"Deja Vu all over again"

Post #5,985 by mmoffitt 8/20/01 11:48:29 AM Reply	"Deja Vu all over again" "In 1999 the government -- for the first time -- had a surplus larger than the Social Security surplus, meaning the surplus was larger than the payroll taxes collected but unspent on Social Security. Politicians thought this a great thing. And to show their devotion to Social Security, they pledged not to spend any of the Social Security surplus. This looked easy because at the time the economy was growing and President Clinton was not interested in a big tax cut. So revenue kept pouring in, surpluses ballooned and all was milk and honey -- budgetarily speaking...Then President Bush was elected and persuaded Congress to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut,..." "The Bush White House announced this week that it was devoting $4.3 billion in revenue to congressional spending this year. Budget analysts said that revenue will give the White House the cushion it needs to avoid tapping into the Social Security surplus, projected to be $160 billion. The White House "found" the money after reviewing tax receipts for the past three years and concluding Social Security had been shortchanged by $5.6 billion. After subtracting $1.3 billion for a projected Postal Service deficit, the White House said Congress could spend the leftover $4.3 billion. Democrats denounced the move as a budget gimmick and said it could not obscure the real difficulty the White House was having keeping its pledge not to touch the Social Security surplus." Guess where that 4.3 Billion comes from? It's owed to the Social Security Fund: "It [the White House] recalculated tax revenue over the past three years (1998, 1999 and 2000) and discovered that Social Security had been short-changed by $5.6 billion...the White House subtracted the $1.3 billion Postal Service deficit, leaving a remainder of $4.3 billion." So, in true Republican-Reaganesque style, if I screw you out of $5.00 and some time passes, then I spend that $5.00 on something, I can [SIC] honestly claim not to have spent your $5.00. Orwell was an optimist. You know, it seems to be taking lessor and lessor intervals for Republicans to run through money. [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/garrett.otsc/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/...c/index.html] [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/dnc.anti.bush.ads/index.html\|http://www.cnn.com/...s/index.html]
Post #6,154 by screamer 8/21/01 5:35:13 PM Reply	Deja deja vu all all over again I understand the initial premise, although incomplete... "In 1999 the government -- for the first time -- had a surplus larger than the Social Security surplus, meaning the surplus was larger than the payrolltaxes collected but unspent on Social Security..." This sentence should read "for the first time since the great depression and the socialist notion of a "great society"" Right? It further states "Then President Bush was elected and persuaded Congress to pass a $1.3 trillion tax cut,..." This should actually read, "Then 49,000,000 + voting Americans put Bush in office because they wanted a smaller government". NOPE, the author wouldn't want to admit that the country was evenly divided this last election between the concept of capitalism or a welfare state... Nope, we the friggin people are never to blame are we? It further states, "Democrats denounced the move as a budget gimmick and said it could not obscure the real difficulty the White House was having keeping its pledge not to touch the Social Security surplus." Which should read, " the Democrats, after 60 years of such accounting tricks, denounced..." etc... etc... etc... From that biased nonsense you conclude: "So, in true Republican-Reaganesque style, if I screw you out of $5.00 and some time passes, then I spend that $5.00 on something, I can [SIC] honestly claim not to have spent your $5.00. Orwell was an optimist. You know, it seems to be taking lessor and lessor intervals for Republicans to run through money." WTF? You're right... It's a broken record... Aristotle would be proud... Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #6,351 by mmoffitt 8/22/01 3:24:33 PM Reply	49,000,000 "Then 49,000,000 + voting Americans put Bush in office because they wanted a smaller government". Don't blame us! We voted with the MAJORITY!
