Slashdot Mirror

It is not true that raising taxes always increases revenue.

How true that is.

For example, California recently tripled the vehicle registration fees. In our soon-to-be-former Governor's eyes, this was going to triple the revenue from vehicle registrations. In reality, that is threatening to crush new car sales (dealerships are already advertising for sales to beat the Oct 1 increase). And businesses are leaving the state rather than pay the extra money.

Contrast that with the Reagan tax cuts. From 1980 when Reagan took office to 1989, nominal federal revenues doubled $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. The tax cuts fueled economic growth.

Cato had a good column on this notion that deregulation was responsible. Lets get real here folks. The lights went out because a collection of relays somewhere that were supposed to isolate a load imbalance didn't flip when they should have, not because we dont have enough bureaucrats in Washington.

How the hell are you associating donations under $1000 with lower income bracket donations? What a load. The Repubs are great at mobilizing the base. Everyone knows that. It's common knowledge. That doesn't mean that those folks are lower income.

Listen man, you're living in the past. This isn't the 70's. Fiscal conservatism is no longer the hallmark of a republican administration. The Bush administration has increased government spending more than any administration in the last 20 years. And that's the CATO Institute. A hotbed of liberalism I know.
As far as Condie becoming vice prez, it's a miracle she isn't "spending more time with her family." She put the president in a very difficult position. In a country where the media wasn't so "liberal" her repeated lying would have actually been an issue. Here's a Washington Post article asking some interesting questions. As far as being black and a woman. Leave it to a republican to accuse the left being racist and misogynist. And democrats are inherently anti-papist. RNC talking points are great and it's good to see you got the memo but that dog won't hunt.

The question all of us have to ask ourselves is: do we want jobs and more money, a balanced budget, a smaller deficit, our soldiers not getting pay cuts while in a war zone? Vote for the Democratic party. You want 4 more years of lying? Vote for a Repub or a Green.

There was no deregulation, merely a change in the form of regulation, some of which actually turned out to be more regulation. See this article for one analysis.

The one source that I want someone to dig up for me is this: a pre-shortage, pre-"deregulation" article suggesting that the California "deregulation" legislation was the wrong kind of deregulation. Then I'll know who to follow for the right kind of local political coverage for the rest of my life.

If you can find that, I'll kiss you on the mouth. (You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer.)

I'll take a rain check on that kiss. :-)

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer

Woohoo! I hope she's cute! One quick question though, is this a full french kiss, or just a quick Aunt Maybelle peck?

Anyway, here's some articles from the Cato Institute. The first two came our immediately after AB1890, but before any effects of it occured. Maybe they don't count because of the date, but they do have references to pre-AB1890 articles: "Stranded In Sacramento", and "High-Voltage Swindle".

And two not specifically about California, and before AB1890, so these should count: "A Historical Perspective on Electric Utility Regulation", and "Regulatory Reform in the Electric Power Industry".

And some others for your reading pleasure: "Electric Utility Reform", "Time to Repeal the PUHCA", and "The Public Utility Holding Company Act".

Just a quick trip to Cato. I'm sure there's other stuff from local California publications, but it's time for me to move on to other posts.

p.s. Please send photo of girlfriend, so as to heighten the anticipation...

> damaged rather more of other countries'
> lands than their own

Er, are we still talking about the USSR?

> launched the only agressive attack on
> another nation

At the risk of stating the obvious, WW II was proceeding at that point in time.

> denying that there is an environmental
> problem and rejecting the
> Kyoto treaty

The Kyoto treaty is both ineffectual and irrelevant.

> the worst pillages

Superlative duly noted, but you're merely restating your argument, not providing evidence for its validity.

I suggest everyone read this article before actually forming an opinion on this garbage.

According toThe Cato institute

the definition of the militia has stayed the same; section 311(a) of volume 10 of the United States Code declares, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age." The next section of the code distinguishes the organized militia (the National Guard) from the "unorganized militia." The modern federal National Guard was specifically raised under Congress's power to "raise and support armies," not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia

Clear now? Every male (and I would include females in modern enlightend times, though technicly the law doesn't) between 17 and 45 is a member of the milita, and has the right to own arms. That is the strictest definition I would agree with, personally I side with the arguement that the right to arms was always intended to belong to the people in general.

