I mentioned the tradeoff between fewer jobs and cheaper stuff and alluded to conditions guaranteeing that the dollar value of the latter swamps the former. A question should linger about the social value of the tradeoff. To an economist, a job is nothing but money pipeline. It has no value beyond what it pays.
So if the options are free trade with displacement of some domestic workers, and protectionism, an economist argues that the presumptively superior choice is free trade with assistance for the displaced. With all the benefits from trade (each small, but there are a lot of them) you can bribe those who lose their jobs and still have money left over for consumers. If jobs have value to people beyond their earning stream that argument is harder to make.
Of course that complicates things a lot. It means you have to ascertain how much someone's job is worth to him. Since that is not traded on any market the valuation is open to misrepresentation for strategic gains. But on a philosophical level it's a question people shouldn't let economists forget.
I understand that trade deficit stats are not the be all/end all of economic analysis. However, I assumed that they had some relevance, for Pete's sake. What does serve as a fair barometer for incrementing trade relations, with an eye towards expansion?
A country's overall trade position is important, yes. Not the lynchpin it's made out to be in the money pages but important. But trade balances for pairs of countries are not too important. What does matter is that the countries have open markets, and this is one problem wrt the US-Japanese bilateral trade balance. It's much less of an issue with China, because they can't buy most of the stuff we sell anyway. (Well, that's not quite true. The US is a net exporter of food and movies and the Chinese buy that stuff. But with a few exceptions they don't have the domestic production to protect.)
30188. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 12:53:59 AM
Re. starvation, I am sure the birth rate had some impact. But so did development. But I don't know how to apportion credit among the factors, which is why I asked about where we get things like "most of it is due to X."
What have we gotten out of them, in exchange for enabling them to close the gap a bit?
Lower prices on stuff we buy, less pollution per unit of Chinese production than before engagement, and freedom to use our productive capacity on things we are uniquely suited to make. To say nothing of the security value of having the world's largest country and one extra nuclear power involved in an ongoing relationship.
Good job on Ben Stein. Not often do the hosts ooh and ahh at a contestant's performance.
30189. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:38:03 AM
Slackjaw:
Now that there is some level of commitment to the policy, the cost of commercial relationships with China is lower. I realize that gives you little comfort but as long as suppliers compete with each other in product markets that means more stuff for the money.
Sure, that distinction is certainly appreciable, but how is this more of any "commitment" than the previous policy was; i.e., why would the Chinese (or anyone else) take the guidelines of said policy with any seriousness? Do you see what I'm saying? They pretty much thumbed their noses at our bullshit policy before, knowing that it had no teeth -- why would they suddenly change tack? Money? No way -- with this, our corporations make as much money as they do.
They know we won't bite on this either. There is no incentive to change anymore -- unless one's idea of change is basically having China gradually morph into a gargantuan Singapore, where all serve (and draw breath) at the pleasure of The State.
Of course it's only a faux commitment because, as Edward Gibbon said, it's really bloody tough for a legislature to bind its successors to anything (I paraphrase). But it does change the default and that has some incremental value.
Right, and that's the other thing -- this is all essentially smoke and mirrors in the first place, merely a showpiece agreement to demonstrate in the (as I said earlier) bullshit passive-aggressive diplomat-speak that we be tight and shit. Symbolism is worth even less than a mere handshake, AFAIC (although, in the real world, a handshake does generally mean something).
30190. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:39:35 AM
So if the options are free trade with displacement of some domestic workers, and protectionism, an economist argues that the presumptively superior choice is free trade with assistance for the displaced.
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I tend to doubt that this is the best of all available roads. I can't help but get the feeling that an inherently flawed and suspect policy was basically bulldozed through, with a minimum of debate and dissent. Everyone likes a perpetually expanding economy; no one wants to be a disposable cog in a corporatocracy.
With all the benefits from trade (each small, but there are a lot of them) you can bribe those who lose their jobs and still have money left over for consumers.
Well, this is about where my economic knowledge pretty much disintegrates, because I figure you may as well take that "bribe" money and give all those displaced workers free college educations, at that point. And that doesn't quite ring right, so I know it's a flawed premise.
If jobs have value to people beyond their earning stream that argument is harder to make.
I like the argument you make in this vein, but surprisingly, I pretty much discard any intangible vocational "values". One's special attachment to one's job can't be allowed to hamstring economic policy. Still, the point is an important one --the effects of job displacement, especially on blue-collar workers, should not be taken lightly.
I understand what you mean by the relative importance of bilateral trade imbalance, as opposed to overall trade imbalance; still, I had supposed that it was one of possibly several important economic determinants, wrt bilateral trade incrementalism.
30191. EricCartman - 6/3/2000 2:39:58 AM
Re. starvation, I am sure the birth rate had some impact. But so did development. But I don't know how to apportion credit among the factors, which is why I asked about where we get things like "most of it is due to X."
That was a bit of a rhetorical assumption on my part. I assumed it was reasonably ascertained, but I suppose that's not necessarily so. Still, China's breeding policy is sufficiently infamous that one could reasonably suppose that it has had some significance in alleviating famine and starvation. Perhaps not; again, it was something I had assumed was practically axiomatic.
Lower prices on stuff we buy, less pollution per unit of Chinese production than before engagement, and freedom to use our productive capacity on things we are uniquely suited to make. To say nothing of the security value of having the world's largest country and one extra nuclear power involved in an ongoing relationship.
Yes, fair enough. Would that relationship have substantially changed, had we not bulled this "opportunity" through Congress? Maybe, maybe not. That is the essential question I've been pushing. I really don't think there is much China could have done, had we decided to truly take humanitarian values seriously, and insisted on keeping the annual review intact. (Not that it was doing much good; the annual review had devolved into a paper tiger at best.)
Glad you were able to catch the Ben Stein thing. FWIW, when the talent coordinator asked me before the show where I was originally from, I gave props to my homiez in Pasadena. OG Congress Avenue, yo.
30192. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:01 AM
Cartman
why would the Chinese (or anyone else) take the guidelines of said policy with any seriousness? Do you see what I'm saying? They pretty much thumbed their noses at our bullshit policy before, knowing that it had no teeth -- why would they suddenly change tack?
No, I agree. The noncommitment engendered by a recurring decision does not necessarily create any uncertainty. And the Chinese knew it was American business interest that would be held for ransom when the decision came up. That ransom money, if you will, used to be just thrown into the money pit of political rent seeking. Now it doesn't have to be. The benefit of the partial commitment PNTR creates is not less uncertainty but less money diverted into a big sinkhole.
Right, and that's the other thing -- this is all essentially smoke and mirrors in the first place, merely a showpiece agreement to demonstrate in the (as I said earlier) bullshit passive-aggressive diplomat-speak that we be tight and shit.
There is some symbolism value on the public stage of diplomacy, but there is another benefit. While a legislature can't bind a future legislature with the same powers, this decision changes the default in the case of no action. And, the existence of veto players (the president, the 61st Senator on any issue, the Speaker of the House, the Rules Committee, the substantive Committee chairs) in American politics means that policy output is controlled to some extent by minorities. That means there are fewer people to buy off in order to keep these relationships stable. Thus, changing this default is tantamount to a limited commitment by the legislature to extract less rent from the beneficiaries of an open relationship.
30193. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:30 AM
I understand what you're saying, it's just that I tend to doubt that this is the best of all available roads. I can't help but get the feeling that an inherently flawed and suspect policy was basically bulldozed through, with a minimum of debate and dissent.
Well, whether this is "best" depends on the factors you consider. If you search only over the space of all available policies, you are probably right. If you limit your search to the politically feasible subset of all policies this may be the best in that subset. That is the sense in which I used the phrase "second best." Lamenting that this is not first best, i.e., best in the set of all policies, is starry eyed idealism.
I figure you may as well take that "bribe" money and give all those displaced workers free college educations, at that point. And that doesn't quite ring right, so I know it's a flawed premise.
I don't follow you. With all the money ploughed into retraining and displacement assistance that is not too far from reality. Actually I believe this to be an underutilized component of the NAFTA safety net.
30194. Slackjaw - 6/3/2000 3:26:44 AM
I pretty much discard any intangible vocational "values". One's special attachment to one's job can't be allowed to hamstring economic policy.
Why? Economic policy should only be about the welfare of the populace. Growth for its own sake is useless. If the actions that lead to growth reduce welfare by more than the growth they create adds to it, what good are they? And it is just that possibility that is created by non-pecuniary attachment to a job. All it means is that this has value even if it's not traded in a market, and to the extent possible that should be reckoned in any policy decision.
Missed this earlier...
But we're not going to be paying ten bucks for a bag of chips if we don't hand the Chinese PNTR.
I'm not saying we would. What is analogous to $10 doritos is insisting on Western style wages, working conditions, or expenditures on a unit of labor in general. You might as well join the Unions then, who are so concerned about 3rd world labor they want to price it out of existence. But they really have the best interest of the workers at heart, trust them.
Did you live around Congress when you lived here? I don't live all that far from there.
30195. robertjayb - 6/3/2000 5:22:28 PM
.
Newsweek Poll: Bush Reprieve Was Political
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Six of 10 Americans say George W. Bush approved his first reprieve in a Texas death penalty case for political reasons, according to a new poll. Bush supporters were about evenly split on his motivation for approving the reprieve.
30196. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 8:26:57 PM
Everything's political with babyBush. But at least he's not a slumlord like Al Gore.
(NewsChannel5.com) What would you call a landlord who let his property get run-down, who refused to make repairs, who evicts a tenant who complains? A Carthage woman calls that landlord Mr. Vice President.
Tracy Mayberry, who lives in property owned by VP Al Gore, has a problem with her plumbing and her toilets regularly overflow. "It smells just like open sewer right there," Mayberry said Friday.
She said Gore refuses to make any repairs to the property. "I consider him no better than some of the other landlords--the slumlords I call them.
Every month Mayberry sends Al Gore $400 for rent. She said she's complained repeatedly about the plumbing. She's also complained about how sinks won't drain and smell like rotten eggs.
After she complained, she received a letter from Gore's poperty manager telling her she ahd until the end of the month to vacate the premises.
****
(guess who's moving in--The Secret Service and the government will make the repairs.)
30197. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 8:29:18 PM
Everything's political with babyBush. But at least he's not a slumlord like Al Gore.
(NewsChannel5.com) What would you call a landlord who let his property get run-down, who refused to make repairs, who evicts a tenant who complains? A Carthage woman calls that landlord Mr. Vice President.
Tracy Mayberry, who lives in property owned by VP Al Gore, has a problem with her plumbing and her toilets regularly overflow. "It smells just like open sewer right there," Mayberry said Friday.
She said Gore refuses to make any repairs to the property. "I consider him no better than some of the other landlords--the slumlords I call them.
Every month Mayberry sends Al Gore $400 for rent. She said she's complained repeatedly about the plumbing. She's also complained about how sinks won't drain and smell like rotten eggs.
After she complained, she received a letter from Gore's poperty manager telling her she ahd until the end of the month to vacate the premises.
****
(guess who's moving in--The Secret Service and the government will make the repairs.)
30198. Greystoke - 6/3/2000 8:46:18 PM
Perhaps Al could get Bill Clinton to check out Ms. Mayberry's plumbing. I hear that he's pretty effective with the snake.
30199. RosettaStone - 6/3/2000 9:12:45 PM
Instead of just fixing the plumbing problem when it first happened ($300 dollars), here is that latest from Algore's Nashville Damage Control:
"A lawyer for the Gores faxed NewsChannel 5 a statement that said the Gores want the Mayberrys to stay in the home while it's being fixed. If that's not possible (because the Secret Service want the place), they'll help the Mayberrys find another place to stay during the renovation work and then let them move back in when it's done."
30200. robertjayb - 6/4/2000 2:33:07 AM
.
AUSTIN -- Well, isn't that special? The governor has granted a 30-day stay to a man on death row so we can figure out from DNA evidence whether the guy should be on Death Row. Which he may well be, but it'll be nice to be certain for a change.
It took Bush only 131 executions to find a case where he thought there might be some doubt about the matter. No, I take that back. He did once grant a pardon: he had to. That was memorable case of Henry Lee Lucas, the serial liar, who confessed to 150 murders before our brighter law enforcement minds started to wonder if he was telling the truth.
...More of Molly Ivins
30201. jonesatlaw - 6/4/2000 2:36:15 AM
Slumlord, really, where praytell is this slum located? Carthage Tenn? Al Gore's property manager won't hop right to it? My goodness, I thought that lax enforcement of housing codes was "getting the government off our backs." She only pays four hundred a month rent, what does she want? IF she was a real american who had some cash, she could pay 4 grand a month and have a nice place in a gated community. Then she could bitch if things weren't top shape. Maybe she could move to Texas, near the boarder where she wouldn't have to worry about indoor plumbing problems. A compassionate conservative would just tell her to build an outhouse.
30202. RosettaStone - 6/4/2000 10:21:59 AM
The tenant asked Gore 30x to fix the mother earth environmental problem. The day after she went to a Nashville TV station to complain, he responding claiming it will be fixed.
Not good being called a "slumlord" by tenants living on Social Security checks.
30203. Cellar Door - 6/4/2000 10:25:52 AM
Typical Liberal.If he were a REAL AMERICAN ( ie. Conservative) he'd have used the slum as a trap for Welfare Cheats and set up a public gallows to eliminate them.
Oh, forget the gallows -- gas is best. And I right or am I right, Rosie?
30204. RosettaStone - 6/4/2000 11:27:53 AM
Cellar- Don't be so silly. This isn't Table Talk.
30205. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 12:16:45 PM
30206. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 1:29:43 PM
30207. Cellar Door - 6/4/2000 1:56:50 PM
Molly Rocks!
30208. dusty - 6/4/2000 4:21:11 PM
Message # 30083 Ronski
I wouldn't mind it at all if insurance companies were put out of business. They are a government-created boondoggle.
30209. jexster - 6/4/2000 4:40:23 PM
The Compassionate Conservative
The man who has the balls to champion himself as an environmentalist is at it again
Moron Trying to Elevate Ignorance to Virtue
A pattern perhaps? Perhaps Hopeless Huckster?
30210. jexster - 6/4/2000 4:41:38 PM
Laugh all you will Wiz....I know one Texas death row con who wouldn't be alive today were it not for The Compassionate One.
30211. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 5:37:27 PM
Jexter- I'm having difficulty parsing your post.
A. You think I've been unfair in my image?
B. You think Molly Ivins is distorting the truth?
C. Because you know one person who is alive today because of Bush, you therefore think ALL of the stories about his actions in Texas regarding the executions of men and woman on Death Row are untrue?
D. None of the above?
E. All of the above?
Personally, I think "Bush toe-tags" is a kinda funny and original idea, but hey, you certainly have the right to your opinion.
30212. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:10:12 PM
LEARN ABOUT THE GUT REACTIONS OF GEORGE W. BUSH AND AL GORE.
R. Bruce Dold
June 4, 2000
I wrote up this story a few years ago, but what the heck. Al Gore might be president soon, so it's worth telling again.
It's a true story. Gore tells it himself.
When Gore was a rookie reporter at the Nashville Tennessean, he was assigned to write obituaries. One day, he got a call: The famed Swedish gynecologist, Dr. Trebla Erog, was dead.
So Albert Gore gathered the details on Trebla Erog's life.
By odd coincidence, Trebla Erog lived in Gore's hometown, Carthage, Tenn. Dr. Erog was a very busy man, a member of B'nai Brith and the Knights of Columbus.
As Gore was busy working on Dr. Erog's life, the phone rang again. Dr. Erog's wife had collapsed at the funeral home in grief over losing her husband, and had died. Now Gore had some dramatic story.
The tragedy, though, multiplied. As Gore hammered out the sad story of the late Dr. and Mrs. Erog, the phone rang once again.
The three Erog children, racing to Carthage upon hearing the news of their father's death, had crashed on a Tennessee highway. All were dead.
Now Gore was thinking, this has front page all over it! He wrote the incredible story of the death of Trebla Erog, and Mrs. Erog, and the three young Erogs, and turned it in to the city editor.
A little while later the city editor ambled over to his new reporter. That was a nice writing job Al, he said. Have you figured out what Trebla Erog spells backwards?
Yes, he fell for the whole thing. And Albert Gore is supposed to be the smart candidate for president."
30213. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:11:48 PM
"To paraphrase George W. Bush's description of his own youth, when Al Gore was young and gullible, he was young and gullible.
He may or may not be so gullible now, but he seems to think the rest of the nation is.
The outlines of Gore's fall campaign for president seem pretty clear. He will run on safe, traditional Democratic Party themes, with a subtext that George Bush is not bright enough to run the country.
This comes from the candidate who got his own share of gentlemen's C's at Harvard while Bush struggled at Yale.
Intelligence doesn't guarantee a strong presidency. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were intelligent.
But the last few weeks in this quiet time in the presidential campaign have told something else about these candidates. Something about how they pick their battles. Something that goes not to intelligence, but to instinct.
It is Al Gore's instinct to assume that voters are as gullible as a rookie reporter at the Nashville Tennessean, that they'll buy any story he feeds them.
He thought Florida voters would buy that he broke ranks with the Clinton administration and ran to the rescue of little Elian Gonzalez out of genuine concern for a 6-year-old, not because Florida has 25 electoral votes. People weren't so gullible. They saw what Gore was doing, begging for Cuban-American votes.
Gore thought he could fool everybody on China trade by siding with Clinton in public and undermining Clinton in private. Publicly, he supported the Clinton administration's bid to push for permanent normal trade relations with China. Privately, he signaled to AFL-CIO leaders that if they could stall the deal, he'd water it down next year, when he was in charge.
But his whispered promise to labor got out. Once caught, Gore retreated, announcing that he backed China trade with every bone in his body."
30214. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:14:34 PM
"Gore complicated the China effort for the Clinton administration, but fortunately he didn't kill it. He couldn't kill it. His word was worthless. He was frozen out of the debate.
Now look at George Bush's instincts, particularly when his instinct is to break with his own party.
When House Republicans last fall put out a budget plan that delayed tax-credit payments to the working poor, Bush protested. The Republicans, he said, "shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor."
The snap judgment was that Bush was following the Clinton campaign model. When Clinton needed to show independence from a core Democratic constituency, African-Americans, he picked a fight with Sister Souljah, a black rapper. Bush, the thinking went, had found his Sister Souljah--the House Republicans. But Clinton's move was a stunt. Bush's decision carried consequences. Republicans listened to him and dropped the delay in payments to the poor.
A couple of weeks ago, Bush broke from his party again. As Senate Republicans got ready to vote on a measure that could have forced Clinton to start a troop withdrawal from Kosovo this summer, Bush protested.
The Senate was infringing on the president's authority to make foreign-policy decisions, Bush said. Several Republicans listened to him again. The measure was defeated.
Another Souljah moment? That doesn't seem likely. Bush wasn't going to score political points by stalling the return of U.S. troops from Kosovo. He wasn't going to score points by supporting Bill Clinton. But Bush was right, the Senate Republicans were wrong, he spoke his mind and his influence won out"
30215. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:17:25 PM
"Polls say nobody is paying much attention to the presidential race right now, and that's too bad. There's a lot to learn from watching Bush and Gore before they get into the hustle of the fall campaign. There's a lot to learn about intelligence and instinct.
A president can hire all kinds of smart people. But he will follow his own instincts."
Dr. Trebla Erog, the gynecologist? Were Pinocchio Bore's co-employees trying to say he was a cunt, by any chance.
Btw, I support GWB, but I disagree that our troops belong in Kosovo, or that they shouldn't be brought back immediately if they are.
30216. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:27:21 PM
Now we find out Pinocchio Bore is a slumlord. Is there no indecency or criminality too gross for Democrats to support?
30217. concerned - 6/4/2000 6:31:28 PM
Re. 30215 -
More precisely, were Bore's co-employees implying he was a dumb cunt?
30218. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 7:11:29 PM
30219. jexster - 6/4/2000 8:44:29 PM
WoW -
I still haven't figgered out how to do a tongue in cheek whatever-ya-call it
Here's what I meant - the guy on death row in Texas, is I am sure thankful that the Moron gave him 30 days more to live with a chance for more and thus should be equally thankful that the Moron is running for president or he'd have already visited the Huntsville Death Gurney.
30220. jexster - 6/4/2000 8:54:18 PM
He thought Florida voters would buy that he broke ranks with the
Clinton administration and ran to the rescue of little Elian Gonzalez out of genuine concern for a 6-year-old, not because Florida has 25 electoral votes. People weren't so gullible. They saw what Gore was doing, begging for Cuban-American votes.
I don't know who wrote this and will check it after posting but come on who are you kidding with this crapola?
Gore's position on Elian was consistent from the day Donato fished him out of the water - its a matter for the Fla courts.
The inference that Gore was acting out of some Cuban pander motive is very weak for several other reasons too:
1. Cuban American predictably reacted against Clinton's decision;
2. Cuban Americans can't punish Clinton, they probably will try to do it to his "heir"...same for Clinton-haters generally who also generally opposed the Clinton decision
3. That being the case Gore would not, if he were calculating a position of maximum political advantage, chose to do what he did -oppose his boss and alienate his base without any predictable advantage.
I note that none other than Gore-hating Tucker Carlson of the Weekly Standard also agrees with this in substance.....it was so politically dumb that it had to be based on his own personal views of how the matter should have been handled not what was politically expedient...
BTW - I bet Concerned penned this tripe...Biener my #2 choice.
30221. jexster - 6/4/2000 9:03:59 PM
Intelligence doesn't guarantee a strong presidency. Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were intelligent.
True enough. And so were Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Johnson & to some extent Poppy although his interests as opposed to intellect never really focused on anything within our borders.
Look no further than Ronald Raygun for the exception that proves the rule that a intellectually competent President is more likely to succeed than a self-described ignoramous.
Thing is RR only did 2 important things when he was president - both essentially accomplished in the first 1-2 years of his term...both relatively easy to accomplish given the mood of the electorate
1. Pass the 1978 Kemp-Roth tax bill
2. Raise defense spending dramatically
The rest was cheap theatrics and totally ineffectual - ie cutting discretionary domestic spending or doing anything of significance about business regulation.
In a word, Raygun could have napped 20 of 24 hours every day of his presidency past the first 180 and come to think of it did just that.
Say what you will but on the whole I'd rather not have a fuckin idiot in charge of the government.
30222. jexster - 6/4/2000 9:06:40 PM
Now we find out Pinocchio Bore is a slumlord. Is there no indecency
or criminality too gross for Democrats to support?
Now why do I have trouble with the professed outrage of a wignut Republican on this question?
30223. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/4/2000 11:12:52 PM
Jex- Ahhh -- now i get it -- and you're right of course. It's like a kid suppressing his natural tendencies because "company" is around.
30224. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 9:18:22 AM
Mr. Whimsy--You remind me of my neighbor Herbert Block who draws the same cartoon every day. Of course, he's 86 years old.
30225. LadyChaos - 6/5/2000 9:39:03 AM
Gulf War fallout that's guaranteed to turn your stomach.
30226. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 9:57:52 AM
Mr. Stone - Your posts exhibit the imagination of hardened mineral matter --your conclusions are just as predictable.
30227. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 10:08:00 AM
LC- Pathetic!
...Of course we must have oil for our SUVs and a genocidal war in Kosovo is not in our strategic interest, so what the hell -- is anything on sale at the GAP? 
30228. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 10:15:16 AM
It's become predictable and tiresome, Mr. Whimey. I'm sure I speak for the rest of the readers here.
Maybe you see nothing humorous or human in Al Gore. Maybe, you're right.
30229. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 10:15:56 AM
Wiz:
Rosies conclusions improve when he plagarizes, as he has been known to do.
30230. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 10:19:09 AM
hmmm, i'm betting RosettaStone wouldn't like this site then.
oh well, his loss.
30231. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 10:26:08 AM
That's okay, ducky...everyone else does! Not unusual for Rosetta to be a contrarian.
30232. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 10:28:40 AM
It's true, Rosie. Dubbya's predictable and tiresome.
30233. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:07:37 AM
Its simple Rose. George Bush is a dunce, a moron and Al Gore is boring.
Both images are stylized products of the media age. Highly symbolic and yet somehow true at the same time.
So what's it gonna be - A bore who knows his ass from a hole in the ground or a fuckin Moron pawn of the right wing.
30234. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 11:11:16 AM
With gasoline prices going to $2.30 a gallon by late summer in many parts of the country, I pick babyBush, the man who made money from Texas-panhandle dryholes.
30235. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 11:17:27 AM
Cue Jackson Browne's "After the Deluge"
(NewsMax.com) Speaking publicly for the first time the state of Maryland dropped wiretapping charges against her, Clinton impeachment witness Linda Tripp told a South Carolina gathering Saturday night that most of the criminality she witnessed while working in the White House has yet to be revealed.
"Most of the things that I know that were illegal that happened in the Clinton White House I have not spokes about publicly or under oath," the star witness told members of freerepublic.com, the internet web site that organized the event.
The revelation sent shockwaves through the crowd.
SHOCKWAVES!!!
30236. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 11:21:35 AM
Yeah, sure....her 15 minutes are almost up so suddenly, she feels the need to unburden herself. Narrowly escaping being labeled a criminal herself, she decideds to cleanse the world of all evil doing by the Clintons. What a joke! Call Tony Snow and Lucianne.....
30237. Ronski - 6/5/2000 11:27:53 AM
dusty,
Re: Message # 30208 --
I meant this remark only in the narrow sense of the discussion we were having at the time, that is, the practice of calling prepaid health care "health insurance."
Other forms of insurance, including catastrophic health insurance, I consider good things to have.
30238. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 11:28:17 AM
Spuds - It was pure equivocation: "to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive."
I guess you would know since you are so good at it yourself. Why don't you respond to the sustance instead of picking at the edges.
You claim that Clinton was only standing up to those few people you mentioned. That is bullshit. If he were, why did he refer to "so many loud and angry voices"?
You take Clinton's statement out of context and out of the time in which it occurred. It was April 1995, just months after a bitter election in which the Democrats lost control of the House and Senate. During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al. Now it is April and the President gets on national television and uses some of these same words to describe the people he holds responsible for the tragedy. It should be obvious to even you that he was not talking about the few extreme examples you brought up. He was using the opportunity to condemn his opposition in Congress and on the radio by attributing the cause of the tragedy to their vocal protests of his administration. If you deny this, you are claiming he used those words to mean one thing for over a year and then suddenly decided to mean something completely different in this one instance and he expected everyone who heard it would immediately understand that he now meant something completely different. Are you really going to make this claim? If you do, it is you who are equivocating.
30239. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:44:55 AM
Clinton smashes globetrotting record
"Clinton apparently set an all-time record in travel expenses in March during a nine-day trip to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Switzerland. The U.S. Air Force estimated it spent as much as $75 million to provide an armada of 76 transport and support aircraft for the trips, although a final tally has not been released."
30240. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:50:24 AM
With gasoline prices going to $2.30 a gallon by late summer in many
parts of the country, I pick babyBush, the man who made money
from Texas-panhandle dryholes.
Come on Rose your not THAT dense are you?
If oil prices are indeed the hot button issue that will bless us with a Moron president, how do you explain the patent contradiction?
The dumb fuck is nothing more, nothing less than the idiot pawn of Big Oil.
30241. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 11:52:31 AM
Jex - Now why do I have trouble with the professed outrage of a wignut Republican on this question?
Because it would force you to confront you blind, unreasoning partisanship. We can't have you questioning your beliefs, can we?
30242. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:53:33 AM
And Indy, your point is that you'd rather our President stay home and pretend as you apparently do that the rest of the world is somehow irrelevant to the only superpower on the planet?
IMO he's done too little not too much.
30243. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 11:58:57 AM
Pssst,
Don't tell anyone Jex, but Rose is actually a Big-L Liberal posing as a conservative to show us how ridiculous they really are (and I'm not kidding--I really believe that about Rose). Of course with some of the other folks who post here in all sincerity, Rose's efforts are somewhat superfluous.
30244. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 11:59:32 AM
And Bush is stooooooooooopid.
30245. jexster - 6/5/2000 11:59:57 AM
JJB:
It must be me but your comment flew right over the top of my head.
What does some half-assed overblown accusation of being a slumlord because of an overflowing toilet made by a free-market ideologue champion of the rights of slumlords have to do with my political views or partisanship?
What is it you don't understand about the word "innapposite"?
If you want to question my beliefs or my attitude perhaps you should first address them. I candididly admit that I do not suffer fools gladly as Rose will attest.
30246. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:01:47 PM
Arky - Rose is actually a Big-L Liberal posing as a conservative to show us how ridiculous they really are
You like how Jex, Cellar, janjon, Spuds, et al do that on the other side.
30247. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:09:27 PM
During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al.
Mmm... now which poor Republican victims of such slander is he referring to?
Newt Gingrich? Tom Delay? Pat Robertson? Jerry Falwell? Jesse Helms? Bob Barr? Rush Limbaugh?
Or perhaps their more politically correct "fellow travelers" the so-called GOP moderates who ride the shit slinging, divisive, hate-filled, intoleratant coat tails of the GOP ring leaders because they are too fucking cowardly to stand up to these freaks?
As the Church Lady might say, how convenient
30248. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:10:54 PM
and Bush is stooooooooooopid too.
30249. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:12:52 PM
At bottom, the GOP is responsible for casting American political discourse into a personalized vendetta of trivial slime and it stands justly accused!
Beiner, J'accuse!!!!
30250. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:13:34 PM
Jex - What is it you don't understand about the word "innapposite"?
I understand the word completely. It is just that your use of the word "innapposite" is in itself innapposite. Quite a trick, BTW. The question was Is there no indecency or criminality too gross for Democrats to support? Concerned is not a Democrat so questioning his position is irrelevant. It was obviously a device for you to avoid answering a difficult question that would put your blind loyalty and devotion in a bad light.
My point was to tell you that you aren't fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.
30251. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:16:04 PM
Jex - At bottom, the GOP is responsible for casting American political discourse into a personalized vendetta of trivial slime and it stands justly accused!
You have absolutely no recollection of the 80's, do you?
30252. Wombat - 6/5/2000 12:16:06 PM
JJ accusing Jexter of excessive partisanship is the pot calling the kettle black. Jexter's language is usually excessive, but that's hardly confined to this thread.
30253. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:19:06 PM
Wombat - I will admit to a certain amount of partisanship as will most people here who choose to be honest. Unlike Jex, I don't feel the need to destroy anyone who disagrees with me. I hope you will agree that that is excessive.
30254. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:23:36 PM
More from the whistle-blower Linda:
Some of the still secret misconduct has to do with Vincent Foster's death, trip seemed to suggest, about which she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.
The onetime White House office manager and last person to see Foster alive admitted to the Free Republic audience that she'd been less than forthright in her previous testimony about the case.
"Bear in mind that during that time Kirby Behre, my White House-appointed private lawyer, was in constant touch with the White House and I was told how to testify. My caveat to that was that I never lied under oath. But I testified very, very narrowly--truthfully but narrowly--and to my regret, not completely."
Asked if she could elaborate now on what she knew about the Foster case, she said: "It's probably not the appropriate time to talk about something as involved as the Vince Foster case...There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, let's just put it that way."
30255. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 12:24:18 PM
Jexster: That was an article of fact, not opinion. I left it to the individual to form a reaction.
But of course I had an idea of what your reaction would be.
My psychic powers, you know.
30256. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:26:17 PM
And Bush is a fucking stooooooopid dumb person.
In fact, I like to call him Dumbya.
because he is stooooooooopid.
30257. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 12:28:59 PM
Yes, Rosetta....and the issues to be addressed before she bares her soul have to do with how much she can milk out of a publisher for her book.
Her credibility is shot, Rosie. She is old news. If she knew something damning about an alleged murder, for gods sake, and didn't come forward, what sort of person is she? Oh yeah, that's right...the kind who tries to hang a president for a blow job.
30258. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:32:14 PM
What is it about the GOP that impels them to make the ridiculous sublime, the trivial, momentous, the shit, (fill in the blank)
30259. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:33:27 PM
Arky: You might be a Republican if....
....you scramble for the remote and change channels when Alex Baldwin's on your TV screen.
....you scrable for the remote and change channels when Al Franken's on your TV screen.
....you pet dog is just a pet.
...you buy cigars with the intention of smoking them.
...you fail to see the connection between a humidor and a vagina.
...you are familiar with the U.S. Constituion and its relevance.
30260. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:33:55 PM
"Unlike Jex, I don't feel the need to destroy anyone who disagrees with me. I hope you will agree that that is excessive."
One of the reasons I decided to address a statement of yours the other day was the weariness I'd been feeling over your constant denigrations of Democrats and Liberals. You are simply in no position to castigate others on their approach to political argument. And your inclusion of Spuds and Janjon in your list of Mote partisans, who have consistently met your posts with substantive replies, is laughable.
And Jack, we get your point already. Why don't you give a little to the other side? Like "Clinton is Saaaatan." "Gore's a Booorreee."
30261. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:35:52 PM
I still don't get it JJB. Call me dumb but is the point that shit in a toilet is somehow criminal or indecent? Evidence perhaps of some morally corrupt, profoundly socio-pathic trait inherent in Democrats? Or is it that shit in a toilet somehow gives lie to the efforts of many, mostly Democrat but some Republican who actually give a shit about real slumlords?
I still don't get it but then I don't get very much from the Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge simple shit crowd you seem to find so fuckin profound
30262. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:35:55 PM
Hahaha. Yes, Rose, your cover has been blown, you..you...you...Closeted Liberal, YOU!
30263. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:36:13 PM
arky
I always give reasons when I criticize.