Post #6,529 by screamer 8/23/01 4:55:46 PM Reply	Slight correction You write; "Don't blame us! We voted with the MAJORITY!" Which should have read; "Don't blame us! I didn't vote - with the TRUE MAJORITY!" :-) Just a few thoughts, Screamer "Putting the fun back into funatic"
Post #6,649 by mmoffitt 8/24/01 4:24:17 PM Reply	TRUE? Would that be the new name of MORAL? :-)
Post #6,199 by boxley 8/21/01 11:06:26 PM Reply	so you thought all that money was in a vault under the whitehouse and bush opened it up and distributed it. What surplus? there never was a surplus that was a trick the democrats used and the repos used to pretend that the economy was doing good. General revenues have never exceeded spending during clintons reign, that surplus was in SS receipts only. The SS system is a buncha IOU's not money sitting in a bank drawing interest. So now everyone finds that the PROJECTED surplus did not appear because the economy tanked over energy issues and the ponzi scheme called dot.com imploded the Dems are crying wolf over money thast wasnt there, isnt there and is never going to be there. All of social security funds not going out in checks is being handed to congress to spend bu t that hasnt changed in 40+ years. So what has changed? The tax cuts just limits the amount govt can spend and can be changed by any congress in any year. I am much more pissed off that the Bush admin is appointing relatives and friends in every appointed slot available if you arnt related to bush or congress critters dont bother to apply. Powells kid in charge of FCC Helms kid 3 years out of law school in charge of 60 as US attorney of NC ad nauseum. feh a pox on both their houses. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #6,353 by mmoffitt 8/22/01 3:28:06 PM Reply	I know the money wasn't (isn't) in a vault. The claim I was trying to make is that diverting some money owed to the SS Trust, it is the height of double-speak to say, "I didn't touch the SS Fund." But, as before under Reagan, image supplants reality and the dutiful right-biased press is not pointing out this hypocrisy.
Post #6,223 by wharris2 8/22/01 2:08:16 AM Reply	massive irritation Just hold government spending at it's current levels. That's all. Or, maybe, keep spending increases under control aka don't spend more than budgeted. People mash Reagan for the deficits, but who voted the budget during 1980-1992? Who spent their asses out the wazoo during that period? (Partly the Reagan military buildup, granted.) French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #6,356 by mmoffitt 8/22/01 3:40:51 PM Reply	I hear this a lot. It wasn't Reagan's fault because Congress passes the budget. Welp, AFAIK, Congress passed the budgets for all of the preceding Presidents up to Reagan. Yet, the deficit more than tripled under the Reagan Administration and exceeded the debts of all the Presidents combined up to him. The bottom line is that Reagan was extremely popular and got everything out of the Congress he wanted. And, no balanced budget was ever submitted to the Congress on his watch. Some would have us believe that a marginal tax-rate cut of 44% for the wealthiest Americans had almost no impact on the US Debt. (Aside: I think Reagan's sense of humor was missed by most on this issue: under the old rules, the wealthiest Americans paid 72% in taxes, under the new rules the wealthiest Americans paid 28% - he stood the tax code on its head. That's the reason there was a tax rate "bubble", rates went (as best I can remember) 15%, 28%, 31%, 28% as income went up. If you had over 200,000 Adj. Income but less than $300,000 Adj. Income you paid 31%, if you had greater than $300,000 Adj. Income you paid 28%). Couple the growth of the US debt under Reagan with the knowledge that California suffered tremendous debt growth under Governor Reagan and a definite pattern emerges - Reagan's policies are to give the largest tax breaks to the wealthy and then increase public spending by hiring those same individuals corporations for government jobs, whilst cutting government social programs (remember: "ketchup is a vegetable"?). We (on the Left) used to say, "From the Needy, to the Greedy" for short ;-) bcnu, Mikem
Post #6,362 by bepatient 8/22/01 4:13:39 PM Reply	Check your stats... ...the 2 largest tax cuts in the modern age (Reagan and Kennedy) resulted in INCREASES in government revenue. And it can be simply turned around in your argument to say that the Democrat's response to these increases in government revenue was to add more unecessary government programs to spend all of the money (and more). It is a simple thing to armchair quarterback government spending...but 2 graduate level econ classes with about 2000 pages of text barely scratch the surface. Unfortunately for you...later in life you are probably going to hear over and over again about how the policies of REAGAN were responsible for the largest, longest period of economic growth in US history. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,451 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 12:07:34 PM Reply	Revisionist History I am familiar with. I spent 4th Grade in the USSR. I have no doubt that some "economists" like Bowden for instance, will rewrite history. If Reagan is responsible for the growth in the 90's, why didn't it happen under Dubya's Daddy? Remember Clinton's signs: "It's the Economy, Stupid"? No matter what rw zealots, or revisionist historians say, the facts will always remain: 1. When Reagan took office, the US was the world's leading creditor nation. 2. By the end of his first term, the US was a debtor nation. 3. By the end of his second term, the US was the world's leading debtor nation. From World's Largest Creditor to World's Largest Debtor and you call that "economic success"? Embrace double-speak that well, do you? It's surprising to me that even in light of the above facts, Stockman's admission that Supply-Side could not work and that they knew it, Dubya's Daddy his ownself calling it "Voodoo economics", all this (and more), you can still find people who support Reaganomics. UN-BELIEVE-ABLE!
