are always better than government. "Contractor will sink enemy submarines for $1 billion per or cost plus fixed fee whichever is greater..." - Hugh
>From: mcelrah@verizon.net
>Date: Thu Sep 08 22:21:47 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Yup, I think a lot of the brouhaha over the tardy federal response to
>the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
>Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
>it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
>things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
>that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
>view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
>say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
>They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
>Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
>Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
>how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
>
>Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
>the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
>should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
>whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
>are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
>fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
>in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
>able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
>law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
>region after the hurricane...)
>
>No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
>to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
>17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
>in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
>income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
>we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
>
> Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
>on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
>First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
>but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
>wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
>enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
>does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
>the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
>but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
>figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
>and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
>Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
>disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
>challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
>elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
>to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
>spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
>great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
>American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
>admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
>what you call me.)
>- Hugh
>
>On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Joe, you said
>>
>> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
>> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
>> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
>> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
>> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
>> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
>> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
>> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
>> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
>> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
>> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
>> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
>> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
>> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
>> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
>> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
>> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
>> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
>> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
>> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
>> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
>> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
>> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
>> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
>> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
>> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
>> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>>
>> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
>> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
>> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
>> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
>> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
>> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
>> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
>> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
>> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
>> following questions:
>> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
>> a social welfare agent?
>> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
>> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
>> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
>> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
>> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
>> were too high.
>>
>> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>>
>> Marco
>>
>From: mcelrah@verizon.net
>Date: Thu Sep 08 22:21:47 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Yup, I think a lot of the brouhaha over the tardy federal response to
>the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
>Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
>it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
>things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
>that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
>view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
>say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
>They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
>Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
>Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
>how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
>
>Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
>the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
>should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
>whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
>are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
>fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
>in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
>able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
>law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
>region after the hurricane...)
>
>No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
>to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
>17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
>in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
>income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
>we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
>
> Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
>on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
>First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
>but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
>wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
>enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
>does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
>the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
>but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
>figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
>and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
>Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
>disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
>challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
>elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
>to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
>spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
>great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
>American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
>admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
>what you call me.)
>- Hugh
>
>On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Joe, you said
>>
>> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
>> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
>> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
>> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
>> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
>> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
>> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
>> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
>> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
>> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
>> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
>> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
>> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
>> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
>> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
>> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
>> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
>> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
>> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
>> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
>> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
>> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
>> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
>> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
>> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
>> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
>> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>>
>> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
>> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
>> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
>> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
>> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
>> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
>> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
>> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
>> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
>> following questions:
>> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
>> a social welfare agent?
>> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
>> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
>> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
>> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
>> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
>> were too high.
>>
>> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>>
>> Marco
>>
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
So Marco, let's try to imagine an America with no social safety net such as you pine for. You are successful in that environment, but you have to avoid certain parts of the city at night (if you live in Baltimore that's true now), have to live in a gated community with armed guards, have to have armed chauffeurs to take your kids to school for fear of kidnapping for ransom. Is this what you really want? Take a look at the income distribution curve for the U.S. - just the shape of the curve, not the absolute amounts: it most closely resembles that of Bangladesh - a few very rich people and a much larger group with much less. I don't know about you, but I have visited the Third World, including Bangladesh. I prefer to live in a civilized society where I don't have to step over beggars on the sidewalk, don't have to make an on the spot assessment of whether giving alms will provide a meal or just the next fix. I want the government to take care of these people - that doesn't mean a free lunch for life; I want them put through rehab and job training and placed in the work force. The free market is great - but it has to be regulated (Enron). Conservatives seem to have this quasi-religious faith that market solutions are always better than government. "Contractor will sink enemy submarines for $1 billion per or cost plus fixed fee whichever is greater..." - Hugh
>From: mcelrah@verizon.net
>Date: Thu Sep 08 22:21:47 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Yup, I think a lot of the brouhaha over the tardy federal response to
>the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
>Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
>it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
>things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
>that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
>view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
>say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
>They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
>Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
>Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
>how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
>
>Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
>the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
>should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
>whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
>are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
>fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
>in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
>able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
>law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
>region after the hurricane...)
>
>No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
>to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
>17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
>in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
>income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
>we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
>
> Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
>on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
>First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
>but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
>wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
>enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
>does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
>the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
>but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
>figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
>and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
>Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
>disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
>challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
>elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
>to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
>spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
>great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
>American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
>admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
>what you call me.)