But I'm beginning to like this new style.
I feel so unencumbered.
"Bush is stooooooopid! Dumbya is so dumb!"
Ah, liberation.
30264. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 12:38:57 PM
Well then, try my suggestions on for size. Let's see your parody of the conservative one-noters. "Clinton is Saaatan" "Gore's a Boooore."
30265. Jack Vincennes - 6/5/2000 12:41:29 PM
arky
"Clinton is eeeeeevil! Bush is stoooooooopid!"
It's all good.
30266. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 12:43:59 PM
Tripp also said that she expected other scandal witnesses to come forward by the end of the year, including White House women who had Lewinsky-like relationships with Clinton.
"I know of women who were in the same sort of relationship with the president during the time that Monica was, and it's likely that she was afraid of being killed over her affair with Clinton.
"There's an element of tension and fear in that White House," Tripp insisted. "And it's not there for nothing. We are not imagining this. And when Monica Lewinsky said to me, 'I would not cross these people for fear of my life,' she was not kidding."
"ask all those people who dared disclose the truth about this president about their experiences with Clinton attorney-paid investigators such as Terry Lenzner and Jack Palladino."
Tripp said that the first lady was behind the campaign to neutralize witnesses. "We have all been in the crosshairs of Mrs. Clinton, whose orchestration of the destruction of witnesses is well known in the White House. She calls the shots. She spearheads the strategy. And she is in charge."
30267. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:45:06 PM
Perhaps you'll explain the rules of this fin de siecle silly ass GOP game Gotcha! sometime JJB...until then it looks like Trivial Pursuit to me but if it turns you guys on, have fun
30268. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 12:45:41 PM
Rosetta:
Maybe you can get a date with the revamped Mz Tripp...you seem so fascinated by her.
30269. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:45:52 PM
And Rose, as if on cue.....
30270. janjon - 6/5/2000 12:48:03 PM
Jack. The way you are picking up steam there, I suspect it won't be long before we begin to hear about Gore's sister again.
30271. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:50:24 PM
I am fully prepared to concede that Gore is as boring as the Moron is stupid.
30272. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:51:53 PM
???
Yikes! This place disintegrated rapidly... 
30273. jexster - 6/5/2000 12:52:00 PM
Later you Compassionate Conservatives, you Purveyors of Piffle
30274. rubberducky7 - 6/5/2000 12:52:49 PM
WOW:
is that another self-portrait?
haha, just kidding, natch.
30275. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:54:42 PM
...inspired by: "fin de siecle silly ass GOP
game Gotcha!," incidentally.
30276. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 12:56:06 PM
ducky- thanks for the support above, btw!
30277. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 12:59:09 PM
Arky - One of the reasons I decided to address a statement of yours the other day was the weariness I'd been feeling over your constant denigrations of Democrats and Liberals.
I am sorry you find it denigrating when I point out the errors and misstatements of Democrats and Liberals and when I expose their hipocrisy in attacking others for behaviors they commit themselves and condone in others.
And your inclusion of Spuds and Janjon in your list of Mote partisans, who have consistently met your posts with substantive replies, is laughable.
The problem is that most of their replies are neither substantive or relevant. The discussion with Spuds is a prime example. He has argued that the President's speech after the OK City bombing was a courageous stand against a few extreme broadcasters. I argued that the appearances by members of his staff on various talk shows where they used to same rhetoric the President used to attack mainstream Republicans and conservatives, showed that the President was not referring only to those few individuals but rather it was aimed at his vocal opposition.
Rather than address that issue he started quoting Liddy. When I pointed out that the President was guilty of the kind of rhetoric, Spuds accused me of equivocating.
So to respond to your statement, no, Spuds and janjon seldom provide substantive replies.
30278. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 1:05:09 PM
Sorry, JJ, I'm laughing again...loudly. Yes, Spuds is short on substance. That describes him to a T. I frankly wonder at his patience to post so much of substance (mind you, saying someone posts substantive material doesn't mean it's necessarily what you might agree with) for the return it gets him.
30279. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:08:32 PM
Jex - I still don't get it JJB.
Color me surprised.
Call me dumb
It is tempting, but I try to avoid saying things like that.
but is the point that shit in a toilet is somehow criminal or indecent?
To refuse to repair faulty plumbing in a building you own even after numerous requests is indecent and depending on local laws may be illegal.
Or is it that shit in a toilet somehow gives lie to the efforts of many, mostly Democrat but some Republican who actually give a shit about real slumlords?
Is Al Gore a pretend slumlord because he is a Democrat? If Al Gore is really as concerned as you seem to think he is, why does he allow his property manager to act so irresponsibly? If Bush was the slumlord you would certainly think that was relevant.
I still don't get it
Keep trying. You'll get it eventually.
but then I don't get very much from the Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge simple shit crowd you seem to find so fuckin profound
You get as much from them as I do, but it is nice to see you resort to gratuitous insults rather than deal with an issue honestly.
30280. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:10:36 PM
arky:
Check out the last few posts in Suggestions....
30281. jexster - 6/5/2000 1:11:56 PM
JJB has a problem. He seems conflated and confused. Anything that takes issue with "lacks substance", presto the pointed becomes pointless, the relevant, irrelevant, etc.
Clearly there is a connection between the militia mindset of the OKC bombers and the macho, Wild West, TV Wester pry the gun out of my cold dead hands, Rush Limbaugh anti-government flatulence that issues forth with tiresome regularity from the GOP
30282. robertjayb - 6/5/2000 1:14:19 PM
.
Death-Row Inmate Wins New Hearing
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court set aside a convicted Texas killer's death sentence today after the state's lawyers conceded that the life-or-death decision had been based in part on the fact he is Hispanic.
"The justices told Texas courts to provide a new sentencing hearing for Victor Hugo Saldano, convicted of a murder in Collin County in 1996."
...Will shrub's confidence in the death machine be shaken? Not likely...
30283. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:16:14 PM
Arky - Yes, Spuds is short on substance.
The mere weight of the stuff he produces does not make it relevant to the argument. They might be substantive if were discussing a different issue, but his responses are seldom on issue as my example shows.
I frankly wonder at his patience to post so much of substance (mind you, saying someone posts substantive material doesn't mean it's necessarily what you might agree with) for the return it gets him.
Am I supposed to bow down and concede victory because he can produce tons of irrelevant information? I don't think so.
30284. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:19:26 PM
Odd that they don't dispute he is guilty. I suppose GW will cite that as proof...
30285. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:19:35 PM
Jex - He seems conflated and confused.
Obviously, an honest answer is beyond you. If you want to demonstrate how Spuds response was relevant, be my guest.
30286. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:22:46 PM
Judith - Assuming the report is true, Gore is guilty of not paying attention to the operation of his property holdings and relying to much on property managers. Granted he has had other concerns, but does that absolve him of responsibility?
30287. arkymalarky - 6/5/2000 1:24:57 PM
"Am I supposed to bow down and concede victory because he can produce tons of irrelevant information? I don't think so."
Of course not. Now you're shifting the debate topic. My criticism was of you putting him in with a list of "Mote Democratic Partisans" of your creation and adding in a subsequent post that his replies to you lack substance.
30288. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 1:30:25 PM
JJ:
I was responding to Roberts link about the court set-aside of the death sentence in some guys case in Texas.
I'm not surprised you read it as supportive of Gore...
I will try to be better about addressing my posts to the proper person.
30289. janjon - 6/5/2000 1:30:41 PM
Arky. As you very well know, you are now on a slippery slope. Frustrating is a mild word for what comes next. I really have found that my new method of addressing JJ (namely, not) works to a T. I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else here emulate it, but...it is really satisfying.
30290. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:47:38 PM
Arky - Now you're shifting the debate topic. My criticism was of you putting him in with a list of "Mote Democratic Partisans" of your creation and adding in a subsequent post that his replies to you lack substance.
Can an argument be irrelevant and still have substance? If so, then Spud's posts have substance. Although it seems to me to be more of a case of substance abuse. (pun intended)
30291. concerned - 6/5/2000 1:47:47 PM
Apparently someone here is assuming that partisanship and reasoned arguments are exclusive. While that is too often the case, well reasoned ideas historically *have* come from both sides of the political spectrum. It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
30292. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 1:50:51 PM
janjon - I really have found that my new method of addressing JJ (namely, not) works to a T.
It is welcome relief from your normal, "I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't care what your source is if I don't agree with it, I don't believe it." Feel free to continue to not address me.
30293. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 2:08:02 PM
It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
A lot easier to deal with than the giant Sequia lodged up Republican butts.
30294. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:21:11 PM
Enuf polemic for me today. There is a limit to the number of Republicans I can or need to "destroy" in one day believe it or not.
On a higher plane, a thought provoking article by Amitai Etzioni, GWU Sociologist on the overblown fears of racial diversity and conflict in the US.
Here
30295. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:26:43 PM
JJB - I think that my Message # 30281 is sufficient proffer of the essential elements WRT the relevance of Spud's comments. We can slice and dice about whether his charges were compelling, convincing, complete or something less but relevant they were.
30296. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 4:27:20 PM
jex - There is a limit to the number of Republicans I can or need to "destroy" in one day believe it or not.
You are indeed a funny man. BTW, we'll let you know when you "destroy" your first.
30297. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 4:33:59 PM
Jex - #30281 is just another example of your penchant for meaningless insults. It isn't a "proffer" of anything. If you think Spuds comments were relevant, you don't understand which subject was under discussion. No one was debating whether there are right-wing extremists on the radio. The debate was on whether Clinton was only attacking them or whether he was attacking critics of his administration in general.
30298. janjon - 6/5/2000 4:34:41 PM
jex - Tiger Woods is indeed a harbinger of our future.
Question - is there anyone here who doesn't have as friends or at least know well enough to know their names a multi-racial couple/family?
30299. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:50:08 PM
and my answer to you is that while you may disagree over whether Clinton's comments were overbroad or not Spud's point is nonetheless well taken.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality - case in point, in recent point the NRA antics of Heston & LaPierre and its connection with another GOP theme of hostility to government which leads to government is evil etc etc etc ... Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott are certainly not fully complict "conspirators" if you will but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
It does not mean that Spud's comments were irrelevant or can be easily dismissed as you seem very inclined to do.
30300. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:50:46 PM
and my answer to you is that while you may disagree over whether Clinton's comments were overbroad or not Spud's point is nonetheless well taken.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality - case in point, in recent point the NRA antics of Heston & LaPierre and its connection with another GOP theme of hostility to government which leads to government is evil etc etc etc ... Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott are certainly not fully complict "conspirators" if you will but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
It does not mean that Spud's comments were irrelevant or can be easily dismissed as you seem very inclined to do.
30301. jexster - 6/5/2000 4:55:01 PM
JJB - the accusation that I search and destroy people who disagree with me is yours not mine so either be prepared to live with your bullshit and the possibility of having it thrown back in your face or don't peddle it either way not my problem
30302. EricCartman - 6/5/2000 4:57:49 PM
It's just that Democrats have largely been in the throes of a giant intellectual brain cramp for the last generation or so.
Spoken like a true "centrist".
30303. janjon - 6/5/2000 4:59:37 PM
Yes. I made a mental note that the Zogby poll will be skewed for a while. (Actually, I suspect they saw right through this "centrist" charade.)
30304. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:01:33 PM
janjon - I agree Tiger Woods is our future and it can't come to soon for my taste. There are probably a dozen or so multi-racial couples/families among my friends and extended family. Technically speaking, my immediate family is multi-racial in more ways than one.
An interesting piece of info: A couple we are good friends with is bi-racial. He's black, and she's white. They had a child who was born with birth defects. When they traced back their family trees, they found they had a common ancester several generations back.
30305. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:03:28 PM
Assuming the report is true, Gore is guilty of not paying
attention to the operation of his property holdings and relying to much on property managers. Granted he has had other concerns, but does that absolve him of responsibility?
No he's not unless you first posit that he should be checking in regularly with his tenants to see whether his agents who have full authority and responsibility to perform their management functions are seeing to it that toilets flush properly.
I daresay that no private property owner of any kind is ever charged with such a duty in such circumstances much less the Vice President of the United States. Of course at the point that he becomes aware of the problem or should become aware of it he should do something about it and apparently he did.
Even if he didn't so fuckin what? Unless you are a GOP whack job the report is, to use your words, "irrelevant", "trivial", "overblown" bullshit.
Once again, an example of the GOP penchant for creating something out of nothing.
30306. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:07:31 PM
Question - is there anyone here who doesn't have as friends or at
least know well enough to know their names a multi-racial
couple/family?
My first cousin married and since divorced a black guy. Part of the kinship chain runs through rural Louisiana albeit the non-white trash heritage if that's meaningful.
I cannot say that the birth of their child was greeted with unrestrained joy but neither can I report that the relatives did not diligently work to overcome their queasiness.
30307. janjon - 6/5/2000 5:07:52 PM
If nothing else good happens out of this election (which promises to be not only verrrrry dirty but invasive as hell since both camps are going to spend money like never before), there will be a lot of positive attention paid to Hispanics. Color will be everywhere.
30308. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:13:27 PM
Jex - the accusation that I search and destroy people who disagree with me is yours not mine
It's not mine. You don't have the power to destroy anyone but yourself.
The GOP has found allies, very staunch allies, and managed to elect persons of influence and power to positions of high responsibility who make comments that feed intolerance, hate, "militia" mentality . . . but if you cannot see the connection between their rhetoric and conduct and that of the OKC bombers then I cannot help you.
If you believe crap like, please do not try to help me. I have no desire to catch whatever it is you have. What you say does support my point. Clinton was attacking any vocal opposition to his Adminstration, and he was blaming them for them for deaths in OK City. As I pointed out to Spuds, this is no different from the things he condemns Liddy and the others for. The difference is that Clinton was doing it from the bully pulpit and not on a syndicated radio show.
30309. spudboy - 6/5/2000 5:13:46 PM
JJ:
Well, Arky is right. You are a deluded, pompous, self-serving shit-for-brains, and my patience has run out with you.
My posts were entirely relevant, you sack of shit. They provided were specific instances of the kinds of extremism Clinton was addressing. And they are only a small sample of it. There's a gigantic pile of it. I could fill this thread for several days with it.
More to the point, not only were your responses irrelevant, they were as vaporous as cotton candy. Let's go over your nonsense:
From Message # 30277:
He has argued that the President's speech after the OK City bombing was a courageous stand against a few extreme broadcasters. I argued that the appearances by members of his staff on various talk shows where they used to same rhetoric the President used to attack mainstream Republicans and conservatives, showed that the President was not referring only to those few individuals but rather it was aimed at his vocal opposition.
Rather than address that issue he started quoting Liddy.
I trust that everyone here can see this a twisted version of events. Look at the posts. I first argued that Clinton's speech was accurate and on the money in Message # 30131. You responded in Message # 30139, briefly mentioning "a campaign by Clinton and his aides attacking Republicans and conservative talk show hosts." But more specifically, you asked for examples of the hate speech.
30310. spudboy - 6/5/2000 5:15:59 PM
I provided them in Message # 30145-Message # 30148. I quoted numerous talk-show hosts, and not merely Liddy. And then I provided more detail in Message # 30171-Message # 30172.
Two full days later, on a day when it's obvious I'm not about, you finally responded with Message # 30238. Now let's take a good look at that.
It is, as usual, full of the good vague Biener claims that he never seems able to back up. I'm particularly taken with this assertion: During the preceding year Clinton, Begala, Carville, Davis and others in Clinton's Adminstration appeared regularly on television calling mainstream Republicans and conservative talk-show hosts "far-right extremists", "arch-conservatives", "promoters of hate", "divisive", "paranoid", et al.
Compare this, Biener, with my previous posts, particularly Message # 30145 and the subsequent material. Unlike you, I provide specific quotes, along with the dates and the places where they were said. There's no vagueness about my posts. They are specific and substantive. Yours, by contrast, are vague and unsubstantiated.
Time to put up or shut up, Biener. You need to come up with some actual quotes, and some specific cites, to demonstrate that Clinton's little minions were using the same kind of language in the year preceding Oklahoma City to demonize conservatives that Clinton used in the Minneapolis speech. This is your claim. You've done nothing to substantiate it.
I'm calling your bluff, you chickenshit weenie. I can demonstrate that my posts both are substantive and are obviously relevant. Let's see you do the same.
30311. concerned - 6/5/2000 5:23:41 PM
Re. 30302 -
EC -
You misunderstand. Being a centrist means I can slam both political parties, not that I'm obligated to give "equal time" or not criticize at all. Notice how I recently questioned GWB's putative stance on Kosovo.
30312. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:24:39 PM
Jex - No he's not unless you first posit that he should be checking in regularly with his tenants to see whether his agents who have full authority and responsibility to perform their management functions are seeing to it that toilets flush properly.
If it is his property, it is his responsibility.
I daresay that no private property owner of any kind is ever charged with such a duty in such circumstances
Then you would be wrong.
Even if he didn't so fuckin what?
The point has been made. No matter what Gore is guilty of, you will be a loyal partisan following blindly. The only time you care about a person's legal or moral failings is when it can be exploited for political purposes.
Once again, an example of the GOP penchant for creating something out of nothing.
Something out of nothing? You mean like when Democrats tried to claim the Bush's were anti-Semitic because W broke off an engagement with a "Jewish" girl in college? Your hypocrisy is truly astonishing. It is only exceeded by your arrogance.
30313. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:24:52 PM
JJB - you are a dissembling, cowardly, little fuck wad. You in fact did make the statement that I seek to destroy etc etc etc.
I won't bother to find the post and watch one more tired episode of you trying to squirm like some pathetic slug away from your own statements.
The evidence is becoming pathetically cumulative.
30314. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:26:08 PM
Either lie in your shit Beiner or don't dish it in the first place.
30315. jexster - 6/5/2000 5:30:45 PM
If it is his property it is his responsibility to pay for fixing the fucking toilet but that is not what you said
You said that he was further responsible for failing to supervise his agent.
That is what you said and that is a crock of horseshit.
What's even more pathetic is your effort to make this out to be a matter of any significance.
30316. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 5:33:28 PM
Jex- FWIW, I often enjoy your turns of phrase. You reach a point of utter disgust with JJ's bromidic blather and then you relax and let loose -- great fun, what!!
30317. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:50:16 PM
Spud - Jesus-Fucking-Christ!! You pull this bullshit and you are upset with me for calling you on it? Un-fucking-believable.
My posts were entirely relevant, you sack of shit. They provided were specific instances of the kinds of extremism Clinton was addressing.
I never disputed that there were people on the radio saying those things, you moron. That was never the fucking point.
I first argued that Clinton's speech was accurate and on the money in Message # 30131.
It was only "accurate and on the money" if we assume your narrow interpretation of his words is accurate. The problem is your interpretation is bullshit.
You responded in Message # 30139, briefly mentioning "a campaign by Clinton and his aides attacking Republicans and conservative talk show hosts."
That was the whole fucking point. There is no way you can claim Clinton meant one thing when the history to that point shows he meant something else.
Two full days later, on a day when it's obvious I'm not about, you finally responded with Message # 30238.
It was obvious? LOL! I didn't post for two days, because I wasn't online for two days. If I didn't respond you would accuse me of running away. When I do respond, that is not good enough for you either.
30318. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:50:26 PM
Unlike you, I provide specific quotes, along with the dates and the places where they were said.
Where the fuck were you in '94 and '95? You don't remember the hundreds of times Republicans and conservatives were attacked on national television by Clinton's henchmen? We aren't talking about syndicated radio shows. We are talking national television, and you don't remember? No. Not possible. This is just one more example of your bullshit. You know how hard it to track down transcripts of television shows that are 5-6 years old, so this is just a dodge so you don't have to admit your wrong. You want transcripts? Give me some time and I will find some.
30319. janjon - 6/5/2000 5:53:44 PM
Time is priceless, but abundant. So they say.
30320. EricCartman - 6/5/2000 5:54:58 PM
Concerned:
Being a centrist means I can slam both political parties, not that I'm obligated to give "equal time" or not criticize at all. Notice how I recently questioned GWB's putative stance on Kosovo.
Well, I certainly agree with that definition, since that is my MO as well. However, the only recent times you have "slammed" Republicans, that I can recall, were the disagreement w/Bush on Kosovo (as you pointed out), and what seemed to be a rather inexplicably heated series of attacks on "McKeating".
IOW, nothing remotely comparable to your regular diatribes against the "WH Rapist" and "Pinocchio Bore". I get a cheap grin out your use of such names, personally, but let's be honest -- you'd rather vote for a bad Republican than a good Democrat, were such a choice to actually face you.
Wizard:
If you enjoy Jexster's current level of invective, you should check out the Serbia thread in the Frárchive, wherever that is these days. Jex is only lately beginning to appraoch his level of goose-stepping he hit last year in full Waffen stride.
BTW, I keep meaning to tell you this -- I dig the pics. Not necessarily on a partisan basis, they're just funny to begin with.
30321. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 5:59:23 PM
Jex - You in fact did make the statement that I seek to destroy etc etc etc. 30322. spudboy - 6/5/2000 6:00:14 PM JJ: 30323. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 6:18:45 PM Eric- Thanks for your response; I appreciate it. Actually, I'm not as partisan as I am a rascal -- the right take themselves sooo seriously -- I feel like the court jester who keeps the King mindful of his humanity [...and ultimate demise of course]. 30324. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:29:18 PM Perhaps the conversation has moved on. 30325. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 6:30:17 PM How about something of Albore as a slumlord then, Mr. Whimey. 30326. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:31:33 PM Have you proof of this statement, Rosie? 30327. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:31:39 PM If there is one thing that I do NOT think is true it is that the Vice President would have ANGRILY called the tenant today. No way. 30328. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:32:07 PM Judith. We really do think alike a lot, don't we. 30329. RosettaStone - 6/5/2000 6:33:35 PM Vice President Al Gore called Tracy Mayberry Monday afternoon to say he was mad at her for speaking to the press about his failure to make repairs on the house she rents on Gore's Carthage, Tenn., farm. The call left Mayberry's family in tears. 30330. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:34:19 PM Was this call taped? I hope so. 30331. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:35:35 PM Lucianne Goldberg is probably already on her way to Carthage. This Mayberry lady sounds like a real candidate for a makeover, ala Paula and/or Linda. 30332. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:35:48 PM Tracy doesn't need to talk bad about Gore...she can depend on people like Rosetta to do that. 30333. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:36:58 PM janjon: 30334. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:38:01 PM judith. Just the opposite. 30335. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:38:27 PM except for that silly Survivor, of course. 30336. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:42:12 PM Okay...you can have that point! 30337. janjon - 6/5/2000 6:43:25 PM I never go to TT. Where do people from here hang out there? 30338. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:48:59 PM Different place...I like the TV folder and Arts. Also, I am in one thread in Health. I'm not sure where everyone else hangs, though I usually run into CalGal in the TV threads. We like many of the same shows. 30339. JudithAtHome - 6/5/2000 6:49:40 PM Make that "different placeS". 30340. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:06:08 PM Spuds - You dishonest, puling little smidge of smegma. I'm not "pulling bullshit." 30341. spudboy - 6/5/2000 7:11:58 PM Have at it, big boy. We'll be waiting. 30342. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:13:10 PM janjon - Perhaps the conversation has moved on. 30343. JJBiener - 6/5/2000 7:14:50 PM Spuds - Though I won't exactly be holding my breath. 30344. spudboy - 6/5/2000 7:20:35 PM JJ -- 30345. concerned - 6/5/2000 7:23:08 PM Re. 30327 - 30346. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 8:52:05 PM Dubbya is Eddie Haskell. Buchanan is Snidely Whiplash. Gore is Dudley Do-Right and Hillary is Nell Fenwick. 30347. Cellar Door - 6/5/2000 8:52:45 PM concerned is Rhoda Penmark. 30348. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/5/2000 9:06:20 PM I was at Lackland Air Force Base in 1967 and Jerry Mathers was in the adjacent barracks to mine then. Whenever his flight would march by, our drill instructor gave us permission to whistle the theme toLeave It To Beaver. It really steamed his DI. Mathers was in the California Air National Guard and there for basic training. The Shrub must have been there around that time also. They onlyshowedthe obstacle course to the Air Guard pilot trainees then -- they didn't have to run it. Not much has changed I guess. 30349. Indiana Jones - 6/5/2000 11:51:55 PM 30350. robertjayb - 6/6/2000 12:22:54 AM . 30351. janjon - 6/6/2000 11:18:00 AM I see that trapped mice occasionally turn fiesty instead of just running around to and fro trying to escape the glare. 30352. janjon - 6/6/2000 11:20:42 AM robertj - one of the (several) significant reasons why those laws haven't been modified is the now quite significant prisons-mean-good-jobs lobby. This not only includes the companies that build and supply prisons, but also the various communities around the state that have discovered what a boost a prison is for the local economy. All that good money flowing in and the bad guys and girls are still out of sight/out of mind. Especially if those prisons are built extra strong etc etc. 30353. bubbaette - 6/6/2000 11:48:08 AM Prisons can be seen as an economic development tool in very depressed areas. Other than that, they're NIMBY's to most areas. 30354. Ronski - 6/6/2000 11:54:01 AM janjon, 30355. janjon - 6/6/2000 12:06:05 PM Ronski - I never said that the prison building boom was THE reason our drug laws haven't been changed. They are certainly A reason, however. Those builders lobby and they spend $$$$. 30356. Ronski - 6/6/2000 12:48:48 PM 30357. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/6/2000 1:53:59 PM No, only pinheads do... 30358. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:13:58 PM Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded that §26.10.160(3), as applied to Granville and her family, violates her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters. Pp. 5-17. 30359. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:16:39 PM Indy - you might as well use a hat with little pieces of paper this early but here goes my WildAssGuess 30360. jexster - 6/6/2000 2:21:10 PM Item from yesterday's news: 30361. bubbaette - 6/6/2000 2:28:30 PM Today's Richmond Times-Disgrace carries two editorials decrying the decision to return Elian to his dad. So much for the republican committment to family values and the importance of fathers in their children's lives. Something of a surprise from the party that just last year was championing a constitutional amendment in my state to protect parents' rights. 30362. Cellar Door - 6/6/2000 4:23:04 PM When you're a Republican you can say anything you like. It doesn't have to make sense. The press and the judiciary are in your pocket. 30363. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:26:58 PM Spuds - Here are a few quotes that demonstrate my point. I would provide more but there aren't many archives that go back that far. I don't have the benefit of working for a news station. 30364. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:31:51 PM Bubbaette - So much for the republican committment to family values and the importance of fathers in their children's lives. 30365. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 5:32:45 PM Cellar - When you're a Republican you can say anything you like. It doesn't have to make sense. 30366. JudithAtHome - 6/6/2000 5:53:33 PM So, JJ...if I understand your last comment, you admit some Republicans don't make sense? Well, I don't think Cellar IS a Republican but I certainly think you are. 30367. Cellar Door - 6/6/2000 6:00:16 PM Just because I fucked Republicans doesn't make me one of them. 30368. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:00:57 PM JJ: 30369. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:01:30 PM And, just in case you or anyone else here missed his ultimate point, let's repeat it: 30370. JJBiener - 6/6/2000 6:04:30 PM Spud - I knew nothing I could come up with would convince you. 30371. spudboy - 6/6/2000 6:17:16 PM While you're here, JJ, I'd also like to respond to your earlier Message # 30160 particularly: You did your typical, "He says X, but I know he really believes Y because I am the great and powerful Spud and I know what evil lurks in hearts of men. And some women, too, but their [sic] tougher." 30372. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:02:07 AM In the race for the White House, George Bush leads Gore in the popular vote 44.3% to 34.0%. Nader has 2.5%, Buchanan has 2.1%, Browne 1.1%, and Phillips 0.4%. These results from a nightly Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Poll reflect interviews conducted June 3, 4, and 5. 30373. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:11:11 AM Re. 30362 - 30374. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:16:50 AM According to cllrdr's own 'reasoning' in 30362, he's a Republican. 30375. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:22:06 AM Clinton refers to "abject hatred" and "bitter words" and "promoters of paranoia" and "loud and angry voices" -- "whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." 30376. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:27:30 AM Re. 30374 - 30377. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:29:44 AM Spuds - This was the essay in which you noted that you had little objection to Duke's positions 30378. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:30:34 AM Spuds - (Cont) A couple of times in the recent past you have wondered aloud who I would have voted for in 1992. This yet another example of why you are a lying sack of shit. You already know the answer because I told you several times. You will probably claim I never answered, but it would be just one more lie on the pile. 30379. concerned - 6/7/2000 12:35:14 AM Re. 30377 - 30380. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:54:48 AM And your position re the Republicans, Connie, is with your legs over your head. The oft-cited notion that the press voted for Clinton, and therefor consists entirely of Communists, has been disproved time and time again. They're all Republicans now. Don't you watch TV? 30381. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 8:37:18 AM Re: Message # 30367, Cellar Door. 30382. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 8:44:59 AM "Not everyone holds an absolutist position like you do. Most people 30383. iiibbb - 6/7/2000 9:46:41 AM Re: Spuds/JJ's back and forth action. 30384. iiibbb - 6/7/2000 9:55:37 AM The republican party should have disowned Duke. He was too fringe. 30385. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 10:15:22 AM 30386. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 10:31:22 AM Bubbaette - the principle of hating communism and sticking it to Castro is more important than a father's right to his son. Real rational 30387. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 10:37:02 AM iiibbb - Does the fact that a racist supports some policy (for whatever whacked out reason) automatically make that policy stand undesirable? 30388. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:11:28 AM I wasn't sure where to post this little tidbit, but I figured we could stand to lighten the mood around here. 30389. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 11:14:35 AM JJ even most of the Republicans have abandoned you in your belief that the child should be kept from his father because Cuba is evil. Eighty percent of the population doesn't agree that ideology is more important than paternity. 30390. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 11:42:20 AM JJ- "The principle is whether a father's right to his son allows him to sacrifice his son's freedom. 30391. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:42:31 AM Bubbaette - Republicans have abandoned you in your belief that the child should be kept from his father because Cuba is evil. 30392. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 11:51:06 AM Wiz - It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ. 30393. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 11:56:04 AM JJ: 30394. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:01:41 PM Judith - Yes, but their blood pressure is higher. On occasion even I have to blow off steam, and this is the best forum to do that. Besides, it seems like there are some people here who do not understand anything else. 30395. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:02:53 PM Judith - BTW, what do you think of the NRA sponsoring a Mastercard? 30396. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:13:29 PM #30392 JJ- Your avoidance of my point is revealing. When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses." 30397. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 12:13:42 PM Evidently, pointing out inconsistancy in stated positions of Republicans, or insulting the Miami Cubans is a personal insult in JJ's eyes. 30398. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:19:29 PM My last post should have read: our avoidance of my point is revealing. When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses," I'll address your questions. 30399. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:20:18 PM Nuts! our =your 30400. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 12:24:58 PM JJ: 30401. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 12:32:31 PM J@H: 30402. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:34:01 PM Wiz - Your avoidance of my point is revealing. 30403. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:48:53 PM Bubbaette - Evidently, pointing out inconsistancy in stated positions of Republicans, or insulting the Miami Cubans is a personal insult in JJ's eyes. 30404. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:52:51 PM The question is, J.J. would you? Were American blacks justified in demanding an end to Jim Crow or were they merely "playing the victim card" in an effort to win "special rights"? 30405. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 12:54:13 PM Ducky: 30406. Cellar Door - 6/7/2000 12:56:26 PM 30407. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 12:56:28 PM JJ-"Unless I am misreading your post, you are claiming that the lack of freedom in Cuba is only my opinion. To which I inquired about your beliefs. Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba? " 30408. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 12:57:24 PM Judith - A KKK Mastercard? I never thought of that. I can see it now. 30409. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 12:58:27 PM Most times? 51%? JJ...you would allow gubmint interference in the raising of your family if some "official(s)" determined that someone else with more money, better health, correct politics, state-popularly approved religion, more accepted legal/criminal record etc would be a better parent(s)? How "liberal" you have become...imagine the power that would join the gov if such legalized actions could trump our family/personal structure. 30410. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:04:24 PM Cellar - The question is, J.J. would you? Were American blacks justified in demanding an end to Jim Crow or were they merely "playing the victim card" in an effort to win "special rights"? 30411. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:07:59 PM "If he has other opinions, he will be in great danger." 30412. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 1:09:07 PM Re: Message # 30405, JudithAtHome. 30413. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:11:10 PM They don't get much smarmier than Noonan. She can make a pit viper's skin crawl! 30414. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:12:35 PM PP- EGGGZACKLY! 30415. OhioSTOPAS - 6/7/2000 1:12:49 PM I agree with Psychprof's Message # 30409. 30416. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:17:33 PM Wiz - try to focus on the father's love and his desire to have his son with him; then you may see MY point and how it must trump any other "principle". 