Slashdot Mirror

ok here are some links... I didn't spend much time so there isn't much... but it should give you an idea. As I mentioned earlier, it is harder to find stuff fore the present day (90's and 2000's), not because they are less corrupt, but because the information only comes out after a while. Some of these stories may be duplicates--I didn't spend time weeding them out...

DISCLAIMER: I have not checked the sources. I am hoping that none of this is fabricated information. Questionable sources are marked with (Q)

Hoover's F.B.I. and the Mafia: Case of Bad Bedfellows Grows
J Edgar Hoover (Q)
Black Mass: The Irish Mob, The FBI and A Devil's Deal
Deadly Alliance: The FBI's Secret Partnership With the Mob
FBI Protection Of Informants Condemned In Mob Ruling
FBI Corruption & The Justice Department ....05.04.00
Round Up The Usual Suspects (Q)
The Government-Criminal Connection - Part Three (Q)
Armed Conflict in America (Q) (blatantly biased against the left-wing... just read the quoted article in the middle of the page)
Ruling due on FBI link to mob: Immunity offer claim at center of decision.

Funny story, Bush blocks mob investigation (read the 2nd story): Bush Invokes Executive Privilege in Mob-FBI Case
Anyway I hope that provides A LITTLE BIT of the FBI corruption.

BTW, what the hell is a dot head? Does this mean that you work for the FBI? Did I just blow your cover? ;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

I'd say that it's with your first point that your argument falls apart. If the US were really concerned with defense, they would post their troops along the border instead of in Iraq. They would be building the missile-defense shield and researching other ways of automating defense instead of researching tactical-nuclear bunker-busters and high-speed mobile artillery units and rail-guns for battleships (battleships?). While the US military has had a few primarily defensive projects in its current incarnation, it has always been an offensive force. The Soviet-era offense=defense argument no longer holds, and probably never did.

At any rate, huge standing armies haven't been necessary since the fall of the Soviet Union; and it's beginning to become clear that they weren't really that necessary/effective before then either. The USSR could have wiped us all out with the contents of one of their germ labs alone.

It was our nuclear arsenal that deterred them, but they had one of those too: MAD. MAD should really stand for Mutually Assured Defense (Spending) since that's really what both the US and the USSR got out of it: an easy way to scare their populations into huge taxes to support a massively bloated "defense" bureaucracy.

There's a common myth that it was the huge military budget of the USSR that did them in. In reality, they spent *far* less than we did and ended up with pretty similar capabilities. It was the lack of a vibrant private sector that ended up stimulating the collapse.

Capitalism killed the USSR; the military just kept them at bay. Regan could have said "I'm going to bankrupt the USSR by building toasters" instead of tanks and the end result would have been the same. In fact, it probably would have happened sooner. The breakaway republics that began the fall of the Soviet Union were no longer interested in the "protection racket" of the USSR and were equally unafraid of the US; they just wanted the Russians off their backs.

Now that we're dealing with nation-states and groups that have little to nothing to lose by threatening us, the nuclear threat won't keep them at bay. The threat of having US soldiers in their homelands doesn't seem to deter them, either; in fact, it just pisses them off even more. Worse, it pisses off the Americans who have to pay absurd taxes to ship those troops over there and maintain them and watch them kill children or die every night on the news. The US military has been largely ineffective in deterring attacks on the US lately. Conventional military forces create more terrorists than they kill. Just ask Israel.

National defense is a negative sum game, the point is to minimize loss, not to eliminate it.

Sure, but what's the easiest way to minimize loss? How much loss has been *minimized* by spending $100 billion in Iraq? I'd argue none. In any case, it hasn't paid for itself and probably won't ever. Sometimes it's cheaper/better *not* to act than to blindly throw money at the military out of fear. Worst case is we lose access to a few oilfields on the other side of the globe that were being kept by some puppet regime that we set up anyways. Or, you know, maybe Israel has to begin to play nice with all of it's neighbors who hate it instead of trying to unilaterally dominate the politics/economy of the region. Either way, I don't care.