>- Hugh
>
>On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Joe, you said
>>
>> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
>> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
>> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
>> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
>> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
>> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
>> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
>> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
>> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
>> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
>> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
>> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
>> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
>> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
>> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
>> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
>> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
>> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
>> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
>> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
>> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
>> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
>> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
>> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
>> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
>> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
>> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>>
>> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
>> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
>> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
>> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
>> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
>> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
>> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
>> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
>> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
>> following questions:
>> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
>> a social welfare agent?
>> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
>> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
>> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
>> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
>> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
>> were too high.
>>
>> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>>
>> Marco
>>
>From: mcelrah@verizon.net
>Date: Thu Sep 08 22:21:47 CDT 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Yup, I think a lot of the brouhaha over the tardy federal response to
>the hurricane disaster is unjustified - woulda been the same under a
>Democrat (although Bush clearly has a tin ear for how to talk about
>it vs. Clinton's virtuoso performances). It was a huge disaster and
>things just weren't going to go smoothly. That said, anything bad
>that happens to Bush is fine with me. As we used to say, Democrats
>view politics as sport; Republicans view it as war. I say "used to
>say", because the left has decided it has to fight fire with fire.
>They're tired of getting steam-rolled by the Republican machine.
>Bush will probably go out of office with low ratings, big deal.
>Question is whether Republican legislative majorities will end and
>how the Republican presidential candidate does in the next election.
>
>Yup, all for "redistribution". Those who have benefited most from
>the social framework of laws, institutions, infrastructure etc.
>should pay more than those who are just getting by. Question is
>whether it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost - or
>are we in this together? How do you expect the lower middle class to
>fight and die in the armed forces for an America that victimizes them
>in favor of rich people who don't need the federal subsidies they are
>able to hire lobbyists to get for them? (E.g. The new bankruptcy
>law - which is gonna bite a bunch of Bush voters in the south central
>region after the hurricane...)
>
>No problem with "flat tax" or consumption taxes - but don't expect it
>to be less than income tax. I'm "upper middle" and have paid around
>17% effective income tax for 30 years - flat or sales tax has to come
>in right around 17% on the middle class to generate the necessary
>income for the government. There is no free lunch. And by the way,
>we can have tax reform/simplification and still have it be progressive.
>
> Yeah, there is such a thing as too high taxes (Sweden's former 103%
>on high incomes is probably too high) but we're far from that point.
>First, taxes have to cover spending. Republicans want to cut taxes,
>but keep spending more. Arthur Laffer is dead - and he was dead
>wrong. Sure you get more economic activity if you cut taxes, but not
>enough to fund the government at the same level. The Laffer Curve
>does not correspond to the actual behavior of the economy. We had
>the experiment and proved this 20 years ago. It's a nice fairy tale
>but Republicans need to graduate to macroeconomics. They have to
>figure out how to cut $300 billion this year, more in the out years,
>and the truth is, there's nothing that big in the budget that
>Americans are willing to give up: social security, Medicare,
>disaster relief - the whole welfare state that you question. I
>challenge YOU to propose cuts to match the tax cuts - you can't get
>elected dog-catcher on that platform. So the Republican majority has
>to grow up and GOVERN realistically. They can't blame the tax-and-
>spend liberals anymore (they just want to spend, no taxes - works
>great until they cancel your credit card) - liberalism as a brand in
>American politics is dead - you can't find a politician who will
>admit to being one. (I 'm not running for office so I don't care
>what you call me.)
>- Hugh
>
>On 8 Sep 2005, at 13:02, Marco Zee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Joe, you said
>>
>> Reply: I didn't say "everyone". 48% of the voters voted against
>> Bush in 2004. Many of these 48% were liberals. But only a small
>> percentage of these are true "bush haters", such as Michael Moore,
>> George Soros, and Alec Baldwin, amongst others, who readily and
>> repeatedly admit that they hate Bush with all of their being.
>> Marc, Hugh, and yourself readily admit that you don't hate Bush,
>> which is good to hear, but that you don't trust him or agree with
>> most his policies, which is certainly your right.
>> The point I am trying to make is that the true Bush-Haters'
>> highest priority is to destroy, discredit, and obstruct Bush at
>> every opportunity. They are not viewing issues with the priority
>> of "what's best for the country", and the American public is not
>> swayed in large numbers when seeing and hearing hatred, instead of
>> constructive criticism and alternate agendas, which the loyal
>> opposition is supposed to promulgate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Good point Joe. The Dems don't have the numbers to pass
>> anything on their own, but do have enough numbers to obstruct,
>> which they have been doing at every opportunity. The Senate, in
>> particular, is a very deliberative body, with many procedural
>> processes to slow or stop legislation, even with a minority of votes.
>> Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be
>> reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform
>> do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse
>> their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the
>> programs. Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the
>> Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which
>> recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a
>> chance to reform SS, but chose not to.
