This time the pendulum has swung too far right. What will happen here is that now that the voters have given the far right enough rope, they will, over the next 2 years, hang themselves with it.
Re-elect Gore in 2004!
By now it is clear that the US Senate has at least a one vote Republican majority for the next two years or more.
That's Ashcroft's party. I wonder what practical impact this will have on hobbying, direct and indirect, for the future.
(1) Ashcroft no longer need worry about being confirmed by the Senate if he gets the nod for a US Supreme Court vacancy.
He can join Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas, who are of like mind to overrule Roe v Wade for a start. It is true that will leave it to the States. The rich will get abortions. The poor will have more and more kids.
(2) The new Senate now can confirm the many archconservative federal judges waiting in line for lifetime tenure and possible elevation to the high Court, which is aging daily, with 75 looking young up there.
(3) In the meantime Ashcroft can step up enforcement of the obscenity laws and other antisexual statutes that affect the behavior of consenting adults: Mann-Travel-RICO-Laundering-. There will be no Senate majority to question his priorities. Several cases scattered across the US can have a massive chilling effect. The prosecutions of Year 2002 may seem like pilot projects when we look back in 2003 and 2004. Actually federal prosecutions under those laws above carry forfeiture and very heavy penalties, on top of the state laws. The federal laws are a major threat if you research them. In two Mann Act cases recently the defendants got 40 years in jumpsuits in New York. So far the usual escort agencies have been safe, but for how long?
The openness of these last few years, however, has been fun and very interesting. Perhaps it will not be so bad. Hope for the best and plan for the other. Maybe Comstock and Starr will stay underground. The sky is not falling, but stealth bombers piloted by Baptists are hovering about. Better hide my schlong! LOL
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 5:10:08 AM
Don't worry schlong since most of the laws dealing with this hobby are state laws and local laws not federal Ashcroft will probably not have much impact. And if you live in a state like California you should be protected by the liberal democratic governor and his cronies from much persecution. Oops I forgot. The woman's rights groups and other liberal groups don't like this hobby either. They feel it demeans women. Also if Roe v Wade is overturned it would mean that abortion would be decided on a state by state basis again. I can't picture California not passing a law allowing abortions. Oh well I guess it will be pretty much the same in California as it has been in the past. I don't know about the rest of the country.
I would not worry too much Schlong I don't think the sky will be falling anytime soon.
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 12:46:29 AM
You're forgetting some thins:
-Roe v Wade is all that's keeping Congress from passing a national ban on abortion.
-While the "normal" prostitiution laws are on the state level, there are some extremely nasty ones on the federal level.
abortion except to save the life of the woman, then it will be allied with the Republic of Ireland and some Islamic fundamentalist nations intellectually. Now there's a word you rarely see in the same sentence with fundamentalist! LOL
Justices who approved Roe included a majority of Republicans.
I hope the Senate is not so lacking in grey matter as to go that far, although a few would extend the right to vote all the way down to swimming sperm no doubt. Sperm have other things on their mind.
From having been in DC three decades, I would not be surprised at some huge Mann-Travel Act cases brought in States where Republicans need the votes, publicity would be max, and jurors would convict. Miami already has its big Circuit case. That leaves LA, NYC, Chicago, Texas, also northern Virginia. DC jurors would not convict. Too many unsolved crimes of violence still out there to waste time like that.
Think I'll go back to the monastery and make some fine Merlot.
the beginning of the end of Republican Party and I doubt that it will happen. They are not that dumb. I won't worry too much about it.
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 11:13:24 AM
Re: Conservative republican pressure to overturn Roe v Wade. I'm reminded of what Lee reportedly said at Gettysburg: "...things do have a way of getting out of hand..."
Up until 3 years ago, I worked and managed a lot of political campaigns - almost all of them local. One of my long ago learned rules is "keep democrats out of the Boardrooms, republicans out of the bedrooms."
