PDA

View Full Version : Tax Breaks in War Time?


David
October 4th 04, 06:15 PM
In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
after tax break . . in wartime.
He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
dumbest commander-in-chief in history

Top Sirloin
October 4th 04, 06:24 PM
David wrote:
> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
> "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
> after tax break . . in wartime.
> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> dumbest commander-in-chief in history

When you're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
tax cuts increase tax revenue.

Excessively high tax rates kill a governments
revenue as a percentage of GDP because it
encourages the use and development of an
underground untaxed cash economy.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

David
October 4th 04, 06:38 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote:
>
> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
says
> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
break
> >after tax break . . in wartime.
> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
> Reagan increased defense spending nearly 50%. The difference was that
> it was strategic defense spending, not tactical defense spending.

yes, Reagan managed to lift spending while giving tax cuts - but my point is
that Bush is complaining about not having enough money to do the necessary
things that Kerry was suggesting he would do - and all the while giving tax
cuts

Tiger Hillside
October 4th 04, 09:00 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:24:27 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>> American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>> president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>> now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
>> "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
>> after tax break . . in wartime.
>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>> wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>> dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
>When you're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
>tax cuts increase tax revenue.
>
>Excessively high tax rates kill a governments
>revenue as a percentage of GDP because it
>encourages the use and development of an
>underground untaxed cash economy.

The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.

Tiger Hillside
October 4th 04, 09:00 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:38:51 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "David" > wrote:
>>
>> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
>says
>> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
>break
>> >after tax break . . in wartime.
>> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>>
>> Reagan increased defense spending nearly 50%. The difference was that
>> it was strategic defense spending, not tactical defense spending.
>
>yes, Reagan managed to lift spending while giving tax cuts

Yeah, he massively increased deficits. Then he put in tax increases
and the deficits came down.

> - but my point is
>that Bush is complaining about not having enough money to do the necessary
>things that Kerry was suggesting he would do - and all the while giving tax
>cuts
>

Tiger Hillside
October 4th 04, 09:02 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:18:43 -0700, Lurker
> wrote:

>David wrote:
>
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"David" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>>>>American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>>>>president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>>>>now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
>>
>> says
>>
>>>>"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
>>
>> break
>>
>>>>after tax break . . in wartime.
>>>>He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>>>>wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>>>>dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>>>
>>>Reagan increased defense spending nearly 50%. The difference was that
>>>it was strategic defense spending, not tactical defense spending.
>>
>>
>> yes, Reagan managed to lift spending while giving tax cuts - but my point is
>> that Bush is complaining about not having enough money to do the necessary
>> things that Kerry was suggesting he would do - and all the while giving tax
>> cuts
>>
>>
>I didn't see it as Bush complaining about a lack of funds so much as
>covertly pointing out that all the grand claims made by his competition
>directly equate tax hikes. It is the typical magicians trick. Only in
>this case the hand that Kerry is waving is safety/foriegn relations in
>order to distract you from the other hand that is stealing your wallet
>and liberties.

Funny, I would think that the hand that pushes the Patriot Act was the
one after my liberties. While the hand that pushed record numbers into
poverty and record numbers out of health insurance was after the
pocket book.

At some point "Don't worry, we'll pay for it next year" no longer
works.

>Oh, and "necessary" is subjective to one's point of view.
>
>Lurker

David
October 4th 04, 11:16 PM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> > American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> > president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> > now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
says
> > "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
break
> > after tax break . . in wartime.
> > He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> > wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> > dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
> When you're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
> tax cuts increase tax revenue.
>
> Excessively high tax rates kill a governments
> revenue as a percentage of GDP because it
> encourages the use and development of an
> underground untaxed cash economy.
>
I realize it is a complex issue - I was making more the point that Bush was
already making excuses about not doing "all he can" to protect the country

David
October 4th 04, 11:17 PM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:38:51 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "David" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect
the
> >> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> >> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are
checked
> >> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
> >says
> >> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
> >break
> >> >after tax break . . in wartime.
> >> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but
Reagan
> >> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is
the
> >> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
> >>
> >> Reagan increased defense spending nearly 50%. The difference was that
> >> it was strategic defense spending, not tactical defense spending.
> >
> >yes, Reagan managed to lift spending while giving tax cuts
>
> Yeah, he massively increased deficits. Then he put in tax increases
> and the deficits came down.

