In article , dhomuth1
@comcast.net says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

Oh, nonsense!

Where do you Wingnuts get off accusing the Ds of Not doing what the Rs
could do all on their own? They have the votes to do it, do they not?

No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

The borrowed money will be paid by the children, grandchildren and
probably great-grandchildren of those now alive.

Anyone can create the Illusion of Wealth by charging off current
expenditures into the future.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

It's not about the Purpose -- it's about the outcome. And yeah -- it
is bad.

It's bad, but not as horrible as it's made out to be.

In general, though, debt is good, so long as the debt is paid off in cheaper
dollars, or the debt is incurred as an investment which yields a greater
return than the accumulated interest, or furthers a compelling social goal.

So for you, the Wingnut economic plan is to have higher inflation?

Sheesh -- when did Wingnuts become Keynesians in part?

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

It doesn't matter. Those are sidebar comments and meaningless in the
great scheme of things.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

There are two sorts of debt generally -- accumulated operational debt
and debt incurred for public investment in capital infrastructure.

The latter is good -- and there should be more of it. The former is
bad - and there should be less.

Ok, let's start with welfare. Then axe the Department of Education
and all of the other extra-constitutional budgets.

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

But Costs are Real and will and Must be paid.

Nope. Sooner or later even the sun won't shine.

I didn't make that up.

The holders of the debt now have a chokehold on this nation's fiscal
future. It is now dependent only on their ongoing good will.

Nope. A dead creditor isn't a good creditor.

But...there's an Iron Law to consider:

Costs are Real, and Will and Must be paid.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better.

Sooner is not, in general, better.

For current year operational spending, yes -- it is.

Again, cut all extra-constitutional spending. No more pork; no
more federal welfare; no more Department of Education...

For long-term public capital investment, no -- it is not.

Ok, but we really don't nee the Alaskan highway to nowhere.

The two are different and must be seen differently and treated
differently.

Sure, but maintenance shouldn't be a capital expense either.

There will come a time when the level of taxation Must be higher than
the level of current-year spending. Rolling over the national credit
card charges year after year endlessly is bad fiscal policy.

It's never happened and never will. Can't.

--
Keith

In article vJgLg.8864$YZ3.4563@trnddc03,
"Guv BoB" wrote:

That's a stupid comment.
coming from such an accomplished expert in the field, I should
probably take that as a compliment...

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

On 5 Sep 2006 08:10:17 -0700, "lein"
wrote:


Keep in mind, no Democrat run congress, in Don's adult life, has cut
spending or reduced the debt.

Keep in mind as well that the Republican Congress has, in Don's adult
life, increased both spending and the national debt in amounts that
Far exceed the total of all D congresses combined.

That's the appropriate perspective on the discussion.

Not hardly... although they have certainly tried. More a function
of longevity in control than anything else.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:32:38 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

On 5 Sep 2006 08:10:17 -0700, "lein"
wrote:


Keep in mind, no Democrat run congress, in Don's adult life, has cut
spending or reduced the debt.

Keep in mind as well that the Republican Congress has, in Don's adult
life, increased both spending and the national debt in amounts that
Far exceed the total of all D congresses combined.

That's the appropriate perspective on the discussion.

Not hardly... although they have certainly tried.

Yeah -- it's a fact. The numbers are readily available.\

More a function
of longevity in control than anything else.

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

Joe Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:04:03 -0400, CJT wrote:

Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:
snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

The more I think about it, the more I think it's been true since the dawn
of time.

Seth, our good ol' boy transplanted weed from Texas, who is better
known as SETH Williamson, would rather crawl up a tree backwards than
pay a tax, being the reasonable rental paid for the benefits of
society. This mooch gladly snatches the benefits of society while
despising its burdens.

If Irwin Schiff were running for presnit, Seth would be first in line
to vote for him, as long as Seth hadn't found out Irwin's Jewish
heritage. For Seth is an outspoken anti-Semite.

Fact is, it is HE who is the bandit and embraces banditry. His ilk
favor vigilantism, kkk, lynch mobs, law of the jungle, economic
darwinism, anarchy, chaos, mob rule.