The biggest reason abortion was a big deal is that the far right delivered money and voters to the Republicans. While they still can, they pretty much lost it when extremists started shooting Doctors. At that point, they became a liability."I'm pro-life but I go around shooting Doctors" didn't quite have the same "ring" of truth.
As a result. Some of the more notable "pro-life" leaders have left and became "pro-family". This is a tacit admission that they don't believe they will be successful. Yes, the Supreme Court COULD get a new justice. But history teaches that's no automatic either.
Quite frankly, just like some of the marijuana initiatives that got on ballots last week, there's probably some possibility that prostitution could be taken the other direction - and legalized.
Politically, you could build a strong case - just on tax revenues alone.
Bottom line: Stay active with your local and state representatives. Give some financial and resource support. That's the way you make a difference and don't end up screwed.
A "national ban" would be quashed faster than national handgun registration, national driver license requirement, a state sponsored prayer, a state sponsored ban on prayer or any other clearly unconstitutional law.
We are going to get a chance to see if Republicans are really for small government.
Why do democrats keep screaming about the illusory prospect of overturning Roe v. Wade? Scream about stupid policy decisions that can be undone like unlimited t-cell research or drugs... Well, those issues are real and apparently actual issue discussions are not as rewarding as demagoguery.
Here's a news flash. A national ban is not the same thing as being opposed to abortion. Just because I say abortion is wrong, does not mean I'm going to try to enact a law preventing you from seeking an abortion. Politically correct thinking does not necessarily make for good law, you know? Attacks on the Constitution have survived the left... Let's see if the Right can undo some of the damage.
First Amendment: Free Speach and of the press
Second Amendment: Right to bare armes.
Third Amendment: see any soldiers in your neighborhood yet?
Fourth Amendment: Privacy rights... Homeland Security in the balance?
Fifth Amendment: Self incrimination... Homeland Security again?
Sixth Amendment: Speedy trial... well the left has already eliminated this one.
Seventh Amendment: Jury Trial. Well... if we shit on the rules enough to eliminate common sense.... HEY! Trial Lawyers win again!
Eighth Amendment: Habius Corpus & Cruel and unusual punishment. I think it interesting that the prison population has teken on the roll of punishers. The left dropped the ball and somebody was going to pick it up...
Ninth Amendment: Implied rights. Has been twisted to allow the government to steal from me to give to someone in need. Trouble is government is a shitty judge of "need" so an alcoholic junky is as diabled as a person with head trauma pushing shopping carts in the same neighborhood.
Tenth Amendment: States Rights. So a national ban is not gonna be constitutional... Either the whole document stands or it all fails. I believe in (and will do my part to defend) the whole document.
First Amendment: Free Speach and of the press
And assembly.
Except in cases where major corporate-owned large news outlets deem stories unprintable because their interest in the free-market capital system precludes the notion of a free press. Did you hear the story about Osama bin Laden when Colonel Oliver North first mentioned him and CNN could have broken it, back in 1992 or so? Nooooooo ... where was your free press then? Looking after its market interests.
Second Amendment: Right to bare armes.
Third Amendment: see any soldiers in your neighborhood yet?
Yup. Most inner-city Americans who can't afford internet access would say that they've heard gunshots in their neighborhoods, and that they'd like the threat to go away. But they don't have a say, generally, in free-market-capital run societies BECAUSE they're poor. Their experiences of what I am loosely allowing to be a called a "soldier" are equal to most of former Yugoslavia's definition of a warlike individual: man with gun shooting at things. Just because he's not wearing the uniform of an aggressor state, doesn't mean a state of war doesn't exist.
Fourth Amendment: Privacy rights... Homeland Security in the balance?
Fifth Amendment: Self incrimination... Homeland Security again?
Sixth Amendment: Speedy trial... well the left has already eliminated this one.
The LEFT? I thought it was the RIGHT that had more lawyers and loopholes ... well, learn something new every day.