Wrt wealth, you'll notice that's why I used the correct term: capital.

If the United Nations has its way, you might not be able to speak out against the War on Drugs in ANY nation:

Drug Warriors Try to Censor their Opponents:

The most ominous proposal for repressing pro-drug reform speech comes (not surprisingly) from the United Nations. The UN's International Narcotics Control Board has issued a report implicitly calling on member states to criminalize opposition to the war on drugs. Citing the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the INCB asserts that all governments are obligated to enact laws that prohibit "inciting" or "inducing" people to use illegal drugs and to punish such violations as criminal offenses.

If such a vague and chilling restriction on freedom of expression were not odious enough, the UN board contends that any portrayal that shows illicit drug use "in a favourable light" constitutes incitement and therefore should be banned as well. Since the report also repeatedly denounces medical marijuana initiatives as well as decriminalization or legalization proposals, even the most sedate advocacy of changing prohibitionist drug laws might run afoul of the censorship regime being pushed by the United Nations.

It is not reassuring that the U.S. government has pledged to cooperate with the UN group's global anti-drug efforts. Although Washington has not explicitly endorsed the censorship recommendations, neither has it stated that the United States rejects such proposals -- even though it certainly could have added that caveat. Indeed, one official pledged "absolute cooperation" with the UN's drug control programs.

I don't think there's any doubt that Standard Oil brought prices down while increasing quality and output. All the complaints were from their competitors, not their customers; quite the opposite of a real monopoly.

That predatory pricing is a myth isn't so controversial. Like many political issues, it's often a case of a special interest claiming government protection for their narrow interests, while pretending that it's for the sake of the general public. Netscape complained about Microsoft giving IE away for free, but I didn't hear complaints from any consumers.

I don't think there's any doubt that Standard Oil brought prices down while increasing quality and output. All the complaints were from their competitors, not their customers; quite the opposite of a real monopoly.

That predatory pricing is a myth isn't so controversial. Like many political issues, it's often a case of a special interest claiming government protection for their narrow interests, while pretending that it's for the sake of the general public. Netscape complained about Microsoft giving IE away for free, but I didn't hear complaints from any consumers.

Death to the IRS....Viva La VAT!!!

At the time, OPEC produced just 17% of the US's oil consumption (and note that OPEC includes a number of non-Arab countries). And this shortfall could readily have been met by buying from non-Arab countries, or just buying from third-parties that had bought from OPEC. So yes, it was about oil prices.

The point here is that any nation-state would have done the same if it was in our shoes during the 70s -- or in the Japanese shoes in 1941 if you want to use that example.

Well, let's take Japan as an example again. They were faced by a far greater crisis than the US by the 1973-4 oil crisis, in that their dependence on petroleum was greater, and they had no domestic sources of oil at all. So what did they do? Reduce their dependence on oil, and diversify to other energy sources--and embark upon two decades of rapid economic growth. What did the US do? Draw up plans to invade foreign countries for refusing to sell their resources to them, continue to prop up dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East, like the Shah in Iran and then, when that blew up in their faces, their then good friend Saddam Hussein, and now Saudi Arabia, the home and ongoing breeding-ground of Al-Qaeda, while all the time increasing their consumption of and dependence on foreign oil (OPEC now makes up 28% of US imports).

So which is the better characterisation of the situation: the US as a cornered nation, forced to act in its own survival, as any other nation would do in the same circumstances? Or the US as an arrogant and short-sighted bully, ready to back brutal and repressive regimes, and if that fails invade foreign countries, in order to keep domestic petrol prices low, rather than adopt even the most basic of conservation measures?

I'm down on capitalism because I'm an anti-capitalist :) Capitalism is an elitist system where a few hoard resources (and hence wealth). That's not the type of society I want to create. If you are an elitist (and just so happens to be rich), it's a great system. But to me, it's not.

I don't really have a favourite per se, but one that I'm interested in is called parecon (participative economics). It is sort of a mix of socialism and anarchism.