A few months ago this curious admixture of kookery, malignancy, and
loonytarianism was wailing about the loss of the Confederacy. Read
his tearful lamentation:

It started when they drove old Dixie
down. That was the end of the Old
Republic and the beginning of the end
of the Constitution.
--Seth Williamson

Big key: I have noticed too many people from "poverty culture" not
valuing education. Maybe they saw too many people in historically favored
demographic groups get good jobs without good grades in high school in the
'60's and '50's, but that gravy train is now largely in the junkyard.

Too many people from "poverty culture" do not make their kids go to
school, do not make their kids behave properly in school, and do not make
their kids do the homework, and do not help their kids understand the
homework.


Too many parents from "poverty culture" are children themselves,
and have no idea what tools are needed for success in this
country, much less how to get those tools.

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

Oh, nonsense!

Where do you Wingnuts get off accusing the Ds of Not doing what the Rs
could do all on their own? They have the votes to do it, do they not?

No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Anyone can create the Illusion of Wealth by charging off current
expenditures into the future.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

It's not about the Purpose -- it's about the outcome. And yeah -- it
is bad.

It's bad, but not as horrible as it's made out to be.

Other than that, Mrs, Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

It doesn't matter. Those are sidebar comments and meaningless in the
great scheme of things.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.

There are two sorts of debt generally -- accumulated operational debt
and debt incurred for public investment in capital infrastructure.

The latter is good -- and there should be more of it. The former is
bad - and there should be less.

Ok, let's start with welfare. Then axe the Department of Education
and all of the other extra-constitutional budgets.

Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

It was never something Known in the first place, and pretending it is
is simple economic nonsense.

But Costs are Real and will and Must be paid.

Nope. Sooner or later even the sun won't shine.

So, those folks with the illusion of wealth in debt up to their ears
really Are richer?

Heh! Now that's entertaining!

I didn't make that up.

The holders of the debt now have a chokehold on this nation's fiscal
future. It is now dependent only on their ongoing good will.

Nope. A dead creditor isn't a good creditor.

As non a sequitur as one might find. The debt outlives the creditor.

But...there's an Iron Law to consider:

Costs are Real, and Will and Must be paid.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better.

Sooner is not, in general, better.

For current year operational spending, yes -- it is.

Again, cut all extra-constitutional spending. No more pork; no
more federal welfare; no more Department of Education...

You could do that, and it Still wouldn't balance anything, nor would
it pay down the debt.

For long-term public capital investment, no -- it is not.

Ok, but we really don't nee the Alaskan highway to nowhere.

That was a bridge, but you need to explain that to the R leadership
incongruous, if you find it a problem. It was the Ds who rebelled at
it.

The two are different and must be seen differently and treated
differently.

Sure, but maintenance shouldn't be a capital expense either.

Maintenance is a current-year operational expense, and should be paid
from current-year revenues.

There will come a time when the level of taxation Must be higher than
the level of current-year spending. Rolling over the national credit
card charges year after year endlessly is bad fiscal policy.

It's never happened and never will. Can't.

It must.

Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid.

Hiding your R head in the R sand won't change that.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree.

"Don Homuth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

Oh, nonsense!

Where do you Wingnuts get off accusing the Ds of Not doing what the Rs
could do all on their own? They have the votes to do it, do they not?

No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Anyone can create the Illusion of Wealth by charging off current
expenditures into the future.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

It's not about the Purpose -- it's about the outcome. And yeah -- it
is bad.

It's bad, but not as horrible as it's made out to be.

Other than that, Mrs, Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its
historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

It doesn't matter. Those are sidebar comments and meaningless in the
great scheme of things.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.

There are two sorts of debt generally -- accumulated operational debt
and debt incurred for public investment in capital infrastructure.

The latter is good -- and there should be more of it. The former is
bad - and there should be less.

Ok, let's start with welfare. Then axe the Department of Education
and all of the other extra-constitutional budgets.

Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

It was never something Known in the first place, and pretending it is
is simple economic nonsense.

But Costs are Real and will and Must be paid.

Nope. Sooner or later even the sun won't shine.

So, those folks with the illusion of wealth in debt up to their ears
really Are richer?

Heh! Now that's entertaining!

I didn't make that up.

The holders of the debt now have a chokehold on this nation's fiscal
future. It is now dependent only on their ongoing good will.

Nope. A dead creditor isn't a good creditor.

As non a sequitur as one might find. The debt outlives the creditor.

But...there's an Iron Law to consider:

Costs are Real, and Will and Must be paid.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better.