Seventh Amendment: Jury Trial. Well... if we shit on the rules enough to eliminate common sense.... HEY! Trial Lawyers win again!
Yeah, trial lawyers are juuuuust great aren't they?
Eighth Amendment: Habius Corpus & Cruel and unusual punishment. I think it interesting that the prison population has teken on the roll of punishers. The left dropped the ball and somebody was going to pick it up...
Habeas corpus.
LOL. That's sad and pathetic. It isn't really the case that the left or the right dropped the punishment ball -- but it is a bad situation.
Ninth Amendment: Implied rights. Has been twisted to allow the government to steal from me to give to someone in need. Trouble is government is a shitty judge of "need" so an alcoholic junky is as diabled as a person with head trauma pushing shopping carts in the same neighborhood.
Tenth Amendment: States Rights. So a national ban is not gonna be constitutional... Either the whole document stands or it all fails. I believe in (and will do my part to defend) the whole document.
Demagoguery. The text of the ninth and tenth amendments are:
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I don't see how that leads to some kind of unAmericanism if we dislike a part or two, or how the "whole" thing is the only right way for the thing to stand.
If it's an Amendment, its very existence implies that the document can be changed.
A-MEND-MENT. Get it? CHANGE!!!
I believe in (and will do my part to defend) universal human rights and the case of the suffering individual, regardless of a piece of paper, and if necessary will take intelligent steps to repeal amendments, write new amendments, or (gosh, what a concept) enact intelligent and effective laws. Just cuz you're a proud American doesn't mean you have to like everything in the book.
You're really slapping hard at bugaboos, here. The "left" as a monolith, the whole constitution as another monolith ... could we address issues specifically, instead of which "side" is a more better holier person?
I prefer a party that will...
1) Get it's nose out of the business of consenting adults. This includes getting rid of all existing sodomy and other laws intended to constrain adult sexual behavior.
2) Make it illegal for a lawyer to run for ANY elected office.
3) Truely separate church and state - including eliminating tax exemptions for all churches and religious organizations.
4) Recognize the need for social as well as financial responsibility.
...which kinda leaves both the spendthrift democrats and the hypocrite republicans out.
While the Constitution protects against the "establishment" of a state religion, there is no language in the Constitution saying that church and state must be separate.
Correct, nothing says church and state MUST be separate. But God dammit, they SHOULD be.
Tax exemptions for religious organizations? Puhhhleeeaassee! Most places or worship can extract just about as much $$$ as they need from their congregations. Why offer them exemptions?
The trick is that the establishment clause is violated if church and state are separate. For example, the "Under God" controvercy: Congress passed a law putting "Under God" in the pledge, violating the establishment clause. Makeing a law saying "Students must pray" does the same thing.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
A state could do it though.... Let's start a religion in California! I'm ready to pray! Most High Power and she does wield her power of enlightenment right and pursuit of happiness....
I think I love you!
To the list of the lost Schlong, I would include the following:
(i) use of federal statutes to close boards such as TER (prosecutors can be very creative, when they want to be);
(ii) guaranteed invasion of Iraq, regardless of whatever Saddam Hussein or the UN do or don't do. In response, Islamic fundamentalists may overthrow US friendly-secular governments such as Egypt and Pakistan.
(iii) virtual collapse of the U.S. health care system, caused by unrestricted increases in HMO premiums, decreases in Medicare reimbursements and subsequent closures of medical schools/teaching hospitals (actually, this is already happening, just will accelerate);
(iv) privatization of Social Security, so that everyone can lose money in the stock market, not just those with 401K plans.
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 5:27:22 AM
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 5:27:51 AM
Remember how (almost) everyone laughed at Gore when he suggested a "lock box" for Social Security to protect it from the ups and downs of the market? Doesn't seem so ridiculous now, eh?