A whole lot of links at Minnestoa concealed carry reform now. A biased site, but you need refute all their studies before you make the claim that guns require regulation.

according to the Cato institute:

Guns do not turn ordinary citizens into murderers. Significantly, fewer than one gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide; and that one killer is far from a typical gun owner. Studies have found two-thirds to four-fifths of homicide offenders have prior arrest records, frequently for violent felonies.[28] A study by the pro-control Police Foundation of domestic homicides in Kansas City in 1977 revealed that in 85 percent of homicides among family members, the police had been called in before to break up violence.[29] In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. Thus, the average person who kills a family member is not a non-violent solid citizen who reaches for a weapon in a moment of temporary insanity. Instead, he has a past record of illegal violence and trouble with the law. Such people on the fringes of society are unlikely to be affected by gun control laws. Indeed, since many killers already had felony convictions, it was already illegal for them to own a gun, but they found one anyway.

The problem with biometric (or other forms) of these devices is they assume one person with one gun. I have personally shot many guns that someone else owned and had no intention of selling. I in turn often let someone else shoot my gun. So your biometric device needs to be easially modified to add many people to the list of allowed shooters. Oh, and it better not fail - ever. In a self defense situation half seconds count, if I need my gun now, then it better fire now, not after 5 seconds of verifying my biometric information. Did I mention I live in Minnesota where I may want to fire my gun when the tempature is -30? Suddenly your biometric scan needs to work through think gloves (which are hard enough to work a gun with), when batteries and the like work poorly. The technology isn't there to be 100% in normal weather. (that is 100%, forget 99.9999%, not good enough)

I replied to the poster saying basically the same thing. I'm pretty sure, however, that of anything he would be supportive of this article at the cato institute explaing the workings and benefits of having soley a national sales tax. One stipulation of the plan is that all income below $18,858 is tax exempt.

>Scientists ignore laymens' opinion within their fields not because the layman might be right or wrong on the outcome of a specific issue, but because the layman has no concept of the data collection over time, or thought process and logic, which went into the final conclusion.

That's what they say.

However, when I see things like this, it makes me wonder how truthful they are. It makes me wonder whether the ignorance of the opinions of laymen on the subject (such as a judge's) is simply a way to pretend that the counter-evidence laid out before them doesn't exist.

Then I see things like this light article, and simply wonder why I should put faith in the conclusions of science without investigating them myself.

And that's what I did, I investigated what an 8% increase really means. It means 0.1% more women get breast cancer. And then I remember my stats and psychology classes that told me the margin of error on a self-test could be even worse than 8%.

And, to back up that the 0.1% (which is medically invalid to support a conclusion as bombastic as theirs) I checked the definition of sensational:

Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.

Seems to fit quite handily with the lurid definition, IMHO. But you're free to believe what you will. However, it seems to me that releasing an insignificant finding such as what was found in that study, to the public under the guise of anti-light advice, is scientifically irresponsible behaviour. Behaviour, which, not surprisingly, is quite common considering the current scientific funding model. Now, where's my cold fusion?

Universities receive a lot of government funding. They also tend to contribute a lot to free software. Look at all the stuff that's come out of Carnegie Mellon, like the MACH kernel.

There's even a lot of work done where the project isn't directly government funded on grants or contracts, but the work is mostly done by grad students working on government stipends.



Anyway, while I am in favor of a lot more funding for free software, I'm not sure I'm entirely in favor of a lot of government funding for free software.

"Many of the public goods we now take for granted--such as police, public libraries, and public fire departments--were historically provided either by private enterprises or by loosely-organized volunteers, neither of which have proven nearly as effectively for the common goods as their current government-run equivalents."

Personally, I'm not sure this is entirely true. Police and Fire Departments probably are better under government, but I'd disagree on libraries. I'm not trying to start a flame war, but there are other things government has partially taken over, like charity (welfare), that I think they do a much poorer job handeling than society would without them. If you disagree with that instance, I'm sure you can think of other instances where this applies. Software is a more complex, technical thing to manage, and I think we want politicians managing it as little as possible. In principle they could support it without influencing it, but this usually isn't the way of things.

I think it's easy to imagine how this could be bad. For example, the government could mandate the use of specific technologies or methods in free software. Or they could respond to industry pressure and refuse to fund any free software group that contributed to any peer-to-peer file sharing projects, etc. For some arguments on this, see this book or this article.

CATO Institute

"But unlike private companies, the Postal Service is exempt from federal, state and local taxes and fees. Likewise, most zoning laws are of no consequence to this monopoly, and it can ignore parking tickets and vehicle licensing fees. The post office also has access to taxpayer- subsidized government credit and preferential customs agreements."

"Private companies are prohibited from charging anything less than twice the post office's price for the same service."