>>
>> Because the liberals have lost all seats of government, they
>> feel unempowered and threatened, and who do they primarily blame
>> for this situation.....who else....Bush. Not surprisingly, their
>> percieved political weakness and fears turn into hatred and
>> mistrust. (yeah, i know this is psychobabble).
>>
>>
>>
>> Reply: Yes, we had a country without "income taxes" for more than
>> 140 years !!! That is a historical fact. The world has changed,
>> and the country has grown. But many on my side of the fence view
>> taxes and social programs as a redistribution of wealth...taking
>> from the producers and giving it to the non-producers. It begs the
>> following questions:
>> 1) What is the proper role of the federal government? Is it to be
>> a social welfare agent?
>> 2) And if we have taxes, how best to collect them....ie a flat
>> tax, or my favorite, a national sales tax.
>> 3) If taxes are necessary, is there a point where taxes become
>> excessive, or rates become too high, or is the sky the limit? JFK
>> cut taxes back in 1961 because he thought the rates "back then"
>> were too high.
>>
>> Got work to do....thanks for all the posts...
>>
>> Marco
>>
Deficit Spending / No Taxes / Ballot initiatives
Hush said <<You write as though deficit spending were inevitable, but we
have a recent example of politicians biting the bullet and doing
what's right in the mid-90s. It was a bargain between left and right
for the good of the country.>>
Reply; The best way to tame the deficit is to grow the economy while restraining spending. A growing economy increases revenues to the Treasury due to an increase in taxable incomes as a result of a larger work force and increased GDP. The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining spending while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
Dems like to increase revenues by INCREASING TAX RATES (as Clinton did after running on a "middle class tax cut" platform....another lie). Hugh, Joe , and Marc appear comfortable with increasing taxes NOW (correct me if I am misstating your position) so as to spend more money on social programs.
Repubs like to increase revenues by using tax cuts (LOWERING tax rates) to grow the economy, and then collecting the increased revenues from the larger GDP. Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, and tax revenues increased from 500 Billion to 940 Billion during his tenure (these are facts).
So Bush is banking on the growing economy, and its resulting increase in tax revenues, to overcome the deficit. Making the tax cuts permanent are part of this plan. However, if spending is not controlled, this will be even more difficult to achieve, if not impossible.
The greatest fear of Dems is that Bush will succeed in growing the economy and balancing the budget, AND succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. The Dem Leadership (and many rank and file Dems) have positioned themselves politically to hope and wish for a "bad economy" and a "military and political" loss to Baathist and Terrorist murderers because it is more important to these Dems to defeat Bush than to have a good economy or defeat these thugs and terrorists. The liberal press has done everything they can to portray the economy and the Iraq war as negatively as possible. And that's why many wonder.....do you Dems want to leave Iraq because you really feel it is unwinnable,.... OR do you want to leave to guarantee a defeat and humiliation for Bush and the military? But this is the political position that many Dems have placed themselves.
Conversely, Repubs fear that the economy will tank again and that Iraq cannot be democratized. But I feel very comfortable wishing for a strong, growing economy that benefits all Americans , and a decisive, historic military victory in support of democracy in a vital region of the world.
Joe,
No repub that I know has advocated a total elimination of taxes.....where did you get this idea? Can you give me a quote or position paper that says this? We barely got enough votes to get that rather puny 2001 tax cut, much less enough support for total elimination of taxes.
Christy,
Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000 made marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws. Do you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
gotta run,
Marco
have a recent example of politicians biting the bullet and doing
what's right in the mid-90s. It was a bargain between left and right
for the good of the country.>>
Reply; The best way to tame the deficit is to grow the economy while restraining spending. A growing economy increases revenues to the Treasury due to an increase in taxable incomes as a result of a larger work force and increased GDP. The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining spending while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
Dems like to increase revenues by INCREASING TAX RATES (as Clinton did after running on a "middle class tax cut" platform....another lie). Hugh, Joe , and Marc appear comfortable with increasing taxes NOW (correct me if I am misstating your position) so as to spend more money on social programs.
Repubs like to increase revenues by using tax cuts (LOWERING tax rates) to grow the economy, and then collecting the increased revenues from the larger GDP. Reagan cut taxes in the 80's, and tax revenues increased from 500 Billion to 940 Billion during his tenure (these are facts).
So Bush is banking on the growing economy, and its resulting increase in tax revenues, to overcome the deficit. Making the tax cuts permanent are part of this plan. However, if spending is not controlled, this will be even more difficult to achieve, if not impossible.