Actually, the best financial advice I ever heard was from Art Cashin, Floor-trader of Paine-Webber, when asked about gold as an investment: "Alway have enough to bribe the guards at the border"
His name is LITERALLY "cash in"? Or is that part of the joke too ... :-P
Strangely enough, his name is really Art Cashin, and he's a regular stock market commentator for CNBC.
SO where is all the money from the Lock box during the Clinton/Gore years?
Don't worry, I already know the answer. The lock box was a lie, just as the Social Security trust fund was a lie. They spent the money.
if I'm not mistaken wasn't the Mann Act also know as the White Slavery Act.?.. this was the vernacular language for it when it was drafted.
Forty years ? This seems outlandish, waaay out of the left field of judicial reality, unless it involved the transportation of minors across state lines and had other aggravating conditions thrown in, like using them as drug couriers...
have stopped shedding tears over what existed under the Clinton/Reno regime. If you think Ashcroft is any worse than Reno, may I suggest you do more extensive research. How soon we seem to forget how truly incompetent Reno was throughout her entire administration. To only mention a few of those misdeeds (instead of listing every one) doesn't fully serve the electorate as it minimizes how horrible of an attorney general she actually was. But for the sake of brevity and bandwith , I will only highlight a sampling: *** Ruby Ridge was a travesty *** Waco was a disaster. *** The way in which the Elian Gonzalez case was handled was absolutely shameful (not the fact he was returned, but instead the manner in which he was.) *** The gestapo type tactics in shutting down California canabis clubs that provided marijuana to cancer patients, even after wide voter approval to allow the clubs to do so. *** And lets not forget the multiple civil actions taken by the ACLU against Reno for her repeated attempts to shut down websites that she considered pornographic. Yes, Reno thought of doing this way before Ashcroft! On and on it could go. So go ahead and cry over Ashcroft, but after Reno I'm all cried out. I really don't think one is any worse than the other.
Although I was never a proponent of George Wallace's politics, I did find two statements he made to ring true to my heart.
"there is not a dime's worth of difference in the two parties"
"the Republicans just say aloud what the Democrats whisper in the bathroom"
Excellent points. I have to admit the "skirting the law" that went on under the Reno justice department was just about as heinous as the cynicism in most of the cabinet nowadays.
Interesting article by Friedman in NY Times about how Clinton is viewed as the American "optimism" and Bush as the American "pessimism."
Good quotes, about how Democrats whisper what Republicans dare to say. The only REALLY successful Democrat on a national level in this last election was Harkin (Iowa), who went out and CLAIMED VOCIFEROUSLY that he was a liberal, rather than trying to be a Republocrat like the rest of 'em. Major party mistake on the part of the Dems, and a clear indication (to me, at least) that the electorate is still split (as it ought to be) over whether to be left-wing bleeding-heart give-give-givers, or right-wing cold-hearted Social Darwinists. There just weren't many bleeding-heart candidates, all the Dems were doing (rather ineffective) acts of Republican-mimicry.
This time the pendulum has swung too far right. What will happen here is that now that the voters have given the far right enough rope, they will, over the next 2 years, hang themselves with it.
Re-elect Gore in 2004!
LOL re-elect Gore. Brilliant! Good joke ...
Hell, Gore has to take credit for helping to invent TER!!!!
-Hoot.
My simple view:
Excellent for cynics.
Stupendous for the defense industry.
Great for speculators, especially in low-regulation markets like real estate and junk bonds (although those have been somewhat closed down, but something LIKE that ...).
Great for corporations and (by means of limited trickle-down) their employees, especially their leaders. The Enron scandal disappears from national consciousness.
Good for small business owners, other people with tax burdens that might lighten significantly, your average shop owner. But tax burdens never seem to lighten as much as politicians claim.
Bad for Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women, homosexuals.
Bad for men who want sex with someone other than their own married partner who is also a Mormon or Baptist.
Bad for the US Constitution and other radical documents that threaten to remove religion from daily life.