30417. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 1:18:46 PM "you would allow gubmint interference in the raising of your family if some "official(s)" determined that someone else with more money, better health, correct politics, state-popularly approved religion, more accepted legal/criminal record etc would be a better parent(s)? 30418. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:22:58 PM JJ...indeed parents are not allowed carte blanche in the treatment of their child. However...you seem to not realize the implications of child removal from a family for obvious ideological reasons...frankly, I am simply unwilling to give that power to the gubmint. Period. 30419. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:24:07 PM Bubba...isn't JJ asking the Gov to weild such power? 30420. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:24:32 PM Psych - you would allow gubmint interference in the raising of your family. . . 30421. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 1:26:29 PM JJ: 30422. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:30:08 PM Wiz - Thefearpart of the rightist motivational coefficient! 30423. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 1:30:57 PM Ducky: 30424. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:31:56 PM JJ...cheap shot by you. In any case, I simply do not equate abuse and varying ideolgy as analagous. 30425. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:32:56 PM Psych - you seem to not realize the implications of child removal from a family for obvious ideological reasons 30426. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:33:57 PM JJ- "When people have their opinions encased in granite, sometimes a hammer is the only way to reach them. The right tool for the right job." 30427. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:33:59 PM o 30428. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:34:20 PM Ducks - i guess i just don't understand how the absence of some very basic human rights is "slavery". 30429. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:35:45 PM JJ...All I can say is that such motivations as yours caused the BOR...individual protection against the tyranny of the Gov. 30430. theDiva - 6/7/2000 1:36:57 PM In all likelihood, the poorest of the poor in Cuba still enjoy a better quality of life than any slave ever did in the history of this country. Believe that. 30431. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:37:12 PM Wiz - Many have died as a result of that kind of grotesque logic, JJ. 30432. theDiva - 6/7/2000 1:37:42 PM oh, you knew her, too? 30433. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:37:45 PM ...and JJ, you are exhibiting the very same kind of authoritarian rationale that you attribute to Castro. 30434. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:40:38 PM Whims...neither Castro or JJ, now holding hands together, can see that. 30435. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:40:52 PM Psych - All I can say is that such motivations as yours caused the BOR...individual protection against the tyranny of the Gov. 30436. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 1:43:06 PM " the poorest of the poor in Cuba still enjoy a better quality of life than any slave ever did in the history of this country." Not to mention a better standard of living than the poorest of the poor in most carribean countries today . But then if standard of living and the absence of tyranny are sufficient reasons to split up families, we ought to be repatriating all the kids in any number of countries. 30437. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 1:43:14 PM Re: Message # 30423, JudithAtHome. 30438. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 1:43:32 PM PP- I can recommend a good book for him... 30439. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 1:43:56 PM dadgummit 30440. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 1:44:35 PM try again 30441. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 1:45:01 PM 30442. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 1:45:07 PM Wiz - you are exhibiting the very same kind of authoritarian rationale that you attribute to Castro. 30443. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 1:48:54 PM from JJ..." I am not advocating that the government tell 30444. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 2:03:49 PM Psych - huh? 30445. jonesatlaw - 6/7/2000 2:09:26 PM I am not advocating that the government tell the child where to live, what to read, what to study, what job to hold, who to marry, who to befriend, what to say, what to write or what to do. 30446. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 2:10:18 PM His mother was chasing a criminal boyfriend of hers. A very pretty story in its own right. I'm sure had she lived, the boy would have had a great life in America with that pair. 30447. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 2:11:42 PM JJ..."I 30448. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 2:13:33 PM Jones - I do not mean to equate what freedoms Cubans have with ours, but we should remember how recent many of them are for some Americans and how tenuous a hold we have on them. 30449. iiibbb - 6/7/2000 2:13:46 PM I say break out the chain saw and let anyone who wants a piece have one... 30450. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 2:15:02 PM Arky - His mother was chasing a criminal boyfriend of hers. A very pretty story in its own right. 30451. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 2:21:59 PM Only if it's reported by a major news organization, which is where I heard it some time ago. I thought everyone knew that. 30452. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 2:25:59 PM Here's a scary thought...JJ as a GOV Bureaucrat in charge of a new agency formed by the Dems...CRA...Children's Relocation Agency. Parents here and abroad would be screened on case by case basis, with "best interests", as decided by JJ, as the criterion for removal of child from the offending family. All decisions would be final. 30453. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 2:30:44 PM Would the CRA then invade the country in which the undeserving parents are located, or are we just talking about kids who happen to wash up on our shores? Of course CRA would have jurisdiction over all the kids in America, Puerta Rico, and the American Samoas and would be justified in removing any child from the home of registered Democrats. 30454. jonesatlaw - 6/7/2000 2:33:55 PM It is interesting how politics twists principles. The GOP is usually firmly in the parents are in charge camp- home schooling, vouchers, opposing federalization of education, parental vetos on sex education in public schools etc. The Dems are usually parens patria statists- sex education, public schools with public funding, federalization of education, pro-professional. 30455. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 2:36:56 PM arky: 30456. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 2:40:29 PM That post of Rose's is the point that I realized he was truly a Liberal satirizing conservative Republicans. 30457. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 2:49:53 PM Arky - Only if it's reported by a major news organization, which is where I heard it some time ago. 30458. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 2:55:48 PM I believe the Wiley assertion 30459. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 2:56:28 PM as do i 30460. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 2:58:49 PM Judith - Most people do believe that story but JJ would rather take the word of Rosettas dolphins who heard the mothers last words: "Save my son! Take him to freedom!" 30461. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 3:00:21 PM as do i 30462. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 3:00:47 PM whoops 30463. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 3:01:36 PM JJ...you'd be suprised how important shtupping is. 30464. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:02:45 PM JJ: 30465. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 3:03:33 PM But, Psych, was this guy really to die for? 30466. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 3:03:59 PM Very funny Judith...very funny. 30467. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 3:09:03 PM Judith - I am well aware of what some women are capable of. It still doesn't make the story plausible. Look at it this way. How many people die seeking freedom, and how many die following their boyfriend? Which is the stronger motivation? 30468. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:10:30 PM In my experience women don't risk life and limb for a little nookie. 30469. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:10:49 PM oops, almost forgot. 30470. CalGal - 6/7/2000 3:12:21 PM . In my experience women don't risk life and limb for a little nookie. 30471. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:13:12 PM Cal 30472. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 3:15:19 PM Diva - I have met you. There is no way I would mistake you and calgal for the same person. That is not a cut to either party, but you two are definitely different. 30473. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:15:23 PM . 30474. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:17:04 PM JJ 30475. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 3:18:48 PM Judith - BTW, my three nieces lived with us for 18 months because their mother chose an abusive boyfriend over them. She did not risk the lives of either herself or them, however. 30476. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 3:19:41 PM Diva - No, but I have talked to her on the phone and corresponded with her. 30477. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:20:18 PM nertz. Another practical joke foiled. 30478. CalGal - 6/7/2000 3:21:48 PM JJ, 30479. CalGal - 6/7/2000 3:22:06 PM Speaking of which, JJ, hi. Haven't spoken to you in ages. 30480. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:22:16 PM JJ: 30481. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:23:30 PM Sure people ignore my posts and NEVER call me! Why do I bother? 30482. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:25:29 PM Wiz: 30483. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 3:26:14 PM WOW: 30484. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 3:26:31 PM or, better yet, chopped liver. 30485. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:27:46 PM HAHAHA! 30486. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:28:22 PM Is clopped liver cheval? 30487. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:32:11 PM Wiz baby, you know I love you. 30488. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:32:42 PM Cal 30489. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:34:42 PM It's horse. 30490. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 3:34:55 PM 30491. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 3:36:47 PM It took me a while to figure out whether the title was "Bush" or "Rush", but it works either way. 30492. CalGal - 6/7/2000 3:38:05 PM Deev--hell, the least you could have done was say, kindly, "Well, Cal, you can sometimes approach nice. On the left, when it's not paying attention and the requirements aren't as onerous." 30493. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:39:21 PM um. 30494. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:39:33 PM bubbaette: 30495. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:39:54 PM Judith, you are funny as hell today! 30496. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:40:57 PM Why thank you! That will make my nap so much more pleasant! 30497. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:45:30 PM J@H, Bubb - It was the script font I used -- I wanted it to look like BLISS, but the Rush didn't even occur to me. Too close up to it, I guess. 30498. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:47:32 PM Opps -- thanks Deev!!!! 30499. JudithAtHome - 6/7/2000 3:47:40 PM Beinered: 30500. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:48:58 PM HAHAHAHA! Excellent!!! 30501. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 3:49:09 PM Beinered: to be responded to, regardless of the topic, with a screed on the evils of Democrats and your own personal idiocy for being a dupe thereof. 30502. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 3:50:45 PM Wet noodled by tortured logic while being licked by the wassup reptile. 30503. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 3:51:27 PM to be beined: 30504. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:51:55 PM Youse should be nicer to JJ. 30505. PsychProf - 6/7/2000 3:52:56 PM J ust J oshing 30506. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:53:12 PM I'm on the floor here!!! 30507. DanDillon - 6/7/2000 3:53:46 PM I'm in D.C. (hence my choice of threads), and wow was the White House ever a disappointment. I woke up at 6:00 a.m. in order to get in a line several hundreds of peopole long, wait an hour for a ticket (albeit free), and then kill two hours waiting for my tour time. Once at the House o' Many Prezs, we sallied through a couple of hallways with thick leaded glass panes in the oversized windows, and then meandered through about four rooms, each one color-coded so the sitting President can easily remeber their names--red room, green room, blue room, vermeil room. That was it. So I got to practice my primary colors this morning. Lunch on Capitol Hill was very good, save the rowdy tour group at an adjacent table. 30508. theDiva - 6/7/2000 3:54:35 PM DanD 30509. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 3:54:51 PM Judith's is a much better definition. 30510. DanDillon - 6/7/2000 3:57:27 PM Deev, 30511. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 3:58:03 PM Illustration for the verb "Bienered:" 30512. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 4:00:03 PM Bienered: v. 1. To be outclassed in every way. 30513. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 4:01:36 PM DanD 30514. theDiva - 6/7/2000 4:02:56 PM DanD 30515. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 4:04:04 PM JJ- Those are definitions for "delusions ofMANure!" 30516. theDiva - 6/7/2000 4:05:11 PM Bubb 30517. bubbaette - 6/7/2000 4:08:43 PM Diva 30518. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 4:15:03 PM For veteran Fraysters: What was the name of the guy who was "way out there" who stopped posting because Slate was going to start charging? Was it Cliff? Cliff what? Did he ever come back? 30519. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 4:17:36 PM godlessclif? 30520. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 4:18:12 PM if so, i have no idea. 30521. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 4:19:07 PM Yes!!! Thanks ducky -- that was an itch I couldn't scatch by myself. Did he ever return? 30522. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 4:19:11 PM "Several major news organizations reported that the President raped Juanita Broaddrick and sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey. Do you believe it?" 30523. rubberducky7 - 6/7/2000 4:20:34 PM WOW: 30524. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 4:20:41 PM If he was a multiple, someone there was a very interesting schizo! 30525. theDiva - 6/7/2000 4:20:43 PM No more sightings of GodlessCliff. Sad. 30526. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 4:39:44 PM Arky - No they did not. Allegations were made and those were reported, along with any evidence or lack thereof regarding whether the allegations could have been true. 30527. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 4:43:21 PM Re: Godlessclif. When he claimed that a baby should be allowed to be aborted until the umbilical was cut, I was convinced he was a put on. When he argued with a doctor about fetal development, it removed all doubt. If he wasn't a put on, he was one sick, twisted bastard. 30528. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 4:44:44 PM "And allegations were made about the motives of Elian's mother with no evidence to support them." 30529. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/7/2000 4:53:29 PM arky makes some pretty good points JJ... come over to the dark side, Luke! 30530. Wombat - 6/7/2000 5:16:10 PM If the magazine George is to be believed, the boyfriend made the trip to Florida several years before, and had returned to Cuba. 30531. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 5:24:36 PM Arky - The boyfriend's criminal record is a matter of fact and it being his boat is a matter of fact and that she was going to live with him is a matter of fact. 30532. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 5:27:08 PM Wombat - Munero, the boyfriend, came to the US in 1998 and later returned to Cuba. His arrest was because of his defection and return. The only other "criminal" behavior I have been able to locate involved dissident and anti-Castro activities. 30533. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 5:53:11 PM "I have friends and relatives who were born under repressive conditions, and they dispute your claim." 30534. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 6:13:25 PM Arky - And the guy was no dissident and his crimes were not of that nature. That was also a fact reported in the major news media. 30535. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 6:23:05 PM You're the one being absurd, especially regarding children, who could generally give a rip what their government is. Please can the hyperbole. Are you trying to tell me that there are no stable, happy homes in communist regimes? 30536. JJBiener - 6/7/2000 6:47:37 PM Arky - You're the one being absurd, especially regarding children, who could generally give a rip what their government is. 30537. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 7:07:50 PM Yes, JJ, but her situation is not at all the same as Elian Gonzalez's. You're putting all dissidents and all non-democratic governments in the same circumstances, and that's simply not true. There's no indication that Mr. Gonzalez is anything but comfortable and satisfied in Cuba. 30538. arkymalarky - 6/7/2000 7:25:44 PM Well, I found what I was looking for in the AP archives from a 2/23 article, but there's a fee to retrieve it. If you're curious enough you can get it and determine whether the evidence is credible. I found it searching Elisabeth Brotons. 30539. concerned - 6/8/2000 12:57:31 AM House releases LaBella report 30540. concerned - 6/8/2000 12:57:45 AM Mr. Gore, claiming "no controlling legal authority," has said he believed he was soliciting only soft-money donations. But documents show both hard and soft money were discussed at meetings he attended and at least 35 percent of the donations he sought went to hard-money accounts. 30541. concerned - 6/8/2000 1:00:53 AM If Pinocchio Bore's too fucking stoopid to know the difference between hard and soft money, given his political career, he's unfit to be president. On the other hand, if he's deliberately lying about it, he's unfit to be president. 30543. sakonige - 6/8/2000 1:26:46 AM 30544. DaveM - 6/8/2000 2:18:12 AM I'll just snipe for a second. 30545. Indiana Jones - 6/8/2000 9:33:34 AM Another poll shows NY Senate race tight 30546. bubbaette - 6/8/2000 11:03:05 AM Interesting concept, Dave M. 30547. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 11:24:05 AM Although I hate to seriously suggest anyone check out the front page of the Drudge Report today, I can guarantee you a huge laugh if you do... 30548. bubbaette - 6/8/2000 12:00:46 PM I see the skanky ho with the gun on the cover, but can't get to the story behind it. What's it about? 30549. jonesatlaw - 6/8/2000 12:39:41 PM She' NOT a sex object- can't you tell by the slinky little black dress and gun poses in the photos that's she's a serious journalist who wants to be evaluated by the quality of her writing? I mean we all know of George Will's famous thong shots, and Jack Anderson's Speedo series with an AK-47. 30550. jonesatlaw - 6/8/2000 12:40:30 PM Bill Buckly in the buff with a Baretta? 30551. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 12:43:02 PM bubbaette: 30552. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 12:43:28 PM Arky - Yes, JJ, but her situation is not at all the same as Elian Gonzalez's. 30553. Cellar Door - 6/8/2000 12:54:51 PM Well it's hard to tell if the American people are satisfied with this government either. 30554. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 12:58:45 PM Arky - Well, I found what I was looking for in the AP archives from a 2/23 article, but there's a fee to retrieve it. 30555. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 1:00:33 PM I guess her family is just a bunch of lying cowards, then? 30556. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 1:02:04 PM Cellar - Well it's hard to tell if the American people are satisfied with this government either. 30557. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 1:03:06 PM is=are 30558. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 1:04:20 PM Evidently those border guarding policies could use a little sprucing up, then.... 30559. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 1:04:56 PM Judith - I guess her family is just a bunch of lying cowards, then? 30560. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 1:07:25 PM I guess we'll never know, huh? 30561. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 1:09:28 PM Judith - Probably not. I think we should refrain from condemning her without better evidence. 30562. rubberducky7 - 6/8/2000 1:09:34 PM Re: Message # 30556, JJBiener. 30563. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 1:11:49 PM Ducks - Actually it is the border guards who are throwing him out. He isn't a citizen who wants to leave, but is being prevented. 30564. arkymalarky - 6/8/2000 1:15:15 PM JJ, 30565. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 1:21:31 PM Arky - Forget it. It is not worth the effort to get through to you. 30566. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 1:27:11 PM Message # 30561 30567. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 2:40:17 PM Judtih - When I first read your post I read it as beautify, and I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Then I read it again and I still wasn't sure. I think she deserves the same credit as anyone else who escapes from a repressive regime. Other than that there nothing special about her. 30568. rubberducky7 - 6/8/2000 2:43:28 PM JJ: 30569. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 4:26:52 PM JJ: 30570. JJBiener - 6/8/2000 4:42:39 PM Judith - I knew what you meant. That word reminds me of a Christian Rock group call the B-Attitudes. 30571. JudithAtHome - 6/8/2000 4:44:30 PM JJ: 30572. DaveM - 6/8/2000 7:11:56 PM I can't believe that Congress is seriously debating an elimination of inheritance taxes (aka the "death tax"). The notion that people somehow have a "right" or any sort of moral claim to an inheritance is utterly befuddling to me - it has been politically discredited since the 1890s. It appears that neocons really do want to roll back time. 30573. jonesatlaw - 6/8/2000 7:19:35 PM Anyone care to explain how inheritance taxes harm a free market economy, or serve markets? 30574. CalGal - 6/8/2000 7:32:13 PM Dave, 30575. jexster - 6/8/2000 9:06:47 PM Top CA GOP Official Goin Down! 30576. jexster - 6/8/2000 9:08:59 PM Anyone care to explain how inheritance taxes harm a free market 30577. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/8/2000 9:15:10 PM McClintock can always join ... 30578. joezan - 6/9/2000 12:32:57 AM 30579. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 8:10:24 AM This law only effects people who leave more than $675,000 to their inheritors and it maintains a kind of equilibrium for subsequent generations to start with a somewhat more level playing field. 30580. bubbaette - 6/9/2000 8:22:10 AM I sure hope my parents aren't busting their asses to scrimp and save so as to have an inheritance to pass onto my sibs and I. I'd much rather my folks use their resources to enjoy their retirement to the hilt. 30581. rubberducky7 - 6/9/2000 8:30:52 AM Re: Message # 30579, TheWizardofWhimsy. 30582. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 8:33:55 AM Dittos to bubbaette on that last post... 30583. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 9:01:25 AM ducky- If you have no problem with people paying taxes when they win lotto, you shouldn't have any problems with heirs paying taxes on "unearned income?" 30584. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 9:11:10 AM I always find it amusing when hard-ass, tough-minded conservatives (not you ducky) who rail against lazy welfare recipients or who deeply resent affirmative action because it's "unfair," squeal like pigs when it comes to paying taxes on unearned income for their own. 30585. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 9:53:55 AM Judith: George P. Bush, Jeb's son, spoke at the 1992 Republican convention. He was impressive, even though only in his early-to-mid teens. 30586. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 9:59:39 AM Inheritances should be taxed not because they are unearned, but because everybody pays their fair share of income and wealth to maintain society and heirs should be no different. 30587. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 9:59:48 AM I saw him in '92 and he was cute and impressive....NOW he is drop dead gorgeous and even MORE impressive. He certainly had Elizabeth Vargas squirming in her chair. 30588. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 10:00:46 AM Sort of a JFK Junior with a brain? 30589. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 10:04:34 AM Ohio: 30590. CalGal - 6/9/2000 10:20:10 AM There is a difference between no "right or moral claim" to an inheritance and paying tax on it. I don't have any terrible objection to the tax itself, but the notion that the state could just take everything I left because my son has no right to it is a bit offputting. But this has been "settled" since 1890--so "settled", apparently, that the state has just been taking everyone's inheritance ever since. 30591. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 10:21:53 AM CalGal: 30592. CalGal - 6/9/2000 10:24:28 AM Judith, 30593. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 10:37:40 AM "The notion that people somehow have a "right" or any sort of moral claim to an inheritance is utterly befuddling to me..." 30594. joezan - 6/9/2000 10:47:41 AM 30595. joezan - 6/9/2000 10:55:00 AM 30596. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:02:06 AM Joe - Industrial strength horsefeathers, poppycock and hypocritical denial! 30597. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:11:40 AM 30598. Wombat - 6/9/2000 11:11:54 AM If you feel you will be able to leave your kids assets greater than the current nontaxable $675,000 (probably to rise to $1 million), then I congratulate you. 30599. joezan - 6/9/2000 11:14:14 AM 30600. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:16:31 AM DaveM - "The notion that people somehow have a "right" or any sort of moral claim to an inheritance is utterly befuddling to me..." 30601. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 11:18:05 AM "The inheritance tax is not a tax on the deceased person, but a tax on his or her heirs." 30602. Jack Vincennes - 6/9/2000 11:23:35 AM Injecting moralism into a tax debate is bound to engender hissy-fits such as the one at issue. It is a policy question, not a right-or-wrong question. I can see Wizard screaming "You weak, selfish, Republican. How dare you oppose a top tax rate of 39%, instead preferring a top tax rate of 36% Infidel!" 30603. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:23:54 AM Wiz - Your argument is selfish, weak and typically Republican. The resentment and anger in your tone betrays the fact that the source of your indignation is not based on any injustice, but rather the frustration you feel because the tax code hinders your materialistic dreams. Give your money to charity, Joe -- it's the rightthing to do! 30604. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:25:34 AM Well "DUDE" your rebuttal stillstinksof envy, resentment and a greedy preoccupation with gorging on "the pie" as you call it -- you're not very plausible or convincing -- except maybe to others who wallow in jealousy and anger. 30605. Jack Vincennes - 6/9/2000 11:26:06 AM Does anyone know exactly what the federal government hauls in annually from inheritance/estate taxes? 30606. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:27:42 AM Wiz - Well "DUDE" your rebuttal still stinks of envy, resentment and a greedy preoccupation with gorging on "the pie" as you call it -- you're not very plausible or convincing -- except maybe to others who wallow in jealousy and anger. 30607. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 11:27:58 AM Well, I think all these "arguments" calling people rich or not rich are beside the point. It seems to me that if you get money or goods that increase your bottom line, you are getting income whether it be in winning the Lottery, maxing a game show, or inheriting a lot of really neat stuff from your folks. 30608. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:30:17 AM Wiz - Vote Republican DUDES -- Suffering like Builds Character,Man! 30609. Jack Vincennes - 6/9/2000 11:33:19 AM There is no argument. It is a feeling wrapped around wisecracks with a barely tangy sauce of a little knowledge. And a dollop of class envy/partisan rancor. 30610. joezan - 6/9/2000 11:33:39 AM 30611. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:40:00 AM HAHAHAHA! 30612. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:41:42 AM Joe - Then tell me how my desire to leave MY money to MY kids instead of spending it all on myself "stinks of envy, resentment and a greedy preoccupation with gorging on "the pie"... 30613. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 11:42:56 AM According to this, inheritance tax provides about 1 percent of federal revenues. 30614. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:43:37 AM Wiz - Re 30611 - ??? 30615. Jack Vincennes - 6/9/2000 11:44:50 AM JJ 30616. rubberducky7 - 6/9/2000 11:46:34 AM Re: Message # 30583, TheWizardofWhimsy. 30617. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:47:07 AM Indy - In other words, the pro-tax crowd can't even claim substantial revenue to justify the inheritance tax. That leaves us with envy and greed as their motivation. 30618. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:48:07 AM "It is a homily, which takes the place of reason." 30619. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 11:48:52 AM JJ: That was going to be my question: Do the pro-inheritance tax folks support the tax as necessary for revenue generation or as a means of transferring property? 30620. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:50:07 AM Wiz - ... but not the truth or the moral! 30621. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 11:51:46 AM Message # 30613, 30622. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 11:52:15 AM First, a caveat, I am not an estates and trusts attorney,so I am not familiar with all the latest dodges for inheritance tax avoidance. That aside, the federal estate tax currently allows a couple to pass on approximately $1.4 million dollars to their children without payment of any federal estate taxes. This does not include gifts during the grantor's lifetime. There are ways of using trusts to avoid inheritance tax, funding them with insurance policies and using proceeds of insurance policies to fund charitable donations which can eliminate or drasicatally reduce inheritance taxes. 30623. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 11:52:28 AM Indy - It is a way of getting back at the rich kids they hated when they were in school. 30624. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:55:47 AM ducky - Death should remain the leveler that nature intended it to be. All of these avaricious, egotistical fools who want to determine others' realities --even from the grave -- are so typical of just how attached they are to theirstuffand their own folly! 30625. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 11:55:57 AM Ohio (30621): Couldn't we cut government expenses by 1 percent? 30626. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 11:56:22 AM By the way, expected federal inheritance tax revenues for 2000 are $28 billion, not an insignificant total. 30627. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 11:57:04 AM JJ, Jack and Indy- inheritance taxes are there because inheritances are exempted from income tax. The rates are not the same, the inheritance tax rate is extremely high on the property it does tax. However, if Bush were interested in fairness, we should just eliminate the estate tax, as well as the income tax exclusion from income right? Where is the proposal for taxing the wealthy like the rest of us? How about a flat tax which includes inheritances? Didn't hear that from Forbes or the rest of the GOP either. 30628. JudithAtHome - 6/9/2000 11:57:51 AM JJ: 30629. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:58:21 AM JJ- Your projections often say more about you thananythingelse. 30630. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 11:58:48 AM Indy: I have no objection to cutting government expenses by 1% (although that's easier said than done) and returning the savings to the public in the form of a tax cut. 30631. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 11:59:41 AM ...besides JJ, I wasthe "rich kid" at school! 30632. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:01:29 PM Ohio, 30633. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:04:00 PM If one wants to reform the inheritance tax structure, I would propose that something be done to differentiate the taxation of the average farmer or small business person who leaves several million dollars of assets to their family which may only produce $10-30 thousand a year in income as compared to liquid or semi-liquid assets which may produce much more. 30634. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:06:31 PM Family businesses and farmers are the ones most burdened by the estate tax, but Bush does not focus on them, but rather those few most fortunate who have more wealth than they could ever spend without purchases of extravagent luxuries few of us would ever dream of. 30635. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 12:08:22 PM Ohio and jonesatlaw: I don't see tax cuts as the government "giving something to someone." A tax cut means the government takes less. 30636. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:08:52 PM Jack- There is no argument. It is a feeling wrapped around wisecracks with a barely tangy sauce of a little knowledge. And a dollop of class envy/partisan rancor 30637. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:09:04 PM Jones - First, a caveat, I am not an estates and trusts attorney 30638. Cellar Door - 6/9/2000 12:10:14 PM True, Judith. I went to high school with a lot of rich kids. Their money didn't mean a thing. The High School of Music & Art (Class of '64) was a true Meritocracy. What you knew and what you could -- or wanted to -- do, was all that mattered. Even looks didn't count all that much -- though Nelson Gore broke many a heart. Wonder where he is these days. 30639. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:11:40 PM Wiz = JJ- Your projections often say more about you thananythingelse 30640. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:12:23 PM JJB- I do not devote the majority of my time to estates or taxation. That being said, I do know the basics of the estate tax workarounds. If you look at my subsequent posts, you'll see I mention the problem you point out before you do. Even so, the majority of those folk have to liquidate because they did not plan ahead. 30641. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:17:17 PM Finally JJ- I have probably a dozen friends who are in estates and tax, several with LL.M.'s in the area, and I merely summarize what they've told me. 30642. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:17:26 PM Jones - I would propose that something be done to differentiate the taxation of the average farmer or small business person who leaves several million dollars of assets to their family which may only produce $10-30 thousand a year in income as compared to liquid or semi-liquid assets which may produce much more. 30643. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:18:15 PM Jones - It was a cross-post. 30644. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:20:11 PM JJ- the envy and greed of the superrich is more than enough justification for me. Their evny of the poor and middle class for the little they have left to them and their greed to keep what advantage they have without paying taxes at the same rate as the poor and middle class provide more than enough justification for the policy. 30645. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:21:21 PM Incidentally, I thought there were allowances for those who had all their inheritance wrapped up in businesses. I don't think they should be exempt, but they shouldn't force a sale of the business. 30646. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:22:29 PM Jones - LOL! You don't really believe that nonsense, do you? 30647. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:23:12 PM Oh, stop it. This is absurd. The super rich don't want to pound the last penny out of the poor, and one can oppose the elimination of the inheritance tax for reasons other than envy. Jesus, you people are like squabbling kids. 30648. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:25:06 PM CalGal - Am not! Am not! Am not! 30649. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:26:53 PM Get your ass over there to the corner until you've said, "I will play nice" 500 times. 30650. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:27:15 PM Jones - You are aware that most philanthropic organizations are started and supported by the wealthy, aren't you? 30651. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:28:14 PM CalGal - You're not going to spank me, are you? 30652. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:30:10 PM If anyone wants to talk about something other than ephithets, then lets talk about any of the issues. 30653. theDiva - 6/9/2000 12:30:22 PM youse are in the wrong thread for that. 30654. Indiana Jones - 6/9/2000 12:32:24 PM Well, when I was more left in my politics, I used to think no one should own land. Things you produced, I could see an argument for ownership of, but land really bothered me because it was a limited resource. The idea that just because someone stole it from someone along the line and stuck a fence around it meant it belonged to them and all their descendants in perpetuity just seemed absurd. Especially since we have limits on copyright and patent. 30655. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:37:32 PM Miss CalGal- JJ started it. Do I have to sit in the same corner as him? No fair! 30656. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:48:10 PM Jones, 30657. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 12:54:37 PM Jones - How does the lack of an inheritance tax serve the free market economy? 30658. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 12:57:26 PM CalGal- I will try to play nice, even though JJ and I have more fun fighting. 30659. CalGal - 6/9/2000 12:59:47 PM Jones, 30660. CalGal - 6/9/2000 1:00:33 PM Incidentally, no one has to play nice on my account. It's just that the discussion was interesting, and the nonsense was drowning it out. 30661. jonesatlaw - 6/9/2000 1:05:55 PM JJ- I thank you also for your substantive comments. Part of my confusion may be my simplistic understanding of economics. It would seem that a largely confiscatory inheritance tax would maximize the incentive for individuals to achieve on their own. However, JJ points out the benefits to businesses that I had not considered, as well as the fact that at a certain point one has more than one can reasonable consume. What is the motivation for an individual beyond that point, if the surplus is to be turned over the government on your death? 30662. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 1:10:09 PM CG -"The money has generally been taxed once, so why tax it again?" 30663. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 1:14:54 PM 30664. CalGal - 6/9/2000 1:30:22 PM WW, 30665. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 2:07:01 PM Jones - For example, why in the hell does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet get up to go to work in the morning? 30666. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 2:12:40 PM Jones - It would seem that a largely confiscatory inheritance tax would maximize the incentive for individuals to achieve on their own. 30667. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 2:12:48 PM JJ in Message # 30637: "The estate tax is primarily paid by small and moderate-sized business owners and family farmers . . ." 30668. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 2:15:01 PM Ohio - The wealthiest 10% of estates generate about half the total of inheritance tax payments. 30669. CalGal - 6/9/2000 2:16:04 PM Actually, until relatively recently Gates didn't contribute much to charity at all. He was known for it. 30670. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 2:18:29 PM USA Today, today. 30671. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 2:21:55 PM More facts from today's USA Today editorial: 30672. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 2:23:48 PM Cal - Actually, until relatively recently Gates didn't contribute much to charity at all. He was known for it. 30673. CalGal - 6/9/2000 2:26:21 PM JJ--no, not according to Accidental Empires, which was first published in 91. Gates' charitable contributions were extremely small, given his standing on the world's wealthiest list. He finally started foundations after that--sometime in the mid-90s, I believe. It was in direct response to the criticism. 30674. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 2:27:51 PM CG- "JJ is right about one thing: this is not something the Bush and ennedy clan have to worry about." 