I was making more the point that Bush was already making excuses about not
doing "all he can" to protect the country

October 4th 04, 11:20 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
>"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
>after tax break . . in wartime.
>He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>dumbest commander-in-chief in history

True, Bush is dumb, but his handlers aren't. The tax breaks
benefitting only the wealthy in a time of hawkish military spending is
intentional. It will bankrupt the treasury, intentionally to justify
huge future cuts in social spending. It also serves to squeeze an
upwardly mobile middle class back into the lower classes and forces
even more dependence upon goverment "leadership" (ie Big Brother).
Just take a look at the flow of money in wartime: from the middle
class tax payer to the big corporate bosses. At the same time cut
their taxes. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Bush and
Reagan have precided over two things: the greatest federal deficits
ever, and the greatest seperation of the wealth of the classes. That
is what it is all for. And that is what it is doing.

Hal

>

Tiger Hillside
October 5th 04, 01:03 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:17:47 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:38:51 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "David" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect
>the
>> >> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>> >> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are
>checked
>> >> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
>> >says
>> >> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
>> >break
>> >> >after tax break . . in wartime.
>> >> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but
>Reagan
>> >> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is
>the
>> >> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>> >>
>> >> Reagan increased defense spending nearly 50%. The difference was that
>> >> it was strategic defense spending, not tactical defense spending.
>> >
>> >yes, Reagan managed to lift spending while giving tax cuts
>>
>> Yeah, he massively increased deficits. Then he put in tax increases
>> and the deficits came down.
>
> I was making more the point that Bush was already making excuses about not
>doing "all he can" to protect the country
>
I know, I was just pulling the support from one of the excuses. Bush
is not doing all he can, he is doing the thing he decided to do and he
is not looking anywhere else for anything else.

MJL
October 5th 04, 02:22 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:24:27 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>> American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>> president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>> now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
>> "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
>> after tax break . . in wartime.
>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>> wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>> dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
>When you're on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
>tax cuts increase tax revenue.
>
>Excessively high tax rates kill a governments
>revenue as a percentage of GDP because it
>encourages the use and development of an
>underground untaxed cash economy.

I think it is pretty clear that we are well into a point where lower
tax rates tend to decreas tax revenues below where they would be if
the rates were higher.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Top Sirloin
October 5th 04, 03:18 AM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
> price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
> prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
> curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
> curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.

Evidence?

The last time I looked Federal Tax Revenues were *up*.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Brandon Berg
October 5th 04, 04:53 AM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
>> price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
>> prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
>> curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
>> curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.
>
> Evidence?
>
> The last time I looked Federal Tax Revenues were *up*.

The 2004 Economic Report of the President, Table B-78. Federal revenues have
fallen by about 10% since 2000. To be fair, though, some of that is probably
due to the recession.

Even if revenues were up, your logic would still be broken. Between
inflation and economic growth, tax revenues can be expected to rise with no
change to the tax code. You couldn't compare this year's revenues with
2000's revenues and say that the tax cut raised revenues. You have to
compare actual revenues to what revenues would have been if not for the tax
cut. But you can't do that, because tax rates affect economic activity. It's
all politically-motivated guesswork, but I'm fairly certain that we're on
the left side of the Laffer curve.

Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax policy.
Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
now.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 5th 04, 05:09 AM
"David" > wrote in message
...
> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
> "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
> break
> after tax break . . in wartime.
> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> dumbest commander-in-chief in history

Defense spending (millions):
1988: 290
2003: 405

GDP (millions)
1988: 5104
2003: 11107 (3rd quarter, annualized)

Defense spending (% of GDP)
1988: 5.7%
2003: 3.6%

By the way, the Reagan tax cuts have been highly exaggerated by both sides.
In fact, federal revenues were 19.6% of GDP in 1981 and 18.3% in 1989, a
decline of about 6.6% relative to GDP. Doesn't sound quite as dramatic as
cutting the top rate from 70% to 28%, does it?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

John Hanson
October 5th 04, 05:28 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says
>"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
>after tax break . . in wartime.

Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.

>He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They had
to fold.

David
October 5th 04, 06:16 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
says
> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
break
> >after tax break . . in wartime.
>
> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.
>
> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
> >
> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They had
> to fold.

Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the difference
here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an excuse for not doing
the sort of basic things a commander in chief needs to do to protect his
country in a "real war" which he claims he is in - for instance I find it
inexcuseable that 100% of shipping containers are not checked for weapons
and what not. Also that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What
if you found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it take
for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. - seems you need
some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security precautions.

David
October 5th 04, 06:20 AM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
> > American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> > president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
> > now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
says
> > "wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
> > break
> > after tax break . . in wartime.
> > He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
> > wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
> > dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>
> Defense spending (millions):
> 1988: 290
> 2003: 405
>
> GDP (millions)
> 1988: 5104
> 2003: 11107 (3rd quarter, annualized)
>
> Defense spending (% of GDP)
> 1988: 5.7%
> 2003: 3.6%
>
> By the way, the Reagan tax cuts have been highly exaggerated by both
sides.
> In fact, federal revenues were 19.6% of GDP in 1981 and 18.3% in 1989, a
> decline of about 6.6% relative to GDP. Doesn't sound quite as dramatic as
> cutting the top rate from 70% to 28%, does it?

yes not dramatic at all. what is dramatic is the amt of defence spending
relative to GDP in 1988 and compared to 2003
thanks that's interesting

> --
> Brandon Berg
> Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.
>
>

John Hanson
October 5th 04, 07:13 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect the
>> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
>> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are checked
>> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
>says
>> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
>break
>> >after tax break . . in wartime.
>>
>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.
>>
>> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but Reagan
>> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is the
>> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>> >
>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
>> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They had
>> to fold.
>
>Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the difference
>here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an excuse for not doing
>the sort of basic things a commander in chief needs to do to protect his
>country in a "real war" which he claims he is in - for instance I find it
>inexcuseable that 100% of shipping containers are not checked for weapons
>and what not. Also that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What
>if you found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it take
>for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. - seems you need
>some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security precautions.
>
I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority. I
think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that it
would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and every one
of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a biological
agent too.

If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to Gitmo
because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your argument.

On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds are
so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray everyone
though and search them at random and search all from the port of call
that the nuke was found on.

David
October 5th 04, 07:24 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to protect
the
> >> >American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says (paraphrasing) " as
> >> >president I would have shipping containers checked, (only 5% are
checked
> >> >now), tighten up the borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and
> >says
> >> >"wonder where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax
> >break
> >> >after tax break . . in wartime.
> >>
> >> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.
> >>
> >> >He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but
Reagan
> >> >wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority now. He is
the
> >> >dumbest commander-in-chief in history
> >> >
> >> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
> >> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They had
> >> to fold.
> >
> >Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the difference
> >here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an excuse for not
doing
> >the sort of basic things a commander in chief needs to do to protect his
> >country in a "real war" which he claims he is in - for instance I find it
> >inexcuseable that 100% of shipping containers are not checked for weapons
> >and what not. Also that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico.
What
> >if you found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it
take
> >for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. - seems you need
> >some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security precautions.
> >
> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority. I
> think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that it
> would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and every one
> of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a biological
> agent too.
>
> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to Gitmo
> because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your argument.
>
> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds are
> so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray everyone
> though and search them at random and search all from the port of call
> that the nuke was found on.
>
OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have me
brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I spend a day duck
hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a fine and send me home.