Post #6,500 by bepatient 8/23/01 2:42:17 PM Reply	Heh.. Trying that with a statisitician, eh? I'm sure I could pick one indicator that would...on its own...make the economic picture look exactly opposite. And...IIRC...we are BOTH...leading debtor and creditor nation....that being we are the farthest in debt and we give out the most....BUT...how far away are we from maximizing our leverage potential based upon the value of GNP. You see...a certain amount of debt is considered sound financial policy. (not as much as accumulated in the Reagan years, mind you)...but more than the ZERO everyone leads you to believe it should be. And try and vilify the policy all you want...the economy will be more successful the further you remove government from it...and there isn't an economist on the planet that will tell you differently...because there isn't a school of thought that treats government spending as anything but a drain on the economic cycle. Government is inherently inefficient in the economic sense. So...Reagan's single biggest policy (and the Pres can only effect a minority of the economic indicators...the rest is Congress, Fed and other countries) was his tax policy..and THAT was successful...based in a large part on the theories you didn't read that were linked below. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,512 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 3:18:13 PM Reply	Minor Nit. >>...because there isn't a school of thought that treats government spending as anything but a drain on the economic cycle. Except for getting us out of a Depression, right? Or didn't the War Production Board have anything to do with ending the Great Depression? Like it or not, it was US Socialism that brought us out of the Great Depression.
Post #6,515 by bepatient 8/23/01 3:26:56 PM Reply	Not... ...it was World War II that brought us out of the Great Depression. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,523 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 4:12:57 PM Reply	Sort of, but not Xactly. The War Production Board put everyone to work and since no one was making any consumer products - everything went to the War effort, you had this build up of buying power that once the War was OVER, could be spent on consumer goods and industry converted.
Post #6,527 by bepatient 8/23/01 4:53:49 PM Reply	But giving credit to that.. ...as a "government program" is sort of like giving credit to NASA for creating the moon just because they landed there. War has a wonderful habit of spurring the economy...but giving credit to the program as "the way we got out of the depression" is only accurate if they started the war...not just benefitted from it happening. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,648 by mmoffitt 8/24/01 4:21:48 PM Reply	Disagree. The response to the War is what got us out, not the War itself.