Of course, few people actually understand what Capitalism actually is.

Actually it is easy to understand capitalism--far more easier than fascism, socialism, anarchism, communism, and others. It is easy to understand capitalism because it is the most dominant system. Even if you don't know much, you will run into it throughout your life. All you need to do is open your eyes. In addition, modern day economics is nothing more than capitalist economics. So anyone that takes economics knows what capitalism is all about. Lastly, if you don't know what capitalism is, you can always refer to the bastion of capitalism, or a good capitalist website like this.

Trust me, I know my arch-enemies: the capitalists. The question is do you know me?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Mercury: Overplayed or Overstated?
DDT: Controls Malaria which kills over a million people per year. and is a major killer of children under 5.
Dioxin: A baddie, But was it truly necessary to evacuate people?
Asbestos: Only things I saw was people complaining about others getting money for 'exposure' while showing no detrimental health effects.

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

The Cato Institute is hardly a right wing organization. It says right there at the top of their web site "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets, and Peace." Doesn't sound too much like the current right-wing administration at all.

Let's take a quick look at a few of Cato's recent "right-wing" ravings.

December 23, 2003: The Bush Betrayal, by David Boaz

December 18, 2003: U.S. Options in Iraq: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, by Charles V. Pena

December 4, 2003: Medicare Expansion and the Mirage of Fiscal Responsibility, by Doug Bandow

November 20, 2003: $80 Billion Pork-Barrel Power Bill, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren

As you can tell, the Cato Institute is clearly in GWB's hip pocket. In my opinion there are few organizations out there that consistently shoot straighter and truer than Cato.

Peter

Ok, maybe "Right wing, agressive, control freak, war-loving nutcase" might have summed it up in a more PC way?

Perhaps...if you can explain to me how a "right wing control freak" can have the opinions on the Drug War that the Cato Institute has, or how a "war-loving nutcase" can have the opinions of the war in Iraq that the Cato Institute has. (I can't say that I expect to see such an explanation soon.)

Ok, maybe "Right wing, agressive, control freak, war-loving nutcase" might have summed it up in a more PC way?

Perhaps...if you can explain to me how a "right wing control freak" can have the opinions on the Drug War that the Cato Institute has, or how a "war-loving nutcase" can have the opinions of the war in Iraq that the Cato Institute has. (I can't say that I expect to see such an explanation soon.)

Second, recall little twenty year old quote on the US public education system:

"If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."

The US has reduced its public school system (with a few exceptions) to a public babysitting service.

I read the UCLA study, and I don't think it takes those interest rate pressures into account. It was written before the magnitude of the Bush deficits was announced.

The conventional wisdom is our federal government deficit is too large. However, the empirical evidence suggests the deficit might be too small.

The lesson is clear, economic prosperity can continue, even if the federal government never balances its budget, provided it keeps government spending from growing as a percentage of GDP, and has an ongoing program of removing tax and regulatory impediments to growth.

You are correct that the US does have a low personal income tax rate (not the lowest, the article you quote specifically states that Hong Kong has lower taxes), but that's only part of the story. The US corporate tax rate is actually quite high. This may seem a bit odd since one of the real selling points of business in the US used to be it's low corporate tax rate, but that is no more. Even many of the countries that are often called "socialist" or even "communist" countries by many Americans, ie Canada, Sweden and Norway, have lower corporate taxes than the US.

Here are some numbers for 2002. As you can see, only Italy, Belgium and Japan have higher corporate tax rates than the US. The main thrust of the problem is that the US corporate tax system hasn't really been updated in ages while most other countries have reduced their tax rate singificantly since the mid-90's. The above article also briefly makes mention of corporate tax avoidance, something that seems to happen in the US more than most other countries. It suggests that the somewhat dated corporate tax laws almost tend to encourage the "creative accounting" practices, with Enron being put forth as the obvious example.