Dreadful for Europe, for Americans traveling abroad, for anyone living in the Middle East whether Arab or Jew, for any individual in the US armed forces who might be in the line of fire.
Calamity for abortion rights activists, homosexual rights activists, environmentalists, people who wish to improve education in America beyond simple technical skills training.
End of the world for culture.
-- Modified on 11/7/2002 11:36:06 AM
although I may still be a registered Republican, I could not give half a shit about any political party out there. I probably identify most closely with Libertarian ideology but switched parties after I saw what I perceived as racist rhetoric coming out of their candidates (of course there are no Republican and closet Democrat bigots out there, right?).
Anyhow, I have found that as long as business is good and I have a couple dollars in my pocket that those dollars translate into freedom. I will take good business anyday and I will use those dollars to buy freedoms both at home and abroad. Basically I will commit sex crimes and sin, as well as possibly support "rogue" foreign governments with my travel dollars with any windfall that I will receive from the Republican majority. God bless the USA!!!
Although I'm almost a card-carrying libertarian m'self, I still utterly disagree with the Milton-Friedmaniac's view that easing government restrictions on large business entities is either (a) good for economic opportunities overall or (b) good for anything outside of the economic sphere. It hasn't ever happened, that lowering taxes ACTUALLY improved the economy -- just the leading indicators, which largely benefit big-scale employers and not necessarily their employees.
Call me a "Law and Economics" school fellow, if ya know what that means. Basically, the idea is to stop looking at gross national output numbers like GDP, GNP, unemployment rates, etc., and start looking at the DISTRIBUTION of wealth within the society. For being one of the richest nations on the planet, the USA sure has a bad record on such subjects as child poverty, educational opportunities for the lower classes, legitimate long-term cultural support, public institutions not funded by private donors -- heck, support programs of ANY sort not founded mostly by the private and not-for-profit sector.
And now we've deliberately chosen to go even farther Right. Death penalty, precluding abortion, linking ever more closely the New Christian Right (who are Wrong) with classroom and social policy. Harrumph. This ain't a democracy no more, it's the new theocracy.
Which might not be a bad idea, frankly, given the nature of our evident enemies. But in our new choice of a more theocratic direction, we're losing sight of the fact that OTHER enemies have the strength of not being tied to excess moral judgment of their own political behavior -- China being foremost in the untheocratic world.
If that weren't proof enough that total enfranchisement style democracy doesn't work, try this one on for size: Kathleen Harris (remember her? the one who broke the law to stop the vote-counting -- probably a strictly cynical, self-serving choice, knowing full well a restart of counting would also be illegal -- then couldn't get the machines to work even AFTER the whole nation was agog at her incompetence?) is now a State Senator from Sarasota. They actually LIKED what she did in November 2000. Yeesh.
My take on party politics is, that if everyone were as smart as most card-carrying libertarians seem to be, then Libertarianism and total-enfranchisement democracy would work fine. But since most of the voters I meet clearly don't deserve to be counted as equal to me and the rest of us smart people ... 
I always enjoy how the liberals (usually democrats) characterize the conservatives (usually republicans) as these pessimistic scrooge like individuals who never have any fun and want to make sure that no one else has any fun either.
However after any election which a republican wins office a number of liberals have to tell us how the sky is falling ala chicken little. I do not here the same rhetoric coming from the conservatives after a democrat wins office. After the 2000 presidential elections Jesse Jackson among other proclaimed that their entire life's work had been negated because George W. had been elected President. I guess their life's work did not amount to much. After this election we have the Schlong and others telling us how the sky is falling once more and that our rights will be stripped from us and the United States will become a theocracy, etc.
I have not heard the conservatives come up with any the sky is falling statements related to a thief named Gray Davis being elected as Govenor or the State of California. Most conservatives feel the state will continue to function in spite of Gray Davis and that there will probably be a state left when he is finished.
It just makes me think that the conservatives are really more optimistic than the liberals especially when it comes to the future of this country.