The greatest fear of Dems is that Bush will succeed in growing the economy and balancing the budget, AND succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. The Dem Leadership (and many rank and file Dems) have positioned themselves politically to hope and wish for a "bad economy" and a "military and political" loss to Baathist and Terrorist murderers because it is more important to these Dems to defeat Bush than to have a good economy or defeat these thugs and terrorists. The liberal press has done everything they can to portray the economy and the Iraq war as negatively as possible. And that's why many wonder.....do you Dems want to leave Iraq because you really feel it is unwinnable,.... OR do you want to leave to guarantee a defeat and humiliation for Bush and the military? But this is the political position that many Dems have placed themselves.
Conversely, Repubs fear that the economy will tank again and that Iraq cannot be democratized. But I feel very comfortable wishing for a strong, growing economy that benefits all Americans , and a decisive, historic military victory in support of democracy in a vital region of the world.
Joe,
No repub that I know has advocated a total elimination of taxes.....where did you get this idea? Can you give me a quote or position paper that says this? We barely got enough votes to get that rather puny 2001 tax cut, much less enough support for total elimination of taxes.
Christy,
Can you help me with the CA thing. A Ballot Initiative in 2000 made marriage between and a man and a woman.....what legislative "weight" does this carry if the Legislature can overturn it 5 years later? Also, there is a federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed during the Clinton years. Can a ballot initiative be overturned by a simple majority of the legislature? Or would it take another ballot initiative to do so? Or just a single judge, or group of judges, to find it "unconstitutional"?
My problem with judges is when they start writing laws , rather than interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws. Do you think it is ok for those Mass. judges to "order' the legislature to write a gay marriage law, or any law for that matter?
gotta run,
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
> The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining spending
> while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we
> are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
HAR,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
Oh, that's a good one, Marco. How many republicans will actually admit to
decreasing military spending? Only a true spinmeister would call the
failure to stop the dem majority "assistance". My hat off to you.
Anyway, cutting the military was in fact a big part of the budget surplus,
as was the many other belt tightening measures. It was a precarious
trade-off between security and an economically responsible government, but
I don't think most of us would give up the booming 90's for what was then
an oversized cold-war style military.
> The GOP in the mid and late 90's did a good job on restraining spending
> while assisting Clinton in cutting military spending (which is why we
> are forced to use the National Guard and Reserves so much now).
HAR,HAR!,HAR...*slurp*, hehehehe...
Oh, that's a good one, Marco. How many republicans will actually admit to
decreasing military spending? Only a true spinmeister would call the
failure to stop the dem majority "assistance". My hat off to you.
Anyway, cutting the military was in fact a big part of the budget surplus,
as was the many other belt tightening measures. It was a precarious
trade-off between security and an economically responsible government, but
I don't think most of us would give up the booming 90's for what was then
an oversized cold-war style military.
SS and M/M
Joe, with regards to our earlier conversation:
<<Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs.
Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to. >>
Joe replied: <<Lets see didn't the Repbulicans control congress in 99 and 00 or at least the house? >>
Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have demonstrated, to do so.
To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of history....but nice try.
Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and the list goes on.....).
And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of privitization....none of which he had the political courage to promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office (remember the Mondale effect).
More to say,.just don't have the time now.
have a good weekend all,
Marco
<<Many Dems do not think that these social programs need to be reformed at all....and others that do realize the need for reform do not trust Bush to reform them, even though they cannot espouse their own reform plan, other than to throw more money at the programs.
Clinton and the Dems back in '99 and '00 ignored the Social Security Reform Commission's recommendations, which recommended immediate reform of the system, so your side had a chance to reform SS, but chose not to. >>
Joe replied: <<Lets see didn't the Repbulicans control congress in 99 and 00 or at least the house? >>
Reply: Yes, the Repubs controlled the House, but the Repubs were advocating FOR reform,...NOT BLOCKING REFORM. It was Clinton and the Dems who did NOT want to "tackle" this issue because they didn't have the political courage, as Bush and the Repubs have demonstrated, to do so.
To blame the House Repubs because Clinton chickened out (or was AWOL) on this very important issue is a complete distortion of history....but nice try.
Just mark it up as another Clinton failure. The Repubs were (and are) trying to save and reform social security. The Dems had their chance, and punted. Another mess he left for Bush to have to clean up (ie Iraq, Korea, Iran, Social Security, M/M, Terrorism.....and the list goes on.....).
And why didn't Clinton want to reform SS? For the very reasons I stated earlier...it would probably mean a drastic increase in taxes, and/or a reduction of benefits, or some form of privitization....none of which he had the political courage to promote, especially with Gore and Hillary running for office (remember the Mondale effect).
More to say,.just don't have the time now.
have a good weekend all,
Marco