"Postal facilities and assets were acquired through monopoly power. The USPS now uses those facilities and assets to compete with the private sector."

"straying from its government-mandated services: for example, [sic] has gone into the business of marketing prepaid phone calling cards for long-distance calls"

"The USPS now uses those facilities and assets to compete with the private sector. "

"In 1993, armed postal inspectors entered the headquarters of Equifax Inc. in Atlanta. The postal inspectors demanded to know if all the mail sent by Equifax through Federal Express was indeed "extremely urgent," as mandated by the Postal Service's criteria for suspension of the Private Express Statutes. Equifax paid the Postal Service a fine of $30,000. The Postal Service reportedly collected $521,000 for similar fines from twenty-one mailers between 1991 and 1994."

USPS uses predatory pricing to undercut other businesses: "The USPS lost $200 million in 2000, $1.7 billion in 2001, and $676 million in 2002, but continues to operate. Such losses would likely have driven a private firm into bankruptcy."

"Because it can borrow from the Federal Financing Bank, it enjoys an explicit government debt guarantee."

"exempt from paying investors an expected rate of return on their invested capital. "

"USPS is not subject to a bankruptcy constraint"

It is exempt from a host of costly government regulations, including antitrust law and SEC disclosure requirements. It does not have to apply for building permits.

Last but not least: It has, at various times, received direct cash subsidies

The line item veto was passed years ago, then found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
(See Cato for more details.)

Most politicians are simply responding to what gets them the most power and influence, just like most other people. The big difference is that in their case, they also drag a lot of the rest of us into the results of their bad decisions. There are a very few (like Ron Paul, see RLC) politicians that will put the interests of the country above their own, but most will keep voting to approve government programs that take away freedom and actually hurt their supposed beneficiaries because the programs are popular with the media and those who support them.

They paid the Taliban alright. "Yet the Bush administrtion did more than praise the taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May 2001, secretary of state Colin Powell announced a 43 million grant to afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting afghan refugees." Link

MR: Ironically, it was Milton Friedman who said that Silicon Valley was committing suicide by trying to leverage the government in their competition with Microsoft. Today, many of those same companies now find themselves under scrutiny.

Here is a different perspective. Here

This man is a religious zealot, who has tried in a number of ways to (1) inject his religious extremism into government, and (2) expand his snooping powers by any means necessary (example: TIA). Any number of links would have sufficed, but you get the point.

I feel nothing for Ashcroft, except maybe hatred.

According to de Rugy's research, three of the five biggest increases in government spending in history have all occurred during the first three years of the Bush administration; the other two occurred during the Second World War. That sounds pretty bad, but even these numbers undoubtedly understate the problem, since they do not account for the huge prescription-drug benefit President Bush is working hard to push through Congress.

Clinton lied constantly--I wasn't even referring to his affair. I was referring to, starting with the 1992 campaign, literally promising one thing to a group of people and within a week or two promising the exact opposite thing to another group of people. Not that politicians don't try to make everyone happy to vote for them, but simply how bold he was in his lies and how quickly he promised opposing things to two groups was fantastic.

It has yet to be determined whether Bush lied about Iraq, BTW. With Reagan and Clinton we have a decade or two of history to look at. We're still in the middle of Iraq. He may have lied, he may not have. To claim that you know for a fact at this early date shows your bias more than your knowledge.

Nixon was clearly criminal. This is okay? Because he warmed relations with a foreign power?

Check your history. Nixon didn't order the criminal activity that was originally in question. He got carried away after the fact and helped cover it up--which I don't condone. But I bet you real money that had Clinton been in the exact same position he would have done the exact same thing to avoid the heat of a partisan action he didn't even order.

The Russians stopped playing the Cold War game because the could no longer afford to play.

Bingo! Why? Because they couldn't keep up with Reagan's level of spending which created $1.672 trillion in debt which the Democrats love to burn him for--even though it's only $62 billion more than the debt rung up by Clinton having done nothing significant.

What is worse, under Reagan, the rich grew by 3%, while the middle class shrunk by 20%. All hail voodoo economics.

Hmmm....

• "Yet it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data (see Figure 11). [50] The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats." [
• link].

Under Reagan, every income group saw their income grow. Stop distoring the facts and spreading misinformation please.

It always surprises me that people are oblivious to the fact that Bush Sr. was in control of the CIA when they were ferreting weapons Saddams way.

