Why they hate us, was ( funny things to do on a bike)

Kyle.B.H wrote:
2. Kerry has promised to rollback most of the portions of the Bush
taxcuts that benefit the ultrawealthy.


Kerry's definition of ultra-wealthy is an income if $200,000.


LOL, although you probably added one too many zeros.

(JP) wrote in message . com...

[snip]

The tedium of it is arguing with a True Believer
who will not be convinced by anything.

[snip]

That is indeed the case. Conservatives today add up to a big echo
chamber, in which only true things are said, and where everything Not
True(tm) is denounced as socialist/liberal/terrorist/unpatriotic, or
some combination thereof. You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.
--
Jonesy

(Jonesy) wrote:

You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.

What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
(contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
the veracity of that fact.

If you consider that "defending the spewings"... you missed the point
it seems.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:

I have always had trouble
understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.

And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes. Unless, of
course, one is hoping to garner political contributions from them.

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html

What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
position!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

You will notice Mark even defends the
spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
never wrong, on anything, ever.

What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
(contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
the veracity of that fact.

If you consider that "defending the spewings"... you missed the point
it seems.

Let me quote you:

"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
not
forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."

You didn't say "fact", you said "something." Even when Rush states
facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
must be So(tm).

If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
and not true in the least.
--
Jonesy

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I have always had trouble
understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.

And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes. Unless, of
course, one is hoping to garner political contributions from them.

I agree - those making hundreds of thousands of dollars shouldn't pay
LESS taxes than those who don't (proportionally).

The fact is, in 2001 the top 5% of taxpayers paid 53.3% of the total
tax burden, while the bottom 50% paid only 3.9% - so by definition the
top 5% are paying 137 times as much on a per capita basis (not really
my argument, but an interesting data point). How "filthy rich" did
you have to be to make that top 5% threshold? An AGI of $127,913
(hardly "rich" if you live in the California or the northeast).

You suspect that the only reason the tax cuts were made was to garner
favor from a very small group of voters.

The administration claims it was to bolster investment in business to
reverse the recession.

Look at the pre-tax cut non-residential fixed investment statistics...

3rd Q 2002: -1.1%
4th Q 2002: -0.1%
1st Q 2003: -0.6%

Then the quarters after the tax cut...

2nd Q 2003: +7.0%
3rd Q 2003: +12.8%
4th Q 2003: +6.9%

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html

What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
position!

Hardly. That link was in response to JP (SocSecTrainWreck)'s
challenge to:

JPGive me a reference on Kerry's so-called taxcuts for businesses and
JPwe'll talk specifics- if you dare.

.... though he's gone strangely silent on the issue when presented
with the data.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I have always had trouble
understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.


And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.

How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
how much? What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
less taxes?

Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution ends
up in your very own pocket as a state university employee. Special
interest groups really do look after their own interests. This is why
you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.

Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of the
people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.

Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
political contributions from them.

Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
presidential election without getting large contributions from those
able to make them.

Read it and weep...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar25.html


What specific part of that did you find objectionable? Are you saying
he should not cut corporate taxes? That doesn't sound like your usual
position!

Wow.

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote...

Let me quote you:

"I rarely listen to Rush, but he is hugely entertaining. And let's
not
forget that the fact that Rush says something doesn't make it untrue
(though when he states a fact, it probably means it's something you
won't hear on the evening news with Dan Rather)."

You didn't say "fact", you said "something."

I said both, actually...

Even when Rush states
facts, they are spun in such a way to make sure it plays well to his
audience. I listen to him every day, mostly because of the brain-dead
listeners who call in. I love hearing the dittoheads reguritate what
they just heard Rush say. It's so hilarious. In any case, your
implication that Dan Rather covers up facts, while Rush somehow
exposes them proves EXACTLY what I said above - if Rush says it, it
must be So(tm).

Your logic escapes me. I said what I said, nothing more.

Did I imply that Rush is likely to state *facts* that Dan Rather
won't? You bet I did (I doubt you'd bother to try to deny that). I
was not implying that the statement of facts was mutually exclusive to
one (or the other), but that Rush brings up information you won't get
from Dan Rather (and vice versa).

If Rush states a fact, it's a fact. It's a fact no matter who states
it. Even Dan Rather. But when he says "something", I have to assume
that it's spun to the right, and may or may not contain "facts."
Truth be told, when he says "something" it might just be his opinion,
and not true in the least.

Sigh... if it makes you feel better, change "probably" to "often" in
my statement. Can we drop this rabbit trail now, please?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

gwhite wrote:


Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I have always had trouble
understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.



And I have always had trouble understanding why people making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.


How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
how much?

"Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
less taxes?

Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
levies, library levies, etc. These (and many others) are things I am
happy to support with my money.

I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community.


Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution ends
up in your very own pocket as a state university employee. Special
interest groups really do look after their own interests. This is why
you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.

Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
they'll say the same.

(By the way, that was sarcasm.)


Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of the
people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.

I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."



Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
political contributions from them.

Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
presidential election without getting large contributions from those
able to make them.

Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
gwhite wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

I have always had trouble
understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.




And I have always had trouble understanding why people making
hundreds of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.



How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
how much?


"Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay

less taxes?


Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do. I have no
idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is. Once again we have
another rbt arbiter of "worth."

If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
guvmint if one does not have to. We don't need the guvmint to decide
how to redistribute the wealth, nor do we need grandstanders to decide
the appropriate social causes and force it through political rent
seeking. Giving money to the federal monolith guvmint amounts to a
concentration of economic power, which only leads to crushing political
power. For justifiable taxes, better pay the state than the federal,
and better pay the local than the state. In any case, justify the
taxation and *keep* justifying it (or else lose it).

I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
levies, library levies, etc.

My inclination is *not* to do so, even though the proclaimed goals
(rather than achieved goals) are often noble. What are these "big
dollar amounts," both in absolute and comparative (fractional) terms?

These (and many others) are things I am
happy to support with my money.

_You do not need to pay taxes to assist noble causes_.

I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
give any of their money to the community.

They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there -- you simply believe you are entitled to state when, where, and
how their money gets distributed. I have no idea what you have against
houses in cornfields. Just because *you* think the school levies are a
good idea doesn't mean someone else does. It is irrelevent what they
can afford compared to what you can afford. If you want the schools to
have more money, earn it and give it.

Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution
ends up in your very own pocket as a state university employee.
Special interest groups really do look after their own interests.
This is why you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.

Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
they'll say the same.

It sounds like you want to be in the business of someone else's money,
which isn't all that noble of a cause.

Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.

I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."

You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble. I
believe you mean well, but unfortunately you are not educated in the
matter of political economy. If you were, you would change your tune.
You'll do more for schools and society by starting with your own
education. I suggest Hayek as a start.

http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore...yek_books.html

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/who.html
Who is Hayek?
1. Lead role in the global revival of liberalism*

If you were to know only a single thing about Hayek, you might start
with this -- Hayek is regarded as a key figure in the 20th century
revival of liberalism. This has led some folks to suggest that the
works of Hayek are playing a role in our time something like the role
the works of Adam Smith and John Locke played in their own -- meaning
that Hayek's ideas are at the forefront of the movement towards a
society based on freedom of association and exchange according to the
rule of law, and away from the control of society from the center
according to the whim of government. So the first thing to know about
Hayek is that he has played a lead role in the current tide change away
from statism and back to liberalism* -- regarded by many as a defining
event of the 20th century."


http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/qs-20th.htm
Milton Friedman* (Economics, U. of Chicago)

" . . I think the Adam Smith role was played in this cycle [i.e. the
late twentieth century collapse of socialism in which the idea of
free-markets succeeded first, and then special events catalyzed a
complete change of socio-political policy in countries around the world]
by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."

"Over the years, I have again and again asked fellow believers in a free
society how they managed to escape the contagion of their collectivist
intellectual environment. No name has been mentioned more often as the
source of enlightenment and understanding than Friedrich Hayek's . . I,
like the others, owe him a great debt . . his powerful mind . . his
lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen
my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society."

J. Bradford De Long* (Economics, UC-Berkeley)

"Hayek's adversaries -- Oskar Lange and company -- argued that a market
system had to be inferior to a centrally-planned system: at the very
least, a centrally-planned economy could set up internal decision-making
procedures that would mimic the market, and the central planners could
also adjust things to increase social welfare and account for external
effects in a way that a market system could never do. Hayek, in
response, argued that the functionaries of a central-planning board
could never succeed, because they could never create both the incentives
and the flexibility for the people-on-the-spot to exercise what Scott
calls metis.

Today all economists -- even those who are very hostile to Hayek's other
arguments .. agree that Hayek and company hit this particular nail
squarely on the head. Looking back at the seventy-year trajectory of
Communism, it seems very clear that Hayek .. [is] right: that its
principal flaw is its attempt to concentrate knowledge, authority, and
decision-making power at the center rather than pushing the power to
act, the freedom to do so, and the incentive to act productively out to
the periphery where the people-on-the-spot have the local knowledge to
act effectively."

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~

Do not confuse true liberalism with that co-opted by today's socialists;
they bear no resemblance:

~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrich...iberalism.html
Liberalism

The word 'liberalism' is used around the world to
indicate a system of social organization characterized
by freedom of association & rule according to law
and not according to the caprice of authority. Liberalism
is also associated with a system of social organization
that provides for individual freedom, equality before the
law, representative decision-making in matters of law,
private property, and constitutionally secured limits on
governmental power.*

~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~

Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
political contributions from them.

Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
presidential election without getting large contributions from those
able to make them.

Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.

Oh, it is a problem all right. But in the matter of tradeoffs (and not
the elusive "solutions"), I don't know that there is anything better.


Also:
http://www.mises.org/