Cost of living isn't the answer that you're looking for, it's the lower cost of doing buisness that is pushing companies to countries like India and China. Certainly the wages of the workers has a lot to do with it, but that's far from the only thing. If low worker wages were the only requirement for these things then everyone would move their business to Africa where wages tend to be the lowest. On the flip side, we also aren't seeing the rates of job loss in places like Hong Kong where the cost of living and workers wages are very high.

This discussion reminds me about the fall of the Soviet Union. The communist hard-liners attempted to shut down the media. Unfortunately, these men were so out of date; they didn't realize that the media was still able to communicate via fax machine. (This link [cato.org] points to a book review of a popular book on the subject.) That ability allowed reporters to communicate to the outside despite the crackdown of the Soviet government. Those communications ignited the entire country. All the eyes of Russia, and the world, were focused on Moscow. They were specifically focused on Boris Yeltsin. Modern technology enabled this communication. The Iraqis need information about as much as they need water. Imagine if every day of your life, you've learned to live in fear. You've been taught to keep your mouth shut, you're eyes turned away, and you allegiance sworn to a mad dictator. Add to the fact that even if you do heed all these warnings, you may still be randomly charged with treason.

The Iraqis who wish to be free need to organize and communicate. They need to learn about the outside world. Heck, even Saddam was shocked when he saw how openly we as Americans criticize our President. He was under the belief, that our government suppressed dissent (especially unflattering satire) like he did. Frankly, the Internet is probably the best, low-cost method to promote open communication. Take a look at countries like Brazil or India. They're IT is run on Linux (except the most high-end). They still use many low-end PCs. OSS fanaticism aside; I think in this case OSS can be quite useful. Isn't the free flow of information what true hacking is about?

On a slightly (perhaps greatly) off-topic, but related note:

I know we complain about "fascism" in this country. That's a joke. The Iraqis have quite a few problems ahead. They're fighting real fascism. They don't have Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. They don't have a slow progression and long history of open dissent. What they do have is a sudden vacuum of power, arguing radical religious factions, and a severe lack of resources.

Drugs, sex, and Iraq
Why Iraq's neighbors want to see democracy fail
The rise of crime and vigilates

Unfortunately, I can't hunt down the specific article I wanted to link to. It discussed the sudden increase of crime [especially prostitution] (see articles above) in Iraq. It also discussed the rise of a radical Islamic movement looking to cleanse Iraqi society. They argue these vices/sins have been "unleashed"/"unchecked" by the Americans. I hate to say it, but this whole war is FAR from over.

There is another reason why Amtrak is profitable, it is subsidized by the government.

Amtrak Subsidies: This is no Way to Run a Railroad

The electoral college of course cast the votes. However given the situation in Florida it can be questioned whether the electors from Florida truly represented the wishes of the voters of that State.

In any case as I said. I don't think on matters like this there is much difference between the two parties, and that is the real problem.

Read this for some emperical data showing it DOES influence the economy. Further, it argues why those purporting it doesn't influence the economy are wrong.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-03101 9.html

http://www.cato.org/events/010402pf.html

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-03101 9.html

http://www.cato.org/events/010402pf.html

I think you have a good perspective, namely that final part about Science. Not only it changes contantly, sometimes the most interesting parts of it happen when you look at things from a different angle.

I came across this interesting paper from CATO Institute some time ago (it's a pdf, but if you google for "horse emissions" you'll find it high on the list). It ends with this paragraph:

"Beyond 50 years we have little, if any, idea what the energy infrastructure of our society will be. To highlight the folly of any such projection, compare the energy-related concerns of 1900, when pundits cautioned that major U.S. cities would be knee-deep in horse ''emissions'' by 1930 unless we saw fit to ''act now,'' with those of 2000. We simply cannot predict our technological future. Rather, the more serious question the facts on global warming provokes is this: Is the way the planet warms something that we should even try to stop?"

You are correct, it is their fault. But remember, if a congressperson would have denounced the Patriot Act (the name alone worked for it, and "they" knew it...) it would have been bad politically. In fact, Russ Feingold was the lone Senator to vote against it.

Here, here, and here.