Sooner is not, in general, better.

For current year operational spending, yes -- it is.

Again, cut all extra-constitutional spending. No more pork; no
more federal welfare; no more Department of Education...

You could do that, and it Still wouldn't balance anything, nor would
it pay down the debt.

For long-term public capital investment, no -- it is not.

Ok, but we really don't nee the Alaskan highway to nowhere.

That was a bridge, but you need to explain that to the R leadership
incongruous, if you find it a problem. It was the Ds who rebelled at
it.

The two are different and must be seen differently and treated
differently.

Sure, but maintenance shouldn't be a capital expense either.

Maintenance is a current-year operational expense, and should be paid
from current-year revenues.

There will come a time when the level of taxation Must be higher than
the level of current-year spending. Rolling over the national credit
card charges year after year endlessly is bad fiscal policy.

It's never happened and never will. Can't.

It must.

Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid.

Hiding your R head in the R sand won't change that.

Get a life, Homuth.

"Don Homuth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:32:38 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

On 5 Sep 2006 08:10:17 -0700, "lein"
wrote:


Keep in mind, no Democrat run congress, in Don's adult life, has cut
spending or reduced the debt.

Keep in mind as well that the Republican Congress has, in Don's adult
life, increased both spending and the national debt in amounts that
Far exceed the total of all D congresses combined.

That's the appropriate perspective on the discussion.

Not hardly... although they have certainly tried.

Yeah -- it's a fact. The numbers are readily available.\

More a function
of longevity in control than anything else.

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:56:27 GMT, "Guv BoB"
wrote:

Get a life, Homuth.

Got one, and have had it for quite a while now.

You will find yours is greatly improved by dealing with a Known Fact,
now and again.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:56:27 GMT, "Guv BoB"
wrote:

Sorry, I'll have to disagree.

A disagreement based on nothing is more like religion than knowledge.

You are free to disagree.

You are still Wrong.

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:32:38 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

On 5 Sep 2006 08:10:17 -0700, "lein"
wrote:


Keep in mind, no Democrat run congress, in Don's adult life, has cut
spending or reduced the debt.

Keep in mind as well that the Republican Congress has, in Don's adult
life, increased both spending and the national debt in amounts that
Far exceed the total of all D congresses combined.

That's the appropriate perspective on the discussion.

Not hardly... although they have certainly tried.

Yeah -- it's a fact. The numbers are readily available.\

Where? I did the math from the Stat Abstract and that isn't what I
came up with. Although, as I mentioned, I think it was more a function
of time-served than anything remotely resembling fiscal responsibility
on anyone's part.

More a function
of longevity in control than anything else.

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

Cite. My cite (the Statistical Abstract of the US) doesn't agree
with that. (Even inflation adjusted.

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:



The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Interstingly, last time I checked the rule that established the
filibuster had a super majority requirement to change it. I don't know
if the rules automatically expire at the end of a Congress or if that
requirement still stands (or if it was renewed and still stands).
The rules also state that you can't filibuster a rules change. You
will note, BTW, that they did not have the votes to change the rule.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.
Right GDP is much closer to sales, although it is also a really
lousy analogy too. GDP is, well, like GDP.


Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

Of course they can. They can still filibuster.

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

That is assuming that taxes are only a form of revenue generation,
which they aren't. They are (for both sides) an attempt at social
engineering, punishing some behaviors and rewarding others and all sorts
of sideshows.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:34:06 GMT, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth wrote:

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

Cite. My cite (the Statistical Abstract of the US) doesn't agree
with that. (Even inflation adjusted.

There are several ways to look at it:

* Absolute numbers
* Adjusted for inflation
* Percentge of GDP

You like the % of GDP discussion, so I'll give you information that
focuses on it that way.

I'll give you several URLs and you can look at a combination:


http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

"...Despite his professed abhorrence for debt, Reagan instituted
unprecedented peacetime deficit spending...."

The Truman years were a residual of the debt run up for WW2.

"...Was it Reagan or the Democratic Congress?

Some say the debt’s U-turn when Reagan arrived had nothing to do with
his tax cuts, but was caused by Congressional Democrats. Not true. Had
Reagan’s proposed budgets come true, the increased debt would have
increased 85% as much as it actually did (in nominal dollars), but
even this is deceptive. It was not Congress that caused that last 15%;
it was the fact that the economy performed less well than predicted in
the Reagan budgets. This caused more government spending on
unemployment insurance etc. and less tax revenue. In fact a study by
the House found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more in spending
than Congress passed.