Post #6,394 by boxley 8/22/01 10:45:25 PM Reply	slight OT but you think 72% is fair? Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #6,402 by bepatient 8/23/01 12:20:51 AM Reply	Hell...why not 90...they're rich...they can afford it You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,404 by boxley 8/23/01 12:49:18 AM Reply	trouble is dems think Im rich I owe 325k my bank owes 5mill my country owes 200tril Im on my way up.:) thanx andy cap bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #6,443 by bepatient 8/23/01 11:21:41 AM Reply	Heh heh Well if you make more than 25k you're pretty much on their books as wealthy. Representing middle class working families my ass... Marriage penalty, cap gains (homeowners are middle class...NOT rich)...the Dems opposed because they favor the wealthy???? Death tax hits hardest on small business and family farm...but they oppose it because the wealthy will benefit. The wealthy DON'T CARE...they can afford to lose 1/2 of their wealth. But if the IRS decides your little trucking outfit is worth 5 million (even if it provides revenue of 50k) ...you die and your family owes 2.3 million. The dems message makes me sick. Hate the rich because they're successful and your not. MAKE THEM PAY...because they can afford it and you can't. Then they design programs that classify anyone making more than 60k as rich...when everyone thinks they're talking about people making millions. The people who make millions DON'T CARE. They largely control they're own take...and just net their take up to cover the taxes. Then to shelter the wealth...they buy expensive property outside the country. Ross Perot owns the most expensive parcel of land on Bermuda. His neighbor...Michael Jordan. Things that make you go...hmmmm You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,453 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 12:12:58 PM Reply	Careful there with who you blame for the Marriage Penalty. See, I was married before Reagan's tax plan went into effect. Before he started "trickling upon" the lower classes, there was this deduction (IIRC, the Carter Administration implemented it, not sure about that, but I know for DAMNED sure it was Reagan that took it away), called "Deduction for a Married Couple When Both Spouses Work". Up to 10% of the Gross Earnings of the lessor earner was deductible - that was a marriage ADVANTAGE. REAGAN RE-INSTITUTED THE MARRIAGE PENALTY. THE MARRIAGE PENALTY IS A REPUBLICAN CONSTRUCT! And, exactly whose labor do you think it is that gives the wealthy their money?
Post #6,479 by bepatient 8/23/01 1:12:02 PM Reply	Part of tax simplification... ...that went into effect under Reagan. Yep. But who opposes its re-instatement? And who controlled the Congress under Ronnie? And do you think concessions had to be made to get his tax plan through? Hmmm.... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,486 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 1:57:35 PM Reply	Same tired refrain: Nothing is a Republican's fault.
Post #6,489 by bepatient 8/23/01 2:07:34 PM Reply	And yours is its all their fault... ...without any realisation about the way things work inside the beltway. Oh well... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,499 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 2:39:53 PM Reply	Nope. Only what happens on their watch. But then, I've always been a fan of the President who said, "The Buck stops here", while you've always been a fan of the President who said, "I can't recall." :-)
Post #6,506 by bepatient 8/23/01 3:00:04 PM Reply	Now about Harry we can talk... ...aside from some of his foreign policy decisions...he had good intentions and did some very good things. RR is historically (so far) held as a great President. Its not me...and alot is made of "Reaganomics"...when all that really happened was a massive cut in taxes (which increased revenue). The debt came, IMO, from spending the USSR into oblivion...and while it has created some middle term issues (paying down the debt)...you have to wonder if it wasn't worth it to eliminate the Soviet system as an enemy to the US. That part of history hasn't been written yet. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,509 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 3:11:36 PM Reply	I can die tomorrow. We have common ground. >>The debt came, IMO, from spending the USSR into oblivion Concur in spades. That was his exclusive goal. If our borrowing ability had any bound, we would be in as bad a shape as Russia is now. I don't think that made us stronger. I'm also a little too anti-imperialist to think it is our place to decide what countries exist.
Post #6,618 by jb4 8/24/01 1:10:21 PM Reply	Nicely said! jb4 Resistance is not futile...)
Post #6,465 by Simon_Jester 8/23/01 12:29:58 PM Reply	Careful on that as well... Then they design programs that classify anyone making more than 60k as rich...when everyone thinks they're talking about people making millions. I don't agree with the democrats policy on this issue - but its Republicans fault that 60k is classified as 'rich', not Democrats. Democrats originally had tax brackets up to 70+% and you HAD to be making millions to pay those tax levels (see Elvis for an example). Republicans (actually Reagan) reclassified everyone making 60k as 'rich'. Not Democrats.