I am basically a conservative and I usually vote Republican. However, my views on hobbying -- as well as most any issue of the government butting its nose into matters where no harm is done -- differ than some of my brethren.
When "my politico" loses a battle, I say that that's democracy (or more effectively, Republicanism since we have a republic -- not a democracy). I lost. End of story -- move on. Yes, it would be easier if Democrats were more gracious losers, but, whatever. Their arrogance just makes it easier for folks like me to be in the other major party.
-Hoot.
Almost all my friends and their families are against Republican, be they independents or democrats. After the 2000 election, I got invited to a Thanksgiving dinner in my close friend's parents house. Since the recount in Florida was still ongoing, it was a bit awkward in the dinner. We just didn't let politics get in the way of friendships.
This said it all: "Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil" --- Charles Krauthammer, "No-Respect Politics" - Washington Post 7/26/2002
You've abandoned the discussion of issues, in order to devolve to an assassination of character instead. Rather than saying, "I disagree with the disparagement of conservatives, BECAUSE xyz," you simply say, "I note that a certain group disparages conservatives" and then you go on to disdain the act of disparagement itself.
You are poisoning the well of discourse, by changing the topic from WHAT we say to HOW and WHEN we say it, and what kind of person (WHO) would say that sort of thing. That's an ad-hominem attack, a logical fallacy. It's the first step in a flame war, and YOU'VE made it.
I do agree with some conservative doctrine. But I find it silly to suggest that conservatives didn't bad-mouth liberals the last time the Democrats won a majority -- they just didn't do it HERE. Remember all the Clinton-baiting that went on CONSTANTLY, as though the EXISTENCE of the man at all was somehow a gallstone in the pit of every conservative's craw? Did it EVER include discussion of universal health care, or the upturn in the economy, or any other Clinton policy aside from blowjobs in the Oval Office? No, very seldom did it include ANY specifics except, "He has defamed the office, his character is corrupt."
Which is a crock coming from the party of Nixon.
So, don't get started on the "you complain too much" route. If you genuinely think complaint is a problem for democracy, it wouldn't surprise me to find your politics to be farther right-wing than mine as well. Stick to the issues at hand, not the personality attacks.
-- Modified on 11/9/2002 9:17:10 AM
But the Party of Walter Mondale is as andi-capitalist as ever.
I think it interesting that actual ecomonic statistics are ignored. Lester Thurlow was wrong. Keynesian Theory has been proved inadequite. The only class of people where misery is in strong supply with no alternative is where Marxist Socialism is rampant. Even in "enlightened" democracies like Sweden are caving in under the burden of a welfare state.
A safety net is necessary for those that can't make it on their own. Thay does not make it necessary for them to live in luxury! Providing a roof, a meal; hell yes. Providing heroin, fine red wine, a five course meal, cable tv and at least dial up? No way!
People are starving in the United States not because there is not enough food, it's because of the choices they (or their parents) make. You want to take a junkie alcoholoc off the street, bring them into your house. I have and do. Do not ask me to pay for his methadone life sentence and roomand board for his codependent wife and confused children, because it's easier for you to vote for utopia than work for it.
Economics schmeconomics! Just because we're doing better than the former Soviet Union doesn't mean I'd like to give my policymakers carte blanche to further tread on the downtrodden. The disproportionate maldistribution of wealth in our society is an evil that the typical free-market systems encourage. I don't advocate state-based socialism along the lines of Sweden (which isn't doing half as badly as you pretend, relative to, say, Cambodia), but I do advocate consideration of something other than pure Social Darwinism in the making of domestic economic policy. Or do you like the idea of Enron execs having more of a say in your life than you do?
Frankly, the party of Nixon is alive and well and living in George W. Bush's cabinet. Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and plenty of others learned a great deal from their early days under Ayres (spelling?).