Larry Hodges
October 5th 04, 07:42 AM
David wrote:
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
>>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to
>>>>> protect the American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says
>>>>> (paraphrasing) " as president I would have shipping containers
>>>>> checked, (only 5% are checked now), tighten up the borders etc
>>>>> etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says "wonder where the money
>>>>> is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break after tax
>>>>> break . . in wartime.
>>>>
>>>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.
>>>>
>>>>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but
>>>>> Reagan wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority
>>>>> now. He is the dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>>>>>
>>>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
>>>> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They
>>>> had to fold.
>>>
>>> Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the
>>> difference here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an
>>> excuse for not doing the sort of basic things a commander in chief
>>> needs to do to protect his country in a "real war" which he claims
>>> he is in - for instance I find it inexcuseable that 100% of
>>> shipping containers are not checked for weapons and what not. Also
>>> that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What if you
>>> found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it
>>> take for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. -
>>> seems you need some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security
>>> precautions.
>>>
>> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority. I
>> think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that it
>> would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and every
>> one of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a
>> biological agent too.
>>
>> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
>> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to Gitmo
>> because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your argument.
>>
>> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
>> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds are
>> so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray everyone
>> though and search them at random and search all from the port of call
>> that the nuke was found on.
>>
> OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have me
> brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I spend a
> day duck hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a fine and
> send me home.

You wouldn't even get a fine. The ACLU would see to that!
--
-Larry

David
October 5th 04, 08:25 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David" >
> >>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to
> >>>>> protect the American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says
> >>>>> (paraphrasing) " as president I would have shipping containers
> >>>>> checked, (only 5% are checked now), tighten up the borders etc
> >>>>> etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says "wonder where the money
> >>>>> is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break after tax
> >>>>> break . . in wartime.
> >>>>
> >>>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to fall.
> >>>>
> >>>>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style but
> >>>>> Reagan wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the priority
> >>>>> now. He is the dumbest commander-in-chief in history
> >>>>>
> >>>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
> >>>> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up. They
> >>>> had to fold.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the
> >>> difference here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an
> >>> excuse for not doing the sort of basic things a commander in chief
> >>> needs to do to protect his country in a "real war" which he claims
> >>> he is in - for instance I find it inexcuseable that 100% of
> >>> shipping containers are not checked for weapons and what not. Also
> >>> that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What if you
> >>> found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it
> >>> take for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. -
> >>> seems you need some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security
> >>> precautions.
> >>>
> >> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority. I
> >> think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that it
> >> would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and every
> >> one of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a
> >> biological agent too.
> >>
> >> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
> >> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to Gitmo
> >> because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your argument.
> >>
> >> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
> >> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds are
> >> so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray everyone
> >> though and search them at random and search all from the port of call
> >> that the nuke was found on.
> >>
> > OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have me
> > brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I spend a
> > day duck hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a fine and
> > send me home.
>
> You wouldn't even get a fine. The ACLU would see to that!
> --
> -Larry
>
Yeah, also Larry I may need a character reference - they wouldn;t believe
Hudson and Lyle and the lesbians probably wouldn't cut it with the judge.

Larry Hodges
October 5th 04, 08:31 AM
David wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David wrote:
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
>>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David"
>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to
>>>>>>> protect the American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says
>>>>>>> (paraphrasing) " as president I would have shipping containers
>>>>>>> checked, (only 5% are checked now), tighten up the borders etc
>>>>>>> etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says "wonder where the
>>>>>>> money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
>>>>>>> after tax break . . in wartime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to
>>>>>> fall.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style
>>>>>>> but Reagan wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the
>>>>>>> priority now. He is the dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
>>>>>> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up.
>>>>>> They had to fold.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the
>>>>> difference here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an
>>>>> excuse for not doing the sort of basic things a commander in chief
>>>>> needs to do to protect his country in a "real war" which he claims
>>>>> he is in - for instance I find it inexcuseable that 100% of
>>>>> shipping containers are not checked for weapons and what not. Also
>>>>> that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What if you
>>>>> found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it
>>>>> take for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. -
>>>>> seems you need some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security
>>>>> precautions.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority.
>>>> I think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that
>>>> it would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and
>>>> every one of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a
>>>> biological agent too.
>>>>
>>>> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
>>>> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to
>>>> Gitmo because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
>>>> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds
>>>> are so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray
>>>> everyone though and search them at random and search all from the
>>>> port of call that the nuke was found on.
>>>>
>>> OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have
>>> me brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I
>>> spend a day duck hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a
>>> fine and send me home.
>>
>> You wouldn't even get a fine. The ACLU would see to that!
>> --
>> -Larry
>>
> Yeah, also Larry I may need a character reference - they wouldn;t
> believe Hudson and Lyle and the lesbians probably wouldn't cut it
> with the judge.