30675. CalGal - 6/9/2000 2:36:47 PM Wiz, 30676. JJBiener - 6/9/2000 2:36:53 PM CalGal - If the book was published in '91, he was likely doing his research in '90. Gates was still buiding his fortune at that point, and his success was relatively new. I don't think it is reasonable to base a conclusion on 10 year old information when subsequent activities shows a different trend. 30677. CalGal - 6/9/2000 2:39:34 PM JJ, 30678. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 2:47:30 PM CG- I'm not talking about over-achiever100- 500k per yr people -- I'm talking about fools with fears and frustration who want to become millionaires. Bush and his party scare and pander to them but they'll never see a mill a year --believing they will is the illusion the Repubs are trying to sell. 30679. CalGal - 6/9/2000 2:54:40 PM Wiz, 30680. Ronski - 6/9/2000 4:00:39 PM You could make considerably less than 100K a year, say half that or, going back a few years, a third of that, saved relentessly so that you would be able to leave your children something, and then died knowing that in the long run you were still handing almost half of it over to the government. 30681. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 4:13:43 PM "People should not be penalized for being successful." 30682. Ronski - 6/9/2000 4:40:58 PM Ohio, 30683. bubbaette - 6/9/2000 5:06:44 PM If I outlive DH (which I sincerely hope is not the case), I'm gonna convert all my assets to greenbacks and have them cremated with me in my house -- burn the whole kit and kaboodle, including the car in the driveway. Then I'm going to have the property on which the house stood sewn with salt so that nothing ever grows there again. 30684. Ronski - 6/9/2000 5:14:09 PM bubbaette, 30685. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 5:19:47 PM CG- "You said that Bush's bread is buttered by the rich and that this is why he supports the inheritance tax elimination." 30686. bubbaette - 6/9/2000 5:24:41 PM "Although salting the ground might have some adverse effect on your neighbors' land and water. 30687. OhioSTOPAS - 6/9/2000 5:34:03 PM Ronski (Message # 30682: I may wish that my children enjoy a free ride relative to the rest of society, but that's not a wish that society is obliged to honor. 30688. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/9/2000 10:24:41 PM I love it -- it's okay to kill ignorant poor people, but heaven forbid we should tax dead rich ones -- "The Death Tax indeed! 30689. joezan - 6/9/2000 11:22:16 PM Wiz: 30690. joezan - 6/9/2000 11:23:37 PM 30691. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/10/2000 7:27:16 AM Joez- Your wallowing self-satisfaction is a bit premature. First Rangel voted "NO" on the bill which was vote for by Democrats more to score points with well-healed constituencies rather than to make it into law. It still has to pass the senate and a presidential veto. 30692. JudithAtHome - 6/10/2000 9:35:38 AM JJ: 30693. jonesatlaw - 6/10/2000 7:16:08 PM Okay- lets talk about simple means to avoid the estate tax available to anybody who would be subject to it. 30694. robertjayb - 6/10/2000 7:19:32 PM . 30695. CalGal - 6/10/2000 7:51:36 PM 30696. CalGal - 6/10/2000 7:53:19 PM Jones, 30697. joezan - 6/10/2000 9:57:33 PM 30698. CalGal - 6/10/2000 10:06:08 PM All five of the Dems in my area supported it. If one wonders why, remember housing prices in this area and wonder no more. 30699. joezan - 6/10/2000 10:24:39 PM 30700. CalGal - 6/10/2000 10:34:30 PM Well, they are from the Bay Area, which means that they aren't what Cellar or Jones would call Democrats. 30701. joezan - 6/10/2000 10:38:55 PM 30702. joezan - 6/10/2000 10:49:21 PM 30703. jonesatlaw - 6/10/2000 11:21:38 PM CalGal- I can appreciate the problems residents of Bagdad by the Bay have regarding estates with the outrageous real estate there. You need six figures to be a bum there. 30704. CalGal - 6/10/2000 11:31:49 PM You know you live in the Bay Area when you make 100,000 and can't find a place to live. 30705. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 12:47:04 AM Joez- 30706. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 1:07:39 AM JoeZ- 30707. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2000 7:50:22 AM joezan: 30708. joezan - 6/11/2000 8:59:17 AM 30709. joezan - 6/11/2000 9:13:14 AM 30710. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 12:12:55 PM Joez- You and I are on different parts of the political teeter-totter and subject to the variousmovementsof those in our respective parties. The extremists on the left have very little weight these days in the Democratic party, but that is not the case on the right -- IMO. Your party is in a struggle for control between the moderates and the extremists. Those extremists are money motivated dominators who exploit the fears and avarice that all human beings have -- again IMO. 30711. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 12:18:14 PM [...continued] 30712. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 12:25:10 PM 30713. JJBiener - 6/11/2000 2:14:50 PM Jones - lets talk about simple means to avoid the estate tax available to anybody who would be subject to it. 30714. JJBiener - 6/11/2000 2:24:31 PM Wiz - Is there any bit of stereotype and hyperbole you won't believe? You sound like a character in a bad B movie. The only things your skeptical of are any facts that might shake your carefully constructed fantasy world. As I said the other day, before you go making accusation, look in the mirror. You are guilty of all the things you claim about others. 30715. CalGal - 6/11/2000 3:21:29 PM I wonder if it really costs that much. After all, if the heirs actually have the assets instead of giving them to the government, the assets are probably producing income. And if they're producing income, then the heirs are paying taxes on it. 30716. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 4:00:56 PM Well JJ, I don't recall directing my "fantasies" at you or "accusing" you of anything. Why do you feel the need to attack me personally? I wasn't even addressing my posts to you. 30717. jonesatlaw - 6/11/2000 4:28:16 PM Last year he had $10 million in sales which would place the value of his business at $40-80 million. After paying his 100 employees, he is left with a comfortable income of around 100k. He has a whole life policy he bought when the business was much smaller, but because of health problems, he can't get insurance to cover the estate taxes or even come close. 30718. jonesatlaw - 6/11/2000 4:30:12 PM CalGal- re liquidation of business/farms for payment of estate tax. There is already a provision for payments in such a case, and the cost to the business is interest in the amount of 4% on the amount over 153 K. (This is old information, and probably needs updated, but you get the general idea.) 30719. Dusty - 6/11/2000 5:27:00 PM jonesatlaw 30720. Jack Vincennes - 6/11/2000 5:34:20 PM Wiz 30721. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 6:22:27 PM Me thinks I'm striking that most raw and exposed nerve of thelanded gentry; for surely the rapier wit and sterling motivation of yonder post would silence my peasant oafisness if any truth be in it's disdainful thrust. 30722. Jack Vincennes - 6/11/2000 6:32:03 PM Wizard 30723. Dusty - 6/11/2000 6:36:16 PM TheWizardofWhimsy 30724. CalGal - 6/11/2000 6:38:36 PM Wiz, 30725. CalGal - 6/11/2000 7:02:28 PM Is anyone other than me bored with politics lately? I grant you that part of this is the thread--the conversation lately has seemed a bit dreary and unimaginative. But in general, I just feel disappointed. When are we going to have an interesting political season again? When will there be something fun to talk about? 30726. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2000 7:11:43 PM Maybe some of those 65 who voted in favor are now making more money than they ever dreamed they would make and simply think they are rich now...see, it's easy when you sit down and think about it. 30727. Uzmakk - 6/11/2000 7:46:43 PM Anyway, wrt American Politics: 30728. Cellar Door - 6/11/2000 8:10:06 PM It's ALWAYS "Bash Gore Week" -- straight through to the election. 30729. jexster - 6/11/2000 8:39:19 PM Most Americans it seems do not know the pure joy of bashing a Beiner or gouging out the eyeballs of an Ace of Waste and then skull fucking him 30730. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 9:05:38 PM Cal- Income is income and taxable the year it comes in. Your speculations regarding possible future income of heirs is the same old sorry pipe dream that keeps the wanna-be-gentry, subservient serfs, loyal to their kings. I've already given my reasons why the 65 Dems voted for the bowel movement called estate tax relief -- I think it's a show. You never addressed the fact that the person receiving the income is taxed -- you and Jack keep fixating on the money. 30731. CalGal - 6/11/2000 9:14:16 PM You never addressed the fact that the person receiving the income is taxed -- you and Jack keep fixating on the money. 30732. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/11/2000 9:45:39 PM Cal- No, I made the claim that the bill helped the super rich more than anything else. Where did I say anything about "federal coffers taking a hit?" I have no idea what you're taking about either. 30733. jonesatlaw - 6/12/2000 11:19:06 AM More death penalty problems for Bush- 30734. jonesatlaw - 6/12/2000 11:23:42 AM Let's try that link again- Death Penalty 30735. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2000 11:31:36 AM And yet, he continues to say he has faith in the system here. 30736. jonesatlaw - 6/12/2000 11:38:09 AM Given that one can take complicated steps with the help of a lawyer to avoid a significant portion of the estate tax, is there any justification for the tax beyond the fact that it helps employ lawyers to do work that doesn't improve society? 30737. CalGal - 6/12/2000 12:14:38 PM But it's not just the farmers and businesses. Any estate tax will be most onerous to those whose estates are just on the line--who are also the ones who don't have as much money for estate lawyers, etc. 30738. jexster - 6/12/2000 12:32:16 PM Bloody Bush Set For Another Questionnable Execution 30739. jexster - 6/12/2000 12:35:20 PM Columbia Law Study Declares Death Penalty System an Abomination 30740. jonesatlaw - 6/12/2000 12:45:18 PM CalGal-If one has several million in assets, one can easily afford the attorney's fees needed to set up a trust and a pour over will to handle the problem. That and an annual check-up when your tax lawyer and accountant does your taxes. We're not talking Johnny's hot dog stand here. 30741. jexster - 6/12/2000 12:49:04 PM An investigation by the Chicago Tribune of the 131 Texas inmates executed under Gov. George W. Bush found that 40 involved trials in which defense attorneyspresented no evidence or only a single witness during the sentencing phase; 43 included defense attorneys who had been or were later sanctioned for misconduct;and 23 included testimony from jail house informants, who are considered to be among the least credible of witnesses. 30742. jexster - 6/12/2000 12:59:21 PM Any estate tax will be most onerous to those whose estates are just on the line--who are also the ones who don't have as much money for estate lawyers, etc 30743. jexster - 6/12/2000 1:10:22 PM The Moronic One has been doing his best to flim-flam the public over the past few weeks on issues ranging from abortion to education all in an effort to distance himself from the millstone of the wacko right. 30744. CalGal - 6/12/2000 1:29:20 PM Jones, 30745. jexster - 6/12/2000 1:58:01 PM Cal - 30746. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:01:08 PM No need to punish the upwardly mobile, the well-salaried sorts who catch enough shit as it is with the tendency of the politicos to classify them as "rich". 30747. Dusty - 6/12/2000 2:02:43 PM jexster 30748. Ronski - 6/12/2000 2:04:17 PM They are punished when they are alive, knowing that their heirs will not inherit what they have striven to produce. 30749. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:18:29 PM Of course when my rich uncle in Hillsborough kicks the bucket leaving me the 10 million home he bought for 500,000 which I get at with the new stepped up tax basis of 10 million all for no other reason than my dear departed uncle died, I suppose I'll hop right to the Mote to cry on CalGal's shoulders about all the shit I've caught.... 30750. CalGal - 6/12/2000 2:26:20 PM In any event, I can't muster much sympathy for "punishing" those who are already dead much less for their heirs who did absolutely nothing to produce the wealth. 30751. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:31:01 PM the heirs did "nothing" to "earn" the wealth. Such 30752. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:32:21 PM When I told someone on 30753. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:39:41 PM The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That is a fact of American life discussed in detail in Paul Krugman's fine book "Peddling Prosperity" pp.130-150. 30754. jexster - 6/12/2000 2:50:21 PM So it's not several million in assets we're talking about, but the current $675K. And you don't need me to tell you that $675K doesn't leave someone a lot of room for the types of planning you discuss. 30755. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:17:48 PM Correction - exemption which are as follows. Tax does not apply to spousal inheritance, charitable bequests: 30756. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:18:49 PM Pardon me but all this unfairness is getting me too emotional to continue. 30757. CalGal - 6/12/2000 3:21:13 PM Jex, 30758. Dusty - 6/12/2000 3:27:37 PM jexster 30759. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:28:10 PM They are punished when they are alive, knowing that their heirs will not inherit what they have striven to produce. 30760. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:31:56 PM Dusty - 30761. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 3:32:43 PM Jexster--Calm down, I'm lurking. 30762. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:36:00 PM And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully; and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.' But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." 30763. CalGal - 6/12/2000 3:36:45 PM Jex, 30764. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:37:26 PM Hello Rosie! I'm late for a doctor's appointment. Better see if he'll give me something for the torment I suffer on account of the "death tax" 30765. jexster - 6/12/2000 3:41:30 PM Tax policy is not about fairness, nor should it be 30766. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 3:58:38 PM jexster #30751. 30767. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 3:59:00 PM Let the heirs of the filthy rich face the same prospects as those of the filthy poor - that's fair. 30768. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 3:59:14 PM God bless you, Jexster. Sing away sorrow, cast away care. 30769. robertjayb - 6/12/2000 4:27:59 PM . 30770. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 4:42:52 PM The only American political team with standing goon squads is Clinton/Gore. 30771. JudithAtHome - 6/12/2000 4:51:38 PM Why am I not surprised you harken back to a fictional account of history, Rosetta? 30772. Ronski - 6/12/2000 5:22:44 PM ArtVandelay: 30773. Cellar Door - 6/12/2000 5:30:26 PM Yes it is. 30774. Ronski - 6/12/2000 5:37:01 PM And the left calls us greedy, all the while coveting other people's wealth. 30775. Cellar Door - 6/12/2000 6:08:20 PM "Covet"? Because I wanted goods and services ditributed evenly I'm "coveting" them? Whereas if I set about to destroy you and build a comporate empire on your corpse I'd be considered a business tyro, right? 30776. Cellar Door - 6/12/2000 6:09:06 PM Pssst. Bill Gates covets netscape -- pass it on! 30777. jexster - 6/12/2000 6:52:31 PM Does it follow that the proper way of running an industrial society is on the {Ronski-esque) nightwatchman state principle, with central coercive authority looking after defence and order only, leaving all else to the "market"? This does not follow, nor is it remotely true? 30778. jexster - 6/12/2000 6:55:49 PM I'd better shut my yap before Cellar nominates me for membership in the Socialist Workers Party but alas such is the lot of the radical centrist. 30779. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 7:06:50 PM Cellar is no communist. Or, if he is, he's the only red who supports the dauphin, Al Gore. 30780. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 7:25:17 PM Ronski #30772. 30781. jexster - 6/12/2000 7:25:49 PM Bottom line - we live in a radically complex, heavily bureaucratic culture, albeit a pluralist one, in which government bureaucracy constitutes only a very small part. Wealth redistributions occur every day, indeed every second of every day - we call that "profit". Taxation without representation is now a fact of life or when did you last vote on how some corporation used the money it made off of you??? 30782. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 7:26:11 PM Anyhow, working at a soup kitchen may be good for the soul. 30783. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 7:27:24 PM oops-"liesure"=leisure, "hommosexuals"=homosexuals.... 30784. jexster - 6/12/2000 7:31:30 PM Art - 30785. ArtVandelay - 6/12/2000 7:46:58 PM jexster. 30786. jexster - 6/12/2000 8:08:14 PM Elian Take Rosie's Kids With You!!! 30787. jexster - 6/12/2000 8:11:59 PM Art - 30788. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 9:05:31 PM U.S. and Russian nuclear-weapons secret computer hard drives missing from the Los Alamas vaults after the government was forced to leave the building because of the $300 million "controlled fire" the Park Service started. 30789. RosettaStone - 6/12/2000 9:39:24 PM NBC is reporting that the nuclear-weapons computer hard drives were first reported missing two months ago, before the fires. The FBI was only notified last week. 30790. joezan - 6/12/2000 11:33:55 PM 30791. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/13/2000 12:54:44 AM Well, what can I say Joe? ... some people have to compensate for their deficiencies with projectiles of all sorts. 30792. rubberducky7 - 6/13/2000 8:57:24 AM Re: Message # 30776, Cellar Door. 30793. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 9:42:33 AM Many of the comments regarding wealth redistribution plainly have more of a problem with the fact that some people are rich, rather than some people are poor. Instead of arguing, for example, that no one should be living in poverty making $500 per year, we have statements such as "no one needs an annual salary of $200,000. Also ironic is that many of the Motiers making such arguments would be the first to cringe at the idea of the government enforcing a public morality, but the primary rationalization they offer stems from basically moralistic justifications. 30794. bubbaette - 6/13/2000 10:40:23 AM Indiana 30795. Ronski - 6/13/2000 10:52:46 AM The way for less prosperous nations to reach our level of wealth is for them to adopt the system of free enterprise and personal freedom under the rule of the law that we have (more or less) lived with for more than two centuries. 30796. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 10:54:47 AM bubbaette: The planet probably can't support six billion people living at our level. But at least your primary motivation seems to be raising the standards of living of those less fortunate, rather than decreasing the standards of those more fortunate. 30797. Wombat - 6/13/2000 11:07:44 AM I just don't have a problem with those who make more paying more in taxes. My househould income is probably in the upper 10% nationwide, so I am not arguing from a self interested standpoint. 30798. Ronski - 6/13/2000 11:09:53 AM There are probably more than enough resources for the world's population to live at a considerably higher rate of ease than it does currently (see Julian Simon). Human ingenuity, freed from excessive restraints of government and the moralists of the left and the right, works wonders at increasing goods and services. 30799. Ronski - 6/13/2000 11:10:44 AM 30800. bubbaette - 6/13/2000 11:15:27 AM Indiana 30801. CalGal - 6/13/2000 11:25:14 AM Wombat, 30802. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 11:53:57 AM Wombat: I don't have a problem with it either, but shouldn't it be justified on something other than "moral" grounds? If I have something and your morality is that you can take it from me because I have more than you, is that sufficient reason to give it to you? Life isn't inherently fair, as the old saw goes, and governments aren't any better than the rest of us at trying to make it fairer. The purpose of levying and collection of taxes should be to fund the functions of government, not execute someone's scheme of what constitutes economic morality. 30803. rubberducky7 - 6/13/2000 12:06:20 PM Re: Message # 30802, Indiana Jones. 30804. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 12:14:38 PM Wiz - How do you expect to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this: 30805. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/13/2000 12:56:01 PM Bubb- You'd have an easier time convincing that new breed of super-termite (that's eating New Orleans) to stop what their doing and build a wooden church in hell. 30806. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 1:08:08 PM I see the word 'fairness' used a lot here at the Mote by both (all?) sides of the political spectrum. What's the working definition of 'fairness' with regard to tax and social policy? I suspect that there's litle agreement. 30807. Cellar Door - 6/13/2000 2:23:44 PM You would suspect right. 30808. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 2:42:12 PM AytchMan: 30809. bubbaette - 6/13/2000 3:42:05 PM think taxing someone's production (i.e., work) isn't nearly as fair as taxing consumption. 30810. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 3:47:38 PM bubbaette: Do you really think that's what I said? 30811. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 3:48:27 PM >>As you move along the axis, I think you lessen fairness... 30812. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 3:54:24 PM I think I see what you're getting at, AytchMan, and if you substitute "justice" for "fair," we should probably open up Book I of the Republic. 30813. CalGal - 6/13/2000 3:57:20 PM Aytch--you're a definition hound, I see. 30814. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 4:00:24 PM H-man - Good luck. I don't think we can even agree on the meaning of fair let alone come to a consensus on what constitutes fair. I try very hard to leave "fairness" out of my arguments for the reason that it is so subjective. Whenever I see someone trying to justify a political position on the grounds of "fairness", I am reminded of small chilren vying for position. As with children, they view their position as "fair" and anything else as "unfair". 30815. DaveM - 6/13/2000 4:02:49 PM JJ - 30816. CalGal - 6/13/2000 4:11:28 PM Dave, 30817. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 4:17:09 PM DaveM - I think other criteria should be: 30818. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 4:41:03 PM CG-- 30819. OhioSTOPAS - 6/13/2000 4:42:19 PM JJ: Striving for fairness is not only futile, it's un-American?? 30820. CalGal - 6/13/2000 4:42:32 PM Aytch, 30821. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 4:46:13 PM AytchMan: Once in a while, there's hope for agreement among Motiers on fine points. On the big picture...nahhhhh. 30822. DaveM - 6/13/2000 4:49:14 PM Cal - 30823. CalGal - 6/13/2000 4:58:35 PM Surely you don't think that "ability to pay" is objective? 30824. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 5:06:17 PM What the hey, maybe now is the time to release this duck. I've been saving this for a while: 30825. bubbaette - 6/13/2000 5:12:39 PM "Answering your question would require making several presumptions as to your meaning. Which government program do you think is currently being supported by the elderly, sick, disabled, and children? 30826. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:15:51 PM JJ - 30827. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:15:57 PM 2. Overall economic impact 30828. bubbaette - 6/13/2000 5:21:11 PM Costs benefit analysis doesn't tell you whether a program or philosophy is worth pursuing in the first place. It also tends to ignore non-monetary costs and benefits because it's hard to quantify clean air, dignity, independence, etc. 30829. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:21:42 PM Cal - 30830. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:23:55 PM Bubb - 30831. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 5:25:09 PM Ohio - Striving for fairness is not only futile, it's un-American?? 30832. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 5:32:46 PM DaveM - Now take all that brilliant analysis and apply it to the concept of "fair". I am not claiming that these criteria are perfect or can be determined in exact, absolue terms. I am claiming they make a better sense than a completely subjective criteria like "fairness". 30833. OhioSTOPAS - 6/13/2000 5:35:19 PM JJ: I got that from your statement, "Trying to impose one group's idea of "fair" on the whole runs contrary to the principles this country was founded on." 30834. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 5:37:50 PM Bubbaette - Costs benefit analysis doesn't tell you whether a program or philosophy is worth pursuing in the first place. 30835. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 5:39:56 PM Ohio - Do you really see no difference between: 30836. marshame - 6/13/2000 5:48:01 PM Aytech Man 30837. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 5:49:19 PM bubbaette: Your point about income being readily countable is indeed likely the reason we use it. Even then, though, we have a pretty complex tax system and arguments about what constitutes income. So if income has been adopted as the standard because of its simplicity, I hate to see what federal tax laws would look like if we moved to something else. 30838. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:50:51 PM JJ - 30839. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 5:50:58 PM AytchMan: Your scenario is one of the reasons why I like keeping power closer to the local level. That way people who prefer one system or the other can more easily relocate to a "hood" where others agree with them. 30840. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 5:54:12 PM AytchMan: One way I'd measure is have free immigration between the two states and see which has the greater population at the end. 30841. DaveM - 6/13/2000 5:55:54 PM Marshame - 30842. CalGal - 6/13/2000 6:00:52 PM Aytch, 30843. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 6:03:11 PM People, people, work with me. 30844. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:05:20 PM Reveal it then. 30845. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 6:10:03 PM CG-- 30846. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 6:14:13 PM DaveM - Your "standards" are conceptually indistinguishable from "fairness." 30847. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:23:23 PM JJ - 30848. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:25:44 PM JJ - 30849. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 6:26:40 PM AytchMan: The best system IMO would be the one providing the most good to the most people. The most population is by definition the most people, and by allowing free immigration people could choose the system under which they were receiving the most good. 30850. JJBiener - 6/13/2000 6:29:32 PM DaveM - You really can't see it, can you? Forget I mentioned it. 30851. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 6:33:19 PM Indy-- 30852. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:35:26 PM Indiana Jones - 30853. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:38:28 PM Indy - "freedom" should be after "personal." 30854. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 6:48:07 PM "I don't have time to get into a long discussion of utilitarianism, but I disagree with your characterization of it. There is Benthamic hedonic utilitarianism, Millian paternalistic utilitarianism, and everything in between." 30855. AytchMan - 6/13/2000 6:56:10 PM Dave M 841-- 30856. Indiana Jones - 6/13/2000 6:57:21 PM AytchMan: If you mean as a "fair" (there's that word again) way of determining the winner, I think allowing free immigration and measuring total population is about as "fair" as any. If I were choosing which place to live for myself, I'd choose other criteria, but making one individual happy is not the same as making a society happy. Not trying to duck your question--I personally value things like education, low crime, privacy--but I do have to head out. 30857. DaveM - 6/13/2000 6:59:05 PM Indy - 30858. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:35:58 PM 30859. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:36:12 PM 30860. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:44:08 PM 30861. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:48:58 PM Flame Warriors! 30862. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:49:11 PM Flame Warriors! 30863. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:49:42 PM Flame Warriors! 30864. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:54:29 PM This board don't work 30865. Brad Ryerson - 6/13/2000 8:54:53 PM This board don't work 30866. sakonige - 6/13/2000 8:58:49 PM 30867. Uzmakk - 6/13/2000 9:04:57 PM "There ought to be limits to freedom." 30868. DaveM - 6/13/2000 9:16:32 PM If Bush truly understood what he was saying, that quote would be: "There are limits to freedom." 30869. Uzmakk - 6/13/2000 9:19:29 PM You are quite right, DaveM. My, you expect a lot from your politicians. 30870. AytchMan - 6/14/2000 2:29:32 AM Just to keep my lab experiment going overnight (from my message 30824), I've come up with a candidate list of metrics for the Liberals. Admittedly, some of the items are fuzzy but I think workable indices could be concocted. Are these reasonable items in principle? What's missing to really measure the goals of the Liberal state? 30871. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/14/2000 8:30:28 AM 30872. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/14/2000 8:33:30 AM 30873. Ronski - 6/14/2000 10:31:39 AM The above is the usual leftist pap. I don't know how dangerous it is, probably not very, but it reflects the usual leftist contempt for the individual: Only a few people have to sell the family farm or the family business to pay the taxes, so we can tell them to go to hell with a clear conscience. 30874. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 10:45:51 AM 30875. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 10:58:55 AM "Contempt for the individual"? Since when did coporations become "individuals"? 30876. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 10:59:44 AM "I don't know how dangerous it is" 30877. bubbaette - 6/14/2000 11:01:12 AM Why Celler Door! Don't you know that corporations are "natural persons" for the purposes of the law? (At least here in the Commonwealth of Virginia.) And though they can't vote, they don't need to since the voice of a corporation carries more weight with the legislature than the voices of their constituents could hope to acheive. 30878. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 11:03:06 AM No wonder Virginia wants to hang on to it's sodomy laws. Don't want types like me "fucking" with their corporate policy. 30879. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 11:09:54 AM Do corporations pay inheritance tax? 30880. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 11:19:18 AM Tabouli - Krugman frequently indulges in pap. This article is a perfect example. It is a recycled and regurgitated example of the standard leftist mantra. It assumes that class envy is a pervasive and constant force and the natural basis for all legislative activity. Anything that runs counter to the "soak the rich" attitude must therefore be bought and paid for. 30881. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 11:23:54 AM Cellar - "Contempt for the individual"? Since when did coporations become "individuals"? 30882. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 11:29:59 AM 30883. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 11:52:05 AM Tabouli - Your notion that Krugman indulges in class envy and a contempt for people like Bill Gates is unwarranted and off base. 30884. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 12:11:04 PM Krugman assumes that the wealth of the super-rich is to some degree discordant with their level of business acuity and entrepreneurial skill -- i.e. that their is not necessarily a direct 1:1 relationship between wealth and merit; that at some point one's wealth simply climbs independently of one's skill. Further, he assumes (I think)that the increase in the wealth of the super rich comes as a consequence of social factors that are independant of the rich person's investment/entrepreneurial activity (etc). -- i.e. that the rich are not naturally entitled to all of the wealth that ends up in their hands. Based on these assumptions, he thinks that it is fair to tax the super-rich at a more burdensome level than the less wealthy(with the proviso that tax levels should not be increased to a level at which they become a drag on entreprneurial activity). Krugman is probably right -- imho. 30885. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 12:11:50 PM The legal status afforded corporations has nothing to do with the fact that "individuals" may own shares in said corporations. The corporation is viewed as an entity in itself whose powers are enormous. And as Ann Coulter so frequently loves to remind us "we are a nation of laws, not men." 30886. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 12:21:21 PM Tabouli - Krugman assumes that the wealth of the super-rich is to some degree discordant with their level of business acuity and entrepreneurial skill. . . 30887. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 12:25:24 PM Ah, envy -- my favorite "Deadly Sin"! 30888. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 12:25:25 PM Beiner- If we should treat corporations as individuals because they are owned by individuals, then we should treat dogs, trees and automobiles as individuals. 30889. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 12:27:09 PM 30890. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 12:30:40 PM JJ- No one takes away anything from the wealthy by inheritance tax. Joe Wealthy decides to give his property to Joe Wealthy Jr. He can do so. The law doesn't prevent him from doing so. The inheritance tax only comes into play if Joe Sr. dies and can't do it himself. 30891. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 12:37:44 PM Perhaps we should follow a more favorable policy towards inherited wealth, as is urged by the GOP. I propose we revert to primogeniture. After all, this would preserve the greatest amount of private wealth by preventing the break-up of large estates into all those parcels for later children and grandchildren. That way JJ can't say we are envious of the upper class. 30892. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 12:40:38 PM What is ommitted from the discussion is that if there is no estate tax, we create a priviliged class of income. Inherited income faces no income taxes, while all others pay tax. 30893. Cellar Door - 6/14/2000 12:41:59 PM 30894. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/14/2000 1:37:28 PM JJ-"It assumes that class envy is a pervasive and constant force and the natural basis for all legislative activity. Anything that runs counter to the "soak the rich" attitude must therefore be bought and paid for." 30895. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:04:41 PM Jones - You're getting to be as bad at Ohio. 30896. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:06:55 PM Tabouli - It is not that the rich don't deserve their wealth; just that they are not necessarily entitled to ALL of their wealth. Money makes money --but (at least to some degree) for reasons independent of the wealthy's wealth producing activity. 30897. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:11:29 PM Jones - No one takes away anything from the wealthy by inheritance tax. 30898. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:11:55 PM 30899. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:13:13 PM Jones - Inherited income faces no income taxes, while all others pay tax. 30900. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 2:15:05 PM No Biener- the whole fucking point of a corporation is that it IS NOT merely the collection of individuals who own an interest in it. Groups of folks who pool resources for business are called partnerships in the law. Partnerships existed for years but imposed liability on all of the partners for the losses as well as the profits of the partnership. It is precisely because of this that corporations with limited liability were created. If you own stock in ABC corp and it tanks, the creditors can't look to you to pay off the corporate debt. That's the whole of their contribution to society, that greater risk may be taken on without threat to the personal wealth of the participants. Corporations are a legal fiction that allows us to treat an impersonal idea as a legal entity with rights to property etc. Their rights are not derivative of the personal rights of the stock owners in any way. 30901. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 2:18:27 PM Biener, 30902. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 2:19:42 PM JJ- the basis for inherited wealth is the value at the time of the inheritance, that alone is a boon to the legatee. (If you don't understand basis ask your friend the estate lawyer.) Neither is it an answer to say that income from the inheritance is taxed. So is the income I get from interest on money I earn and have already paid income tax on. Why does one type of income get a pass and another not? 30903. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:25:02 PM Wiz - Are you that hard up for a rationale? 30904. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 2:27:33 PM The inheritance tax only comes into play if Joe Sr. dies and can't do it himself. 30905. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:31:48 PM Tabouli - It is obtuse to deny that luck and happenstance play a significant role in the return that investors receive on their investments 30906. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 2:35:16 PM 30907. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:36:15 PM Jones - Not all income is taxed. Merely claiming that something is income and must therefore be taxed is a bogus argument. 30908. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 2:43:46 PM Tabouli - Let's try this: why do you think that wealth should be shielded from taxation? 30909. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 2:52:23 PM Wealth being to some extent random, it creates risk before one knows one's actual position in society. If they could, people would pool their risk in the form of wealth insurance, just as they do for fires. But they can't, since life begins after much of this risk is resolved for individuals. A government is a commitment device to enforce the contract that would have been signed if possible to exchange wealth, which tax avoiders and complainers are simply trying to renege on, now that they know where they stand. 30910. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 2:52:47 PM AytchMan: I'd want to measure how happy and content the people are, so I guess my scoring would have to rely on polls to some extent, rather than just objective data like literacy rate. 30911. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 2:54:39 PM JJ- The definition of income is expansive under the tax code. "Unless otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)...." 26 USC section 61. 30912. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 2:55:05 PM If you rely on polls for the experiment, you have to ban migration between the experimental treatments and randomly assign them to treatments at the beginning. Otherwise, people will self-select into regimes they prefer, and knowing the results of the experiment will be used to determine future policy, over which they have preferences, they have an incentive to misreport their level of satisfaction. 30913. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 2:56:32 PM Biener, 30914. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 2:57:12 PM Biener, the liberal argument about taxation is based on envy no more than your conservative argument is based on greed. 30915. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 3:01:13 PM What is a "positive" fiscal trend? 30916. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 3:02:11 PM which has its merits, but inevitably breaks down at certain levels of wealth. 30917. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 3:13:31 PM 30918. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 3:20:13 PM DaveM: Regarding the immigration issue, I can certainly see an argument for a lesser society to restrain those who wish to emigrate from doing so because of the likelihood of draining the impoverished society even worse. But that doesn't appear to invalidate the notion that when such immigration occurs it indicates relative appeal of the two living conditions. The latter is what I think AytchMan wants us to devise a method of measuring. 30919. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:22:17 PM Jones - The definition of income is expansive under the tax code. "Unless otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)...." 26 USC section 61. 30920. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 3:23:28 PM Slackjaw: "Positive fiscal trend" was parenthetical to sustainability. That is, I think it's easy to see a trend isn't longterm sustainable if the tax base is eroding, for example. Or suppose you take over a society that has a lot of infrastructure in place but you never maintain it. 30921. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:28:18 PM Tabouli - Nobody has an absolute entitlement to whatever wealth they happen to come by. 30922. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 3:30:33 PM "How can we base tax policy on fairness when you and I will never agree on what is fair? I don't think an inheritance tax is fair. I don't believe a highly progressive tax is fair. " 30923. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:32:21 PM Slack - the liberal argument about taxation is based on envy no more than your conservative argument is based on greed. 30924. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:35:12 PM Rask - Welcome to the wonderful benefits of democracy 30925. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 3:36:33 PM Please cease this high minded rhetoric about rights. We all know the conservative argument is based on the notion that more income allows you to buy more stuff so relative to current levels wealthy people want to pay less of them. 30926. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 3:37:13 PM "current levels of TAXATION" 30927. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 3:39:03 PM Slackjaw: By consumption I mean consumption of limited (finite) resources. For example, only so much land exists. If I use some of it for one purpose, it can't be used for another, so a tax would be partly an offset against the opportunity cost. If one farmer produces 10 bushels per acre and another farmer produces 1 bushel per acre, income tax would tax the first farmer more, but a resource (land) tax would charge them equally. 30928. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:41:59 PM Slack - We all know the conservative argument is based on the notion that more income allows you to buy more stuff so relative to current levels wealthy people want to pay less of them. 30929. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 3:43:56 PM He is wrong? You are saying Conservatives are not motivated by a desire to keep more of their income? 30930. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 3:47:16 PM "Tabouli was trying to establish an actual justification other than mob rule. Unfortunately for him, that is all his argument can come down to." 30931. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:48:31 PM Rask - Two points. First, that is not the basis of the argument. It may be the motivation for the argument, but it is not the basis of it. Second, the desire to keep one's own property is not greed per the definition provided above. Greed is aquisitiveness which is the basis of the liberal argument. 30932. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 3:53:14 PM Rask - Ultimately in a democracy, it is the people through their representatives who decide taxation. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Trying to justify one taxation scheme over another on the basis of fairness is a fool's errand. Since there is no agreement on what constitutes fairness, claiming fairness as a justification for a particular scheme is dishonest. 30933. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 4:01:38 PM 30934. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 4:05:23 PM 30935. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 4:08:56 PM "Rask - Ultimately in a democracy, it is the people through their representatives who decide taxation. Fairness has nothing to do with it. Trying to justify one taxation scheme over another on the basis of fairness is a fool's errand. Since there is no agreement on what constitutes fairness, claiming fairness as a justification for a particular scheme is dishonest." 30936. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/14/2000 4:12:33 PM JJ- Why don't you move to Texas -- where there's moreopportunityand less taxation ...and "fairness." 30937. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:14:32 PM Tab - The problem is that tallness is a relative concept. A person is tall compared to others. If everyone in the world was 7 feet tall, Shaq wouln't stand out. 30938. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/14/2000 4:15:47 PM He Sees Dead People: Bush’s Lethal Travesties by Joe Conason 30939. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 4:19:58 PM 30940. Ronski - 6/14/2000 4:22:26 PM I'll go along with Conason's assessment that Bush has a problem with equality under the law, but from my view of the concept, and not that of most Americans, who, like Bush, continue to approve treating gay people as second-class citizens. 30941. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:23:14 PM Rask - This is pure sophistry. You do not have to unanimously agree on exactly what constitutes "fraud" "assault", or "rape" to pass laws against them. 30942. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:23:20 PM Indiana: 30943. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:26:16 PM Tab - But what is your definition of tall. 30944. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:28:49 PM Biener 30945. TabouliJones - 6/14/2000 4:29:19 PM What difference does it make? That isn't a response. 30946. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:30:29 PM And Biener, weren't you just on Spudboy's case for claiming to know true motivations in spite of public statements? Well, he deserves it, I agree, but you are doing the same thing. You think that while liberals have said their position is based on some ideas, in service of some ideas, motivated by some ideas, you nevertheless know what lies beneath. 30947. CalGal - 6/14/2000 4:31:36 PM Re: Krugman's piece. He regularly refers to the "super-rich" and says that Americans have no real concept of how rich they are. Fine. I can understand and accept that. 30948. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 4:33:12 PM "No we don't need to agree exactly. We can come up with approximate definitions for these words which can be agreed upon. But with "fairness" we can't even get an approximate definition." 30949. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 4:36:37 PM Cal: how does that cause his argument to fail? His point was that mostof the revenue from estate taxes come from the upper tail - he never said that 650k is the perfect level of taxation. 30950. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:39:40 PM Slack - The point is, the conservative argument rests on greed just as the liberal one used to rest on envy, and now rests on greed too. 30951. JayAckroyd - 6/14/2000 4:39:49 PM CG 30952. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 4:42:52 PM "It is not greed to want to keep your own property. It is greed to want property that belongs to others." 30953. JayAckroyd - 6/14/2000 4:43:35 PM It is greed to want property that belongs to others. 30954. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:43:50 PM Biener 30955. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:46:58 PM Slack - You think that while liberals have said their position is based on some ideas, in service of some ideas, motivated by some ideas, you nevertheless know what lies beneath. 30956. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:46:59 PM And furthermore, Biener, your standing definition of greed requires you to demonstrate "reprehensible." You cannot do that objectively to the level of satisfaction that you yourself demand. You can only say, "I, JJ, know this acquisitiveness to be reprehensible." Just as I, Slackjaw, see the slime trail of greed all over your stance on taxation. 30957. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 4:48:19 PM The ideas themselves say nothing about greed, envy, or anything reprehensible. That is what you, Biener, have seen in them beneath the surface or projected onto them. 30958. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 4:51:55 PM "Why piggy back taxes on top of them?" 30959. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:51:58 PM Rask - I think you confuse the ease of defining fair (equal distribution of a given amount of resources or assets) with the difficulties in weighing the tradeoff between fairness and prosperity. 30960. CalGal - 6/14/2000 4:58:02 PM Rask, 30961. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 4:58:02 PM Slack - The root word in acquisitiveness is acquire. In the conservative argument there is no attempt to acquire anything from anyone. That is not true of the liberal argument. The liberal argument tries to justify the taking one person's property to benefit another. In other words, its is based on acquisitiveness. If word "greed" is to be applied to either argument, it has to be applied to the one arguing for acquisition, the liberal argument. 30962. CalGal - 6/14/2000 4:59:47 PM Jay, 30963. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 4:59:48 PM "I don't think your definition is at all accurate. In fact I believe in many cases equal distribution is blatantly unfair." 30964. Ronski - 6/14/2000 5:00:16 PM Jay, 30965. jonesatlaw - 6/14/2000 5:00:26 PM Biener-If you don't undertand how the definition of gross income plays into the tax code, we don't have time or space here to teach you. Suffice it to say that unless it is defined out of gross income, or falls under the adjustments to income, or is excluded by the code, it is taxable income. 30966. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:04:04 PM "Well, no it's not. It is really a tax levied on the well-to-do and up. It's just that the bulk of the money comes from the very, very, very well off. Using that reasoning, why not eliminate the tax on the well-to-do and apply it only to the people that he thinks it should be applied to?" 30967. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 5:04:06 PM Indiana 30968. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 5:08:59 PM Biener 30969. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:09:17 PM Rask, 30970. Wombat - 6/14/2000 5:12:54 PM Ronski: 30971. Slackjaw - 6/14/2000 5:14:24 PM And furthermore, Biener, Message # 30961 says nothing about the reprehensibility of the liberal position on taxation, yet your definition requires it. Since I have repeatedly asked you about this key part of the definition and you have completely ignored it, I surmise that you acknowledge your failure and cannot admit it. 30972. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:15:02 PM Rask - ? My point is that any one person can disagree with your definition of absolutely *any* policy goal that you care to name. Again, try to define "what should be a crime". Or "justice"? Or "obscenity" in free speech issues? 30973. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:16:08 PM Cal: I just don't understand why you care. Once you start distinguishing between the rich (anyone with a net worth of more than a couple million in my book), super rich, filthy rich, and obscenely rich, I don't see a huge need to split hairs. 30974. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:19:27 PM "You and I can look at a situation and come to an agreement on if it should be a crime. We don't have to agree on a definition of crime to agree that armed robbery should be illegal." 30975. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:23:24 PM Jones - If you don't undertand how the definition of gross income plays into the tax code, we don't have time or space here to teach you. 30976. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:23:38 PM Rask, 30977. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:26:14 PM I keep forgetting that you live in the most expensive part of the country, and frequently assume that your experiences are typical elsewhere. OK, I agree that a net worth of $1 million isn't particularly wealthy in the Bay area, and a few other places in the country. 30978. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:26:15 PM I keep forgetting that you live in the most expensive part of the country, and frequently assume that your experiences are typical elsewhere. OK, I agree that a net worth of $1 million isn't particularly wealthy in the Bay area, and a few other places in the country. 30979. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:32:17 PM I keep forgetting that you live in the most expensive part of the country, and frequently assume that your experiences are typical elsewhere. OK, I agree that a net worth of $1 million isn't particularly wealthy in the Bay area, and a few other places in the country. 30980. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 5:33:18 PM Slackjaw: I've never heard of the Pigouvian tax, which sounds like what I'm talking about, so I'll have to read up on it. 30981. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:37:03 PM Boy, Slack, you are really dancing on this one. First you twist the definition of "acquisitiveness" beyond recognition, then you write this: 30982. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:37:13 PM "There are fewer people with net worths of 1 million dollars in other parts of the country. And there are more people living on less. But the fact that there are fewer people making $200K/year doesn't make them any richer in Podunk, Minnesota." 30983. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:38:20 PM "Trying to deprive someone of their property is reprehensible. Doing it under the guise of "fairness" makes it even more so." 30984. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:42:00 PM Rask - Sounds like you are back on the "taxation is theft" train. 30985. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:47:02 PM So you agree that taxing someone's property is not reprehensible? Or is it just reprehensible, but not theft? 30986. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:47:06 PM Sure it does. Money is just paper. Its value is in what it can buy you. If you live in an area with a lower cost of living, $200k can buy you more, and you are therefore richer. 30987. DaveM - 6/14/2000 5:47:33 PM Cal - 30988. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:49:09 PM Rask - You and I can just as easily look at a given outcome and agree whether or not is fair. 30989. DaveM - 6/14/2000 5:52:25 PM Cal - 30990. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:52:26 PM Housing is in itself usually the largest single budgetary expense, and it has a lot of spillover effects. Because of higher property costs, day care, restaurants and grocery stores end up costing more, and warehouse-sized discount stores like Walmart find it uneconomical to locate there, depriving residents of low-cost alternatives. Similarly, tight spaces restrict parking options, making it more expensive to commute. 30991. DaveM - 6/14/2000 5:53:53 PM JJ - 30992. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:55:51 PM Dave, 30993. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 5:56:36 PM Rask - So you agree that taxing someone's property is not reprehensible? Or is it just reprehensible, but not theft? 30994. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 5:56:41 PM DaveM: I addressed your last post to me from yesterday in #30918. 30995. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 5:57:23 PM "As deplorable as the situation may be, it is not inherently unfair. If the child is in that situation because his parents refuse to provide for the child, the result is fair. That doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to remove the child and provide him with a better life, but fairness isn't one of them." 30996. CalGal - 6/14/2000 5:59:48 PM Have you ever been to the midwest? Life is a lot cheaper there. 30997. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 6:00:13 PM DaveM - "Acquisitiveness" implies a desire to keep for one's own benefit/use. Redistribution is based on broader social concerns. 30998. Raskolnikov - 6/14/2000 6:00:48 PM "You missed the point. Taxation to pay the cost of government is a proper function. Using the government to deprive someone of their property is reprehensible. There are plenty of utilitarian and expedient ways to determine levels of taxation. The debate here is not utilitarianism or expediency. It is about a moral justification for confiscation." 30999. DaveM - 6/14/2000 6:01:05 PM Cal - 31000. DaveM - 6/14/2000 6:01:38 PM Gratuity 31001. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 6:02:31 PM DaveM - Armed robbery isn't a crime in any essential, non-tautological sense. 31002. CalGal - 6/14/2000 6:09:33 PM Housing is in itself usually the largest single budgetary expense, and it has a lot of spillover effects. .... 31003. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 6:09:59 PM Rask - As is the determination of whether something should be a crime. So what? 31004. DaveM - 6/14/2000 6:12:11 PM IJ - 31005. JJBiener - 6/14/2000 6:14:14 PM Rask - You make it sound like there is some clear-cut distinction between "the costs of government" and the sort of progressive taxation aimed at income maldistribution. 31006. CalGal - 6/14/2000 6:18:21 PM Dave, 31007. DaveM - 6/14/2000 6:19:15 PM JJ - 31008. DaveM - 6/14/2000 6:24:43 PM Cal - 31009. CalGal - 6/14/2000 6:32:21 PM Dave, 31010. Indiana Jones - 6/14/2000 6:36:23 PM DaveM: Done enough serious discussion for one day, but even if the supposition (that classrooms need academically advanced students to be educational at all) is true, that doesn't eliminate the case for school choice. First, at least three parties have an interest in the equation: the nonacademically advanced students (NAS), the advanced students (AS), and society as a whole. If the NAS need the AS to learn, it still leaves the question of whether the AS might be held back by the NAS and thus society as a whole suffer with an educational system that produces more somewhat educated students but no brilliant ones at all. 31011. AytchMan - 6/14/2000 7:30:59 PM Indy-- 31012. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 1:32:22 AM Message # 30981 31013. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 1:43:08 AM Indiana Message # 30980 31014. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 1:44:37 AM The para. above beginning with "If the latter..." is also Indiana's and should be italicized. My part starts with "The first option...". 31015. JayAckroyd - 6/15/2000 6:58:14 AM 30969- 31016. CalGal - 6/15/2000 9:09:53 AM Jay, 31017. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2000 9:49:50 AM Slackjaw: I suspect we are at loggerheads about what we are discussing. You are explaining economic theory, whereas the discussion that prompted my remarks was taxes as an instrument of social policy. 31018. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2000 9:49:58 AM (cont.) 31019. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2000 10:00:32 AM Sorry, but I can't resist this latest TT thread... 31020. rubberducky - 6/15/2000 11:54:37 AM 31021. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 12:05:00 PM Indy - Drooling moron or evil super-genius or both? 31022. Ronski - 6/15/2000 12:11:32 PM The Right's theories have been equally amusing. One is that Clintonistas stole the hard drives in order to provoke the Democrats' critics to come up with outlandish ideas as to what happened to the material that will make the Republicans look like kooks. 31023. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 12:25:15 PM Slackjaw - Sure Biener, I am guilty of all sorts of gyrations and funabulisms... 31024. Jack Vincennes - 6/15/2000 12:29:45 PM Tony Coehlo is stepping down from the Gore campaign for health reasons. 31025. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2000 12:32:57 PM Interesting news. I think Stone actually predicted this a couple of weeks ago, but it may have been someone else. 31026. jonesatlaw - 6/15/2000 12:37:45 PM JJ- I can't believe that you are this stupid You can't point to the definition for gross income because it depends on the word income which you haven't defined. 31027. jonesatlaw - 6/15/2000 12:38:48 PM JJ- I can't believe that you are this stupid You can't point to the definition for gross income because it depends on the word income which you haven't defined. 31028. jonesatlaw - 6/15/2000 12:39:47 PM JJ- I can't believe that you are this stupid You can't point to the definition for gross income because it depends on the word income which you haven't defined. 31029. Wombat - 6/15/2000 2:16:08 PM And do it three times! 31030. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 2:17:37 PM Biener 31031. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 2:29:57 PM Jones - I can't believe that you are this stupid 31032. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 2:46:29 PM Indiana 31033. Ronski - 6/15/2000 2:48:10 PM Speaking of gifts below a certain amount, those above a certain amount (10K) shouldn't be taxed either. 31034. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 2:49:37 PM Indiana (cont.) 31035. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 2:52:12 PM Slack - I challenge you to find one post where I attempted to switch one letter in the defintion. 31036. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 2:53:32 PM Ronski - Speaking of gifts below a certain amount, those above a certain amount (10K) shouldn't be taxed either. 31037. rubberducky - 6/15/2000 3:08:38 PM so, if my paycheck is a gift from my employer for showing up everyday, it shouldn't be taxed? 31038. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 3:09:55 PM Find a post? It is your entire argument. 31039. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 3:10:16 PM If a person were to redistribute wealth with .38 in a dark alley, there would be little disagreement that the act was represhensible. Performing the same act with a law instead of gun doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act. 31040. Indiana Jones - 6/15/2000 3:56:53 PM Slackjaw: 31041. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 5:27:38 PM Slacker - Then you should be able to find a post easily 31042. LadyChaos - 6/15/2000 5:34:26 PM 31043. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 6:25:26 PM Biener 31044. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 6:25:41 PM You have yet to demonstrate that he is not. 31045. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 6:30:50 PM Indiana 31046. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 6:40:01 PM Lady - The fact that the guy called his dog General Lee was a bad sign. That fact that he thought his dog was gay pretty much completed the picture. The man does not belong in jail. He belongs under heavy sedation in a hospital for the criminally insane. It sounds like someone took a Mixmaster to his grey matter. 31047. LadyChaos - 6/15/2000 6:45:06 PM 31048. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 7:02:51 PM Slacker - The substance of the argument you have been stumbling towards for two days is that it is the desire to change the tax code that makes them acquisitive and therefore greedy. In other words it is only the existance of the current code that makes them greedy. If there was no law and they argued for the same tax provisions, they would not be greedy. This is an utter crock. This is such a twisted, distorted view of things I am amazed anyone can seriously propose it. 31049. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 7:05:09 PM Lady - I am not sure even Trey Parker could come up with something that stupid. They say truth is stranger than fiction. I guess truth is even stranger than South Park. 31050. JayAckroyd - 6/15/2000 7:20:27 PM JJB-- 31051. JJBiener - 6/15/2000 7:41:45 PM Jones - You're not listening to Slackjaw. 31052. Slackjaw - 6/15/2000 8:33:12 PM Yes, that goddam selfish Mother Theresa. Always was interested in her own benefit. 31053. jonesatlaw - 6/15/2000 8:55:41 PM To all- I apologize for the multiple posts- I had a broser problem. 31054. concerned - 6/15/2000 9:43:57 PM Relating to the recent spate of NYC assaults on women, we have a Demoratic Sex Attack WH Rapist who is living proof that sexual predation is no barrier to career success, if you're a liberal at least. 31055. spudboy - 6/15/2000 10:06:56 PM Slackjaw: WRT Message # 30946: And Biener, weren't you just on Spudboy's case for claiming to know true motivations in spite of public statements? Well, he deserves it, I agree, but you are doing the same thing. 31056. concerned - 6/15/2000 10:47:48 PM Spastic bowels in gastroenteritis land: 31057. concerned - 6/15/2000 11:16:19 PM Can you say landslide? I knew you could. 31058. sakonige - 6/15/2000 11:25:00 PM 31059. sakonige - 6/15/2000 11:28:53 PM 31060. concerned - 6/15/2000 11:32:30 PM Re. 31056 - 31061. sakonige - 6/15/2000 11:39:47 PM 31062. sakonige - 6/15/2000 11:43:36 PM 31063. concerned - 6/15/2000 11:55:55 PM Re. 31062 - 31064. sakonige - 6/16/2000 12:04:36 AM 31065. Slackjaw - 6/16/2000 12:43:36 AM Yawn. 31066. DaveM - 6/16/2000 12:56:23 AM SlackJaw - 31067. robertjayb - 6/16/2000 1:10:45 AM . 31068. Slackjaw - 6/16/2000 4:00:21 AM Dave, you are looking way too big picture here. No need for a tract on my thoughts on interpreting words, written or otherwise. This is about implementation in a specific case, not overarching principles. But it's hackery because Spudboy is about as predictable as Biener, and supercilious because he thinks imperative mood verbs and hand-over-mouth surprise that I can't discern will help clear the clouds that keep his light from shining through. I feel like I'm reading a WCTU pamphlet. 31069. DaveM - 6/16/2000 4:13:53 AM SJ - 31070. Slackjaw - 6/16/2000 4:29:17 AM Pacific. It's true, my hours are strange, but isn't it 4:30 where you are? 31071. DaveM - 6/16/2000 4:31:17 AM Slackjaw - 31072. DaveM - 6/16/2000 4:37:03 AM Yeah it's 4:30. 31073. arkymalarky - 6/16/2000 6:19:34 AM I can't see how an application of someone's past politics which is well known and widely documented, including the man's own writings, to his recent attempts to appeal to mainstream voters and win a major election would be considered hackery. 31074. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2000 9:50:10 AM Slackjaw: 31075. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2000 10:06:29 AM jonesatlaw: I've been following your and JJ's discussion of inheritance tax with only half an eye since engaging Slackjaw, so I apologize in advance if the following remarks have already been covered. I also am neither a tax or estate attorney, so if I make any factual errors, please correct them. As far as inheritance being income, I can see a case for taxing them as such, but here are some defenses IMO against it: 31076. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2000 10:06:42 AM Under our current tax system, I certainly could see a capital gains-type tax on estates: Person A buys a house for $25,000 and dies leaving it to person B. B later sells the house for $100,000, at which time person B is faced with $75,000 in capital gains income. 31077. ycmeehan - 6/16/2000 10:32:52 AM RobertJ' 31078. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 10:55:38 AM Arky - I can't see how an application of someone's past politics which is well known and widely documented, including the man's own writings, to his recent attempts to appeal to mainstream voters and win a major election would be considered hackery. 31079. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 11:09:35 AM Jones - You mentioned transfers of wealth that are not taxable. Each of your examples either is not an actual gain of income- for example, loan principal(because it is accompanied by a increase of debt) or it is specifically exluded or exempted by the tax code. 31080. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 11:20:56 AM YC - No one in this God's world knows what the future value of cattle, corn, or soybeans, is going to be, therefore, touting (recommending the purchage of cattle futures) is not a crime. 31081. jonesatlaw - 6/16/2000 12:03:47 PM Not all of my examples can be dismissed by that argument. You want more examples? Insurance settlements. Judgement in a lawsuit in excess of actual damages. Transfer through common ownership (i.e. putting someone's name on an invetment account). Income from a hobby. 31082. jonesatlaw - 6/16/2000 12:05:59 PM I have demonstrated that no such rationale is necessary 31083. jonesatlaw - 6/16/2000 12:27:49 PM The bulk of an estate is frequently illiquid, meaning that treating it as income might pose a substantial hardship on the heir. The illiquid portion has already been purchased with presumably taxed dollars. As I mentioned to Bienner before, this may not be true. I grant that estates frequently have as their largest assets property which is not readily converted to cash. 31084. concerned - 6/16/2000 12:38:01 PM Re. 31064 - 31085. concerned - 6/16/2000 12:42:48 PM Yikes, typos in my last. Replace appropriate phrases with the following: 31086. Indiana Jones - 6/16/2000 12:49:03 PM jonesatlaw (31083): Aren't a lot of those measures, though, just to deal with what I mentioned earlier about human nature and water? That is, they are to avoid people using loopholes to get around paying taxes? 31087. ycmeehan - 6/16/2000 12:49:08 PM JJ, 31088. Ronski - 6/16/2000 12:50:59 PM The rationale (which has been mentioned here before, and which has been embraced in theory by people as liberal as Charlie Rangel) is that the wishes of someone who has labored to create a legacy to pass that legacy onto his heirs should be respected and should be treated differently from the windfall which comes, say, from a lottery. 31089. Wombat - 6/16/2000 1:08:32 PM Concerned: 31090. Cellar Door - 6/16/2000 1:09:25 PM Lefties typically place their naive trust in a fatally flawed but superficially attractive concept of the 'perfectibility of man'. 31091. Ronski - 6/16/2000 1:33:29 PM Wombat, 31092. Ronski - 6/16/2000 1:34:59 PM 31093. concerned - 6/16/2000 1:41:50 PM Re. 31089 - 31094. Wombat - 6/16/2000 1:45:29 PM Ronski: 31095. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 1:46:38 PM YC - You misunderstand the situation with Hillary and the Tysons. The Tysons are in the poultry business, not cattle. The accounts being traded were personal accounts, not corporate accounts. If this was a legitimate deal, he would have invested both Tyson's and Hillary's money on the same side of each trade and they both would have won or lost money accordingly. This isn't what happened. Hillary made money and Tyson lost money on the same trades. It happened far too often to merely be coincidence. It was done by taking both sides of the trade and funnelling the winning side into Hillary's account. 31096. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 1:49:18 PM Wombat - The fact that the Republicans are pushing it should give you a clue. 31097. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 1:51:41 PM Wombat - For what it is worth, I oppose the inheritance tax even though it will never affect me personally. 31098. Wombat - 6/16/2000 1:59:40 PM Concerned: 31099. Wombat - 6/16/2000 2:01:32 PM JJ: 31100. concerned - 6/16/2000 2:07:58 PM Re. 31090 - 31101. concerned - 6/16/2000 2:09:31 PM Re. 31098 - 31102. Wombat - 6/16/2000 2:12:40 PM Concerned: 31103. Ronski - 6/16/2000 2:12:45 PM Wombat, 31104. Wombat - 6/16/2000 2:21:20 PM Perhaps it is because there are also millions of Americans who either support the inheritance tax, or don't care. 31105. CalGal - 6/16/2000 2:27:52 PM Is there any polling data on this, out of curiousity? 31106. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/16/2000 2:47:13 PM This seemssooofitting for this thread... 31107. Cellar Door - 6/16/2000 3:02:29 PM Your fave, the WH Rapist, is a Southern Baptist. I'm an agnostic. 31108. concerned - 6/16/2000 3:13:24 PM Re. 31102 - 31109. ycmeehan - 6/16/2000 4:34:48 PM JJ, 31110. Ronski - 6/16/2000 4:39:47 PM ycmeehan, 31111. ycmeehan - 6/16/2000 5:02:04 PM Ronski, 31112. spudboy - 6/16/2000 5:14:58 PM Slackjaw: 31113. concerned - 6/16/2000 5:17:47 PM Spudboy - The Mote's Neo-Nazi Resource:) 31114. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 5:46:55 PM YC - I don't know the details on Lazio, so I won't comment one way or the other. If he knew there was going to be a takeover when he invested, then he is probably guilty of insider trading. Since the amount of money is small I have trouble believing a prosecutor would waste the time and resources on it. 31115. JJBiener - 6/16/2000 5:47:09 PM (cont) I don't know all the facts but when you buy something for around $2000 and sell it for $16,000 and you don't have any record of active trading as a regular . . . 31116. concerned - 6/16/2000 6:07:29 PM $14K? I made more than that in 2 months this year in NASDAQ tech stocks. Wanna investigate me for insider trading? Well, just bring it on. 31117. Cellar Door - 6/16/2000 7:09:06 PM You're being audited, connie. 31118. LadyChaos - 6/16/2000 11:05:15 PM 31119. Cellar Door - 6/17/2000 12:05:02 AM Very sad indeed. We've lost another invaluable voice, folks! 31120. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/17/2000 2:22:06 PM 31121. OhioSTOPAS - 6/17/2000 6:24:42 PM I see JJBiener's been embellishing the Hillary-Clinton-in-the-commodities-market story, with the biggest howler being the assertion that in the same period Hillary made her $100,000, "the Tysons" (Tyson Foods) lost money. (Message # 31080, Message # 31095, Message # 31114) This is not true, even if by "the Tysons" JJ means Jim Blair, the outside counsel to Tyson and personal friend of Hillary who introduced her to the commodities market. 31122. Cellar Door - 6/18/2000 9:44:03 AM AWOL Junkie Dubbya -- It's from the NY Post, folks so it MUST be true -- right J.J.? 31123. ycmeehan - 6/18/2000 11:14:58 AM OhioSTOPAS 31124. jexster - 6/18/2000 12:05:29 PM Californians Really, Really Like Clinton! 31125. jexster - 6/18/2000 12:22:18 PM Pentagon-appointed panel of experts call Missile Defense Plan "A Rush to Failure" 31126. LadyChaos - 6/18/2000 1:35:15 PM 31127. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/18/2000 4:06:55 PM LC- Do you think their choice for the next three or four Supreme Court Justices will be identical? Do you think their vetoes would be the same for a Dem. majority or Rep. majority in congress? Do you think their selections for running various government agencies would have no effect whatsoever to your region of the country -- pollution, urban sprawl, education, military spending, corporate welfare, privacy, gun control women's issues? Where would you like that break -- how about your kneecaps? 31128. LadyChaos - 6/18/2000 4:41:13 PM 31129. TheWizardofWhimsy - 6/18/2000 5:36:37 PM LC- I agree somewhat, but a third party vote won't do much either -- except maybe fuel the extremists. 31130. robertjayb - 6/18/2000 7:08:30 PM . 31131. JJBiener - 6/18/2000 11:54:22 PM Ohio - I see JJBiener's been embellishing the Hillary-Clinton-in-the-commodities-market story, 31132. JJBiener - 6/19/2000 12:05:42 AM YC - Apparently, the only defense the fellow travelers of the Republican right wish to mount in respect to Lazio is the amount involved 31133. concerned - 6/19/2000 3:58:01 AM Re. 31128 - 31134. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:00:18 AM Excerpted from the NYP, Bill 'Bastard' Daley jams his foot in his mouth: 31135. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:05:10 AM Bill Daley has a real job on his hands: trying to figure out who the real Pinocchio Bore is. Bore's most significant trait in this campaign so far has been periodically reinventing himself. 31136. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:06:13 AM ....closely followed by Bore's innate nastiness and divisiveness. 31137. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:13:18 AM Read this and weep, Lefties. This is what you voted for and what Pinocchio Bore represents more of. 31138. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:14:24 AM > 31139. concerned - 6/19/2000 4:15:15 AM >
I may have said you seek to destroy. I don't remember saying it, but it could be true. I never said you
You said that he was further responsible for failing to supervise his agent
A person is responsible for the actions taken on his behalf by his agent. Gore is responsible for the conditions of the buildings he owns and your trying to pass off responsibility to someone else is really pathetic.
What's even more pathetic is your effort to make this out to be a matter of any significance.
It is what it is. If it isn't significant why are you so desperate to dismiss it? Why are so passionate to absove him?
You dishonest, puling little smidge of smegma. I'm not "pulling bullshit." I'm giving you specific facts and cited material and letting you try to counter it with similar facts. All you've been able to come up with so far is an imaginary scenario wherein you manage to mind-read the motives behind what Clinton actually said -- claiming that in fact he meant precisely the opposite -- by referring to things his aides supposedly said, but which you can't cite. If anyone's pulling bullshit here, Bucky, it's that fellow in your mirror. You know, the person who "seldom provides substantive replies."
I provided transcripts from talk shows. You should be able to do the same. Cry me a fucking river if you have to work at it. I did too.
The angry Vice President called the tenant today to yell at her for the "leaks."
"I talked to Al Gore earlier and he really had me upset," Mayberry told WABC-TV radio talk host Sean Hannity. "He said that I was talking really bad about him and I haven't been. I just told the truth."
Yes, we do think along the same lines quite often. That's fine by me...hope you aren't worried!
Seriously, I got into some deep in-fighting over that show in TT today.
It is exactly what you are doing, you lying sack of water buffalo spit.
I'm giving you specific facts and cited material
That are completely irrelevant. I have never disputed that those people exist. The issue is whether Clinton was only referring to those people or if his statement was intended to accuse his opposition.
All you've been able to come up with so far is an imaginary scenario wherein you manage to mind-read the motives behind what Clinton actually said -- claiming that in fact he meant precisely the opposite -- by referring to things his aides supposedly said, but which you can't cite.
This is more of your bullshit. You are the one doing the mind reading tricks claiming he was referring to a small, specific group of people when he was using broad, non-specific language. Are you really claiming you don't remember the constant barrage from Carville, Begala, Davis as well as Clinton and Gore where they called Congressional Republicans and conservatives things like "right-wing extremists" and accused them of "promoting hate"? You really don't remember it? Where the fuck were you? Mars? I don't see how you could have missed unless you had your head up you ass that year. They were on every fucking show for over a year.
I provided transcripts from talk shows. You should be able to do the same
If you would read instead of being such a dickhead, you would have seen that I said I would do so in my last post to you.
Though I won't exactly be holding my breath.
Fuck you, too.
Was this call taped? I hope so.
What difference would it make? You would just claim it was a fake. You have shown that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. Why even bother. Whenever something damaging to your beliefs is brought up, we will just assume you don't believe it, so you don't even have to participate. Think of all the time that will free up for you.
Good. Your brain has been starved for oxygen far too often.
Better save your wit, such as it is, for your responses to Janjon. You need it.
Perhaps not outright anger. Pinocchio Bore's style is probably more Eddie Haskell with some Snidely Whiplash thrown in.
Bill Clinton, needless to say, is Dudley's horse.
Enter your predictions now:
1. Percentage of popular vote for Gore (of votes cast for either him or Bush)
2. Electoral votes for Gore
3. Democratic House members in the next Congress
4. Democratic Senators in the next Congress
Each answer above will receive as many points for that question as entries that made worse guesses. (So if you say Gore gets 52 percent of the popular vote, and he gets 53, you score 1 for each person who missed it by more than 1 point).
5. Single point question: Hillary or Lazio?
The deadline for entry is midnight Labor Day. Until then, you may enter as often as you like, but only your last entry will count.
In the event of a tie between two Motiers, the earlier entry wins.
Email your entries to IndianaJones@resourceful.com. Winner and prize announced when election results are final.
Drug Laws That Misfired
"For more than a quarter-century, New York has imposed some of the toughest, most rigid prison sentences on drug offenders. But there is now ample proof that these laws, enacted under Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, have not cut drug trafficking or addiction. Instead, their main effect has been to fill state prisons with thousands of low-level drug users at enormous public cost. Even some of the original sponsors of these laws have come to agree that it is time to find a better approach." (NYTimes)
Nah. The drug laws are not changed because politicians fear opponents will demogogue them on the issue.
As important as prisons have become to the upstate economy, the two are not related.
The political fallout is of course a potent reason as well. I thought we were close to having a "bipartisan" deal on all of this a couple of years ago, but that for whatever his reasons Pataki then pulled the plug.
I've never heard of any builders lobbying in favor of tough drug laws.
(a) The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp. 5-8.
Does anyone know when the GOP clowns have set hearings on Janet Reno's violation of Elian's "fundamental rights"?
Enter your predictions now:
1. Percentage of popular vote for Gore (of votes cast for either him or Bush) Gore 49 Bush 45
2. Electoral votes for Gore 300
3. Democratic House members in the next Congress 216
4. Democratic Senators in the next Congress 48
Each answer above will receive as many points for that question as entries that made worse guesses. (So if you say Gore gets 52 percent of the popular vote, and he gets 53, you score 1 for each person who missed it by more than 1 point).
5. Single point question: Hillary or Lazio? Charlemagne's consort
According to the WHO, the US, which spends more per capita on health care than any other country, is 27th in life expectancy. The lowest income brackets in the US have a life expectancy lower than that of West Africa in the 1950's. But the top income brackets in the US have the highest life expectancy of any nation.