Yes, back when they were the enemy of our enemy Iran. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to criticize Bush Sr. or the CIA for not being able to see the future. I'm sure if they could see 20 or 30 years in the future they would have taken different actions.

The eventual fallout? The attacks on the WTC, and more U.S. military adventurism. Sad.

Oh, come on. You can trace everything back further and further until it is absurd. We armed Iraq because we were against Iran, because Iran held our citizens hostages, because... blah blah. The reason for the attacks on WTC was because some radical suicide bombers decided to commit a terrorist act. You can say it's because of our actions involved in Iraq. I tend to believe it has more to do with our support for Israel. The fact is, international events are way too complicated to say that "the cause of 9/11" is a specific act or acts committed by Bush Sr. or the CIA. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Your grasp of international events and U.S. involvement in them is shockingly incomplete.

It's not incomplete, it's just not as biased as yours. See the big picture instead of looking at everything through your anti-Republican, anti-Bush, anti-everything glasses and you'll have a much better understanding of what goes on around you.

- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics

Wrong. Here is the real Reagan economic record. During the Reagan years, 88.5% of the households in the poorest quantile were in a higher income quantile when Reagan left office. Blacks and Minorities saw the biggest gain in real income (11%) during the Reagan years. In fact, all income groups saw an income increase during the Reagan years of Trickle down/supply side economics. So much for the liberal "zero sum" theory.

- Star Wars (a massive waste)

Star Wars drove the soviets into the ground and was a major contribution to the end of the cold war.

- Iran hostage crisis

How can you blame Reagan for something that happened before he even took office?

- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs

We are spending 40 times as much money on the War on Drugs today that we were when Reagan was in office, thanks to Bill Clinton.

- The biggest deficit in U.S. history

Actually, the national debt as a percentage to GDP was much higher under Clinton than it was under Reagan.

Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor

Maybe because the middle class and poor don't pay any taxes in the first place. 96.1% of the federal tax base is paid by the richest 50% of the country. [Source]. Guess what that means? The poorest half of this country do not pay any taxes. In fact, the richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes even though they only make 20.8% of the money. The richest 5% pay 57% of all taxes even though their income only accounts for 35% in the country. Over half of all our taxes are paid by only 5% of the country. If you give a tax cut, why wouldn't you give it to the segment of the population that is burdened the most by the tax structure?

- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics

Wrong. Here is the real Reagan economic record. During the Reagan years, 88.5% of the households in the poorest quantile were in a higher income quantile when Reagan left office. Blacks and Minorities saw the biggest gain in real income (11%) during the Reagan years. In fact, all income groups saw an income increase during the Reagan years of Trickle down/supply side economics. So much for the liberal "zero sum" theory.

- Star Wars (a massive waste)

Star Wars drove the soviets into the ground and was a major contribution to the end of the cold war.

- Iran hostage crisis

How can you blame Reagan for something that happened before he even took office?

- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs

We are spending 40 times as much money on the War on Drugs today that we were when Reagan was in office, thanks to Bill Clinton.

- The biggest deficit in U.S. history

Actually, the national debt as a percentage to GDP was much higher under Clinton than it was under Reagan.

Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor

Maybe because the middle class and poor don't pay any taxes in the first place. 96.1% of the federal tax base is paid by the richest 50% of the country. [Source]. Guess what that means? The poorest half of this country do not pay any taxes. In fact, the richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes even though they only make 20.8% of the money. The richest 5% pay 57% of all taxes even though their income only accounts for 35% in the country. Over half of all our taxes are paid by only 5% of the country. If you give a tax cut, why wouldn't you give it to the segment of the population that is burdened the most by the tax structure?

- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics

Wrong. Here is the real Reagan economic record. During the Reagan years, 88.5% of the households in the poorest quantile were in a higher income quantile when Reagan left office. Blacks and Minorities saw the biggest gain in real income (11%) during the Reagan years. In fact, all income groups saw an income increase during the Reagan years of Trickle down/supply side economics. So much for the liberal "zero sum" theory.

- Star Wars (a massive waste)

Star Wars drove the soviets into the ground and was a major contribution to the end of the cold war.

- Iran hostage crisis

How can you blame Reagan for something that happened before he even took office?

- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs

We are spending 40 times as much money on the War on Drugs today that we were when Reagan was in office, thanks to Bill Clinton.

- The biggest deficit in U.S. history

Actually, the national debt as a percentage to GDP was much higher under Clinton than it was under Reagan.

Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor

Maybe because the middle class and poor don't pay any taxes in the first place. 96.1% of the federal tax base is paid by the richest 50% of the country. [Source]. Guess what that means? The poorest half of this country do not pay any taxes. In fact, the richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes even though they only make 20.8% of the money. The richest 5% pay 57% of all taxes even though their income only accounts for 35% in the country. Over half of all our taxes are paid by only 5% of the country. If you give a tax cut, why wouldn't you give it to the segment of the population that is burdened the most by the tax structure?

- Millions of 'ordinary' famalies (including my own) lost homes and small businesses such thanks to 'trickle down' economics

Wrong. Here is the real Reagan economic record. During the Reagan years, 88.5% of the households in the poorest quantile were in a higher income quantile when Reagan left office. Blacks and Minorities saw the biggest gain in real income (11%) during the Reagan years. In fact, all income groups saw an income increase during the Reagan years of Trickle down/supply side economics. So much for the liberal "zero sum" theory.

- Star Wars (a massive waste)

Star Wars drove the soviets into the ground and was a major contribution to the end of the cold war.

- Iran hostage crisis

How can you blame Reagan for something that happened before he even took office?

- The (lost and wasteful) war on drugs

We are spending 40 times as much money on the War on Drugs today that we were when Reagan was in office, thanks to Bill Clinton.

- The biggest deficit in U.S. history

Actually, the national debt as a percentage to GDP was much higher under Clinton than it was under Reagan.

Why else would one of the biggest tax breaks ever go to the top 1% and not the middle class and poor

Maybe because the middle class and poor don't pay any taxes in the first place. 96.1% of the federal tax base is paid by the richest 50% of the country. [Source]. Guess what that means? The poorest half of this country do not pay any taxes. In fact, the richest 1% pay 37% of the taxes even though they only make 20.8% of the money. The richest 5% pay 57% of all taxes even though their income only accounts for 35% in the country. Over half of all our taxes are paid by only 5% of the country. If you give a tax cut, why wouldn't you give it to the segment of the population that is burdened the most by the tax structure?

More like 100 million...

Suddenly hanging chads aren't so silly anymore...

Soon we'll have to worry if the software does a commit between voters, or caches everyone's vote 'till the end of the night.

Which is worse: having a real-time record of votes cast so the losing politician can dredge up voters just before closing, or keeping it like it is now with all the votes uncounted (and presumably unaccountable) until the end of the vote...

It's nice to see that at $20,000/pound, we're sending gozilla toys into orbit. The true irony would be if he were doing it from the Japanese Experiment Module

A quote from Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the Development of the Bell System Monopoly:

The telephone monopoly, however, has been anything but natural. Overlooked in the textbooks is the extent to which federal and state governmental actions throughout this century helped build the AT&T or "Bell system" monopoly. As Robert Crandall (1991: 41) noted, "Despite the popular belief that the telephone network is a natural monopoly, the AT&T monopoly survived until the 1980s not because of its naturalness but because of overt government policy."

Thank God I live in the U.S. where the tax laws are marginally less unfair and opressive.

From Cato's Clyde Wayne Crews.

look at the real figures (those percentages are bogus and you know that).

Funny- those percentages are the "real figures" as published by the IRS. In other words, even if the rich are paying accountants to find them tons of loopholes, they are still paying a lot more taxes that the poor.

These are more than just crazy economic theories- they are proven to bring results. Look at the Ronald Reagan years. Reagan drastically cut taxes, and look at what happened: our economy grew at a whopping 3.2%/year, and everybody's income increased. But it gets better- the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income compared to a 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year (the wealthy), and minorities saw an 11% increase in income over the same period! The poorest demographics benefitted the most from "Reaganomics".

So not only is your 'Screw the rich' plan unfair, it doesn't work. It punishes success and the whole economy suffers.

Link here

"I was never lucky or smart enough to go to college"

This is nothing more than an excuse to make yourself feel better about your current situation. It serves only to convince yourself that you had nothing to do with how you turned out in life.

You made a choice not to go to college, plain and simple. How hard did you study in highschool? Did you party? Or did you buckle down night after night in order to make excellent grades?

All of those "high-school educated" people from the 50s, 60s, and 70s made a choice not to do what it takes to get to college. Ain't life a bitch when the choices YOU made come back to haunt you later on? Of course, it is probably just someone else's fault. After all, you're the victim here.

Here... Learn how your precious unions DEVOUR jobs across this country.