Whose National-Debt Numbers?

The data plotted here were taken directly from the White House web
site and plotted without modification. For details, see (Source). ..."

http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

This one discusses debt amassed by Presidents.

"...For each term in office, the President is responsible for four
fiscal year budgets starting Oct. 1 of the year they take office and
ending Sept. 30, eight months after they leave office. Table 7.1 gives
the gross federal debt as a % of GDP at the end of every fiscal year
since 1940. Each President's federal debt contribution was computed
by simply subtracting the value at the start of his first FY from the
value at the end of his last FY.

All Presidents prior to Reagan contributed to paying off the huge WWII
debt. The graph also credits the drop in federal debt as a percent of
GDP under Clinton towards repayment of the remaining WWII debt and not
towards paying off the Reagan-Bush debt. That would simply hide their
impact by making it appear that more of the current federal debt was
left over from WWII. Had Reagan-Bush simply managed to break even, the
WWII debt would have been as low as it's shown to be...."

"...From the White House: The Reagan-Bush Debt Explained

"The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of
war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982
[Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large
tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial
increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to
nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on
the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were
incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits
increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0
trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992." [emphasis added]

From "Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year
2006." Downloaded from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...6/pdf/hist.pdf. Page 5."

Of special interest is the last link on this site, which is a pdf file
worth a read:

http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html

"...President Reagan came to power claiming the trillion-dollar
national debt was the country's central problem. He then proceeded to
double it...."

I commend to you a detailed study of it.

There it is, stated as you prefer it in %GDP format.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 09:48:05 -0700, Don Homuth
wrote:

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

The difference between a Democrat and Republican, when it comes to the
domestic side of things:

A Democrat will say s/he's for increasing the size of government and
more government spending, and will vote for increasing the size of
government and more government spending.

A Republican will say s/he's for decreasing the size of government and
less government spending, and will vote for increasing the size of
government and more government spending.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Bob" wrote in message
ps.com...

Baxter wrote:

Bush has little to do with it.

Bush has a lot to do with it.

Same old Republican/Democrat issues that will never change!

No, it's not Republican/Democrat - except insofar as the Radical Religious
Right has taken over the Republicans. The divisions you're seeing now are
actually between Theocrats and Secularists.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CJT wrote:
Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

But, thanks to tax cuts, not as much banditry as in the preceeding eight.

You're wrong - they're just taking out of the other pocket.

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Bob" wrote in message
ups.com...

Don Klipstein wrote:

Bush has little to do with it.

Bush has a lot to do with it.

Same old Republican/Democrat issues that will never change! This
country is on the road to a larger division than the Iraqi Suni/****te
civil war. We are way overdue for a third party that can pull this
country back together again. (and it's not the Libertarians).

I would propose a resurgence of the Whigs!

I disfavor the Libertarians because their ideology is against "public
schools". Taxpayer-funded "Public schools" are big fact of life and law
of the land in all prosperous democracies!
- Don Klipstein

An example of why I disfavor them also, but moreso because they build
on a platform of divisiveness no different from the Republicans or
Democrats. We need a party willing & able to pull this country back
together again. I see no candidate in either party capable of doing
this.

Real Republicans are being driven out of the Party - because they're not
radical and are willing to work with Democrats.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Iran is the real threat!

What shall we do invade them too? Sure we can invade but dont know how
to run a occupied country......

The build up towards this is happening. Just like it did for Iraq.

Bob

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
I think the big problem in Iraq is that we used a troop count that Colin
Powell and Bush thought would be good, rather than the troop count that
Colin Powell said would be necessary.
Bush and Rumsfeld thought that the Iraquis would rush to build up their
nation newly freed from a dictator. While history tells us that too many
Arabs are largely rather apathetic about a lot of things, and hate Israel,
US and any warring faction more than some crummy local dictator national
government!

If we hadn't trashed the infrastructure, and made sure it couldn't be rebuilt,
we might have had a chance. The problem was to start a war with no plan
to handle the occupation.

Bob

"HeyBub" wrote in message
We
cannot fight every every battle that needs fighting.

True. The theory is, though, if we pick the right battles, many others need
not be fought.

