Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:00:29 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

(snips)

It's like which would you rather have dumb or dumber?

I'd rather have dumb. The Democrats are even dumber. But
then, being dumber, they can do less damage.

One wishes that it were so.

"Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain"--Isaac Asimov

Unless they
get control of the tax policy. Then they can really screw
things up.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

It's like which would you rather have dumb or dumber?

I'd rather have dumb. The Democrats are even dumber. But
then, being dumber, they can do less damage. Unless they
get control of the tax policy. Then they can really screw
things up.

I don't know, can anyone do worse than going bankrupt? If the republican's
defense of a ruinous tax policy is that the Democrats would make an even
bigger mess of things than we have, then they are in a very bad way. Six
years of a tax policy that takes in far less in revenue than is going out in
expenditures leads to only one place, insolvency. So far it's put us
trillions more in debt than when Bush started, hardly a surprise for anyone
that knows the first thing about taxes. Thinking that continuously taking in
less than one spends will lead to a surplus shows a definite lack of
intellectual ability, maybe even to the point of abject stupidity.

Whether Bush is dumb or dumber than the Democrats is beside the point. The
point is that what he promised his tax cuts would do has not happened, far
from it. To continue to follow policies that are proven failures is
something only dumb or dumber would do. Hopefully, we are smart enough not
to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Which means the next time we won't follow misguided tax policies like
Bush's. Which history has shown do not work. Instead, we'll take our chances
with someone else, someone not like those in charge now, who don't know what
the hell they are talking about.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:

It's like which would you rather have dumb or dumber?

I'd rather have dumb. The Democrats are even dumber. But
then, being dumber, they can do less damage. Unless they
get control of the tax policy. Then they can really screw
things up.

I don't know, can anyone do worse than going bankrupt? If the republican's
defense of a ruinous tax policy is that the Democrats would make an even
bigger mess of things than we have, then they are in a very bad way. Six
years of a tax policy that takes in far less in revenue than is going out
in expenditures leads to only one place, insolvency.

Yeah, yeah, heard it all in the '60s. Didn't happen.

So far it's put us
trillions more in debt than when Bush started, hardly a surprise for
anyone that knows the first thing about taxes. Thinking that continuously
taking in less than one spends will lead to a surplus shows a definite
lack of intellectual ability, maybe even to the point of abject stupidity.

Tax and spend, borrow and spend, nobody wants to address the "spend" part.

Whether Bush is dumb or dumber than the Democrats is beside the point. The
point is that what he promised his tax cuts would do has not happened, far
from it. To continue to follow policies that are proven failures is
something only dumb or dumber would do. Hopefully, we are smart enough not
to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different
result.

You have to be very young.

Which means the next time we won't follow misguided tax policies
like Bush's.

No, we'll follow some other equally misguided tax policy.

Which history has shown do not work. Instead, we'll take our
chances with someone else, someone not like those in charge now, who don't
know what the hell they are talking about.

If you want to see politicians who actually know what they are talking about
the only way to do that is to sew all their mouths shut.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:08:17 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:

It's like which would you rather have dumb or dumber?

I'd rather have dumb. The Democrats are even dumber. But
then, being dumber, they can do less damage. Unless they
get control of the tax policy. Then they can really screw
things up.

I don't know, can anyone do worse than going bankrupt?

Yes: going bankrupt while paying HIGH taxes. Higher tax
rates will not bring in more money; they'll just depress the
economy and bring on the bankruptcy even faster. The only
thing to do about the oncoming bankruptcy is to radically
reduce spending, and that's something neither major party
wants to do. If we are headed for bankruptcy either way,
I'd just as soon get there with more of my money available
to me so I can make provisions for it.

If the republican's
defense of a ruinous tax policy is that the Democrats would make an even
bigger mess of things than we have, then they are in a very bad way. Six
years of a tax policy that takes in far less in revenue than is going out in
expenditures leads to only one place, insolvency. So far it's put us
trillions more in debt than when Bush started, hardly a surprise for anyone
that knows the first thing about taxes. Thinking that continuously taking in
less than one spends will lead to a surplus shows a definite lack of
intellectual ability, maybe even to the point of abject stupidity.

Whether Bush is dumb or dumber than the Democrats is beside the point. The
point is that what he promised his tax cuts would do has not happened, far
from it.

Yes, they have done what was promised: they have invigorated
the economy and enhanced government revenues.
Unfortunately, they have not done what they cannot possibly
do: reduce spending.

To continue to follow policies that are proven failures is
something only dumb or dumber would do. Hopefully, we are smart enough not
to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

No, we aren't. Both major parties support a continual
increase in spending beyond the economy's ability to pay for
it. The Democrats want to increase taxes, which would
damage the economy and bring on bankruptcy even faster than
the high spending and lower taxes the Republicans favor.
But the point is, we support these two major parties, and
neither of them has a program to stop the deficit spending.
Ergo, we are NOT smart enough to not keep doing the same
thing while expecting different results.

Which means the next time we won't follow misguided tax policies like
Bush's. Which history has shown do not work. Instead, we'll take our chances
with someone else, someone not like those in charge now, who don't know what
the hell they are talking about.

If we radically increase taxes, the government will just go
broke faster. It's salvation lies solely in reining in
spending, and neither major party supports that, mainly
because the voters don't support it either. Oh, everyone
wants to reduce government spending -- except for the
programs from which they benefit. The elderly don't want to
reduce spending on the elderly; the public education
establishment doesn't want to reduce spending on public
education; the do-gooders don't want to reduce spending on
welfare; the farmers don't want to reduce spending on
agriculture; the military doesn't want to reduce spending on
the military; and so on, throughout the mixed economy.

Get over the fallacy that the government can save itself
merely by increasing the tax rates. It can't. And it
really doesn't look like it'll reduce spending, either.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:33:13 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Higher tax
rates will not bring in more money; they'll just depress the
economy and bring on the bankruptcy even faster.

Might make you watch what they are doing with the money
otherwise everyone thinks it's free.
Bombs are not productive investments.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:33:13 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote:

If we are headed for bankruptcy either way,
I'd just as soon get there with more of my money available
to me so I can make provisions for it.

HUH?
You will just pay for it all later PLUS interest & fines.
--
Cliff

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:33:13 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote:

If we radically increase taxes, the government will just go
broke faster.

And if evryone had guns nobody would be shot while if
nobody is armed you get the most deaths by gunfire.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:42:34 -0600, technomaNge wrote:

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:33:13 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote:


If we radically increase taxes, the government will just go
broke faster.


And if evryone had guns nobody would be shot while if
nobody is armed you get the most deaths by gunfire.


Cliff, are you being a wiseass or serious?

Per gunlogic 101. Just ask Lott, Gunner, any of that crew.
"More guns make you safer", right?

I really want to know as I had just opened the kill file to add
you when I read this post.

Now, I am unsure whether to file you or not.

The "reasoning" seemed very similar ....

BTW, It seems that Cheney's primary complaint was that it was
the lawyer's fault.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:33:13 -0800, Robert Sturgeon wrote:


If we radically increase taxes, the government will just go
broke faster.


And if evryone had guns nobody would be shot while if
nobody is armed you get the most deaths by gunfire.


Cliff, are you being a wiseass or serious?
I really want to know as I had just opened the kill file to add
you when I read this post.

Now, I am unsure whether to file you or not.

technomaNge