And, to reduce my post to one in which a rather MINOR tangent (the aside about the "party of Nixon") becomes the SOLE CENTRAL TOPIC you discuss, again indicates you aren't interested in rational discourse. From ad-hominem to tangential (I'll call it "ignoratio elenchi," look it up in your logic text), you aren't convincing me of anything except your own desire to abandon the debate in favor of flinging mud. What a surprise ...
-- Modified on 11/10/2002 8:55:44 AM
What debate? Facts are that high taxes reduce tax revenue over the long term. So the government plays with marginal rates to walk the edge of maximum marginal taxation by constantly changing the rules, shifting the burden and adjusting the rate up and down as the econony expands.
Sweden not in trouble? Are you kidding. The disability rate alone is costing more than 4.5% of GNP. That alone will cause serious quality of life issues withing 5 years.
Pure Social Darwinism? Where did that come from. Because I'm not willing to treat drug addiction the same as mental illness or trauma?
Enron exectives are no different than SKG, Westinghouse, Unocal, BankOne or Sony executives. Most are honest, hardworking people. A few are scum that will end up in prison or dead (at least one enron crony killed himself).
What mud are you talking about? OH! you mean facts....
Then how 'bout we talk about taxes.
Bush has slashed taxes on the richest 1%, very slightly reduced taxes on the poor, and increased taxes on the middle class (the AMT).
The theory behind doing something like this is that when the rich have more money, they can help capital investment. So why is that a good idea now? Who's going to build a new factory when the old one's at 50% capacity? Why not cut taxes on the low end instead, giving $$ to people who will spend all of it?
And for question #2, how does making the Bush tax cut permenant help now? It's supposed to expire in 2011, so how does this help now and not in 2012?
Effects of George W. Bush’s Revised Tax Plan
Total Tax Cut
Lowest 20% Less than $13,600 saves $42 actually pays NOTHING and receives $42 for the trouble of filing.
Second 20% $13,600–24,400 saves $187 Alternative Min hurts this guy... the Democrats refused to remove AMT
Middle 20% $24,400–39,300 on average saves $453 a year
Fourth 20% $39,300–64,900 on average saves $876 a year
Next 15% $64,900–130,000 on average saves $1,447 a year
Next 4% $130,000–319,000 on average saves $2,253 a year
Top 1% $319,000 or more on average saves $46,072 a year BUT THEY PAY ON AVERAGE $160,000 A YEAR!!!
Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Model, May 2000.
You can't cut taxes on people that don't pay any.
The purpose of cutting taxes is to leave more money in the private sector to be spent and/or invested, right? The result of both is an increase in production (over time), right? Thus stimulating economic growth, which results in increase in tax revenues.
This is not a zero sum game. The economy grows, and just like a pie, if it's bigger, there is more for everyone. Just because one paus less, does not mean that others pay more.
Permenant tax cuts... yeah right... As I beleive I mentioned before, tax cuts and rulse changes are used to manipulate tax revenue streams in order to maximize government revenue. The only way tax cuts are going to become permenant is if government actually reduces in size. I hope this actuallyu happens!
Sounds good.
I don't believe a word of it. Neither did any of my economics professors. When you say "facts" about taxation, you should say "what I think are facts." They're THEORIES that have NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND worked out the way the supply-side policy makers predicted.
The premise that productivity is always a good thing, is what I quibble with. As you point out, 4.5% of Sweden's GDP is going to disability. And yet the standard of living for the mean experience in Sweden is better than that for the mean experience in America, if you get the statistical drift.
I simply reject the idea that economies must always produce to be happy. They can distribute that which is already produced; they can destroy and distribute profit from that service; they can simply recycle permanently. Sure, it's a departure from what the Hoover cabinet forced on North America almost a century ago, but it sure is better for the environment, for the distribution of wealth within a society, for a single adolescent mother who can't spell "economics."