We sure blew it on this choice. We have created a great terrorist training
ground, and plenty of people that hate the USA.I understand that the
terrorist technology developed in Iraq since we invaded is now killing
us in Afganistan.

Bob

"Baxter" wrote in message
Thats what happens when your income is from a salary, not from business
earnings or from capital gains.

true, without business earnings and investment from capital gains,
Joe's unemployed and living under an overpass.

Actually, real wages were higher back when taxes on the rich were higher.

What you're ignoring is that while profits have been rising, wages have been
declining.

Not ignoring - doesn't give a damn.

Bob

"Joe Williamson" wrote in message
newsp.tfcz6hy42ttlg6@localhost...
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

TwistyCreek wrote:
A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

You forgot about the part where Joe pays 40% of his earnings to big
government in one form or another.

The whole notion that government does anything for people that people
couldn't do for themselves cheaper and better is the essential fallacy.

Government is essentially legalized banditry.

So you are all ready to privatize the military. Contract out for congressmen and
Senators.
Sell all the roads, water systems, FAA, Police departments, fire departments,
.......?

Give us all a break!

Bob

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CJT wrote:
Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

But, thanks to tax cuts, not as much banditry as in the preceeding eight.


Yep! Cut the taxes of the ultra rich, and mortgage america's children to make up
the
difference. Wonderful!

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
That was also the last time the federal government actually laid
anyone off. AFGE will never allow that to happen again

baloney

remember the air traffic controllers?

They weren't laid off, they were fired and others hired to replace
them. Big difference. And AFGE and all the other government workers
unions can't stop the government from downsizing if they wanted. They
have no power because they don't have the right to strike.


Ummm. I hate to tell you this, but this government is not downsizing.
Looked at the federal spending recently?

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob" wrote in message
That was also the last time the federal government actually laid
anyone off. AFGE will never allow that to happen again

baloney

remember the air traffic controllers?

They weren't laid off, they were fired and others hired to replace
them. Big difference. And AFGE and all the other government workers
unions can't stop the government from downsizing if they wanted. They
have no power because they don't have the right to strike.


Ummm. I hate to tell you this, but this government is not downsizing.
Looked at the federal spending recently?

Well, yes and no. More bodies, more money, but fewer actual government
employees. At my office, and several others I am familiar with, out of every
3 new bodies coming in the door, 2 are contractors. In essence, they are
subbing the work out. No job security, no govt pension, little or no
accountability. There is a massive paper trail to get a new govt body
approved, and relatively little paperwork to hire a contractor. The fact
that each contractor body costs more to the taxpayers doesn't seem to enter
into the equation...

aem sends...

In article , dhomuth1
@comcast.net says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:
There were no Tax Cuts -- only Tax Deferrals.

Agreed. As long as the Democrats refuse to make the cuts permanent.

Oh, nonsense!

Where do you Wingnuts get off accusing the Ds of Not doing what the Rs
could do all on their own? They have the votes to do it, do they not?

No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

FOr a SUPREME COURT nomination. ...that is all.

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Senate rules are often more powerful than laws. I suggest you read
up some more, kid.

Anyone can create the Illusion of Wealth by charging off current
expenditures into the future.

If the purpose of the debt is to create an illusion, well, that's bad.

It's not about the Purpose -- it's about the outcome. And yeah -- it
is bad.

It's bad, but not as horrible as it's made out to be.

Other than that, Mrs, Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Idiot. I thought you had something important so say.

The current national debt, at about 65% of GDP, is about half its historical
maximum. In fact, GDP has increased about five times faster than the
national debt.

It doesn't matter. Those are sidebar comments and meaningless in the
great scheme of things.

No, the GDP is a good measure of relevance. It's like the P/E
ratio of a corporation.

It's nothing like that at all, and even Trying to say so is silly.

Yes, it is. Ok, perhaps you'd like D/E better? It's the *RATIOS*
that matter.

There are two sorts of debt generally -- accumulated operational debt
and debt incurred for public investment in capital infrastructure.

The latter is good -- and there should be more of it. The former is
bad - and there should be less.

Ok, let's start with welfare. Then axe the Department of Education
and all of the other extra-constitutional budgets.

Al yagodda do is float the proposal, and see where it goes. There is
a political outcome to doing that. All that needs to make it happen
is for the Rs to agree on it, and the Ds can't stop it.