Who knows. I doubt it but I sure hope they try...

Marx called for the abolition of all private property, which means there would be no free trade since the individuals of society would own everything. Free trade is a form of capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism to be exact, and the most pure form of capitalism. Marxism requires a government to intervene in the markets. For example, China with its pegged currency, control over the media, control over industry, etc. I suggest you read the works of prominent capitalists like Frederic Bastiat, Ayn Rand, the folks over at Cato, etc. to see for yourself.

The main beneficiaries of the [recycling] program are government bureaucrats; local governments; and the waste management, public relations, and recycling industries. The losers are the households and commercial establishments that finance recycling through hidden taxes but derive no appreciable environmental benefit.

This is a non-issue. I predict ADM will lobby to require the use of the new discs.

Take the top 5 years of American history in which discretionary spending increased the most (as a percentage of the previous year's spending). Two of those years were during WWII. Three of them were under a GOP-dominated Congress within the last five years. So much for Republican's lowering spending!

Even supposedly "tax-and-spend" president Bill Clinton managed to only have a 3.5% increase in discretionary spending during his administration (with a 0.7% decrease in non-defense discretionary spending). Reagan was famous for increasing discretionary spending 7%, while GWB has increased discretionary spending 15.6% and has increased non-defense spending a whopping 20.8% in merely three years of office! This has led to a whopping $450 billion dollar budget deficit for this year alone.

From the fiscally-conservative Cato Institute: here and here

This is in spite of approving huge tax-cuts to the rich in spite of the fact that we already have some of the lowest taxes in the world. This has twice required massive accounting trickery and Congressional action to avoid having our nation default on its debt. Bush is driving us into the ground with his lunatic economics! All of the recovery under the Republican "Contract with America" and under the Clinton administration has been brushed aside by Bush reckless combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Remember back when Clinton said that we were looking at an end to the national debt after paying off $600 billion and with it at a mere $5.7 billion back in 2000 instead of the $6.8 trillion that it is now?

In the mean time, Howard Dean has managed to keep a balanced budget on his state for 10 years, through two recessions all while paying for the social programs that needed support. Maybe we should compare Bush's record as a governor? It's pretty obvious who's gonna be better as President if you're looking to see the deficit taken care of. Then again, if you weren't aware of Bush's spend-thrift ways to begin with, you probably won't bother to read the links and get informed.

Take the top 5 years of American history in which discretionary spending increased the most (as a percentage of the previous year's spending). Two of those years were during WWII. Three of them were under a GOP-dominated Congress within the last five years. So much for Republican's lowering spending!

Even supposedly "tax-and-spend" president Bill Clinton managed to only have a 3.5% increase in discretionary spending during his administration (with a 0.7% decrease in non-defense discretionary spending). Reagan was famous for increasing discretionary spending 7%, while GWB has increased discretionary spending 15.6% and has increased non-defense spending a whopping 20.8% in merely three years of office! This has led to a whopping $450 billion dollar budget deficit for this year alone.

From the fiscally-conservative Cato Institute: here and here

This is in spite of approving huge tax-cuts to the rich in spite of the fact that we already have some of the lowest taxes in the world. This has twice required massive accounting trickery and Congressional action to avoid having our nation default on its debt. Bush is driving us into the ground with his lunatic economics! All of the recovery under the Republican "Contract with America" and under the Clinton administration has been brushed aside by Bush reckless combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Remember back when Clinton said that we were looking at an end to the national debt after paying off $600 billion and with it at a mere $5.7 billion back in 2000 instead of the $6.8 trillion that it is now?

In the mean time, Howard Dean has managed to keep a balanced budget on his state for 10 years, through two recessions all while paying for the social programs that needed support. Maybe we should compare Bush's record as a governor? It's pretty obvious who's gonna be better as President if you're looking to see the deficit taken care of. Then again, if you weren't aware of Bush's spend-thrift ways to begin with, you probably won't bother to read the links and get informed.