I'll vouch for you! But remember...I'm a lesbian too.
--
-Larry

David
October 5th 04, 08:46 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> David wrote:
> >>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David" >
> >>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David"
> >>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to
> >>>>>>> protect the American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says
> >>>>>>> (paraphrasing) " as president I would have shipping containers
> >>>>>>> checked, (only 5% are checked now), tighten up the borders etc
> >>>>>>> etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says "wonder where the
> >>>>>>> money is going to come from" - and yet he gives tax break
> >>>>>>> after tax break . . in wartime.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to
> >>>>>> fall.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style
> >>>>>>> but Reagan wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the
> >>>>>>> priority now. He is the dumbest commander-in-chief in history
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending the
> >>>>>> Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep up.
> >>>>>> They had to fold.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the
> >>>>> difference here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as an
> >>>>> excuse for not doing the sort of basic things a commander in chief
> >>>>> needs to do to protect his country in a "real war" which he claims
> >>>>> he is in - for instance I find it inexcuseable that 100% of
> >>>>> shipping containers are not checked for weapons and what not. Also
> >>>>> that your borders are porous from Canada and Mexico. What if you
> >>>>> found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow? How long would it
> >>>>> take for all containers to be checked? - probably overnight. -
> >>>>> seems you need some sort of catalyst to do the necessary security
> >>>>> precautions.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big priority.
> >>>> I think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is right in that
> >>>> it would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to check each and
> >>>> every one of them. Every package and piece of mail could contain a
> >>>> biological agent too.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
> >>>> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to
> >>>> Gitmo because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your
> >>>> argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
> >>>> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds
> >>>> are so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray
> >>>> everyone though and search them at random and search all from the
> >>>> port of call that the nuke was found on.
> >>>>
> >>> OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have
> >>> me brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I
> >>> spend a day duck hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a
> >>> fine and send me home.
> >>
> >> You wouldn't even get a fine. The ACLU would see to that!
> >> --
> >> -Larry
> >>
> > Yeah, also Larry I may need a character reference - they wouldn;t
> > believe Hudson and Lyle and the lesbians probably wouldn't cut it
> > with the judge.
>
> I'll vouch for you! But remember...I'm a lesbian too.
> --
> -Larry
>
ha ha! actually I think I might be homosexual - the doctor asked me where I
have sex and I said 'at home'. So basically he said that makes me a
home-o-sexual

Tiger Hillside
October 5th 04, 02:11 PM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:18:12 GMT, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
>> price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
>> prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
>> curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
>> curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.
>
>Evidence?
>
>The last time I looked Federal Tax Revenues were *up*.

I tried to find support for one side or the other and the more data I
got, the less I was able to figure things out. The problem is that the
economy changes size from year to year, inflation occurs, they move
money from place to place. So the best I can give you is that Paul
Krugman the NY Times today said that about $270 Million of the deficit
is due to the tax cuts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html

Top Sirloin
October 5th 04, 05:17 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:18:12 GMT, Top Sirloin
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
>>>price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
>>>prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
>>>curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
>>>curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.
>>
>>Evidence?
>>
>>The last time I looked Federal Tax Revenues were *up*.
>
>
> I tried to find support for one side or the other and the more data I
> got, the less I was able to figure things out. The problem is that the
> economy changes size from year to year, inflation occurs, they move
> money from place to place. So the best I can give you is that Paul
> Krugman the NY Times today said that about $270 Million of the deficit
> is due to the tax cuts.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html

$270 million is trivial to cut from the budget.
Heck, $200 million was spent on stupid anti-drug
ads last year alone.


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Top Sirloin
October 5th 04, 05:17 PM
Brandon Berg wrote:

> Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
> point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax policy.
> Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
> perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
> now.