The opposite of that is largely Social Darwinism. As a nation, we've been discussing taxation, and other economic issues, within a box of assumptions which are ALL Social Darwinist, since about 1920. Or 1790. I do agree with you, however, that a junkie has done damage to himself and is worth less to us than a veteran amputee. Does that mean the junkie "deserves" less attention from charity / social service / government welfare? Or maybe BECAUSE he's a problem-child, he "deserves" more! Maybe. For example, the junkie is rehabilitatable ... and could produce more in the long run, IF fixed, than a perpetually arm-less veteran. Your own theories contradict themselves unless total Social Darwinism is accepted at all points along the chain.
Try Jane Jacobs' latest, "The Nature of Economies." It will shatter some myths.
-- Modified on 11/11/2002 1:48:28 PM
The dialog has gotten a little off message here I think but I have to point out a few facts that seem to be lost on some of the posters. 1)The evil Republicans have been pretty much in charge since January 2001. Hmmmmm almost two years now. Wasnt it just a few days ago that a discussion on the board reveiled that the service of providers had gotten significantly better and the prices were about the same during the past two years. 2) On the subject of the New Orleans bust, a local fairly savy provider(I was there shortly after it happened) told me this was a situation of eliminating some competition more than anything else. I have absolutely no proof of this but she should know a little something about it since she lives there and had no involvement in the situation. I tend to believe her as I used to live there and know a little about the city. Lets just say its a different world than the one most of us live in.
My view is (bet you thought I'd never get to it)the feds truly have more important issues to contend with as we all know. Unless their noses get rubbed in it, they wont be all that interested in, ahem, hobbying.
eliminate local competitions.
First of all, these issues should not keep one from enjoying the hobby. I posted more reviews of great times in 2002 than 2000-2001 put together, and had a great bbjteoku a few days ago, with more planned as the schlong ... err need, arises.
We do need to know what's up though so we can protect ourselves better. It might be a good idea to post reviews in the wrong month with a handful of confusing details. Read my lips.
USDOJ and the FBI issue press releases on this stuff and there were several contemporaneous news stories. Some of the posts above missed those.
Miami-Chicago FBI controlled a federal investigation of The Circuit, which was based in Chicago, with ops in several US cities.
NOLA FBI got carried away and busted the brothel too soon, perhaps for pre-election publicity. NOLA FBI got involved because of a medicaid fraud investigation of a Louisiana physician who frequented the bordello.
Nothing to do with local politics or competition.
Miami FBI-US Atty people were selected for the main prosecutions in south Florida. They did a dry run SWAT invasion on Escort-Lovelies first, then filed charges against all of the Circuit Group, for trial in Miami. That's all federal. The feds are not sleeping. These cases are serious priority with the religious right and those folks have influence with Ashcroft and his top deputies. Count on it.
The feds do not seem anxious to prosecute hobbyists or independent providers, however. That is the good news.
Celebrate. Go out and get a bj, and dedicate it to Ashcroft, or two bjs and dedicate one to Ken Starr. That's as close as they'll ever come to one! LOL
Somebody recently started a public advocacy group called Blowjobs for Baptists, to convince Baptists to enjoy the experience and lighten up. An opposing group, Baptists Against Blowjobs, counter-pickets them. BFB and BAB. The human race is so backwards. Liberal democrats of course followed with Free Blowjobs for Everyone - FBJE. A Texas group is called Blowjobs for Millionaires Only. BMO.
Thanks for posting all those reviews.
From what I remember about domestic politics for any law to get passed through the senate a greater majority than what the Republican's currently have is required to pass a law. So in response to those who apparently enjoy overreacting to political change, the debate that you require in governmental process is not going away by a long shot. A new Senate will make it "slightly" easier to get the new administrations, but that is about the extent of the impact. The sky is not falling, there are no baptists in stealth bombers, and the reason most conservatives hated the Clinton/Gore administration was both for the character flaws and their completely hostile relationships with the military. There were some deeper issues for conservatives with Clinton beyond the Lewinsky thing, no matter how much some like to claim otherwise.