....because the Ds have put almost half the population on the
receiving end. Why would they vote to cut off themselves off the
dole? Hey, if someone else is paying...

So -- why don't they do what you demand?

....because I'm on the other side. I *PAY* taxes.

And it doesn't really matter how reducing it is accomplished --
increased taxation and/or reduced spending. Each comes with a
political cost that Borrow and Spend is designed never to pay.

If certainly does matter. Have you loons ever heard of the "Laffer
curve"? We're still on the negative slope (cut taxes and revenues
increase; raise them and revenues will fall).

Nonsense. No one knows Where the eponymously titled Laffer Curve is,
else it would be simple simply to set the tax rate at the point of
maximum revenues and be done with it.

Do you even understand the concept? ...no, I didn't think so. The
fact is that it's been demonstrated, many times, that we're still
on the negative slope of the Laffer Curve. Cut taxes more and
revenues will still increase. Raise taxes and YOU are in a world
of hurt.

It was never something Known in the first place, and pretending it is
is simple economic nonsense.

You're talking through your ass. Every time taxes have been cut,
revenues have increased. Your best bud, JFK did it 45 years ago.
It's still true today, as much as you communists disapprove of the
facts.

But Costs are Real and will and Must be paid.

Nope. Sooner or later even the sun won't shine.

So, those folks with the illusion of wealth in debt up to their ears
really Are richer?

Nope. There are sunny days ahead. I'm sorry if you're too busy
wallowing in your self-pity to see the sunrise.

Heh! Now that's entertaining!

Indeed, chatting with losers like you always is. Get a ****in' job
and pay your way. You'll like yourself a whole lot more.

I didn't make that up.

The holders of the debt now have a chokehold on this nation's fiscal
future. It is now dependent only on their ongoing good will.

Nope. A dead creditor isn't a good creditor.

As non a sequitur as one might find. The debt outlives the creditor.

No, it certainly does not!

But...there's an Iron Law to consider:

Costs are Real, and Will and Must be paid.

Sooner or later.

Sooner is better.

Sooner is not, in general, better.

For current year operational spending, yes -- it is.

Again, cut all extra-constitutional spending. No more pork; no
more federal welfare; no more Department of Education...

You could do that, and it Still wouldn't balance anything, nor would
it pay down the debt.

It most certainly would. Do you have *ANY* idea of what is spent
today that is not authorized by the Constitution?

For long-term public capital investment, no -- it is not.

Ok, but we really don't nee the Alaskan highway to nowhere.

That was a bridge, but you need to explain that to the R leadership
incongruous, if you find it a problem. It was the Ds who rebelled at
it.

Nope.

The two are different and must be seen differently and treated
differently.

Sure, but maintenance shouldn't be a capital expense either.

Maintenance is a current-year operational expense, and should be paid
from current-year revenues.

I guess we can agree on at least one little thing, but that's not
the way it works.

There will come a time when the level of taxation Must be higher than
the level of current-year spending. Rolling over the national credit
card charges year after year endlessly is bad fiscal policy.

It's never happened and never will. Can't.

It must.

Can't.

Costs are Real and Will and Must be paid.

Nope. Never.

Hiding your R head in the R sand won't change that.

I'm certainly not happy with the performance of the Rs in congress,
but they're a large leap better than the forever whining Ds.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CJT wrote:
Joe Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 20:11:56 -0400, Larry Bud
wrote:

snip
Government is essentially legalized banditry.

That's been true for almost six years now.

But, thanks to tax cuts, not as much banditry as in the preceeding eight.


Yep! Cut the taxes of the ultra rich, and mortgage america's children to make up
the
difference. Wonderful!

Have you ever looked at who pays taxes? The bottom quintile
(that's 20% for you socialists who haven't graduated grammar school
yet) has a NEGATIVE 5.6% federal income tax rate. The bottom two
quintiles have about a .5% tax rate. ...and no it's not in any way
"wonderful".

--
Keith

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:56:10 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:


No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

FOr a SUPREME COURT nomination. ...that is all.

The rule on filibusters is not different for a SC nomination or any
other matter.

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Senate rules are often more powerful than laws.

Senate rules exist at the whim of the Majority Party.

I suggest you read
up some more, kid.

I doubt you have read more than I on the matter, or discussed it
personally more often with those closest to it either.

The Rs run the joint.