Exactly.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Larry Hodges
October 5th 04, 06:25 PM
David wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David wrote:
>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> David wrote:
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 05:16:36 GMT, "David"
>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:15:55 GMT, "David"
>>>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the debate Bush says "I am doing everything possible to
>>>>>>>>> protect the American people from terrorism" - then Kerry says
>>>>>>>>> (paraphrasing) " as president I would have shipping
>>>>>>>>> containers checked, (only 5% are checked now), tighten up the
>>>>>>>>> borders etc etc" - then Bush shakes his head and says "wonder
>>>>>>>>> where the money is going to come from" - and yet he gives
>>>>>>>>> tax break after tax break . . in wartime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tax breaks don't necessarily mean that revenues are going to
>>>>>>>> fall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He is giving tax breaks to stimulate the economy Reagan style
>>>>>>>>> but Reagan wasn't fighting a war - the economy is not the
>>>>>>>>> priority now. He is the dumbest commander-in-chief in history
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Reagan was fighting the Cold War which he won by outspending
>>>>>>>> the Soviets on defense. The Soviets knew they couldn't keep
>>>>>>>> up. They had to fold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I realize his strategy and of course it worked - but the
>>>>>>> difference here is that Bush seems to be using lack of money as
>>>>>>> an excuse for not doing the sort of basic things a commander in
>>>>>>> chief needs to do to protect his country in a "real war" which
>>>>>>> he claims he is in - for instance I find it inexcuseable that
>>>>>>> 100% of shipping containers are not checked for weapons and
>>>>>>> what not. Also that your borders are porous from Canada and
>>>>>>> Mexico. What if you found a nuke in a shipping container
>>>>>>> tomorrow? How long would it take for all containers to be
>>>>>>> checked? - probably overnight. - seems you need some sort of
>>>>>>> catalyst to do the necessary security precautions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see inspecting every shipping container as a big
>>>>>> priority. I think the checks in place are adequate and Bush is
>>>>>> right in that it would be unduly burdensome (and expensive) to
>>>>>> check each and every one of them. Every package and piece of
>>>>>> mail could contain a biological agent too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I found a nuke in a shipping container tomorrow, I would
>>>>>> immediately give the order to have you extracted and brought to
>>>>>> Gitmo because I'm sure you did it just to try to prove your
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a more serious note, I think it would be foolish to unpack and
>>>>>> search every container if a nuke was in one just because the odds
>>>>>> are so low of finding multiple ones. I would probably Xray
>>>>>> everyone though and search them at random and search all from the
>>>>>> port of call that the nuke was found on.
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I plant a nuke in a container to prove the argument - you have
>>>>> me brought over to face charges, I do a plea bargain and say I
>>>>> spend a day duck hunting and play wity Buddy - then they give me a
>>>>> fine and send me home.
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't even get a fine. The ACLU would see to that!
>>>> --
>>>> -Larry
>>>>
>>> Yeah, also Larry I may need a character reference - they wouldn;t
>>> believe Hudson and Lyle and the lesbians probably wouldn't cut it
>>> with the judge.
>>
>> I'll vouch for you! But remember...I'm a lesbian too.
>> --
>> -Larry
>>
> ha ha! actually I think I might be homosexual - the doctor asked me
> where I have sex and I said 'at home'. So basically he said that
> makes me a home-o-sexual

haha. I'll have to remember that one.
--
-Larry

Tiger Hillside
October 5th 04, 07:40 PM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:17:15 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:18:12 GMT, Top Sirloin
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The "Laffer curve" is nothing more than a standard economics
>>>>price/demand curve. At the low end you increase income by increasing
>>>>prices, then you start to decrease. The problem is determining the
>>>>curve, then setting the rates. So far we seem to be in the part of the
>>>>curve that decreases income when we decrease rates.
>>>
>>>Evidence?
>>>
>>>The last time I looked Federal Tax Revenues were *up*.
>>
>>
>> I tried to find support for one side or the other and the more data I
>> got, the less I was able to figure things out. The problem is that the
>> economy changes size from year to year, inflation occurs, they move
>> money from place to place. So the best I can give you is that Paul
>> Krugman the NY Times today said that about $270 Million of the deficit
>> is due to the tax cuts.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html
>
>$270 million is trivial to cut from the budget.
>Heck, $200 million was spent on stupid anti-drug
>ads last year alone.