Post #6,476 by bepatient 8/23/01 1:04:39 PM Reply	Well you don't see them... ...backing away from it either. The Gore plan considered a single mother makeing 35k too rich to receive tax relief. AND...in all the Democrats new plans...you don't see an effort to reclassify wealthy as those making more than that amount. It still doesn't change the tactic...hate the rich and treat them different because YOU aren't. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,480 by DonRichards 8/23/01 1:14:12 PM Reply	But they are different They're rich. :) "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,483 by Simon_Jester 8/23/01 1:35:31 PM Reply	Like it or not, government plans cost money... The Gore plan considered a single mother makeing 35k too rich to receive tax relief. Yer joking right. Republicans consider 35k WAY too rich to receive tax relief. And you're blaming Democrats. This is funny. AND...in all the Democrats new plans...you don't see an effort to reclassify wealthy as those making more than that amount. With the stink made about Death Penalties, you WANT Democrats to propose upper level tax brackets again? Give me a break. Hey, Democrats are willing to cut programs to raise revenue. Just ask Democrats if they want to support an implementation of SDI. Hell, cut the miliitary, Democrats have been blamed for that for the past 8 years. Not that it matters really, Republicans control the House, and White House and there's a virtual tie in the Senate. Tax relief (and/or the lack thereof) is in Republican hands, anyway. If Republican's want to cut programs, go for it.
Post #6,488 by bepatient 8/23/01 2:04:27 PM Reply	Wow... ...that was >rich<...in a different sense of the word, however. Gore gave no credit to a single mother making 35k. Bush's plan immediately gave $500 relief by doubling the child credit. On the other comment...well...do you not think that there would be an instant replacement program? Since we're not spending on SDI...I'm sure the void would be filled with alternative programs. The repos would probably do that as well...but its not exactly an item to use as a defense of dem policy. Course...Libbies had the plan to give everyody back their SS investment...funded by selling Federal land...(and I would support that before Hillary's version of healthcare...so...take that as you wish) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,542 by Simon_Jester 8/23/01 6:58:48 PM Reply	Cough...fast and loose with the rules, eh? Gore gave no credit to a single mother making 35k. Bush's plan immediately gave $500 relief by doubling the child credit. Playing fairly fast and loose with the rules there, eh? Of course, you're defining this solely to tax breaks which ignores the Child Care Credit (see, it's not a tax break, honest). Not to mention the fact that Gore's plan included expanding EIC and standard deductables. So it's fairly disingenious to say that Gore gave poor single moms 'no credit'. It also ignore increases in standard deductable, etc. etc. etc. (We could spin this so many ways it's not funny.) Which, in the end means nothing because Gore's plan never went forward anyway. On the other comment...well...do you not think that there would be an instant replacement program? Since we're not spending on SDI...I'm sure the void would be filled with alternative programs. Well, we'll see won't we. Bush is already making strong demands about sticking Congress to the budget. The important fact that I was pointing was that Congress is controlled by Republicans and they have to find the funding somewhere. But no doubt we'll keep blaming Democrats for taxes.
Post #6,685 by Ashton 8/25/01 5:24:53 PM Reply	It's entirely 'reasonable' to despise those who manipulate a system contrived such that, the overall wealth of a group / country/ world - is manifestly concentrated so disproportionately as ~ 5% controlling >50% of It All. (And that's the Compassion-ative lower US estimate; 4% holding 60% can easily be enumerated.) Numbers are just like religion - in terms of mass manipulation of emotions. And as malleable, we see. Manipulation be our Largest industry of paper-pushing VS actual umm honest? daily? 'work'. And when such a trend exists, as currently - that the disparity also has a positive slope / It Grows: D'Oh! There is nothing whatsoever 'human' within a spreadsheet - just logic and abstraction, always er 'interpreted' from personal agenda: from the GNP down to the beer money in the house budget It's an endlessly fascinating game to parse the categories by year, locale yada yada - but the overall Fact remains, however intricately itemized, obfuscated and rationalized by the real Owners. Owners of: the media and well, most everything palpable + the TIME, energy 24/7 -- of a significant percent of the population. More and more of the total is in Corporate not 'national infrastructure' / "the people"s hands, thus at least theoretical 'control'. What