The justification for invading Iraq was to force compliance. Saddam was required by 17 unanimous UN resolutions to prove that he had disarmed, and he never did. Nobody disputes that- not even people like Mr Chirac or Mr Blix. If the goal had merely been disarmament, then another 12+ years of UN inspections might have even worked, but it would have worked at the cost of the continued torture and oppression of the Iraqi people, a continued threat to our national security, and it would give other crazy 3rd world despot leaders incentive to misbehave. Nothing short of full compliance was acceptable.

Now if Saddam quietly destroyed all of his weapons in secret, especially in the face of such intense international pressure, then he is crazier (and stupider) than we all thought. He could have avoided 12 years of sanctions, repeated bombings, and a full-scale invasion if he had only showed the world proof. The world knew he had weapons- we even saw him use some of them. But instead he played the system for 12 years, so it was a very reasonable assumption that he still had the weapons. But the point is this- the world told him to do something and he didn't do it. Whether or not he still actually had WMDs (and I still think some will be found) is irrelevant.

Now the reason for going into Iraq when we did was because of our 9/11 wake up call- we realized that we can't afford to have a sworn enemy of our country collecting illegal weapons. The fact that Saddam is sitting on huge natural resources that can finance almost anything he wants set Iraq apart from other rouge nations (ex: the DPRK- they can't afford squat).

Were the WMD allegations trumped up? Maybe, but that seems very unlikely to me. Why would we lie about that when we knew that the truth would come out after our invasion? In fact, the truth is coming out because of the invasion.

If you don't think what we've done in Iraq will increase and perpetuate terrorism, then you probably are completely devoid of any ability to think logically.

Ah, I don't agree with you, therefore I am devoid of any ability to think logically. Thatâ(TM)s a pretty good debate tactic.

I think that a stable and free Iraq, as well as a dedication to the mid-east peace process, will do wonders for our relations with that part of the world. These things will take time, but it looks like to me like progress is being made.

As for the rest of your arguments, well when Warren Buffet comes out against Bush's tax cuts and says it unfairly benefits the wealthy, what do you say in response.

Yes, Warren Buffet is against the tax cuts. Warren Buffet is also a regular contributor to the Democratic Party. He is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.

The fact is, the wealthy already pay most of the taxes (the richest 50% pay over 96% of all income taxes- Source). It stands to reason that they will benefit more in a tax cut. I don't see anything wrong with that.

If you care to do some research, the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and the shrinking of the middle class are causes for real concern.

Ok- here is some research. Let's look at the last substantial tax cut before this one- the tax cuts during President Reagan's administration. Under the Reagan administration, every income bracket showed an increase in real income, but families making under $50,000/year had a 5.9% increase compared to the 2.5% increase of families that made over $75,000/year. During this same period, the poorest quintile saw an increase of 6% in real income, and minorities had an 11% increase in income. And just today CNN ran a story that the number of millionaires is shrinking. So much for your "growing disparity" between the rich and the poor.

April 15, 2003

10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

As you struggle to prepare your taxes this year, you may take some comfort in knowing that your headache is being felt across the country. The following odd and outrageous facts show how widespread income tax problems are:

1. The U.S. "tax army" is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
   Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.

A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as "8845-Indian Employment Credit" and "8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit." When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as "6197-Gas Guzzler Tax." It's time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement "6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel" with form "XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking."

Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that "double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax." In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now -- before the next round of corporate scandals begins.

Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares "equal justice under law," yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes -- imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!

Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code's complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.

AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 mi

April 15, 2003

10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

As you struggle to prepare your taxes this year, you may take some comfort in knowing that your headache is being felt across the country. The following odd and outrageous facts show how widespread income tax problems are:

1. The U.S. "tax army" is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
   Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.

A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as "8845-Indian Employment Credit" and "8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit." When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as "6197-Gas Guzzler Tax." It's time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement "6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel" with form "XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking."

Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that "double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax." In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now -- before the next round of corporate scandals begins.

Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares "equal justice under law," yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes -- imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!

Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code's complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.

AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 mi

April 15, 2003

10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax

by Chris Edwards

Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

As you struggle to prepare your taxes this year, you may take some comfort in knowing that your headache is being felt across the country. The following odd and outrageous facts show how widespread income tax problems are:

1. The U.S. "tax army" is bigger than the U.S. army in Iraq.
   Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.

A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as "8845-Indian Employment Credit" and "8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit." When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as "6197-Gas Guzzler Tax." It's time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement "6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel" with form "XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking."

Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that "double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax." In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now -- before the next round of corporate scandals begins.

Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares "equal justice under law," yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes -- imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!

Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code's complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.

AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 mi

"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."

"the top 5 percent of households pay 56 percent"

"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"

Yes that's right, 36% of households pay NO income tax!!!

Would you like their tax rate to be below 0%? For many of them it is, in the form of the EITC.

Quite seriously, a major reason for America's economic troubles, according to the Harvard Global Competitiveness Report, is a failure of the court systems, especially in contract law.

Although the whole report is for sale, you can click through to some pdfs, and read them. Especially interesting is the Executive summary, in which [p. 19] they say that they are increasing the weighting of technological innovation, [p. 20] note that the US has fallen to #2 and Finland has taken #1.

Yet for the case of the United States [p.37], they note that the bubble has burst, and they say that technology is *overrated*. They also note that the major problems with the US are the undermined court system, now ranked around #14.

What that means is that they US hasn't just fallen to #2. In reality, the US has already fallen a good deal farther. And when you consider that superpowers *do* have more power, and therefore fall under the category of "more competitive" all other things being equal, that means that the US is really hurting, and is probably going to hurt more. Fallen, fallen, is Babylon and all that.

Now, flip over to the Cato Institute, and you can find documents [or this] where they point out that the fall Argentina's peso was engineered, and that this represented a major additional break from the rule of law. But what also hurt was that their court systems were completely corrupted, and their society had separated into two societies: the taxed and the government folks.

Well, hate to break the news, but it's looking a lot like what Argentina had, America is getting ready to eat themselves. Not that it will be exactly alike. I fully expect a blackmarket boom in Argentina, followed by [1% chance] them becoming the top economic power in the world if they are good to each other, or [99% chance] them turning military and conquering most of South and Central America, and sending a pressure hammer of refugees into North America. The US, on the other hand, I expect to slide into corruption, and be overwhelmed by said pressure hammer.

But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we can necessarily expect expert witnesses, truth, and Justice to prevail, in light of the American way.

So if you're into Linux, download all the source code you can right now, and put it on CDs/DVDs, and keep it. You may find that it is quite valuable for internal use, and public use after you're sure that it's clean. Don't let Linux depend on America, because America has different ideas right now.

Quite seriously, a major reason for America's economic troubles, according to the Harvard Global Competitiveness Report, is a failure of the court systems, especially in contract law.

Although the whole report is for sale, you can click through to some pdfs, and read them. Especially interesting is the Executive summary, in which [p. 19] they say that they are increasing the weighting of technological innovation, [p. 20] note that the US has fallen to #2 and Finland has taken #1.

Yet for the case of the United States [p.37], they note that the bubble has burst, and they say that technology is *overrated*. They also note that the major problems with the US are the undermined court system, now ranked around #14.

What that means is that they US hasn't just fallen to #2. In reality, the US has already fallen a good deal farther. And when you consider that superpowers *do* have more power, and therefore fall under the category of "more competitive" all other things being equal, that means that the US is really hurting, and is probably going to hurt more. Fallen, fallen, is Babylon and all that.

Now, flip over to the Cato Institute, and you can find documents [or this] where they point out that the fall Argentina's peso was engineered, and that this represented a major additional break from the rule of law. But what also hurt was that their court systems were completely corrupted, and their society had separated into two societies: the taxed and the government folks.

Well, hate to break the news, but it's looking a lot like what Argentina had, America is getting ready to eat themselves. Not that it will be exactly alike. I fully expect a blackmarket boom in Argentina, followed by [1% chance] them becoming the top economic power in the world if they are good to each other, or [99% chance] them turning military and conquering most of South and Central America, and sending a pressure hammer of refugees into North America. The US, on the other hand, I expect to slide into corruption, and be overwhelmed by said pressure hammer.

But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we can necessarily expect expert witnesses, truth, and Justice to prevail, in light of the American way.

So if you're into Linux, download all the source code you can right now, and put it on CDs/DVDs, and keep it. You may find that it is quite valuable for internal use, and public use after you're sure that it's clean. Don't let Linux depend on America, because America has different ideas right now.

Quite seriously, a major reason for America's economic troubles, according to the Harvard Global Competitiveness Report, is a failure of the court systems, especially in contract law.

Although the whole report is for sale, you can click through to some pdfs, and read them. Especially interesting is the Executive summary, in which [p. 19] they say that they are increasing the weighting of technological innovation, [p. 20] note that the US has fallen to #2 and Finland has taken #1.

Yet for the case of the United States [p.37], they note that the bubble has burst, and they say that technology is *overrated*. They also note that the major problems with the US are the undermined court system, now ranked around #14.