They have their own rapidly growing technology sector, including china developed chips and Red Flag linux and they are building their own space agency. Investmenting in technology is crucial to challenging the US lead economically, politically and militarily.

They have little or no foreign debt and growing economic power...

This rather than being the New American Century is likely to be Chinese!

Don't get me wrong, I'm no corporate apologist, but I don't think that your idea is workable and/or fair

Not workable? It's being done pretty much everywhere, outside of the US. Here's a short articile on this very subject: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg19n1e.html

And a short excerpt from the above article (emphasis added):

Under the loser-pays rule, which is in effect in almost every common-law jurisdiction outside the United States, the party that loses in court pays the victor's fees and expenses based on a schedule set by the court. The advantages of the loser-pays rule are manifold. Most obviously, it discourages speculative litigation. A claimant who knows that he is going to be responsible for the defendant's reasonable legal costs is going to hesitate before pursuing a longshot case, even if the potential payoff is large.

I know you're not an apologist, but on this issue, you're wrong nonetheless...

Troll? It's a joke, folks. The Cato Institute is very pro-capitalism.

Cutting spending in California should start with the bang for the buck: millions in corporate welfare. Like the money that ratepaying state agencies paid to monopoly market-gamers like Enron, before Gray Davis blew their books open and sank their battleship. Do you think that Arnie (whose characters usually run on batteries) will do that, when his total recall cannot recollect his meeting with Ken Lay, captain of the titanic failure?

States also protect their citizens, which we pay for, at a bulk-rate discount, in taxes. Which services would the Gubernator cut?

You are correct about Ann Coulter and I could say the same for Al Franken.

You are also correct that references would be "responsible" but you forget, this is /. :) That said, here's a particularly good summary.

Oh, BTW, just because something is "conventional" doesn't make it correct.

Yet you'll hear just about every political candidate promise to "create more jobs" as if they are widgets that can be mass-manufactured in greater quantity if the gubmint would just turn up that job-making machine's dial to "11".

And so many people will cry "the government needs to create more jobs!". Or criticize one politician or another for not creating enough jobs.

I don't get it, and it kind of irks me when I hear such nonsense.

No one deserves a job, or a living wage, or anything other than the opportunity to make any of the above for themselves. No one even deserves happiness IMHO -- just the right to pursue it.

Here's a great, on-topic article from the Cato institute that addresses the unemployment issue, and has some great commentary regarding the cluelessness of both Repubnocrats and Demolicans in this respect.

[ note the small 'l'. ]

I completely agree with what you're saying, Motherfucking. Personal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and a "hands-off" stance on social issues are the tenets of modern American libertarianism.

You may want to look into the Libertarian Party. While there are a lot of kooky people involved in the LP, there are a good number of them who are a lot more reasistic, and are trying to convince the American public that endless cycles of tax and spend, and government's regulation of the bedroom are not in their best interest.

Personally, I usually vote LP if the candidate "gets it", as you say, but I'll gladly cross party lines if the candidate has libertarian leanings.

Take a look at the Cato Institute as well.

I'm much to tired to call you an uninformed dipshit.

Instead I'll just direct you here, here, and here. Oh, and a Google search of "Bush Administration", deficit, and "federal spending" might enlighten you a tad, also.

Have a wonderful day.

Where have you been? Would you care to substantiate any of that allegedly "Insightful" drivel? My pre-emptive strike follows, please enjoy this list of limitations which increase in severity with chronology:

316 U.S. 52 (1942). See also Breard v. City of Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951). The doctrine was one of the bases upon which the banning of all commercials for cigarettes from radio and television was upheld. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582 (D.D.C. 1971) (three-judge court), aff'd per curiam, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972).

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973).

Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975).

Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). Justice Rehnquist dissented. Id. at 781.

Linmark Ass'n v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977).