is 'owned' may be employed in any manner an individual (OK-BOD - guess who wins the vote) wants, including towards further hegemony via more effective power to manipulate. Exponential. As now. (What % here do Not derive major sustenance from a local branch of a Corp? And work exactly 8 hours, never taking home that er problem? Or coming in weekends. Or staying over, because.. for 'free') There are indicators of this trend and its acceleration all around. Have to recall from memory one ratio mentioned recently in a broadcast populated by dismal-scientists: In ~ '50s, the ratio of wages/perks of a CEO VS average of employees (Of His company - it was always His in the '50s), compared with today: 30:1 then 450:1 today Same discussion mentioned that in other countries - Japan was one - with big bucks, the ratios today are quite near the 30:1 figure. (Nothwithstanding a handful of International plunderers, who merely demonstrate the rise of Corporate ownership of ItAll, quite beyond just Murican shores). It would be aberrant behavior of homo-saps indeed! - to ovinely 'accept' such disparity in the worth of one's er "daily labors" -- as it was aberrant previously to 'accept' The Divine Right of Kings\ufffd ie Yes of Course! One Despises One's Oppressors! (That we have developed an entire race of 'lawyers' and statutes as intricate as the failed source code for Windoze - to further expand and perpetuate this national con game - merely hides the mechanism which supports that perpetuity.) And an 'economist', like an attorney, aided by the wonderful morphology of Any 'statistics' (pick what you want to measure and - we'll make it come out however you want) is the overall paradigm under which the 5% have a riskless guarantee of never (rarely!) becoming a part of the 95%. Solutions to longest running shell-game of all? Given technology and the spreading of insights about Who Rulez and How (?) ... perhaps the only er Final Solution shall be a culinary one - we so love gourmet fare.. Eat The Rich Oh.. and as always - we shall dutifully elide the so homo-sappish hypocritical undertone; that desire for 'richness' / power over others' labors / Just Because You Can Get It: Hey, if I can eat Your lunch, I'll get More. THAT will be OK with me, 'cause I go to the First Capitalist Church every Sunday and sometimes Wed. nite classes too.. for my MBA. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #6,707 by bepatient 8/26/01 1:52:21 AM Reply	So you posit... ...that all those who attain wealth and success come from wealth and success...so they can manipulate their fortune? Either that...or they come in favor of those who have the wealth and power? Interesting theory. So...who's oppressing you? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,719 by Ashton 8/26/01 8:28:32 AM Reply	'All' is a rather large percentage Need we dig up the genealogies re inherited power from previous, or wonder what sort of job the pres Pres might have - without that? Moneyed class inevitably preserves its hegemony - you doubt? Dynasties. cf. Pharaoh, power, corruption, strife What's clear is that a bias-level of $ attained, permits EZ aggrandizement which does not scale downwards. What we 'do' about that, as the process intensifies (?) probably determines the retirement date of the current Murican experiment. (Too late to oppress me; blessed are those who expect nothing, for ... ) Will share recipes for The Rich, however. It's about culinary arts. Ashton Oppressive Societies Dismantlers Ltd. (local currencies not accepted pre- or post- dismantling)
Post #6,776 by DonRichards 8/27/01 10:02:10 AM Reply	Recipes? Garlic is good on almost everything. Sadly, it would probably take more garlic than exists to cover the flavor of greed. Maybe a little paprika? "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,853 by Ashton 8/27/01 4:28:14 PM Reply	Secret ingredient - 'gaul of dog' (Thanks, Hecate - for the tip) It masks the greed contamination, somewhat modifies the Righteousness odor and decidedly overshadows the sanctimonious aftertaste. Sweetbreads can be tasty too - if the catch is force-fed first \ufffd l\ufffd normal indecent goose-liver technique. A wry touch, counter to the expensive viands as formed their bodies during a lifetime of rapacity - I like marinating in Thunderbird or similar 99\ufffd commodity such as we reserve for the unfortunates who er 'fall through the cracks' of our Advanced society.. Can actually see the liver shrivel a bit, from so unaccustomed a tincture. Not much can be done for the 'game-y flavor' of the entrepreneur class; the heart has become fibroid of course - a natural byproduct of Harvard Social Darwinism 101. And the ink on $100 bills seems to penetrate about as well as DMSO. Sometimes a little peroxide helps 'take them to the cleaners'. Excerpts from the unpublished addenda to, To Serve Man Vol. XX Available in Encarta format - Passport funds only.