So the next time you hear the Moron prattle on about health care remember "trickle down" economics (aka "voodoo econ 101") - trickle down = tinkled on
Begala
"hate sheet, full of lies." (referring to a five-page document by Republicans detail their objections to ClintonCare, Jan 1994)
"Republican's running for Congress represent the voices of hatred in our society." (Sept 1994)
Schumer
"Its best accomplishments were stopping the Republican extreme majority " (CNN, Sept 1996)
"Republicans have presented an extreme agenda." (Oct 1994)
Clinton
"But this week the Republican Congress voted to enact an extreme budget that violates our values" (1996 Radio Address)
"[Newt Gingrich is] dangerous and extreme" (Bill Clinton fundraising letter, written by the president mid-1995)
"There were a lot of angry voices who spoke out in this election." (Comments after the election, 1994)
Panetta
"[The Republican Party] basically takes the attitude that you have to harm children in order to save them," (Oct 24, 1995)
"Republicans had declared a contract on America and took over Congress with the intent to attack Medicare, Children, and the Environment. (1997)
Carville
"The Contract on America is a far right-wing agenda" (Jan 1995)
"The Republicans are trying to divide this country into rich and poor." (Jan 1995)
Not everyone holds an absolutist position like you do. Most people are able to understand that principles must be applied to the situation and on occasion exceptions must be made to serve other principles. I guess it is just more fun for you to make idiotic comments rather than apply a little thought to the situation.
I guess that makes you a Republican.
(They're ALL sleazy, manipulative bottoms, BTW)
Good work. However, it has some severe shortcomings.
Calling the other side of an issue "extremist" is hardly anything new. The GOP, after all, has made the word go virtually hand in glove with "environmental" for the past 10 years. And they have applied it liberally to anyone opposing them -- homosexuals, most notably. And don't forget that Bob Dole labeled Clinton an "extremist" in the 1996 campaign.
However, this is not what Clinton did in that speech. Read it again. The word "extremist" does not appear. Clinton refers to "abject hatred" and "bitter words" and "promoters of paranoia" and "loud and angry voices" -- "whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."
Only a single one of your examples -- Begala's "loud and angry voices" remark -- bears even the slightest resemblance to anything Clinton said later in that speech.
While both sides trade the typical charges of "extremism," no one in any of your examples accuses anyone, particularly not the administration's mainstream critics, of promoting paranoia or suggesting that violence is an acceptable solution. However, in the several examples I provided in Message # 30145-Message # 30148, the voices I cite there obviously do just that.
If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake. I never want to look into the faces of another set of family members like I saw yesterday -- and you can help to stop it.
I have to tell you that I am flummoxed that you or anyone from the mainstream could object to this. Unless you happen to have been one of those voices that promoted violence -- in which case, you should be on the defensive.
Well, I could go back through the post and provide supporting evidence for everything I said. David Duke, as most people who have studied him can tell you, has made a high art out of mainstreaming his radicalism. He can present himself and his agenda couched in such a way as to appear perfectly reasonable and mainstream. And if you track his words back to other writings and speeches where he is less vague and more overtly revolutionary, the actual intent becomes quite clear.
I find it hilarious, pathetic and more than a little disturbing that you, a Jewish man, refuse either to understand this or believe it. But let's just use one instance as a stark example.
Go back to the essay in question: 10 Policies David Duke Supports
This was the essay in which you noted that you had little objection to Duke's positions, until I began pointing out what he really means in them.
Go to No. 7: Stop Forced Integration!
Please explain to me how this position jibes with yours.
The Portrait of America Presidential Tracking Survey has been updated to include six Presidential candidates including George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips. Earlier surveys had simply asked about “some other candidate.”
This change in methodology had little impact on support for Democratic candidate Al Gore. However, it did lead to a modest increase in support for Republican candidate George W. Bush. It is possible that this reflects the fact that some people were still thinking of John McCain as a possible “other” candidate. When confronted with a list of candidates, these voters may have selected Bush.
Can you say "landslide"? I knew you could.
But, look at the bright side for Pinocchio Bore. 34% is pretty damned good for a slumlord.
Gee whiz, cllrdr. You're trying to say that the 91% of the press which voted for the WH Rapist is in the Republicans' pocket?
Sheesh.
Talk about self-referential statements. But divisive drivel like this is SOP for psychopathic personalities such as the WH Rapist.
I just noticed that JJ made this same point. Cllrdr certainly left himself wide open for it, though.
Your bullshit get's so tiresome. That is never what I said and you know it. My objections have been well established. The only comment I made about the Duke Top Ten list is that he was promoting mainstream ideas in an attempt to gain some respectability. Obviously that didn't work and he has returned to his old tricks, but for a time he was trying to pass himself off as a conservative/populist.
You were in your "He says this, but he really means that" mode. To which I respond, "Who the fuck cares?" It is David Duke. The man is a lizard. I don't give a flying fuck what he says.
His support for an issue is irrelevant to the worthiness of issue. His support for campaign finance reform and opposition to affirmative action says nothing about either issue. It doesn't matter what he really believes about either one. In other words your little attempts to discredit my positions by claiming they are the same as a racist's are nothing but bullshit. By that criteria, Gore's position on Campaign Finance is the same as Duke's so it must be discredited as well. Funny that you never make that comparison.
I find it hilarious, pathetic and more than a little disturbing that you, a Jewish man, refuse either to understand this or believe it.
I find it unbelievable that a mainstream news organization would hire such a twisted, lying, little fuck like you. You know the truth because we have discussed it on numerous occasions, and you can still post crap like this.
I am glad you are a Democrat. You deserve each other.
Pinocchio Bore has a 'position' on campaign finance reform? It looks from here that, in practice, any position he has has always amounted to grabbing all the cash, legal and illegal, that he can. What a hypocrite.
Love your "statistics," Connie. Where'd you get 'em from -- Brit Hume?
Tell me now -- should we even bother having an election? It's all so tiresome. Why don;t we just skip the whole thing and have Dubbya declared Emperor for Life?
After all, isn;t that what's supposed to happen?
"(They're ALL sleazy, manipulative bottoms, BTW)"
were i still a republican, i'd have to disagree.
somewhat.
i was never that manipulative ;)
are able to understand that principles must be applied to the situation and on occasion exceptions must be made to serve other principles. I guess it is just more fun for you to make idiotic comments rather than apply a little thought to the situation."
Yeah, I get it -- the principle of hating communism and sticking it to Castro is more important than a father's right to his son. Real rational, JJ. Speaking of making "idiotic comments instead of applying a little thought to the situation", I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
A simple hypothetical model
John and Rob's view on National Health Care (NHC)
John - doesn't believe in NHC because his view is that in light of how they've handled things like Social Security. John feels that the overhead renders SS one of the absolute poorest investments a person can make, but does not even have the option. He does not have confidence that NHC could be provided in such a way that it would be able to provide what proponents promiss.
Rob - doesn't believe in NHC because poor people are mostly black and minorities who don't deserve to even be in this country.
Does Rob's belief make John's viewpoint racist, or his reasoning invalid?
Does the fact that a racist supports some policy (for whatever whacked out reason) automatically make that policy stand undesirable?
I think you'd get yourself in a lot of trouble telling John his view on NHC meant he supported a racist belief.
If that was the principle at work, you would be right. But you know as well as I do that is not the principle involved. The principle is whether a father's right to his son allows him to sacrifice his son's freedom.
Speaking of making "idiotic comments instead of applying a little thought to the situation", I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
Why don't you address the arguments being made instead of setting up strawmen?
Of course it doesn't, but that doesn't stop Spud from making that implication. It is just another aspect of the guily-by-association game he likes to play.
The republican party should have disowned Duke. He was too fringe
The GOP has disowned him. The party actively campaigned against him when he ran for Governor even though his opponent (a Democrat, natch) was a criminal. The last I heard, Duke doesn't even claim to be a Republican any more. He has moved his support to the Reform Party. Of course someone like Spud would never let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.
Several times a year I get the standard mailing from the NRA asking me to join and send them money. While I support the right of individuals to own guns, I choose not to. As such I see no reason for me to support the NRA financially.
Yesterday, I received a mailing from them that was a bit different. It was an application for an NRA Mastercard. It was the best laugh I've had in weeks. I figured it gave new meaning to "Don't leave home without it." I started coming up with promotional and marketing gimmicks.
"NRA Mastercard. Accepted by more illegal arms merchants worldwide."
".45 caliber handgun with extra clips and ammunition: $479
Semi-automatic rifle with conversion kit for full automatic: $1750
10 lbs C4 explosives with detonators: $8375
Being heavily armed when the revolution comes: Priceless"
"Every transaction earns points toward the purchase of weapons of mass destruction. Items capable of delivering deadly force earn double points."
"Trying to buy illegal weapons in the Middle East? Better take your NRA Mastercard. Because Ossama Bin Laden doesn't suffer fools lightly, and he doesn't take American Express."
My argument is that that the Republicans who are still making a cause out of this are being inconsistant with their other espoused beliefs w/respect to the importance of family. You say that there's an exception when a principle is at stake. I don't think that the "principle" you describe amounts to much more than the hysteria of an angry mob of Cuban expatriots willing to tear a child from his father in order to score points against Castro.
Resonable people can disagree reasonably. But if you wish to conduct debate in the terms you seem to prefer these days -- every response is a knee-jerk attempt to blame the evils of the world on Democrats in as insulting language as you think others will tolerate -- I'd just as soon not participate.
That's not theprinciple at issue here. It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ. The real issue is a father's right to do what HE believes is best for his son. It's youreither/ormind set at work again. The boy may very well be better off with his father, in poverty and restrictive realities, if genuine love and a paternal bonds are shared. And who is to know what harm may come from a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists? You certainly can't say!
I don't believe Cuba is evil. It is a repressive totalitarian regime. There is a difference.
Eighty percent of the population doesn't agree that ideology is more important than paternity.
First I don't base my beliefs on what is popular. Second, this isn't about ideology. It is about freedom vs slavery.
My argument is that that the Republicans who are still making a cause out of this are being inconsistant with their other espoused beliefs w/respect to the importance of family.
Then you don't understand Republican's beliefs. In most cases keeping the family together is in the best interests of the child. Sometimes it is not. Republicans do not advocate keeping a family together when it is harmful to the child.
I don't think that the "principle" you describe amounts to much more than the hysteria of an angry mob of Cuban expatriots willing to tear a child from his father in order to score points against Castro.
Resonable people can disagree reasonably.
Can you see the irony of having these statements in the same post? How can you claim to be reasonable when you use language like this and simply dismiss their position?
But if you wish to conduct debate in the terms you seem to prefer these days -- every response is a knee-jerk attempt to blame the evils of the world on Democrats in as insulting language as you think others will tolerate -- I'd just as soon not participate.
I haven't blamed Democrats for conditions in Cuba. I do blame them for wanting to subject an innocent child to those conditions. As far as being insulting, I am not going to be insulted and not respond in kind. If you don't want to be insulted, don't engage in insults.
Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba?
The real issue is a father's right to do what HE believes is best for his son.
If a father believes it is best for his son to be beaten with a hose to teach him a lesson, we certainly wouldn't stand for that.
The boy may very well be better off with his father, in poverty and restrictive realities, if genuine love and a paternal bonds are shared.
Obviously, I place a much higher value on freedom than you do. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. However, using language like:
And who is to know what harm may come from a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists?
Doesn't help your case and it contradicts any claim you may make of being reasonable.
You say you are not going to be insulted and not respond in kind...why not? Isn't that the sign of the better person? To take what is heaped on you and not stoop to that level? Don't the people who refuse to be drawn into slinging mud come off looking much better than the ones who do?
The Miami-Cubans are filled with extreme hatred for Castro and my description of them was in no way unreasonble -- just galling to your zeal.
Okey dokey JJ, please ignore me from here on out and I'll do you the favor of scrolling past your posts as well.
I don't care if the NRA has a Mastercard. So long as I don't have to have one, that's fine. Wonder if people would like it if the KKK got their own card? That would be interesting.
If a thief steals an NRA credit card and runs up a big bill, at least he knows up front that the owner is armed and angry...
are you actually comparing the KKK with the NRA?
jesus, that's sad.
Which point did I avoid?
When you address my point directly, without evasive questions or fictitious rumors about "hoses."
The questions were not evasive, they respond to the substance of your post. From the original post:
It's YOUR opinion that he would be sacrificing the child's freedom because of what YOU believe, JJ.
Unless I am misreading your post, you are claiming that the lack of freedom in Cuba is only my opinion. To which I inquired about your beliefs. Do you believe there is freedom in Cuba?
The comment about hoses was a hypothetical, not a rumor.
The Miami-Cubans are filled with extreme hatred for Castro and my description of them was in no way unreasonble -- just galling to your zeal.
Were blacks justified in hating their slaveowners? Hatred of Castro by those he once enslaved is a completely reasonable response. However refering to them as "a rapacious culture of vindictive Castro-hating extremists" is not. Would you have referred to Blacks in America in the 50's and 60's in similar terms?
The position of Republicans is not inconsistent. You just fail to understand it. The Republicans believe that the best interests of the child prevail. They believe that most times preserving the family is in the child's best interests. They do not believe family must be preserved against the interests of the child. This is hardly inconsistent. It is your characterization their position as "family at all costs" is the one that is in error.
The insulting of Cubans in Miami while calling for a reasonable discussion was too priceless to pass up. Apparently you don't feel constrained to follow your own advice.
Do I find either of these personally insulting? No. But I do recognize this statement from an earlier post of your as an attempt at a personal insult:
I think you might try to build an argument instead of foaming.
Granted it is a rather weak and ineffectual insult, but I think it still qualifies nonetheless. If you don't like receiving them, don't make them. Or at least make them good enough so we can laugh at them.
I have no illusions whatsoever about Castro -- especially after reading Reinaldo Areinas' "The Doorman" and "Before Night Falls." But that doesn't translate itself into support for the scummy publisexuals in Miami -- or any of the inane posturing done on the matter by, among many others, Al Gore. And don't get me started on the certifiable Peggy Noonan.
Elian will go home to a trouble-free existence. he's a prime propaganda tool for Castro. And the best way to make such a tool work to your best advantage is to leave him be. Had the Miami mafia not gone into hysterics with visions of the Virgin and the like, and instant demos for the evening news, this whole circus might not have happened.
NO, I wasn't comparing the NRA to the KKK. How old are you?
I meant that while some people might not mind the NRA having a card, they might mind some other group that sparks heated debate having a card. Not too long ago, the KKK wanted permission to Adopt A Highway and there was all sorts of debate over it. There might be the same thing if they wanted to sponsor a credit card.
BINGO -- you ARE misreading the post and overlooking my meaning to suit your intransigence.
I'm not saying anything of the sort regarding the lack of freedom in Cuba --try to focus on the father's love and his desire to have his son with him; then you may see MY point and how it must trump any other "principle."
Were blacks justified in hating their slaveowners?
[This kind of thought is what compels me to label the right as fear and hate based dogmatists.]
There is no justification for hate whatsoever -- it destroys the hater as much as the hated. Your hypotheticals aren't very compelling. Lots of slaves still managed to love and share that love while being oppressed for centuries now.
You can be exasperating, JJ. I understand better why people give up debating you -- it's like Charlie Brown hoping Lucy will abandon her basic nature and allow him to kick the football. I keep thinking you'll awaken and realize that if your only tool is a hammer -- every problem will look like a nail!
"1 dozen torches: $3.75
2 cases of Pabst Blue Ribbon in cans: $8.00
White sheet and hood: $9.50
Burning a cross with your son, your nephew and your grandson, and they are all the same person: Priceless."
Of course they were justified.
But that doesn't translate itself into support for the scummy publisexuals in Miami -- or any of the inane posturing done on the matter by, among many others, Al Gore.
The validity of an argument is not dependent on those make it. Opposing a position because you don't like the person who advocates it is silly.
Elian will go home to a trouble-free existence. he's a prime propaganda tool for Castro.
I wish I could be as sure as you. He is only a propaganda tool if he spouts the party line. If he has other opinions, he will be in great danger.
Thefearpart of the rightist motivational coefficient!
"NO, I wasn't comparing the NRA to the KKK. How old are you?"
old enough.
"I meant that while some people might not mind the NRA having a card, they might mind some other group that sparks heated debate having a card. Not too long ago, the KKK wanted permission to Adopt A Highway and there was all sorts of debate over it. There might be the same thing if they wanted to sponsor a credit card."
right. and, somehow, you're not relating the 2 organizations to the same level. riiiiight.
Furthermore, as a matter of international relations, one country should not be able to take a child away from his foreigner parent on the grounds that it is a superior country to the foreign country, even if true.
Yes, of course, the United States is better than Cuba. In fact, because of U.S. freedom and prosperity, a child would likely have a better life in the United States without his father than in Cuba with his father. But I don't think any country, even the United States, should be making that decision.
The problem is that IRL it doesn't trump all other principles. The best interests of the child trumps the love of the parents. You didn't like the hose hypothetical, here is another one. A father's religious beliefs prevent him from seeking medical help for his son. If the son's life is in danger, the government can and does step in. The father's love for his son does not allow him to act outside of the child's best interest.
[This kind of thought is what compels me to label the right as fear and hate based dogmatists.]
And as usual you would be wrong.
There is no justification for hate whatsoever -- it destroys the hater as much as the hated.
Simple platitudes are no substitute for real thought.
You can be exasperating, JJ.
Thank you.
I keep thinking you'll awaken and realize that if your only tool is a hammer -- every problem will look like a nail!
When people have their opinions encased in granite, sometimes a hammer is the only way to reach them. The right tool for the right job.
In the case in point, PP, it's not a government official making the determination, but a street mob. But I'm guessing that the gubmint should then sanction the view of whichever mob howls the loudest.
My family is the product of government interference. My daughter came to us because she was the victim of abuse by her biological family, so we adopted her. The boy we are in the process of adopting was in the same situation. The parents love of these children did not and does not trump their best interest.
You may not think taking a child into effective slavery is on a par with abuse, but I do.
i guess i just don't understand how the absence of some very basic human rights is "slavery".
i think you're using the word for sole shock value.
What do you think happens to political dissidents in Cuba? Do you think they are given columns in the state-run newspaper or allowed to broadcast editorials on state-run television and radio? I hate to shatter your illusions, but they are provided with small, but uncomfortable, accomodations in the state-run prison system. This isn't fear, it is fact.
Message # 30412
Believe what you wish. I feel safe in knowing others didn't jump to the same conclusion as you did...
The reasons are not ideological. They are based on the best interests of the child.
Many have died as a result of that kind of grotesque logic, JJ.
For centuries, people would be put to death "for their own good" by others who were arrogant and imbecilic enough to fearfully cling to their dogmatic "principles."
A lack of freedom is slavery. Being owned by the government (or anyone else) is slavery.
People have died from the use of figurative hammers? I never realized someone could be talked to death, although I did have a girlfriend who tried.
What protection do Cubans against the tyranny of their government? It is not tyranny for a government to protect children from their parents or from the tyranny of another government.
"Believe what you wish. I feel safe in knowing others didn't jump to the same conclusion as you did..."
well, i'm not gonna conduct a survey. but, i will point out that not saying (posting) anything hardly proves the point.
Re: Message # 30428, JJBiener.
"A lack of freedom is slavery. Being owned by the government (or anyone else) is slavery."
um, have you heard Fidel refer to his people as property? if not, then they are merely subject to an unjust government, not slavery.
toys
Not hardly. I am not advocating that the government tell the child where to live, what to read, what to study, what job to hold, who to marry, who to befriend, what to say, what to write or what to do. All I am advocating is protecting the child from being subject to a totalitarian regime that would tell him all those things.
the child where to live"...huh?
Did you miss something? I am advocating that the child be allowed to remain here, not forced to remain here. I don't want either the government or his father to force his return to Cuba.
Also, it was his mother's wish that he be in this country and I think that deserves as much consideration as his father's wish to remove him to Cuba.
I my lifetime, our government has told little brown boys like Elian precisely these things. He could not have married freely, lived in certain areas, belong to certain political parties, wrote in favor of certain political ideas, or held certain positions or professions.
The legal barriers to these things are removed, but many still remain socially. I do not mean to equate what freedoms Cubans have with ours, but we should remember how recent many of them are for some Americans and how tenuous a hold we have on them.
don't want either the government or his father to force his
return to Cuba."....near as I can determine, then, Elianand/ or the Miami Mob is in charge, ahead of the father. This is thus the issue. Watch out, my good man, they be coming for you next.
It is that tenuous hold that leads some people to heed Washington's call to be vigilant in the protection of those freedoms even against our own government if necessary.
basically the kid can't win...
You will believe anything, won't you.
In the Elian case, the GOP has abandoned all of those principals in favor of anti-Castro rhetoric. The Demos have gone the other way. Elian is here as long as he is because and only because we are in an election cycle.
Most people do believe that story but JJ would rather take the word of Rosettas dolphins who heard the mothers last words: "Save my son! Take him to freedom!"
Several major news organizations reported that the President raped Juanita Broaddrick and sexually assaulted Kathleen Willey. Do you believe it?
Do most people believe it? To me the story doesn't pass the smell test. I have troubling believing that a woman would risk her own life and the life of her son just because she was shtupping the guy organizing the trip. In my experience women don't risk life and limb for a little nookie. I have to believe there was more at stake. Historically, freedom is one of the few things for which people will willingly take that risk. So when faced with a choice of what to believe, I take the most reasonable.
damn refresh button
There is a woman living right across the street from me who chose a no good, lazy, bum of a man over her twin daughters. And in the past, I have seem many instances of women behaving this way. It is not a unique situation at all though admittedly, one of which you may be blissfuly unaware.
......nah. Too easy.
(G)
Apart from the obvious cracks, this is factually inaccurate. Women are far more likely to risk life and limb for some guy than the other way round, especially the flighty bimbo sort.
Get outta my head, willya? That's four times in less than 24 hours. People are gonna start thinking we're the same person.
..speaking of being "blissfully unaware" ... 
Hm. But you haven't met Cal, have you?
She did not risk the lives of either herself or them, however.
Yes, she did. She risked the welfare of her children by abandoning them, and she risked her own life by living with a guy who would hurt her.
Deev,
Well, you're nicer than I am. But we do quite often think alike.
Since we can never know for sure how many die seeking freedom or how many die seeking to follow their boyfriend, we'll never be able to answer your question.
I will say this: whether seeking freedom or not, many women die or at least put their lives on the line every day for following or staying with their boyfriends.
I believe Elians mother came to this country in order to follow her boyfriend, not because of nookie as you so elegantly put it but because she loved him. According to her FAMILY, she was head over heels in love with the guy and he had told her it was over unless she came with him.
That book title could just as easily said "...a rush". It's too funny, either way!
what am i? clopped liver?
And WTF is clopped liver?
Surprisingly, we do. Just goes to show you. 
(clears throat)
"Well, Cal, you can sometimes approach nice. On the left, when it's not paying attention and the requirements aren't as onerous."
Actually, I think you're just swell.
GW doesn't expect us peons to get it, anyhow...if he doesn't, we can't either!
Horse = clopped liver was good!
PP- I like the "Bienered" piece. Would one of you wordsmiths out there give us a formal definition of the verb: "to be Bienered?"
Beaten to death with a clue obvious only to the beater.
to be clopped off mid-Beiner?
Meeting friends later for dinner, so that ought to cheer me up.
Why didn't you write your Congressman or Senator for tickets?
Used in a sentence:
"I was just complaining about the weather when I was Bienered that only idiots pretend that bad weather is not the fault of Democrats generally and Bill Clinton specifically.
This can be differentiated from being "TomD'd" in that the above sentence would substitute either "clowntoon" or "the White House Rapist" for "Bill Clinton". Otherwise they are synonyms.
I think you're confusing the Capitol with la casa blanca. 
2. To be led from the darkness into the light.
3. to gain valuable insight
Nope, your Congressman has an allotment of tickets for a "special" white house tour avaiable to his constitutents who request them. What's special is that you don't have to wait in line -- the tour is the same.
No, I'm not. You can write your rep for tickets to a guided White House tour. You have a specific time, you don't wait on line, and you see areas that the non-ticketed public doesn't see. In addition, your rep can arrange a personally guided tour of the Capitol. It's great fun.
All of which I could have told you had you TOLD ME YOU WERE COMING TO DC! DAN!
They must have expanded it since you've been here. We saw all kinds of cool stuff in areas where the ravening, unwashed hordes were not led.
Tney must have. I got tickets back in the 80's when the Germans were visiting and the tour DanD described is what we got.
They used to have a white house X-mas tea to which the capitol hill staffers were invited back when I worked there, but I never went. I heard that you got the deluxe tour on that occasion to take in the decorations.
i always assumed he was someone's multiple.
No they did not. Allegations were made and those were reported, along with any evidence or lack thereof regarding whether the allegations could have been true. This is a fact about the boyfriend and the mother's destination. It was the boyfriend's boat. No wonder you have difficulty determining factual information.
As far as whether the allegations are true, I have no idea. Not enough evidence was presented to prove or disprove them.
not under the same moniker, as far as i know.
but, again, i doubt he was "real"
And allegations were made about the motives of Elian's mother with no evidence to support them.
This is a fact about the boyfriend and the mother's destination. It was the boyfriend's boat.
Speculation about the mother's motivation is not a fact. It is only an accusation from some family member in Cuba with no evidence to back it up.
No wonder you have difficulty determining factual information.
I have trouble? Aren't you the one who claimed:
His mother was chasing a criminal boyfriend of hers.
You accept some comment from a relative as proof of her motivation for coming to the US, but you don't accept the word of a victim who has a corroborating witness and additional evidence when Clinton is the one who stands accused. You are the one with the problem. You have two sets of criteria depending on whether you want to believe the accusations or not.
Nope. The boyfriend's criminal record is a matter of fact and it being his boat is a matter of fact and that she was going to live with him is a matter of fact. These are outside comments from relatives. They are objective facts.
BTW, It is far more valuable to have a stable home environment regardless of the government. I'd rather have a loving father and live in Cuba than a criminal live-in boyfriend of my mother's as a replacement in America.
So naturally you conclude that the only reason she was coming to the US was to "chase her criminal boyfriend". Munero's "criminal" record stems from the fact that he was arrested by Castro's government after returning from the US in 1998 and from dissident activities. The claim that he was a criminal came from Castro himself. Somehow I don't see him as an unbiased source.
You are still left with only a statement by a Cuban relative as to Elisabet's motive. A statement that is contradicted by man named Fernandez who was in the boat with her. Her request to have Elian live in the US was not witnessed by dolphins as some have claimed, but by the other two survivors of the trip.
It is far more valuable to have a stable home environment regardless of the government.
That is a nice sentiment, but considering you have never lived under a repressive regime, it is not very useful. I have friends and relatives who were born under repressive conditions, and they dispute your claim.
So? I know people who were born under repressive conditions too. Some within their own homes. Are you saying the people you know went from repressive governments to unstable home environments and preferred the latter? Because if not, your personal anecdotes have even less relevance than they normally would.
And the guy was no dissident and his crimes were not of that nature. That was also a fact reported in the major news media.
Find me a cite. I found precious little regarding his "criminal" background. All I could find indicated his problems with the law were more political than criminal. If you have another source, please provide it.
Are you saying the people you know went from repressive governments to unstable home environments and preferred the latter?
I am saying that they risked physical harm, deprivation and death to escape from a repressive government. Yet they lived for decades in a dysfunctional and unstable home environment. Your contention that a warm, loving home environment can make up for repression is absurd. A home environment that is not based on security can never have the characteristics you claim. In repressive regimes like in Cuba, or in Eastern Europe two generations ago, a secure home is not a possibility.
As for the info I believe it was ABC News, which is what I usually watch. I'll look for a cite later and post it if I find one.
You act like a government has no effect on the lives of its citizens. A child may not know what form of government he lives under, but he will feel the effects of repression regardless.
I interviewed a young woman from Vietnam recently for a job opening. She is the daughter of a dissident. Her father spent most of her childhood in prison for speaking out against the communist government. Her family was forced to live in extreme povery. She lived in constant fear that the police would break down the door and take her parents of herself away and put them in prison. When she graduated from high school, she was not allowed to go to college or receive any kind of job training. Her only option was a life of hard physical labor. Her status wasn't even for a crime she committed, but because her father had spoken out. Whether she understood the type of government she lived under or not, she certainly felt the effects.
"You act like a government has no effect on the lives of its citizens."
No, not at all. Our own government causes some effects on me that I don't like. Once again you're not accounting for degree and circumstance.
BTW, I'm looking for that info and so far can't find squat. If I find it somewhere I'll post it, but it was on TV, not in a newspaper or on line. I can't find it at the ABC News site.
I'm outta here, though. See y'all later.
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were key players in a 1996 Democratic fund-raising scheme designed to "raise money by whatever means and from whomever would give it, without meaningful attention to the lawfulness of the contributions."
That is one of the conclusions of a previously unreleased 94-page report by Charles G. LaBella, former chief of the Justice Department's campaign finance task force, who recommended in July 1998 that Attorney General Janet Reno seek an independent counsel to probe fund-raising abuses.
"The intentional conduct and the willful ignorance uncovered by our investigations . . . resulted in a situation where abuse was rampant, and indeed the norm," Mr. LaBella, a career prosecutor, said. "At some point, the campaign was so corrupted by bloated fundraising and questionable contributions that the system became a caricature of itself."
The report, which Justice refused over the past two years to release despite Senate and House subpoenas, was made public yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee.
The committee also released a November 1997 memo by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, describing Mr. Gore as an "active participant" in questionable fund-raising efforts and calling on the attorney general to seek the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate campaign finance abuses by the vice president.
"The evidence tends to show that the vice president was an active participant in the core group fundraising efforts, that he was informed about the distinctions between 'hard' and 'soft' money, and that he generally understood there were legal restrictions against making telephone solicitations from federal property," Mr. Freeh said.
Pinocchio Bore's a crook, as in felon, people.
yow
In my opinion, people who support "private property" for ontological reasons are simply rationalizing either their wealth or their efforts to achieve it. A lot of the time someone will get lucky in the lottery of life and, for obvious reasons, they will think that they earned it. The notion that people have an inherent right to a particular "bundle of regulations" controlling inter-personal interactions really just strikes me as ridiculous. This ideologicval construct might be necessary to ensure social stability, but it really is nothing more than a particular ideology (and all too often an extremely self serving one at that).
There do seem to be empirically sound instrumental reasons for having private property. Regimes that don't recognize private property are simply less efficient, not unfree, oppressive, or "slave states."
This is in addition to the earlier Zogby Poll, which pretty much said the same thing.
"In the upstate region, where Clinton has become a fixture over the past year, she pulled to within six points of Giuliani in the region, 39 to his 45...The latest poll shows Lazio doing even better upstate than Giuliani, getting 49 percent to her 38 percent."
There are also different degrees of freedom and differing degrees of importance that we attach to them. Per Maslow's hierarchy of needs, freedom from hunger, exposure, and disease probably rate higher than freedom to criticize whatever government is in place. According to Maslow, you don't really get around to the abstract stuff until the concrete is pretty well secured.
That is Ann Coulter, she of the bandaid-length skirts and head of extremely dry, dead, processed blonde hair. She looks like an underfed horse and makes much less sense.
I wasn't comparing their situations. I posted that to contradict your claim that children don't care what type of government they live under.
You're putting all dissidents and all non-democratic governments in the same circumstances, and that's simply not true.
No, I am drawing on an occurance in one totalitarian regime to indicate what might happen in a similar regime.
There's no indication that Mr. Gonzalez is anything but comfortable and satisfied in Cuba.
That may be true. It is hard to tell considering the Cuban government does not allow free access to information about their country. Also there is no guarantee that their current circumstances (whatever they are) would continue once the spotlight was turned off.
I guess we'll have to wait for the next Zogby poll to learn the truth.
This is the first paragraph from the piece you refer to.
Cuban officials insist that Elian Gonzalez's mother undertook her fatal journey to the United States under threat from a brutal boyfriend with a long criminal record.
If we assume that what the Cuban officials say is true, then it doesn't support your claim that Elisabet came here chasing her boyfriend. They say that she was forced. If we assume that their statement if false, then the mother came willingly, but the boyfriend's criminal record is in doubt.
What you are trying to do is only take those pieces which support your interpretation and ignore anything which contradicts it. You can't pick and choose, then claim your position is based on "the facts."
IMO, anything the Cuban officials say is suspect. They are fighting a PR battle for high stakes. They know that the image of a woman dying while trying get her son to freedom is very compelling and damaging to their cause. Their only possible recourse is to try to shape public opinion. They do it by claiming she was forced to go. You do the same thing by claiming she was just following her boyfriend.
The two other survivors contradict the story by the Cuban officials and the claims that you make. They both describe Elisabet's statements about wanting her son to make it to the US to be free. Out of all the participants in this event, they have the least reason to lie.
Not really. We don't need laws and border guards to keep people in. We have them to keep people out.
If you consider the consequences they would suffer if they contradicted the government's position, it is not hard to figure their motive for lying. At the very least it would call their statements into question.
"Not really. We don't need laws and border guards to keep people in. We have them to keep people out."
unless, of course, the person in question is a cute 6 year old child and it would be politically more expedient (meaning keeping a very vocal minority happy) to keep said child here ....
"No, I am drawing on an occurance in one totalitarian regime to indicate what might happen in a similar regime."
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion on Elian. He might have drowned. Would that have been better than living with his father? The microthread you're trying to use doesn't attach from one story to another. And as far as my remarks about children, they know if they're suffering, but they don't know about forms of government. I never said a dictatorship couldn't affect children and families.
"What you are trying to do is only take those pieces which support your interpretation and ignore anything which contradicts it. You can't pick and choose, then claim your position is based on "the facts."
Quit telling me what I'm trying to do. The only one here whose motives in argument are generally transparent is you. He threatened her that it was over if she didn't go, that he was going to be there and that coming to America was the only way she could be with him. And the Cuban government and her family are the only ones who have the records on him and the knowledge of the relationship and circumstances from that side of the water. The fact that you disbelieve them is meaningless, in the lack of any credible evidence to the contrary, and completely irrelevant when he has a stable father who loves him and is qualified to care for him and no mother. The fact that you hold family ties in such low regard compared to your own propagandistic political views is unsettling, to say the least.