Commercial speech is viewed by the Court as usually hardier than other speech; because advertising is the sine qua non of commercial profits, it is less likely to be chilled by regulation. Thus, the difference inheres in both the nature of the speech and the nature of the governmental interest. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 n.24 (1976); Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 455-56 (1978). It is, of course, important to develop distinctions between commercial speech and other speech for purposes of determining when broader regulation is permissible. The Court's definitional statements have been general, referring to commercial speech as that ``proposing a commercial transaction,'' Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, supra, or as ``expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience.'' Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980). It has simply viewed as noncommercial the advertising of views on public policy that would inhere to the economic benefit of the speaker. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530 (1980). So too, the Court has refused to treat as commercial speech charitable solicitation undertaken by professional fundraisers, characterizing the commercial component as ``inextricably intertwined with otherwise fully protected speech.'' Riley v. National Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 796 (1988). By contrast, a mixing of home economics information with a sales pitch at a ``Tupperware'' party did not remove the transaction from commercial speech. Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).

Peel v. Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n, 496 U.S. 91 (1990).

And, may personal fave, from Contrived Distinctions: The Doctrine of Commercial Speech in First Amendment Jurisprudence by Jonathan W. Emord, from which the following elucidating quote is taken:

Indeed, the Court's commercial speech jurisprudence is a striking anomaly in First Amendment law, for -- with the exception of obscenity and fighting words -- no other speech content is so disfavored by the Court. Despite its willingness to single out business and economic communication for disfavored treatment, the Court has never articulated a principled reason why discrimination against commercial speech content is consistent with freedom of speech.

From 1942 until 1976 the Supreme Court denied speech it categorized as purely commercial any constitutional protection. In 1976 the Court changed direction by holding that the simple advertisement "I will sell you X prescription drug at Y price" was protected by the First Amendment. The Court insisted, however, that there remained "commonsense differences between speech that does 'no more than propose a commercial transaction' . . . and other varieties." Since 1976 the Court has abandoned its decision to afford commercial speech greater First Amendment protection. It has elected to give such speech almost no protection and held, as it did in 1942, that the content of speech that proposes a commercial transaction, even when intertwined with speech about noncommercial concerns, is regulable.

I look forward to your rebuttal.

I don't believe that an honest and hard working person can become a multimillionaire.

So only dishonest and lazy people can become multimillionaires?

The US indoctrinates everyone with this attitude that anyone can make it. Nobody realises that it is only at the expense of someone else.

The liberal "zero-sum" myth does not hold any water. There is not a finite amount of wealth available, and somebody gaining wealth does not automatically correlate to somebody else loosing wealth. Quite the opposite happens, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

So Bill Gates manages to sell someone elses quick and dirty OS to IBM and eveyone else. Does that make him deserve to be the richest man in the world?

No, what makes him deserve to be the richest man in the world is that he took this quick and dirty OS and turned it into something that billions of people want and even think that they need.

Don't we live in the best country in the world. The only place where people have the freedom to screw everyone over on their way to the top. Where only the rich can afford medical care or a decent education. Where the government solution is less funding and more "Compassion" and "Faith Based volutary groups". Sure I wouldn't have it any other way.

Sure there are alternatives. However, they have not worked all that well in the past.

You've managed to reinvent in mangled form the Cato version of the exempt-the-poor national sales tax.

"For the corps, of the corps, and by the corps". i'll call your bullshit. the U.S. has the fourth highest corporate tax rates in the OECD. like it or not, but big companies are what drive the U.S. economy.

Well I see you defining inflation a few times and talking about some causes, but I don't see how you address the novel idea of a self-deflating electronic currency.

Oh, you mean currency units that expire or something? How bizarre - it would make it impossible to assemble large blocks of capital over time. Goodbye to pension funds and large infrastructure projects. In fact, the only organization that could do anything capital-intensive with a self-deflating currency would be the organization that controlled the printing press (or electronic equivalent). Obviously, that is your intent. But, every planned economy in history has failed, and I do have to wonder why its advocates seem to cling to the idea. Actually, I don't, this explains it quite nicely.

Could you provide links to substantiate your claims of increased music sales linked to P2P piracy? Thanks.

Here's a start

More on the Ipso-Reid study covered here. The original study isn't available through their website, unless you look a lot harder than I did.