My bad, it is $270 *B*illion. Not quite as trivial.

Tiger Hillside
October 5th 04, 07:51 PM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:53:41 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
[snip]

>Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
>point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax policy.
>Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
>perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
>now.

Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
U.S. should do?

Top Sirloin
October 6th 04, 02:00 PM
Tiger Hillside wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:53:41 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
>>point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax policy.
>>Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
>>perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
>>now.
>
>
> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
> U.S. should do?
>
>
http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/2004/april/default.htm


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Tiger Hillside
October 6th 04, 03:39 PM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:00:18 -0400, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>Tiger Hillside wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:53:41 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
>>>point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax policy.
>>>Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
>>>perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
>>>now.
>>
>>
>> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
>> U.S. should do?
>>
>>
>http://www.hillsdale.edu/newimprimis/2004/april/default.htm

It kind of helps to be isolated like that. It also helps to be
significantly smaller with far fewer people. Do they have roughly 25%
of the government of the U.S.? I have to say that I agree with his
idea of doing what works and not what does not work. I wish we had an
administration that could imagine that they might have made an escape
somehow.

Brandon Berg
October 6th 04, 04:13 PM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:53:41 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
> wrote:
>>Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
>>point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax
>>policy.
>>Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
>>perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
>>now.
>
> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
> U.S. should do?

Now, no. But the US and much of Western Europe had it right up until World
War I. Then civilization took a sharp turn for the worse.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Tiger Hillside
October 6th 04, 05:10 PM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 08:13:26 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:53:41 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
>> wrote:
>>>Anyway, to bicker about our position on the Laffer curve is to miss the
>>>point entirely. Revenue maximization is not a legitimate goal of tax
>>>policy.
>>>Taxation should raise exactly as much money as the government needs to
>>>perform its legitimate functions, which is about 25% of what it's raising
>>>now.
>>
>> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
>> U.S. should do?
>
>Now, no. But the US and much of Western Europe had it right up until World
>War I. Then civilization took a sharp turn for the worse.

Really? When, in particular, was it better? Sounds like 1913. A time
when blacks knew their place, when women could not vote or own
property or become doctors or lawyers in most of the U.S. Is that the
kind of uphill civilization you miss?

Brandon Berg
October 7th 04, 05:18 AM
"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 08:13:26 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
> wrote:
>>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>>> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
>>> U.S. should do?
>>
>>Now, no. But the US and much of Western Europe had it right up until World
>>War I. Then civilization took a sharp turn for the worse.
>
> Really? When, in particular, was it better? Sounds like 1913. A time
> when blacks knew their place, when women could not vote or own
> property or become doctors or lawyers in most of the U.S. Is that the
> kind of uphill civilization you miss?

<sigh>

I'll clarify: Civilization took a sharp turn for the worse in terms of
widespread ideas about the proper relationship between state and economy.

Was that really necessary?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Tiger Hillside
October 7th 04, 01:41 PM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:18:23 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 08:13:26 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
>> wrote:
>>>"Tiger Hillside" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Do you know of any countries that are models of what you think the
>>>> U.S. should do?
>>>
>>>Now, no. But the US and much of Western Europe had it right up until World
>>>War I. Then civilization took a sharp turn for the worse.
>>
>> Really? When, in particular, was it better? Sounds like 1913. A time
>> when blacks knew their place, when women could not vote or own
>> property or become doctors or lawyers in most of the U.S. Is that the
>> kind of uphill civilization you miss?
>
><sigh>
>
>I'll clarify: Civilization took a sharp turn for the worse in terms of
>widespread ideas about the proper relationship between state and economy.

So some things are better, right?

>Was that really necessary?

Which do you have a problem with, the FDA or the SEC? Or the EPA? The
National Park system?