While we're at it, maybe we could refrain from beatifying her, too.
you mean "I think she deserves the same credit as anyone else who escapes from slavery." --- don't you?
:-P
I meant the word "beatify" as it is used normally...the first step toward sainthood. Don't worry; I looked it up in the dictionary before using it anywhere near you. :-)
B-eautiful!
Michael Dorf of the COlumbia Law review is working on a fascinatin paper on the second amendment.
I''m reading that article, but right off the top I see reasoning that I've noticed before and it seems off base.
"So, too, the right of insurrection has been emphatically rejected by our constitutional history. When individuals attempted to exercise a right to rebel during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, President Washington called forth the militia...to suppress the rebels."
One doesn't follow from the other. It is entirely consistent to put a clause in the constitution to ensure that the people have the means to rebel against a tyrannical government and yet disagree with the people's definition of "tyrannical" when they choose to apply it.
In fact, the English law on which this was based had that same interpretation--well documented in Blackstone's writings. This protection didn't stop the English from objecting to the colonial rebellion, either.
So his entire conclusion--that this shatters the notion that the 2nd Amendment was intended to guarantee the right to rebel--is flawed.
I haven't finished, but it might take me a while so I'm posting comments as I see them.
SACRAMENTO--The senior Republican on the state Assembly Committee investigating California Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush said Wednesday that evidence "points in the direction" of impeachment of the state's chief insurance regulator.
Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), the first committee member to talk openly of impeachment, made the comments following dramatic revelations that a consulting company had presented Quackenbush with a plan to use public money to pay for a political image campaign.
Witnesses testified that within weeks after receiving the proposal, Quackenbush's Department of Insurance put a strategy into effect that mirrored the firm's recommendations, particularly its suggestion that nonprofit foundations be created with settlements obtained from insurance companies.
"If it's proved that he [Quackenbush] directed or approved the tactics used to compel contributions to these foundations," McClintock said, "that would constitute an impeachable offense under the state Constitution."
This is a *real* impeachable offense, in case anyone was unclear on the point.
economy, or serve markets?
They don't unless you posit that individuals refuse to work because of the tax. In fact, studies show that even marginal income tax rate increases have negligible effects in this regard.
Another pile o GOP dogshit. 
DaveM:
The notion that people somehow have a "right" or any sort of moral claim to an inheritance is utterly befuddling to me - it has been politically discredited since the 1890s. It appears that neocons really do want to roll back time.
One of these days, you will have kids. If you're like most people, you will want to have something to leave your kids. As you near your upper middle-age, you will also want to leave something for your grandchildren.
So, like millions of other people, conservative and liberal alike, you will start sheltering your savings for all you are worth.
And you will not feel an iota of guilt about this.
Know why?
Because you will have already paid taxes on the money.
...it has been politically discredited since the 1890s.
Cites, please. Everything I've ever read about inheritance taxes says that everyone knows they're confiscatory, but there is very little to be done because, in the end, the people who are being stolen from are dead. And dead people don't protest.
Who's kidding who here? The repeal of this law is solely for the wealthy, like The Bush/Borg, who continue their dynastic grip on the privileged pie and turbo charge their doltish offspring into an easy street they don't deserve.
"And you will not feel an iota of guilt about this."
Mostly because ruthless and greedy people can't feel any guilt -- their preoccupation with material security circumvents their conscience.
"Because you will have already paid taxes on the money. ...in the end, the people who are being stolen from are dead."
Balderdash! The heirs are the ones paying the taxes becausetheydidn't earn it!
I think that my parents have already provided for me -- by stressing the value of education, instilling a love of reading, teaching me how to work, and generally doing the job that parents do. Parents who give their children the skills they need to provide for themselves and the independence to succeed on their own have already provided a valuable inheritance.
"This law only effects people who leave more than $675,000 to their inheritors..."
to me, that's irrelevant. what is relevant is what right does the government have to step in a confiscate more private property just because someone has passed away? there is no more burden to society or the government – if fact there is no justification at all except “well, they have enough” . therefore, unfair.
i hope it is repealed, the laws are slimy and hurtful when people are trying to deal with death and get everything that their family wanted them to have.
In keepimg with the subject of inherited wealth, I just saw Gov. Jeb Bushs son on Good Morning America. He has inherited a wealth of very good looks AND intelligence from both his parents. He is not only drop dead gorgeous but he is articulate and most charming...George P. Bush. Remember that name...
(It's too bad his uncle doesn't possess the nephews gift of gab...or maybe not!)
The law is not about "You have enough!" It's about you didn't earn it and just becauseit would have made Daddy happy for you to get it tax-free, it doesn't mean you should not pay taxes on unearned income. 
I'm sure George P. doesn't pronounce "nuclear" as "nuke-u-lar".
The inheritance tax is not a tax on the deceased person, but a tax on his or her heirs.
And, contrary to Joezan's Message # 30578, much inherited wealth has never been taxed as of the time it is inherited, for example the appreciated value of real estate and stocks owned by the deceased person at the time of death.
You bet!!!
What do you mean, taking everyones inheritance? I thought if you had a will, all you had to do was pay a tax?
Read #30572, which is what started the discussion. Dave's post is a long way away from whether or not we should tax and how much. He's saying that we don't have a right to any inheritance in the first place.
CG- I assumed he merely forgot to type "tax" after "inheritance," but your point is well taken if it was intentional.
Wiz:
Who's kidding who here? The repeal of this law is solely for the wealthy, like The Bush/Borg, who continue their dynastic grip on the privileged pie and turbo charge their doltish offspring into an easy street they don't deserve.
This from the guy who, a mere week ago, pontificated on the tendency of some to find fault only with those at the other end of the political spectrum, while excusing their side of the same actions.
I mean, people like the Gores, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers - they don't inherit their parents' wealth. Oh, no. And they work harder, and pay real dues for their political positions - unlike those nasty Repugs, who somehow manage to trick all these dumb people into voting for them. Right, whizz?
Listen, Chairman Mao - right now, I invest as much of my salary as I possibly can - both so that I may retire a bit more comfortably and so that I may leave my children something. My family and I do without many things so that we can do this. All the while, we are paying all kinds of taxes. It is MY money that I have EARNED, to do with what I please, that's sitting in the bank. The only reason the gov't gets away with taxing that money (as well as many other assets of dead people) at such confiscatory rates is that I am dead and cannot protest.
Ohio:
And, contrary to Joezan's Message # 30578, much inherited wealth has never been taxed as of the time it is inherited, for example the appreciated value of real estate and stocks owned by the deceased person at the time of death.
Once these figures are adjusted for such things as second mortgages, they do not account for a big piece of the pie. And, of course, not all real estate or stocks appreciate.
First, The Gores, The Kennedys, and The Rockefellers aren't complaining or trying to repeal the inheritance tax. Secondly, it may be "your" money, but your kids didn't earn it and are therefore subject to paying taxes on it.
Your argument is selfish, weak and typically Republican. The resentment and anger in your tone betrays the fact that the source of your indignation is not based on any injustice, but rather the frustration you feel because the tax code hinders your materialistic dreams. Give your money to charity, Joe -- it's the rightthing to do! 
If you are saving through a 401K or IRA, you are already getting a tax break. Not to mention deductible interest off your mortgage(s).
Wiz:
The Gores, The Kennedys, and The Rockefellers aren't complaining or trying to repeal the inheritance tax.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's because they never paid any, dude. Their money is so well sheltered, their scions and most of their associates can jet around the world on "foundation" money, all the while claiming it in the name of "charity". No Kennedy in the last 70 years has ever done an honest day's work, and you know it.
Not that Repubs don't do the same thing, Wiz. But it's a hell of a lot more hypocritical to go around telling people what they have to give up for the "greater good" after you've already got your piece of the pie, than it is to push for less taxes for everyone.
That you are befuddled is befuddling to me. The document that determines how one's estate is to be handled is called a "will" for a reason. It represents the will of the person whose property is in question. What more moral clain do you need?
Ohio: As far as who the tax is on, isn't it actually on the estate, rather than who inherits? The person inheriting doesn't pay it.
My understanding is you are a lawyer, whereas I am not, but I have served as an executor before.
All taxes are confiscatory, and most are catch-as-catch can creations established to siphon dough out of the body politic in creative ways. Double taxation presently occurs with taxation of interest income.
Joe's protestations that the policy is the more egregious of creative taxation policies is borne of the fact that it has the nice ring of kicking a man when he is quite literally as down as he can be. Wizard's rejoinder of damning Joe (and all his other manor-dwelling capitalists) as Mr. Potters for suggesting that handing money down to children without the government taking a big bite is bad policy is merely another platter for his wacky, old college leftist routine.
Your argument is selfish, weak, and typically Democratic. The resentment and anger you feel is not based on any injustice, but rather the frustration and envy you feel because you don't have wealthy relatives to feed your materialistic dreams and you resent the fact that others have opportunities you don't. Give up your greed and envy -- It's the right thing to do.
Vote Republican DUDES -- SufferinglikeBuilds Character,Man!
Look in the mirror, my friend, look in the mirror.
Isn't it your argument that heirs should suffer like everyone else rather than inherit wealth from previous generations? Once you accuse others of the very thing you advocate.
That's cute, Wiz. Now tell me how the Rockefellers, Kennedys and Gores are less greedy than their rich republican counterparts who use the same loopholes (many of which were invented by Demos, by the way)?
Then tell me how my desire to leave MY money to MY kids instead of spending it all on myself "stinks of envy, resentment and a greedy preoccupation with gorging on "the pie"...
Here comes all of the "rational," let's-not-feel-unless-it's-what-I-feel/George-Will-school-of- hypocrisy out from under their secure rocks ...
A poor man was sitting by a river when a rich passerby saw the bare back of the poor man and yielded to the temptation to give it a resounding whack.
The poor man arose in anger from the smarting pain went to hit the rich man back.
“Wait,” said the aggressor, “was the sound of that whack produced by my hand or by your back?”
“Answer that yourself,” replied the poor man, “my pain wont allow me to theorize. You can afford to do so because you do not feel what I feel!”
It doesn't. Wiz's position stinks of envy, resentment and greed, but rather than admit that himself or other he accuses you of the feelings he harbors.
It is a homily, which takes the place of reason.
Indy
Thanks.
"If you have no problem with people paying taxes when they win lotto, you shouldn't have any problems with heirs paying taxes on "unearned income?""
i just don't find this analogy compelling. it is still government confiscation of private property that would otherwise remain unconfiscated were the person still breathing. the government shouldn't have that right.
... but not the truth or the moral!
So government should be the final arbiter of truth and morality?
The federal estate tax is paid by the super-wealthy, and those who in the name of saving a few thousand dollars on attorneys fees and financial advisors costs, fail to plan. I do not feel that either group is deserving of our primary concern regarding tax reform.
Jack- the feds don't collect a huge amount of tax revenue from the estate tax, in part because the holes in it are large enough for Patton to drive the 3rd Army through.
Compelling or not, it's accurate, in my opinion.
If it's the case that estate taxes are inherently fairer than income taxes, is there any reason not to raise inheritance taxes to 100 percent so as to lessen the burden on working people even more?
That is a stupid statement; not everyone envied or "hated" rich kids while in school. Most of the truly rich kids in my school were either nice or troubled enough to generate pity. The nice ones were like anyone else, no more...no less. The troubled ones were sad and money obviously didn't buy happiness so what was there to envy?
Why do you want to give virtually all of that savings to a few wealthy heirs, and none of it to the vast majority of Americans?
To ask working Americans who receive no significant inheritances to pay even 1% more in taxes so that heirs can pay NO taxes is too much to ask.
But those same working class Americans get a walk when their parents die and leave them an inheritance that's largely tax free.
I see no real problem with the inheritance tax as it is--as has been mentioned, it's fairly easy to avoid or minimize, and it's usually only going to hit the superwealthy, anyway.
I wouldn't think it was the end of the world if it was abolished, and I would vehemently oppose the exempted amount being lowered.
My basic belief is you should decide what the government needs to do, at what level (federal, state, or local) it needs to do it, and figure out how you are going to fund that. The taxation system shouldn't be predicated on transferring wealth among the classes.
Why people ever believe that governments act more wisely or more in their interest than they will themselves, I'll never know. Sometimes government involvement is necessary because of the size of the action required, but seldom because government action will be more "moral" or "fair."
Care to offer something beyond feeling or wisecracks to any of the substantive comments I've made?
That much is obvious. I have a friend who is. He would laugh at this next statement.
The federal estate tax is paid by the super-wealthy, and those who in the name of saving a few thousand dollars on attorneys fees and financial advisors costs, fail to plan.
Unfortunately, this is not true. The estate tax is primarily paid by small and moderate-sized business owners and family farmers who have their money tied up in property, inventory and equipment. They don't have access to the loopholes of the "super-rich." The heirs to these estates often have to liquidate the property and/or business which took a lifetime to build. In other words, the government can destroy a life's work in return for an insignificant amount of revenue.
Again. Look in the mirror.
The "super-rich" are not where they are because they leave huge sums of money in low-yield, liquid accounts. If you really only want to target these "super-rich", on what basis do you justify it other than envy and greed.
How does the lack of an inheritance tax serve the free market economy? What does it do to promote efficiency in the market, or reward innovation or industry?
If estate taxes are not fair because they are not at the same rate as income tax, why not tax them at the rate of income?
Should property passing under an estate be taxed at its value for sale or its ability to produce income?
I've mentioned all of this directly or indirectly, and yet the gist of the responses has been that I'm a jealous liberal who envies the rich their legacy. All when none of you know whether I will receive a huge legacy or none at all.
If you invent or write something, it seems as though that should belong to you and your family as long as some acreage you didn't have anything to do with.
The reason I've moved away from this view is that I now see more and more that small and individual (or few) works better than large and collective.
If you can't play nice with him in the corner, I'll make you take turns spanking each other.
Should property passing under an estate be taxed at its value for sale or its ability to produce income?
Good question. I also think that taxes could be spread out over time, rather than hit someone all at once.
As far as whether or not the inheritance tax affects the free market, I don't see why it can't be viewed as income redistribution. Your parents made a lot of money and the state is going to take a small chunk of it when it passes to you. The trick being to ensure that the chunk isn't too large, and that the redistribution only come into play with people who can afford it.
As such, I see no problem with an inheritance tax per se. The percentage could be smaller, I think. It'd be nice to make sure that the exemption amount got reviewed over time. And, as you mention, there should be a distinction made between type of asset, to make sure that no one has to ruin themselves or dismantle a prosperous business in order to pay the tax.
None of this seems terribly unreasonable.
At the same time, I don't see any reason why the tax must be made. It's not something that is providing a great deal of revenue, and it never will. The money has generally been taxed once, so why tax it again?
In other words, the case can be made either way. If you want a symbolic sign that rich kids aren't getting it entirely their way, then go ahead and slap a tax on it. As is usually the case, it won't even give the really rich a pause--just those who busted their ass to be upper middle class. But hey, whatever rocks your boat.
It allows continuous, uninterupted operation of a business without the need for complicated and expensive legal maneuvering. The provides stability and continuity for employees, suppliers and customers.
What does it do to promote efficiency in the market, or reward innovation or industry?
In most cases the estate tax converts capital into consumption. Heirs are forced to liquidate capital investments in order to pay estate taxes which are consumed by the government. It is sound fiscal policy to leave capital invested and to live off the interest. By taxing inheritance directly, it eliminates the income that would be generated by that capital and the taxes that would be paid on that income. In the long run, taxing inheritance results in less revenue, not more.
If estate taxes are not fair because they are not at the same rate as income tax, why not tax them at the rate of income?
Fairness is a purely subjective term and should not be the basis for public policy.
Should property passing under an estate be taxed at its value for sale or its ability to produce income?
The property should not be taxed at all since the income generated from that property will taxed indefinitely.
I've mentioned all of this directly or indirectly, and yet the gist of the responses has been that I'm a jealous liberal who envies the rich their legacy.
You are either a jealous liberal or a guilt-ridden liberal because they are the only two kinds there are. (g)
Thank you for your response. In responding to the Bush proposals to eliminate the tax, I would think that the option of averaging the tax over some period of time would be a reasonable response to the small business problem.
I think that income tax and estate tax were originally designed early this century for income re-distribution. Income tax has obviously reached far down into the food chain as it were, but estate taxes have just started to really reach into the broader public. It seems that like all tax provisions, it has become encrusted with exceptions, clarifications and etc to be an attorney and accountant's employment guarantee more than a genuine instrument of either government revenue or income redistribution.
It seems that like all tax provisions, it has become encrusted with exceptions, clarifications and etc to be an attorney and accountant's employment guarantee more than a genuine instrument of either government revenue or income redistribution.
True. And that means that the ones who are most likely to need to protect their inheritance--the kids of the not so rich who just busted their butt--are the ones most likely to get slammed.
I think that beyond the point where one can spend the money, different motivations take over. For example, why in the hell does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet get up to go to work in the morning? It sure can't be because they've got their eye on something they can't buy, unless there is a poor nation up on the block somewhere.
The person taxed, is dead -- the person with unearned income is taxed. It's not the money that is taxed, it's the income of the person who is living.
(This is telling in the sense that money is seemed to be perceived as a living thing.)
Certainly you see must see the distiction, if Joe, JJ, and Jack don't?
[Memo to self for pondering: What do all those "J's" stand for?] you see
[Note to self: jones can see, so disregard pondering of "J's!"]
I agree that the only way to look at it is as a tax on unearned income of the recipient. But it was once the property of someone who did pay taxes on it, as well as someone who wanted to give it to the recipient. So I still think the question is apt.
I also think those of you who support an exemption amount ought to ponder this: the main people who get hit by this tax will be those who inherit near the line. This is not the ultra rich. As a result, you might want to reconsider the rhetoric.
JJ is right about one thing: this is not something the Bush and Kennedy clan have to worry about.
Now that is an interesting question. One would assume they are both pretty high on Maslow's hierarchy. I would have to assume that they feel what they do is important to more than just themselves and their future. It is possible they are operating on the "he who dies with the most toys wins" principle, but after seeing interviews with both of them and knowing the amount both contribute to charitable endeavors, I don't think so.
Possibly, but it would make it unnecessarily difficult for them to do so. The individuals' income would be drastically reduced and therefore revenues from income tax would also be drastically reduced. The loss of revenue from the consumption of the capital outweighs the benefit of the taxation. IOW, there is no fiscal reason to do so.
This is incorrect. The wealthiest 10% of estates generate about half the total of inheritance tax payments.
While advocates of abolition of the estate tax will cry about the cashflow plight of those heirs who inherit a small business or farm, that's not who their real clients are.
Cite please.
That's less of a comment on Gates himself than it is the tech industry, which as a whole doesn't contribute much.
"Of 48,000 estates taxed in the past year available for analysis, only about 1,400 had as their principal asset either a farm or a small business.
"There's more: Such family-owned businesses already get a $1.3 million exemption, double the amount anyone else gets. And farm heirs who sincerely want to keep farming and sign away their development rights can shield even more from tax liability."
Really? I have heard reports of large charitable donations from going back for years. I remember comments from someone complaining that even though he had given millions to charity, it still wasn't enough. If I am not mistaken he recently started a charitable foundation, but I am pretty sure this has been an ongoing thing for him.
True, but Bush's politcal bread isbuttered by the rich and Kennedy's isn't (expecting more rightist drivel with this one).
And it isn't completely rehtoric -- if they are going to raise holy hell about the "unfairness" of affirmative action, then they need to see that turbo-charging their progeny to keep the status quo (read stacked deck) for generation upon generation is even more unfair.
True, but Bush's politcal bread isbuttered by the rich and Kennedy's isn't (expecting more rightist drivel with this one).
If Bush's bread is buttered by the overachievers of the world who resent the fact that their sizable (but not immense) estate will be chewed away by inheritance taxes because they can't afford the sort of lawyers that the Bush, Kennedy, and Rockefeller clans can, so what? That's not "the rich". That's "the upper middle class" and why on earth shouldn't they be cranky about it?
Again, I would be surprised if it is the ultra rich power brokers that give a damn about the inheritance tax. It's the people making between 100K and 500K a year. That might seem "rich" to you, but it's pretty crappy if you're in that bracket and you see 40% of your estate go to the government instead of your kids--precisely because you aren't "rich" and can't afford the protections.
So I can understand the energy, and I certainly don't think it's particularly devious for the Republicans to support their concerns.
The book was reissued in either 96 or 97, which is when Cringely reported Gates' subsequent actions. He was already exceptionally rich in 91 and was already well below average in charitable contributions, and was for the next few years until criticism caused him to change his ways.
You said that Bush's bread is buttered by the rich and that this is why he supports the inheritance tax elimination.
The initial earner/producer is taxed twice; he or she is taxed when making the money, and his wishes as to what to do with the money are also impinged upon.
Even Charlie Rangel has agreed that the level to be protected from taxes should be raised to four million.
But I say kill the death tax entirely. People should not be penalized for being successful.
As for the left being upset about the rich being given a head start in life, economists have shown (via the stupid grandson theory) that in a relatively free society money and power do not stay in families very long, just as most business enterprises do not survive more than a few generations. The exception to this rule is where the progeny demonstrates the same industriousness, frugality and innovation that the successful forebearers had, in which case they deserve to keep their wealth.
Like successfully outliving Dad?
I don't expect you to agree with it, but you could at least acknowledge the point being made by other side: the person earning the money ("Dad") is penalized for being successful, because his wishes of how to dispose of his property are to a large degree denied him.
Who says you can't take it with you? None of the greedy grasping bastards are getting anything -- not the family and not the IRS.
BWWWAHAHAHA! (fuck em all, dadgumit)
Not that you want it, but you have my blessing.
You should be able to do exactly what you please with the loot. Although salting the ground might have some adverse effect on your neighbors' land and water.
Have a nice weekend. We're hearing talk of 90 degrees even up in our little mountains. I'm taking my 80-year-old Mom to see Cats, which has been her wish for some time.
I said the first part, butyou assumed the second part. The Bushter is being supported because he'll do what he's instructed to do for the people who'll benefit most by his tax strategy -- the filthy rich (way over 500k per annum) who run this country and feed their shifty pyramid schemes to the money-obsessive little wanna-bes who are foolish enough to believe them.
Ronski
Screw the neighbors --it's my money and my salt. Besides, I'll be dead so who cares.
Sposed to be in the 90's here too. It's 85 right now at 5:30 in the p.m. Guess we'll have to turn on the A.C. Have a great weekend.
This double standard double feature is brought to you by that Compassionate (For The Rich) Conservative... 
Your argument is selfish, weak and typically Republican...
ASSOCIATED PRESS - 06-09-00
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
The repeal of this law is solely for the wealthy, like The Bush/Borg...
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
This double standard double feature is brought to you by that Compassionate (For The Rich) Conservative...
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
Bush and his party scare and pander to them.
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
Vote Republican DUDES -- SufferinglikeBuilds Character,Man!
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
[...continued]
I always find it amusing when hard-ass, tough-minded conservatives (not you ducky) who rail against lazy welfare recipients or who deeply resent affirmative action because it's "unfair," squeal like pigs when it comes to paying taxes on unearned income for their own.
WASHINGTON, June 9 — House Republicans, joined by dozens of Democrats at odds with President Bill Clinton, won easy passage Friday of a bill to repeal inheritance taxes by 2010...
You see that, Wiz? ...DOZENS OF DEMOCRATS!!!
Now, what I wanna know is....
...when do you start the Charlie Rangel cartoons?
"On the House floor today, Representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont, an independent who typically votes with the Democrats, said it was not the estate tax that was immoral, but a system in which a handful of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country stood to get a huge tax break while the needs of the poor went unaddressed.
"You say Bill Gates and his friends who contribute huge amounts of money to the political process, they need a huge tax break," Mr. Sanders said. "There are people in this country who work 40 hours a week and sleep in their cars because we don't have money for affordable housing.""
Besides, where did I say above that Democrats are never in the pockets of the rich? The estate tax repeal won't help anyone other than the filthy rich. If aspiring millionaires want to swallow the wishful propaganda of con-artist politicians who'll get more money stuffed up their ass -- hey --fine with me!
You don't win on the Charitable Bill Gates argument. He did not start to contribute to charity until Ted Turner began his "Match this!" contributions and bemoaned the fact that the richest men in America are also the stingiest when it comes to charity. In fact, Bill was already VERY wealthy by then because he was in the process of building his family home which was not cheap, by any means.
Well after the building of that home and the birth of his first child, AND the nagging of Ted Turner, he and his wife began to contribute a lot and they set up the foundation of which you spoke. But he was not contributing to charity before that....unless, of course, he was doing so under cover of secrecy.
Bush confident in system rife with problems...Flawed trials lead to death chamber
"AUSTIN, Texas—Under Gov. George W. Bush, Texas has executed dozens of Death Row inmates whose cases were compromised by unreliable evidence, disbarred or suspended defense attorneys, meager defense efforts during sentencing and dubious psychiatric testimony, a Chicago Tribune investigation has found.
"While campaigning for president, Bush has expressed confidence in the fairness and accuracy of the death penalty system in Texas, the nation's busiest executioner. He has said he sees no reason for Texas to follow Illinois' lead by declaring a moratorium on executions."
toy check
Thanks. Very useful tips.
Wiz - Message # 30691:
First Rangel voted "NO" on the bill which was vote for by Democrats more to score points with well-healed constituencies rather than to make it into law.
Wrong.
Rangel said the death tax is a major stumbling block to the new black middle-class - much of which is made up of small, family-owned and run businesses, and he wants to see it gone.
'Scuse me while I wallow a little while longer.
Cal:
Exactly.
Those folks who are paying half a mill for a 3 bed 2 bath home - would you characterize them as greedy republicans?
Wiz - Message # 30691:
Besides, where did I say above that Democrats are never in the pockets of the rich?
Nowhere. But in your increasingly wacky rants on this topic, the only villains are the "evil, greedy, selfish, weak, Bush-Borg, hard-ass, tough-mided, Republicans" - no matter that this bill was authored by a Democrat, and had wide Democrat support in the House.
What's the opposite of damned by faint praise, anyway?
Cal:
He was already exceptionally rich in 91 and was already well below average in charitable contributions, and was for the next few years until criticism caused him to change his ways.
This may already have been mentioned, but about 4 or 5 years ago Ted Turner started making a stink about how all the financial publications made too big a fuss over who was the richest person in the world - "Richest Man" lists were proliferating like weeds, and Ted wanted more emphasis placed on who gave the most to charity. (Actually, I think he was smarting from being knoocked off the list by the Microsoft and Silicone Valley tycoons).
Anyway, Terrible Ted started criticising Gates very publicly for his miserly ways. Then, the mags did start publishing "Top-Ten Philanthropist" lists.
Not long after, Gates started donating more money.
Basically. he was shamed into it.
Wiz -First, Rangel voted "NO" on the bill. A yes vote by Democrats was more to score points with well-healed constituencies rather than to make it into law.
Joez - Wrong.
Rangel said the death tax is a major stumbling block to the new black middle-class - much of which is made up of small, family-owned and run businesses, and he wants to see it gone.
What's your problem Joe? Are you partaking of Shrub's "Texas Booger Sugar" too?
This was the vote from the NY Dems:
Democrats -- Ackerman, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Forbes, Y; Hinchey, N; LaFalce, N; Lowey, N; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, N; Nadler, N; Owens, N; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, N.
"Wiz- Besides, where did I say above that Democrats are never in the pockets of the rich?
Joez- Nowhere. But in your increasingly wacky rants on this topic, the only villains are the "evil, greedy, selfish, weak, Bush-Borg, hard-ass, tough-mided, Republicans" - no matter that this bill was authored by a Democrat, and had wide Democrat support in the House.
Where did I say: "The Republicans are the only villains?" Where did I say "evil?" Those negative qualities are all lumped together and out of the context in which I said them. You seem awfully angry and defensive Joe.
Sixtyfive Democrats out of two hundred isn't wide, Joe; it's only a third and it was only for show, as I said, but believe what you like.
It's not gotten through the senate or a veto, as I said, so your gloat is indeed, and STILL premature.
Yes, the info about Ted Turner was mentioned 10 posts above yours. By me.
Wiz:
Democrats -- Ackerman, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Forbes, Y; Hinchey, N; LaFalce, N; Lowey, N; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; McNulty, Y; Meeks, N; Nadler, N; Owens, N; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, Y; Weiner, N.
You're right. The MSNBC news alert I read -in which Rangel stated he would vote yes - was stale. But my point was, and still is, that this is far from the Republican, conservative money grubbing you attempt to make it out to be.
Where did I say: "The Republicans are the only villains?" Where did I say "evil?" Those negative qualities are all lumped together and out of the context in which I said them. You seem awfully angry and defensive Joe.
Believe me, Wiz - I find your work much too entertaining to get angry with you. But "out of context"? C'mon! There are copy-n-pasters - both here and irl - who are very good at pulling every negative, subjective thing said, lumping them together, putting quotes around them, and selling it as someone's bio. That aint me.
You see, there is no objectivity in your posts. Everything the Republicans do that you don't agree with is done out of greed, avarice, stupidity, or vengeance. Show me one thing you've ever posted that gives any Republican credit for anything.
Out of context?
No.
It was a straight condensation of your postings.
And I would not even have said anything, except that you got on your soap box very recently about the tendencies of "some" to whine about the actions those of the opposite political persuasion, while blithely ignoring or excusing the same actions within their own.
...actions of those of the other...
I happen to think the repeal of the estate tax is an unreasonable act by politicians on behalf of the extremely rich. Now that statement is not filled with hyperbole or exaggeration -- and itisas dull as dogshit. I try to bring originality and wit to my efforts here and I'm intentionally trying to be provocative because I'm also trying to have some fun. Make no mistake, however, I don't take anything or anyone too seriously --including myself.
If I was self-consciously preoccupied with how I appear to stuffed-shirts and pretentious wonks, I couldn't have the spontaneity and enjoyment I have amusing myself here. Of course I have been conditioned and socialized by our overbearing (so called) civilization, like everyone else, but I've learned to stay skeptical of "those in control" who just want to manipulate the kids to be quiet so the "adults" can have their fun.
[to be continued...]
I think the reason I may beirritainmentto you Joe, is that you seem to personalize and identify with your party so strongly. If you are taking what I say and do personally, I think it's a mistake. I merely go out to the ends of the see saw because the Republican party is so fat with hateful idiots and petty-minded hypocrites who think they can abuse their power in the name of God and Righteousness. That's what lampooning does so well.
I'm expecting you to isolate and focus on what you think is unfair or negative in my post, but I've tried to be sincere and honest and I'm always mindful that it only represents one person's perspective and perspectives can always change. The personal belief I cling to is that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm going back to being the rascal I was meant to be! 
Let's look at a typical example of someone in this position. A man 55 owns a business he started 30 years ago. In the beginning it was a struggle but in the last few years, he has done pretty well. Last year he had $10 million in sales which would place the value of his business at $40-80 million. After paying his 100 employees, he is left with a comfortable income of around 100k. He has a whole life policy he bought when the business was much smaller, but because of health problems, he can't get insurance to cover the estate taxes or even come close.
He can't afford to give out large sums of money or take his family on "board meetings" to Florida. There is probably some legal maneuver he can do to protect his business, but why should he have to? Why should his employees be at risk of losing their jobs? Does the benefit of the estate tax justify the damage caused?
I remember you getting sore because I didn't agree with you about what Bush has said and how Reagan is perceived , but I can't remember saying anything about you specifically other than commenting that arguing with you can be exasperating. Or am I mistaken? Do you have a valid reason for holding what seems to be a grudge that I'm unaware of?
No one on the other side of the seesaw seems to address my points or what my parodies characterize -- other than to hurl insults at me about my efforts. I find it somewhat revealing that I'm either ignored or insulted or categorically pooh-poohed by the likes of a Jack V/109109 (as if HE is truly unbiased), but when I support my opinions with a link/quote (as I did above) I hear nothing. If I masked my point of view in a cautious, precise and polite oratory, I may be treated with more respect but it would never express my passion or concern for this country and the people in it.
So what do you suggest I do, JJ? --for the sake of more effective debate?
He can't afford to give out large sums of money or take his family on "board meetings" to Florida. There is probably some legal maneuver he can do to protect his business, but why should he have to?
JJB- S/he may not be able to give out cash, but he could incorporate for a piddling sum, file income tax as a subchapter S corp, and give his kids stock.
S/he probably can get insurance, perhaps only on term and probably as part of a business continuation plan from his current carriers. He may not be attractive as a life insurance risk, but may look a lot better to the company when they throw in the liability, workers comp., property and casualty, etc that the company carries as part of the package. Further, he can have the corp deduct the expense of even a high priced policy as a business expense.
Bottom line is that even without sophisticated trusts etc and the compliated plans of the super-rich, he can salt away about $1.4 million in the A&B trusts so that Ma doesn't pay any estate tax and neither do the kids. Add to this cash gifts from loans backed by stock or straight stock (this is where I start to lose track of the income tax consequences) as well as similar payments to the kids on the board and you can salt another 100k a year without the bite of the tax man. Assume he retires at 65, that's another million without estate tax and with no legally sophisticated tools. I stick by my assertion, people who pay estate tax usually either have boucoup bucks or simply fail to plan.
I stick by my assertion, people who pay estate tax usually either have boucoup bucks or simply fail to plan.