Here's more on the Jupiter study

Still more

Liebowitz writes about it, but his only purpose was to conclude that filesharing doesn't hurt the music business.

ZDNet reports on what is probably the same Jupiter study

This article sits right in the middle of the issue, but certainly hints at an Odyssey study supporting my point.

Here's a study about studies

This came out during the height of the Metallica fight against Napster

You can google for more if you're not satisfied with these. :)

Leaving the philiosophical issue on whether governments should actually try to social engineer via taxes aside for one moment, one can ask, somewhat more practically, whether taxes are at all appropriate for that purpose: i.e. do they work as social engineering tools?

Some 6-7 years ago, the Swedish government decided that it was a great idea to raise tax on cigarettes to sky-high levels (and that is sky-high as in Swedish sky-high levels, and those are sky-high indeed); the reasons given were higher revue for government and less smokers (who would quit for financial reasons). Did this happen? Not really. I never saw any statistics on the number on smokers, so cannot say whether the number ever dropped. However, the revenue from cigarette tax actually dropped! What happened was that the price of heroin/cocaine etc rose as everybody and his dog started to smuggle cigarettes instead: good supply, less of a risk, less of a punishment if caught, and better profit; a cost/benefit analysis would probably take about two seconds. In the end the Swedish government had to lower cigarette taxes again. (= Reverse engineering?)

And it would appear the Swedish government isn't alone in its folly: in this Cato paper Patrick Fleenor takes a look at cigarette taxes in New York, which are higher than they are in many of the nearby states. He concludes that higher taxes has meant neither that the number of smokers have dropped as a result of them nor that tax revenue has increased substantially. Instead, organized crime (not known for paying much taxes nor its attention to public health issues) now more or less dominate the New York cigarette trade and is making a handsome profit from it too. The people who have been really screwed by the high taxes are honest tobacconists/newspaper agents who have been forced out of the market in one way or another (unable to compete with no-tax prices; out-right coercion and threats; exposure to violent crimes).

So trying to social engineer smoking via taxes seems to result in the following: lower tax revenue; higher revenue for organized crime; possibly increased price on illegal drugs and possibly, as a corollary, increased crime rates to support drug habits (as those habits would now be more expensive to maintain); possibly no effect at all on numbers of smokers. Does this make sense from a practical point of view? From any point of view?

consider the effects of:
1. inflation

Ok. Under Reagan, inflation recovered from the Jimmy Carter mess very quickly, and remained very low for the rest of the 80's bottoming out at 1.86% in 1986, so inflation didn't play a very big roll in that (source).

2. a growing worldwide economy

I contend that the Reagan supply side economics helped the economy grow.

3. emergence/growth of industries like hi-tech

Yes- that helped a lot. See #5.

4. deficit spending (it generates some tax revenue)

Actually, public debt as a % of the GDP was higher under Clinton than under Reagan (source).

5. shifts is gov't spending (i.e. major increases in defense).

The defense spending invested heavily in technology, and that helped the hi tech industries grow.

Also note from the Cato article I linked above, all income groups saw an increase in real income under Reagan, but minorities and the poorest quintile saw the biggest increase.

consider the effects of:
1. inflation

Ok. Under Reagan, inflation recovered from the Jimmy Carter mess very quickly, and remained very low for the rest of the 80's bottoming out at 1.86% in 1986, so inflation didn't play a very big roll in that (source).

2. a growing worldwide economy

I contend that the Reagan supply side economics helped the economy grow.

3. emergence/growth of industries like hi-tech

Yes- that helped a lot. See #5.

4. deficit spending (it generates some tax revenue)

Actually, public debt as a % of the GDP was higher under Clinton than under Reagan (source).

5. shifts is gov't spending (i.e. major increases in defense).

The defense spending invested heavily in technology, and that helped the hi tech industries grow.

Also note from the Cato article I linked above, all income groups saw an increase in real income under Reagan, but minorities and the poorest quintile saw the biggest increase.