It is hardly the fault of the Ds when they do.

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:59:34 -0400, krw wrote:

Have you ever looked at who pays taxes?

Those who have the most money do.

Do you have some problem with that?

The bottom quintile
(that's 20% for you socialists who haven't graduated grammar school
yet) has a NEGATIVE 5.6% federal income tax rate. The bottom two
quintiles have about a .5% tax rate. ...and no it's not in any way
"wonderful".

Sure it is! Even with their Low Income Tax rate, the top quintile or
two has a Hellofa Lot More money regardless.

Bob wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

Uh, the "poor folks of Louisiana" had nothing to begin with -- except a
government dole. Most are actually better off in that they currently have
their "nothing" in areas where having "nothing" is unacceptable (i.e., Salt
Lake City, Houston, etc.). If you have "nothing," you starve. Better get to
work.



These people had jobs and nice homes in a wonderful city. Do you believe
everything Rush and Hannity tell you . Quit listening to republikan talking
points and start thinking for a change. I get really tired of this stupid

START THINKING BY YOURSELF, FOR YOURSELF, OF YOURSELF.
Unless brain dead, Right?

garbage.

Bob

Shut-ins with computers is sort of a new age description of what would
have in past epochs been called novelists, philosophers, and others who
wrote a lot by quill pen and candle light. The populism of writing is
something English composition teachers should be delighted about,
except that so often the writing resembles more the 30 sound bite slams
we're exposed to on the tube than any carefully constructed argument.
Note the following quote:

Under the WORST of the US "right-wingers",it would be paradise compared
to
life under Islamic law. Note the two FOX journalists FORCEd to convert
to
Islam at gunpoint.It's also a death sentence to renege on the deal.
And the ironic part is that liberals would be the FIRST to be oppressed
and
persecuted under it,and they don't even realize that.

Now my own crackpot response:

It seems like daily there's some "right-winger" Christian trying to
force conversion to the most contorted sense of irrational values
imagineable, particularly those relating to women. So, Ayatollah Bush
and his radical clerics of the religious right and the Islamic fanatics
have much in common in their tendency to force religion at gunpoint.
The Christian right would like to trash the Bill of Rights and
substitute a rule of government based on a bizaree interpretations of
the Old Testament. Harassement of patients and physicians, and bombed
abortion clinics, bans on stem cell research that would allow
scientists to find new cures, forbidding over-the-counter medication
vaccinations against ovarian cancer for those women it would most help,
and forbidding over-the-counter access for women to a widely recognized
and safe morning after pill.
These same religious fanatics are persuing a policy of warfare against
those with whom they in fact share a lot in common. The last part I'll
agree with--liberals would be the first to be oppressed--but that's the
same wherever one goes in the world. Those who are in pursuit of
science, who devote their lives to helping others or the environment,
rather than pursuing a life of building a hug bank account or making
military conquest, are at risk wherever they live. But, I don't see
Bush terrorism policy that strips down civil liberties doing anything
to help out either here in the USA or anywhere else in the world.

Don Homuth wrote:

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

And the Libertarians have a Far better record tha Ds or Rs.

"Alan" wrote:

The last part I'll
agree with--liberals would be the first to be oppressed--but that's the
same wherever one goes in the world.

Because they Whine. Constantly.

Baxter wrote:

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Bob" wrote in message
ps.com...

Baxter wrote:

Bush has little to do with it.

Bush has a lot to do with it.

Same old Republican/Democrat issues that will never change!


No, it's not Republican/Democrat - except insofar as the Radical Religious
Right has taken over the Republicans. The divisions you're seeing now are
actually between Theocrats and Secularists.


I talked to a guy at work yesterday about Katherine Harris .. he said he
would not vote for her in the primary, but would vote for her if she won
the primary. I said that "You would vote for a lunatic for senator
before you would vote for a Dem?" Answer was "Yes".

In article , dhomuth1
@comcast.net says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:56:10 -0400, krw wrote:

In article , dhomuth1
says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:26 -0400, krw wrote:


No. Why don't you loonie leftist liberals learn how the system
works? They need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, which is
required to make the cuts permanent. The Rs don't have 60 votes.

Remember what happened recently, when the Ds started discussing a
filibuster, and the Rs threatened to change the rules -- the so-called
Nuclear Option at the time?