Post #6,856 by DonRichards 8/27/01 4:36:05 PM Reply	Ah, yes. The Hannibal Lecter school of cuisine. Where the phrase "eat me" is best left unspoken. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,859 by Ashton 8/27/01 4:46:12 PM Reply	Not at all: The Golden Rule. Those who have fed off of the labor, intentionally limited daily freedoms of others, for purely self-aggrandizement - become food in their turn. It's the decent, the Christian, the Murican! Thing to Do. No? (Mr. Lecter was compulsive and unselective. Big difference: obsession is not dedication.) Clearer?
Post #6,861 by DonRichards 8/27/01 5:04:34 PM Reply	This one thankfully accepts your criticism and correction See, humble is easy to do when your perfect in nearly every way. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,892 by Ashton 8/27/01 7:23:18 PM Reply	That is Right-attitude, Grasshopper - go thou and prosper. :-\ufffd I remain amazed.. now over decades - at the proliferation of Principles to Live-by, many mutually exclusive, but all Right and.. Uniquely-so (One Way only) while contradicting... Heh.. Reason and er logic - a distant simple sub-set, useful in the nursery but.. Ashton the Unsure and damn proud of it
Post #6,862 by DonRichards 8/27/01 5:05:02 PM Reply	This one thankfully accepts your criticism and correction See, humble is easy to do when you're perfect in nearly every way. "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,455 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 12:17:54 PM Reply	Maybe. Given the Tax Code at the time. My memory is that rate applied to personal incomes above $250,000/year after all deductions. In that socio-economic class, and with the Tax Laws as written at the time, it may have been fair. Looking at the rate in isolation is a fool's errand. Remember that Ross Perot had to disclose his earnings and tax records when he ran for President. Those documents showed, that although his tax rate was 28%, he paid only 7% of his total income in taxes that year. The wealthier you are, the more deductions you have and so your actual rate drops at a disproportionate rate.
Post #6,484 by bepatient 8/23/01 1:41:49 PM Reply	The real issue is... ...and the reason why Laffer works.... ...is because people find more and more creative ways to shield income as the marginal rate gets higher. Lower the marginal rate and you increase revenue by both increasing spendable income (more spending, more econ growth, larger tax base) and giving less incentive to sheltering wealth. [link\|http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html\|Long explanation] [link\|http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/pdtx63.html\|Shorter example] And in your thinking, do not forget FICA, Medicare, Unemployment, State and local taxes, including sales taxes...when figuring total tax burden on citizens. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,487 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 2:02:29 PM Reply	Sorry. Couldn't read one of the sites: I'm not allowed near the Heritage Foundation for security reasons ;-) Those other taxes you mentioned, FICA, Medicare, etc. They have CAPS don't they? The wealthiest pay up to X and not more, right? How is that not regressive?
Post #6,492 by bepatient 8/23/01 2:11:58 PM Reply	Both on the same site...and its not Heritage. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,498 by mmoffitt 8/23/01 2:38:39 PM Reply	Sorry Part II I just read the title, Tax Rates, Tax Revenues and Economic Growth by Gerald W. Scully Senior Fellow National Center for Policy Analysis Bradley Fellow Heritage Foundation Didn't [need] to look any further ;-)
Post #6,501 by bepatient 8/23/01 2:43:38 PM Reply	You should have... ...cause all he did was explain that Laffer was right. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #6,510 by DonRichards 8/23/01 3:11:53 PM Reply	I like Laffer His Leisure Suit Larry series was hilarious. (I know, I know, just trying to lighten it up a little.) :-) "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #6,516 by bepatient 8/23/01 3:29:35 PM Reply	That was a pretty good one ;) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!