What that means is that they US hasn't just fallen to #2. In reality, the US has already fallen a good deal farther. And when you consider that superpowers *do* have more power, and therefore fall under the category of "more competitive" all other things being equal, that means that the US is really hurting, and is probably going to hurt more. Fallen, fallen, is Babylon and all that.

Now, flip over to the Cato Institute, and you can find documents [or this] where they point out that the fall Argentina's peso was engineered, and that this represented a major additional break from the rule of law. But what also hurt was that their court systems were completely corrupted, and their society had separated into two societies: the taxed and the government folks.

Well, hate to break the news, but it's looking a lot like what Argentina had, America is getting ready to eat themselves. Not that it will be exactly alike. I fully expect a blackmarket boom in Argentina, followed by [1% chance] them becoming the top economic power in the world if they are good to each other, or [99% chance] them turning military and conquering most of South and Central America, and sending a pressure hammer of refugees into North America. The US, on the other hand, I expect to slide into corruption, and be overwhelmed by said pressure hammer.

But back to the topic at hand, I don't think we can necessarily expect expert witnesses, truth, and Justice to prevail, in light of the American way.

So if you're into Linux, download all the source code you can right now, and put it on CDs/DVDs, and keep it. You may find that it is quite valuable for internal use, and public use after you're sure that it's clean. Don't let Linux depend on America, because America has different ideas right now.

>He disputes none of their findings, and peer reviews of that study have backed it up.

Huh?

Let me give you a quote from another site:

"Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency's authority for disseminating its "de facto regulatory scheme" that intended to prohibit passive smoking."

So, let's see, no they weren't lying. In other news, everyone on earth is white. How did I come to that conclusion? I only interviewed the British Royal Family.

So, on one hand, no, they're not lying. On the other hand, they're lying to themselves.

>Whenever anybody so much as mentions cigarettes, he just votes whichever way best conveys "I love Philip Moris!" The guy's a hack.

And you libel a perfectly innocent man without providing any proof to back up your claims. People like you are the foundation of bad EPA studies like this one.

>The only reason that story gets spread around is Junk Science linked to it, and so everybody assumes it's cool and rebelious to talk about it.

No, it gets spread around because NUMEROUS studies have shown it to be false. Here's a link to at least 8 major international studies that have shown that SHS doesn't cause lung cancer. And, moreso, improves the health of young children (don't believe me? Ask the WHO). In fact, here's some facts the EPA gave judge Osteen to "back up" their case.

Svendsen Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Kalandidi Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Masi Study (1988): Strongest effect in Men for exposure before age 17 yr.
Kauffmann Study (1989): Increased risks for respiratory symptoms did not reach statistical significance
Hole Study (1989): No significant increase in risk of symptoms
Schwartz and Zeger (1990): Over-reporting by exposed subjects may bias results

Clearly, if this is the best evidence the EPA has, it's pathetic.

>More or less, if you're trying to be Libertarian, you have to make sure the new system makes enough extra money to still hold a profit after you clean up the corpses of the poor people that are going to starve to death.

You clearly don't have the slightest clue about libertarian ideology. Study it more and get back to me when you understand it better.

BTW: Far more people died in communist gulags and exploding nuclear power plants than have ever died under a free market, democratic system. There is positively no evidence to back up your case, as far as I can tell.

>If, for example, you vote to eliminate building permits, you have to be willing to pay to deal with the increased number of abandoned Barbie Dream-Deathtraps that will produce.

Why would I pay for that? That's a communist notion, that the populous should pay for the mistakes of the one. The builder of the deathtrap would be the one to pay, clearly. Where you got the idea that you and I should pay, well, I really don't know.

>There's plenty of wiggle room in the death/money scale, but between the costs of the hyperspecialization you're looking for in telecommunications, and the luxury-centered healthcare system, I think you're going to have to either get used to the stench of rotting corpses, or cut off your $2000 a month DSL line.

??? You are confusing me. More people have died as a result of communism than any other system. Look at what Communist China does when it has problems. People are only expendable when they have no self-control.

Wow. I really don't have much else to say other than that you should put down the hammer and sicle for a moment and consider why communist flags are blood red.

Rome has announced concessions with the outlying provinces.

The Magistry of Taxation, realizing that the combination of tax farming and a lack of census taking led to anger and protests, will now attempt direct taxation, following 5 years of census. It is hoped that peace will once again return to the Empire, however, many Senators privately concede that Rome's reach has now exceeded it's grasp.