FOr a SUPREME COURT nomination. ...that is all.

The rule on filibusters is not different for a SC nomination or any
other matter.

It is. The Rs don't even know if they have enough of their own to
change the cloture rules for SCotUS nominations.

The filibuster is not law -- it exists only by rule. The Rs can (and
do) change the rules whenever they wish.

Senate rules are often more powerful than laws.

Senate rules exist at the whim of the Majority Party.

Nope.

I suggest you read
up some more, kid.

I doubt you have read more than I on the matter, or discussed it
personally more often with those closest to it either.

Then you need to read for comprehension.

The Rs run the joint.

Nope. You seem to think the Rs are a monolithic block like the Ds.

It is hardly the fault of the Ds when they do.

Note the Ds didn't change the cloture rules when they held the
Senate.

--
Keith

In article , dhomuth1
@comcast.net says...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 22:59:34 -0400, krw wrote:

Have you ever looked at who pays taxes?

Those who have the most money do.

Yes, so stop the lies about "taking money from the poor and giving
it to the rich".

Do you have some problem with that?

You bet! Those who don't pay any, or negative, tax still vote.

The bottom quintile
(that's 20% for you socialists who haven't graduated grammar school
yet) has a NEGATIVE 5.6% federal income tax rate. The bottom two
quintiles have about a .5% tax rate. ...and no it's not in any way
"wonderful".

Sure it is! Even with their Low Income Tax rate, the top quintile or
two has a Hellofa Lot More money regardless.

Your point is? They earned the money. The poor didn't (usually
not yet, anyway). That's the way it works.

--
Keith

In article KPsLg.2206$m36.1952@trnddc02,
says...
Don Homuth wrote:

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

And the Libertarians have a Far better record tha Ds or Rs.

Since there are none...

--
Keith

"Alan" wrote in
oups.com:


Shut-ins with computers is sort of a new age description of what would
have in past epochs been called novelists, philosophers, and others who
wrote a lot by quill pen and candle light. The populism of writing is
something English composition teachers should be delighted about,
except that so often the writing resembles more the 30 sound bite slams
we're exposed to on the tube than any carefully constructed argument.
Note the following quote:

Under the WORST of the US "right-wingers",it would be paradise compared
to
life under Islamic law. Note the two FOX journalists FORCEd to convert
to
Islam at gunpoint.It's also a death sentence to renege on the deal.
And the ironic part is that liberals would be the FIRST to be oppressed
and
persecuted under it,and they don't even realize that.

Now my own crackpot response:

It seems like daily there's some "right-winger" Christian trying to
force conversion to the most contorted sense of irrational values
imagineable, particularly those relating to women. So, Ayatollah Bush
and his radical clerics of the religious right and the Islamic fanatics
have much in common in their tendency to force religion at gunpoint.
The Christian right would like to trash the Bill of Rights and
substitute a rule of government based on a bizaree interpretations of
the Old Testament. Harassement of patients and physicians, and bombed
abortion clinics, bans on stem cell research that would allow
scientists to find new cures, forbidding over-the-counter medication
vaccinations against ovarian cancer for those women it would most help,
and forbidding over-the-counter access for women to a widely recognized
and safe morning after pill.
These same religious fanatics are persuing a policy of warfare against
those with whom they in fact share a lot in common. The last part I'll
agree with--liberals would be the first to be oppressed--but that's the
same wherever one goes in the world. Those who are in pursuit of
science, who devote their lives to helping others or the environment,
rather than pursuing a life of building a hug bank account or making
military conquest, are at risk wherever they live. But, I don't see
Bush terrorism policy that strips down civil liberties doing anything
to help out either here in the USA or anywhere else in the world.


Here's a fine example of "moral relativism";attempting to compare forced
religious conversion at GUNPOINT along with death for reneging at any later
date,to the Christian 'moral' efforts,most of which *I* do not agree
with,either.But even I can see there's no comparison at all.

Alan evidently has NO concept of what "oppression" really is in other parts
of the world.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 05:15:22 GMT, Lobby Dosser
wrote:

Don Homuth wrote:

Strangely enough, even by being in control for Less time than the Ds,
the Rs have done more spending and run up higher deficits than all the
D totals thus far.

That's the Fact, jack!

And the Libertarians have a Far better record tha Ds or Rs.

Yes -- providing you believe that Nothing is a better record.