Given that one can take complicated steps with the help of a lawyer to avoid a significant portion of the estate tax, is there any justification for the tax beyond the fact that it helps employ lawyers to do work that doesn't improve society?
In other words, if the estate tax were repealed, there would be a number of lawyers who would have to find some other way to earn a living.
Hmm, now that I think about it, I can think of an argument against repealing it.
Your ability to link does not overcome your juvenile and hackneyed precepts regarding the "extremely rich." And your "originality and wit" is shopworn and unfunny, so I don't even get that meager bonus in your "I'm just provoking the old fogies, man!" schtick. But hey, some people laugh at Pauley Shore, so go figure.
On the issue, we are a nation in surplus, moral outrage in tax discussion is for children, and Cal has demonstrated one of many benefits to phasing out the estate tax, your class rancor notwithstanding.
Stick to the pictures of peni and the like.
JV"...we are a nation in surplus, moral outrage in tax discussion is for children..."
Indeed? do you mean all of those innocent, impoverished children who will now be eligible for their estates?
JV "...and Cal has demonstrated one of many benefits to phasing out the estate tax...
Yes, well I suppose if we were run over and killed by a truck, we won't have to worry about our gas and electric bills either.
JV"...your class rancor notwithstanding."
"Class rancor?" Is that what you need to think? Is that why your post is so kind, sympathetic and amicable, oh most worthy master/moderator? I stand in awe of your superiority -- please forgive my common cloddishness. Shall I be exiled to TT, your rareness?
I have abdicated by responsibilities as thread host, and even during my benevolent reign, your originality and wit, modest as they are, were unmolested. You addressed part of a post in a backhanded manner to me. I responded.
Unfortunately, the peasantry can never be muted. Merely tolerated.
Nonetheless, your prayer for forgiveness is granted.
If I masked my point of view in a cautious, precise and polite oratory, I may be treated with more respect but it would never express my passion or concern for this country and the people in it.
I'm surprised. It never even occurred to me that you intended your juvenile humor to be taken seriously.
Oh wait, I get it. I can be slow sometimes. You're goofing again. Good one. Ha ha.
By definition, the landed gentry doesn't have nerves. Certainly not those that can be touched by the peasant population, and particularly not those who post pictures of penes.
Besides, when 65 Democrats vote for abolishing a tax, you can best bet there is support for it somewhere outside the landed gentry zone. The better off the country is, the more they see these laws applying to themselves, not "the rich".
Finally, you didn't respond to my point. You linked in a cite claiming that the tax brings in $50/billion a year--but a good percentage of that, if not more, will be brought in as the heirs pay taxes on the income that the assets generate.
Today on the Sunday Gasbags hour, it was "Bash Gore Week". I guess GW hasn't presented any good targets lately. Next week, it will be his turn.
They were also saying how Hillary is "losing" to Lazio because they are virtually tied in the polls. If she is losing because they have the same numbers, why isn't he?
I agree with CalGal....politics is boring lately....and Jack is no fun since he became a leige lord.
The Oligarchy is retrenching. The Gore line and the Bush line and all of the other little lines that make up American Politics. But out here, out here in the hinterlands things are changing.
If you vote for him you're in league with the Red Chinese, married to a lesbian who aborted your children in a late term "partial birth" procedure, and don't know how to dress.
Presidential Race Has Put Most Voters in Deep Sleep
JV- "You addressed part of a post in a backhanded manner to me. I responded."
Gee Jack I seem to recall getting your "backhand" first:
30609. Jack Vincennes - 6/9/00 4:33:19 PM There is no argument. It is a feeling wrapped around wisecracks with a barely tangy sauce of a little knowledge. And a dollop of class envy/partisan rancor.
Oh I forgot, royalty is entitled ...or was it that your post regarding, "All taxes are confiscatory, and most are catch-as-catch can creations established to siphon dough out of the body politic in creative ways." claptrap was ignored by everyone? You can play the reasoned "policy question" wonk all you like, but your behavior and delusions seem to uncover the same kind of preoccupations that your money obsessed party exhibits -- resentment and anger -- "hissy-fit indeed!
I have no idea what you are talking about. You made the claim that the federal coffers would take a hit. I pointed out that the numbers given almost certainly didn't take the taxes that would be paid into account.
The steps I have described are hardly sophisticated for a successful small businessman or businesswoman. The average farmer has far more complicated issues to deal with in government price guaratees, etc. than the estate planning stuff I've described.
If I were truly concerned with the plight of hardworking and successful farmers and small business owners, I would merely increase the estate tax credit for those categories, and close a few loopholes for the most wealthy to make up the lost revenue. I would leave the philanthropic loopholes because I believe that the social benefit is greater than the benefit of the lost revenue. As was pointed out above, some of the fabulously wealthy do a great deal of good with their fortunes, and this is not to be discouraged.
What a shocker! Like its not been obvious for 30 years.
Bush said yesterday that he disagreed with the report. "In every case, we've adequately answered innocence or guilt," Bush said after attending church with his father near the family retreat in Maine. "They've had full access to the courts. They've had full access to a fair trial."
Bloody fuckin Moron.
And that will always be the case no matter where the line is drawn. Its a truism that says nothing.
As Jones points out, the legal costs involved are relatively insignificant when compared to the costs that the same person incurs in creating and maintaining wealth while they are alive. Miniscule in fact.
But the larger point is lost in this discussion. This is a country supposedly of the "fair shot". The GOP proponents themselves say that this is an issue of fairness. So let's take the debate on the terms they cast it.
What's so fuckin fair about getting a windfall because someone died?
Nothing. Not one damn thing. Moreover, we are talking the top 2% income bracket here, not rich people but seriously rich people whose income has grown at a staggering rate for the past 25 years while the rest have essentially stagnated.
So, again, what's so fucking fair about someone inheriting $100 million?
Why only 2 days ago, the pious little shit announced his disgust at Washington's sewer politics, politics authored by none other than his supporters.
All flim-flam. All well and good when nobody is paying any attention but the nutty birds are coming home to roost, sure to take several huge dumps on his pointy little head:
he chief Republican congressional investigator of 1996 political fundraising said he is likely to refer President Clinton, Vice President Gore and Attorney GeneralJanet Reno for prosecution after a new president takes office next year.
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said yesterday it appears Reno obstructed justice by refusing several times to request special prosecutors to investigate Clinton and Gore for money-raising irregularities during their campaign four years ago.
Clinton and Gore knew they were breaking the law, Burton said, but "I can't give you the specifics of it right now."
CalGal-If one has several million in assets, one can easily afford the attorney's fees needed to set up a trust and a pour over will to handle the problem.
The Dems only offered a compromise after much bitching and moaning, and prior to this debate would have castigated anyone for opposing the current estate tax. So it's not several million in assets we're talking about, but the current $675K. And you don't need me to tell you that $675K doesn't leave someone a lot of room for the types of planning you discuss.
Even at over a million, it gets difficult. Someone could have a house worth $600K, an insurance policy for $1M, and a yearly income of $200,000. Now, I grant you that some people in this class might have money coming from Daddy. Others don't.
So unless you want to make the estate tax apply only to inheritances over , say, $20 million, all this tax will do is help to prevent families from becoming rich and further entrench those that are.
Jex,
And that will always be the case no matter where the line is drawn. Its a truism that says nothing.
You could draw it at a much, much higher line. Well over 4 million, I think--particularly if all you want to do is get the rich people. Estates of 4 million dollars aren't so much rich as they are well off.
I don't think there's much point to an estate tax at all, the more I think of it. But I do think that it ought to be applied only to the super-rich, as opposed to the well off. No need to punish the upwardly mobile, the well-salaried sorts who catch enough shit as it is with the tendency of the politicos to classify them as "rich".
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. There's no question that we are not talking rich but super-rich when you speak of the top 2%.
In any event, I can't muster much sympathy for "punishing" those who are already dead much less for their heirs who did absolutely nothing to produce the wealth.
You're funnin me right? Ask someone trying to support a family on 10,000 a year about "catchin shit" in this land of supposedly equal opportunity!
Horseshit.
Moreover, we are talking the top 2% income bracket here, not rich people but seriously rich people whose income has grown at a staggering rate for the past 25 years while the rest have essentially stagnated.
You say that almost as if you believe that. When I told someone on TT that people actually believed this, I wasn't taken seriously.
And as for fair shots, this is also supposedly a country that protects property rights. Or used to, which is what created its wealth and high standard of living in the first place.
For all you know, the heirs were model citizens who allowed Dad and Mom to live in comfort until their 90s. Or they were the people who gave their parents stock tips. Or perhaps the person leaving the estate was an absolute bastard and his heirs deserve every penny for tolerating him for so long. For that matter, one could say that the heirs of people who didn't leave any money deserve their penury--after all, if their parents or they had worked harder, things would be different.
I don't propose these seriously, but they are about as serious as your rationalization that the heirs did "nothing" to "earn" the wealth. Such nonsense. Who cares what is deserved or not? It's certainly a silly reason to justify a tax.
As I said, if you want a symbolic tax, then put it on the super-rich--the ones that you and others constantly point to when justifying the tax. Otherwise, start pointing to the people who worked their ass off all their lives and left a million dollars and use them as the justification. There are certainly more of them.
In any event, upon review I see no reason to support it at all, although I won't expend much energy on resenting it. I'm not sure that you, Jex, and Wiz should consider this an accomplishment, though. A significant discussion and the one neutral fencesitter goes to the other side. (g)
On the plus side, it has made it clear to me that I'd better start protecting Spawn's inheritance in the event that Clinton's veto holds.
nonsense. Who cares what is deserved or not? It's certainly a silly
reason to justify a tax.
Because the debate is over "fairness" that's why!
By your reasoning, Lotto winners should not be taxed. You are taxing the incidence of death, income earned on account of death.
Fairness is always an issue in tax policy and there is nothing, nothing whatsoever to justify inherited wealth in a nation that holds equal opportunity dear.
Now if you are of a mind that fairness is meaningless then I think we, as a society, would do well to consider a formal aristocracy.
Let the heirs of the filthy rich face the same prospects as those of the filthy poor - that's fair.
TT that people actually believed this, I wasn't taken seriously.
Damn you got me. Who can argue the facts with such august authority as Table Talk!
I better quit while I'm ahead - NOT
Its one thing to balance the manifest unfairness of perpetuating wealth against the advantages of allowing earned income accumulation when you speak of the income tax....
Its quite a different thing to speak of the unfairness of allowing the very rich to pass on wealth free of tax for no other reason than accident of birth.
When the GOP clowns ground their arguments in favor of the estate tax repeal in terms of fairness, I almost die laughing (or so my heir hope_)
As a general rule, I find that its better to know what you are talking about before you start talking.
The 675K is an estate tax credit, not an exemption. That's just one of many errors.
Year of Death 2000, 2001 $675,000
2002, 2003
$700,000
2004
$850,000
2005
$950,000
2006 and after
$1 million
Additional special breaks for businesses plus the stepped up basis mean that when the privileged few, very few ever pay any tax, the windfall remains essentially that - a windfall
Important new rules also apply to family-owned businesses and farms, which may receive a special
$1.3 million exclusion from estate tax. This amount is not in addition to the amount listed above, which
is available to everyone. For example, if when you die the general exempt amount is $700,000, then a
business that qualified for the increased exemption would get another $600,000 exemption, for a total
of $1.3 million.
????
I'm not sure what you think you're rebutting.
It's about fairness?
Tell you what, you lobby to get the lottery eliminated, and we'll discuss whether people should be allowed to give money to whom they see fit.
The Lottery is institutionalized unfairness!
And as for fair shots, this is also supposedly a country that protects property rights
I am broken up when I think of all the torment the rich go through before they die. Think of it for a moment. All those poor rich people on their deathbeds having to cope with the cruelty of it all.
As for property rights, Ronski persists in his mythic libertarian world of "rugged individualism". The only thing that is truly guaranteed of protection in this country is the right to poverty.
Pardon me if I can't get worked up over the fantasy - whoever has the most toys when he dies wins.....
Tax policy is about fairness. If its not then it should be. Regardless of what you think of the lottery (and I bet you'd think differently if you won) the issue remains, there is no more basis to exempt inherited wealth from taxation than there is to grant a similar exemption to lotteries, gambling winnings generally or the pot of gold from Ronski's leprechaun.
BTW Ronski, I am sorry to tell you that 1. you are going to die 2. When you do, you have no property rights in anything anymore
But things may be different for "libertarians"
Tax policy is not about fairness, nor should it be. If it were, then we would include a morality test with 1040 forms to determine tax rates.
Tax policy is about government expenses and the best way to effectively cover these expenses in a way that will ensure that the people who are most able to pay won't up and leave--but still pay the brunt of the bill.
I'm only restating what the GOP says the argument is about.
Tax policy debates since the dawn of the Republic have been about fairness whether you like it or not Cal.
Tax equity is always a consideration regardless of how much attention it has received. Having covered tax debates in the US Senate for 5 years, including the Tax Reform Act of 1976, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that every report from the Finance Committee or House Ways & Means addresses the issue of fairness. I challenge you to search the legislative history of all tax enactments and find one that doesn't at least mention this issue
Later yall
By your reasoning, Lotto winners should not be taxed.
I wouldn't care if Lotto winners didn't have to pay taxes. Oh wait I forgot, it goes to the schools, doesn't it? And you can really tell that the money actually gets there. A recent graduate who was kind enough to flip a burger for me, took 15 minutes to figure out how to make change for a $20. My tax dollars at work. I was so proud of the kid I wanted to slap him.
Fairness is always an issue in tax policy and there is nothing, nothing whatsoever to justify inherited wealth in a nation that holds equal opportunity dear.
Sure there is-how about the right of a person to decide how his earned wealth will get disbersed after his death? There is equal opportunity here, but some opportunities happen to be more equal than others. If we're going to be so resentful of rich folk using some of their money to give their kids a headstart in life, then let's break it all the way down. We can all drive Yugoes, and live in the same size houses. Then no one will have any incentive to work harder than his neighbor, so they won't bother to acquire wealth. Poof!no more estate tax.
Now if you are of a mind that fairness is meaningless then I think we, as a society, would do well to consider a formal aristocracy.
We have one-the Kennedys. And the Freemasons, but no one ever talks about them. Mainly because you never hear about Freemasons banging movie stars. But it happens-Elaine told me so, and she's always right about these things.
Maybe the filthy rich can meet the rest of the people halfway, and work volunteer communtiy service, like in a soup kitchen, to earn the right to that wealth which is willed to them. How does that sound? If you want Daddy's money, you must show fealty to the value of the collective. Otherwise the money will go to finance some senator's dacha,or maybe a museum to honor Lawrence Welk.
The idea behind the estate tax for the super-rich is supposed to be wealth redistribution, which is a fine idea. Nothing wrong with taking a cut from the top 2% to help out the poorest. But in a country where you can go through 12 grades of school and still be unable to read, and people live on the street, it's not hard to believe that that redistributed wealth just goes into some pork-barrel project. Let's build another Star Wars, then tell everyone else how we did it, so we have to spend more money on yet another one!
Let me tell you a secret. The reason I know that cazart is JadeGold is because no matter how much she would badmouth most of the former fray inmates, she would never attack you.
Part Two of The Chicago Tribune series on the death penalty in Texas
"...In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the state's court of last resort, a gatekeeper that is supposed to remedy injustice, correct fundamental errors that occur at trial, and ensure that convicted defendants receive a fair hearing on appeal."
"But a Tribune investigation found that it has not always done that."
Events in the last eight years have called back to me Otto Preminger's film "Advise and Consent" by Alan Drury.
In the film, liberal politicans are the ones capable of the greatest treachery, while a corrupt Old Boy Dixiecrat senator (Jesse Helms), played by Charles Laughton, turns out to be the hero.
...wealth redistribution, which is a fine idea...
No it's not.
And I'd LOVE to see Mrs. Dubbya slaving away at a soup kitchen.
Anyhow, working at a soup kitchen may be good for the soul.
On the other hand, it may be a misdirection of one's talents.
Ernest Gellner, Conditions of Liberty
Wealth redistribution is not only morally superior it is functionally superior to fantasy world that Ronski is under the palpalble delusion of having ever existed in this country.
In fact, one can refute Ronski's libertarian arguments without resort to anything other than their infirm underpinnings. For if indeed, our sucess depends solely and entirely on some mythic social contract and raw untrammelled individualism, even accepting all of Ronski's delusions, that very creative individualism is radically undermined by the very concept of inherited wealth for the most competent, the most able, the hardest worker in pursuit of private gain cannot possibly prevail against unearned, inherited wealth.
So much for febrile Ronskism, a philosophy stillborn if there ever was one.
No it's not.
Yes it is, as long as the "donors" and the "recipients" are the "right people". That is where it all gets tricky. But in principle, I don't see anything wrong with Donald Trump or Bill Gates paying a higher tax rate, if that money can go to elevate the poorest of the poor, with infrastructure and better education. I know Trump needs the extra money to keep high-dollar whores on call, but maybe some of that dough could help a kid go to college and actually produce something useful.
I think both Rand and Veblen have their points. Neither one is entirely correct or incorrect. Meritocracies are great, but when it turns into an acqusitive liesure class that stifles the little guy, you don't really get progress-just a landed gentry.
Me, I don't fall into either class. As long as I have a steady supply of sex and food and Bosco(not necesaraly in that order), I'm a happy guy, doing my exporting at a workiholic 20 hours per week. ;-)
And the left calls us greedy, all the while coveting other people's wealth.
Aren't people supposed to covet, in pure capitalism? It's not a "left/right" thing, it's human nature. Although the right usually talks about this guy who once said, "For the love of money is the root of all evil." But the more wealthy of them forget about that part-they;re usually more concerned about what he thought of hommosexuals.
Most of all of this montrously bureaucratic world we misleadingly label "private".
But don't be fooled by junior high civics, not for a second!!! The musket-waiving era Ronski thinks the backbone of our culture never has existed - its a fiction save perhaps for about 20 years in late 18th Century England.
I would work at a soup kitchen run by the soup nazi. Even though he's verbaly abusive, he makes a great mulligatawny.
On the other hand, it may be a misdirection of one's talents.
So is having to flip burgers because you can't afford to go to college and develop your mind. It happens. Some people can afford to go to college for the next 2000 years, but would rather collect cars and chicks. I can't afford to do those things, so I say we skin the bastards and take their money. ;-)
Or as FDR once said "Would someone please explain to me why someone needs to make more than $200,000 a year?"
The answer of course, is that no one does.
But that's another story because the proposition that untaxed inherited wealth and the ever-widening gap between rich and poor are not only wholly unneccessary but positively pernicious to a modern economy its beyond rational argument.
No I suppose no one really needs to make more than $200,000 a year, unless they live in New York or San Francisco. But we all want to, don't we? I mean, that's the great thing about a meritocracy-you get to use your natural gifts to fully exercise your indulgences. And if the guy next to you isn't as smart or ambitous, that's his problem.
I know what you mean about the rich/poor gap widening, but it seems like using the inheiritence tax as leverage on that principal is just a placebo pretending to be an anodyne. (I'm dating a nurse now, so I'm picking up on all this medical lingo.) So even though I agree with some of what your saying about estate tax, the responsability of curing poverty should not be totally on the rich. We should all be paying attention to how our tax money is being spent, and wonder if we get the most value out of it, or if it would be better spent on something else.
I am not what most people would consider "socially conscious", but it just seems like common sense-if you educate someone, make them smart,that is a self-perpetuating (sp?) investment. If you use that money to build planes no one wants, or a missile thing that doesn't work, then you not only wasted a lot of money, but you wasted an opportunity to actually effect someone's life for the better. Although I can also see the value in keeping Lockheed machinists employed-but isn't that just really expensive welfare?
So the estate tax is just part of the picture. There are lots of other ways poverty can be effected by governemnt spending. And if they waste income tax dollars, why would they spend estate tax dollars any more sensibly?
According to the United Nations Statistical Division, the average life expectancy of a 6-year-old boy living in the United States is 66.5 more years (or 72.5 total). Unless he is relocated to Cuba, where the average life expectancy of a 6-year-old boy is 67.5 more years (73.5 total).
This little statistic by no means settles the Elián argument. Anyone might sensibly say that 66.5 years of freedom are worth more than 67.5 years under communism. Actuarial equivalence isn't moral equivalence. But when you consider how much Americans are willing to spend—how much you yourself would be willing to spend—for an extra year of life, the fact that staying in the United States would be slightly hazardous to Elián's long-term health ought to give you pause.
Nothing I have said remotely puts me in the "soak the rich" category but gimme a break! All this mindless chortling about "what made this country great"; "the rich always get screwed (CalGal paraphrase)"; the "unfairness" of a relatively minor tax on a precious blessed few who gain a windfall for doing squat, all this I find a tad ridiculous.
To put it another way, "How much bullshit can one soul swallow?"
386 people had access to the vault where the hard drives, the size of credit cards, were kept. The government doesn't know if it was "lost" or "stolen."
The Clinton legacy.
Strange, strange days.
Wiz - Message # 30710
If I was self-consciously preoccupied with how I appear to
stuffed-shirts and pretentious wonks, I couldn't have the spontaneity
and enjoyment I have amusing myself here. Of course I have been
conditioned and socialized by our overbearing (so called)civilization, like everyone else, but I've learned to stay skeptical of "those in control" who just want to manipulate the kids to be quiet so the "adults" can have their fun.
This is -truly - the best excuse I've ever seen for blatant wonk-hackery.
I really do enjoy your posts, and am relieved you don't take yourself seriously. (Seriously!)
Ain't it neat the way you can get the eye-piece to swivel to any angle you like?
Have a nice day! 
"Pssst. Bill Gates covets netscape -- pass it on!"
not anymore. if bill wants anything these days from netAOL, it's the subscriber list. his shitty MSN needs it in the worst way.
Moreover, I wonder how far they would like to see such an economic leveling pursued: Is it right for Americans to have disproportionate standards of living while so many Africans, Latin Americans, and Asians do not? And if fairness and equal opportunity for all are to be the benchmarks, ought not annual income be but the first step? Aside from wealth transfer, let's have technology transfer and education transfer. Under a more equitable international system, I'd estimate for example that 90 to 95 percent of the computers in this country should be shipped overseas. Let's also revise college entrance requirements so that 99 percent of openings are reserved for non-Americans. Without resistributing the tools of wealth creation, moving wealth is just a temporary fix.
Now this may be nitpicky in light of the bigger issues, but I also think it's patently unfair that most of the actors, directors, and screenwriters all come from Hollywood. Let's regulate the American movie industry so that films can have no more than 5 percent American personnel. It goes without saying that the wealth redistribution is going to hit Hollywood pretty hard. Most of those folks won't even be able to afford their apartments anymore.
But in my personal opinion (and envy) entertainers--as well as professional athletes--have had it too good too long.
Harrison Bergeron anyone?
You had me up til the 3rd paragraph. I've often wondered whether the American people would stand for the drop in prosperity if we were to really attempt global development and affirmative action. Of course that assumes that our prosperity would have to decrease to reach an average of current conditions, or whether those less prosperous could be raised to our level.
The way for us not to sink to the level of those less prosperous countries is to stop the slow erosion of our freedoms via welfarism and paternalism.
Not that I would attempt to prove it, but one can certainly argue that inequality of wealth is necessary for an economic market to work. When systems reach equilibrium, change (i.e., improvement) is unlikely.
Ronski:
If someone was to tout the benefits of a statist society as much as you do the libertarian ideal conception of a free society, you would probably consider them pathetic.
Wombat,
I certainly would, and have.
Henry Ford proved the theory that he'd be better off if his workers could afford to buy his products. I don't see why this wouldn't work on a global scale, but maybe I'm naive.
I'm a believer in equality of opportunity rather than equality of results. Of course this sounds nice and most people say the same, but the crux is how you define "opportunity". I don't think that you have equality of opportunity until you have enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to education, and a relatively safe environment.
I just don't have a problem with those who make more paying more in taxes.
I don't, either. But keep in mind that they already do. So the issue isn't that they'll pay more, it's how much more, and why. Also, I think the framing matters.
I think obscene wealth in the face of dire poverty is immoral and sinful. But I don't believe in using government force to cudgel others into subscribing to my religion.
If I could write the tax code, it would be based on resource consumption. Those who consume the most from society--not those who produce the most--would be responsible for the largest burden of funding that society.
bubbaette: Henry Ford presumably discovered that using his own free will and acting out of his own best interests. I agree with what you're saying (that people in principle should have their minimum needs met), but you have to look at what will work best in fulfilling the most human needs in the long run while at the same time not sacrificing the very human need for freedom and choice.
Ronski: People could live better than they do, but I'd be skeptical they could all live like middle class Americans.
"If I could write the tax code, it would be based on resource consumption."
i.e. breeder tax. i love it!
Your speculations regarding possible future income of heirs is the same old sorry pipe dream that keeps the wanna-be-gentry, subservient serfs, loyal to their kings.
"Wiz - How do you expect to be taken seriously..."
JJ- I expect nothing other than aggression from wealth-obsessed sharks consumed with a compulsion to dominate everything and everyone around them?
As you move along the axis, I think you lessen fairness...
individual --> local govt. --> state govt. --> federal govt. --> global
those benfitting most --> those benefitting least
I like it when people have control of how their tax dollar is spent and its best when people will make voluntary charitable contributions. I like it when people who drive on a road pay for the road to be built. These aren't inviolable but general guidelines.
And going back to what I said about consumption taxes, I think taxing someone's production (i.e., work) isn't nearly as fair as taxing consumption. Charge people for making "outs," not for getting "hits." (For example: creating pollution, burning energy, owning land.)
Do you really think that the elderly, children, the sick and the disabled can float the government?
Answering your question would require making several presumptions as to your meaning. Which government program do you think is currently being supported by the elderly, sick, disabled, and children?
But that's my point, the people occupying a far-removed position on the political spectrum probably reject that. Don't they, Moties?
Seems like it would be a more profitable exercise to nail down (I dare not say agree on) the concept of fairness before bustin' each other upside the head over whether issue x is fair. Yes/no, Motronites?
I personally believe that the emphasis on "fair" is silly no matter who is complaining about it. Particularly when it comes to taxes.
The other term that shows up from time is "social justice." It is just as nebulous and subjective as "fair". Of course this doesn't stop people from using both terms as if they have clear, simple, unambiuous meanings.
It is bad enough when moties use these terms as if they represent objective goals. It is scarier, when politicians running for national office resort to such tactics.
What is a less nebulous (more "objective") standard by which to measure tax policy?
How about pragmatic assessment? It's what we use now. The rich can afford more, so they pay more.
Cost and effort to implement and maintain
Cost and effort to the taxpayer of compliance
Overall economic impact
Collateral effects
Long term cost/benefit ratios
Trying to impose one group's idea of "fair" on the whole runs contrary to the principles this country was founded on.
I am certainly a definition hound in this case. While I find the discussions highly entertaining, it's also disheartening at times to watch you guys hammerlock each other over some exceedingly fine point when you don't even agree on the basic measures with which to gauge a 'fair' position.
Bear with me y'all, I may be lurching uncontrollably toward something interesting (although probably not today).
You don't see me in these hammerlock discussions because I, too, am a creature of definition.
Surely you don't think that "ability to pay" is objective? Frankly, it sounds down-right socialist to me - "from each according to his means" or some other such nonsense.
First, the standard itself is indeterminate: how does the taxer know how much the taxee is "able to pay?" Should there be a flat, "objective" standard which is actually nothing more than whatever the taxer deems sufficient, or fair? Should there be a rate based on empirical consumption levels? Maybe each person should get to declare the utility they get from each dollar they receive and the govt. can base taxes on individualized utility assessments. The standard of "ability to pay" simply pushes the determination of what constitutes "fairness" further down the line; it is no more objective than an explicit appeal to fairness and can even be damaging when propagated as such since it presents itself as unimpeachable "scientific" argument, thereby stifling discourse.
Second, the very notion that "ability to pay" should be the standard requires a preliminary determination that that is the "fair" standard. Until the progressive movement, the tax system was based very much on a model like that discussed by Indiana Jones above - it was a system of proportional taxation, based primarily on property taxes and tarrifs. The standard was "from each according to his receipt." Can you give an argument that "ability to pay" is a better standard that is not reducible to "it's more fair?"
I didn't say objective, I said pragmatic. And I don't think you have to veer off into socialism to say, "Look, it's easier to get a small percentage from the rich than a big percentage from the middle class." (Although this is one reason why I don't mind much that the middle class pays a higher percentage. The rich pay more, and in the end, that's what gets the bills paid.)
Socialism has more to do with what services are provided once the money is received.
Over the years, I've engaged in lots of discussions with friends and acquaintances of all political stripes. And the most noteworthy thing I've observed is that nobody ever wins. Ever. Nobody has ever said, "Y'know, Brunhilde, you're right, you've changed my mind about capital defenestration". About the closest we ever get is, "Well, that's true, but...".
So, lately, I've been thinking that maybe there's a solution. Why not conduct an experiment that would prove, once and for all, which political philosophy is best? As if.
For starters, let's match up the old reliables -- modern-day, knee-jerk liberalism and Neanderthal, reactionary conservatism -- and let 'em duke it out as follows: take two very similar states (say, Nebraska and Kansas or Tennessee and Kentucky). Give one of 'em to a bunch of let-'em-eat-dirt conservatives to destroy and let a pack of flaming liberals run the other state into the ground. Let each group wield near-dictatorial power for, say, 40 years and then, somehow, pick a winner.
Obviously, this is all a fantasy and will never happen. But if it could, what metrics (max of ten) would you use to determine the winner fairly (examples: number of homeless per capita, average family income)? The key word in that last sentence is "fairly".
You suggested that taxation should be based on consumption rather than income. The elderly, disabled, and children tend consume more in the way of government services than most healthy and productive adults.
The point being how do you measure consumption? Which factors do you use and how do you attach number values to them? Income has the considerable advantage of being readily countable.
1. Cost and effort to implement and maintain & cost and effort to the taxpayer of compliance
First, these aren't objective; second, these aren't standards.
They aren't objective because each person is going to have a different subjective cost of compliance. For people who preceive a particular cost as unfair, the disaffection costs will be extremely high. For instance, the cost of compliance with the inheritance tax is extremely high for people who really wanted to run Daddy's business but have to sell it; the cost of compliance is low for people who really didn't give a shit about Mom's flower shop and just want the money. Costs of implementation and maintenance are inherently linked to individual, contingent, and exogenously formed perceptions of fairness, since evasion will be higher when disaffection costs are higher. You, like Cal above, are simply pushing the determination of fairness further down the line - people who pay the taxes (and evade them) get to determine what sort of taxes are desirable, rather than some objective standard.
If your standards are limited to monetary costs, then not only are they impoverished, but they are ludicrous: it would seem to imply that whichever tax raises the most revenue is the best.
They aren't standards because they don't provide any guidance in selecting between competing tax proposals. Suppose that one tax requires little effort to maintain because it forces the taxee to perform all of the preparatory work, thereby increasing the consumer's cost of compliance. Another tax requires relatively equal effort from both parties. Which tax is better? A simple adding up of the numbers involved makes no sense, since it ignores the substantial, less monetizable, costs involved. Determining the relative weight of those less easily monetized costs is necessary and missing from these "standards."
You attribute a non-existent normative quality to economics. The overall economic impact of two taxes can not be compared without a notion of fairness: say one has the impact of increasing growth by 5% but it concentrates wealth in the top 1% of the population. Another decrease growth by 5% but raises the bottom 15% of the population out of poverty. Which "overall economic impact" is more desirable?
3. Collateral effects
Like disaffection costs? How is this "objective?"
4. Long term cost/benefit ratios
CBA can present us with a monetized expected benefit per unit of input, but that's it. It simply can not help us determine which level of benefit is worth which level of cost, and it has great difficulty accurately monetizing interpersonal utility.
I thought your Message # 30816 was a response to my Message # 30817. My argument was simply that there is no such thing as an objective standard for evaluating tax policy. The ability to pay argument has been theoretically classified as socialist since Edwin Seligman's classic, The Theory of Progressive Taxation, in 8 Political Science Quarterly 220, no.2 (1893). I agree that it also has substantial pragmatic/intuitive appeal.
I agree. As a side note, that is why the American Trucking cases the Supreme Court just granted cert on are so important. The case will revolve around some weird legal issues, but the argument is basically whether the EPA has to use explicit cost benefit analysis to avoid non-delegation doctrine problems with the Clean Air Act.
What? How in the hell to you get that from what I said? Return to GO and start over.
The question at hand is taxation, not programs.
It also tends to ignore non-monetary costs and benefits because it's hard to quantify clean air, dignity, independence, etc.
CBA doesn't have to be only criteria, but it should be one of them. The government shouldn't spend $200,000 per trainee to train them for a $10 an hour job. Government should make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Trying to impose one group's idea of "fair" on the whole runs contrary to the principles this country was founded on
And
Striving for fairness is not only futile, it's un-American??
The idea of your experiment, while appealing, would never work. Because how could the flaming liberals address the problems in Kentucky or Tennassee or Nebraska with only the resources of those states?? Obviously, without the bounty from California, Texas, New York, etc. they could not institute their grand plans within the resources available. Imagine having to fix the problems in Kentucky with only the tax dollars available from Kentucky. Why, that's an impossibility, and it violates one of the prime tenets of liberalism, namely the redistribution of wealth.
Back to your original question about the sick, elderly, children, etc., if we decide that taking care of them is a proper function of government, then it makes no sense for the government to give them money (or services) and turn around and tax them. I'm not sure there's a consensus for government performing that function, though, especially given ducky's comment about a breeding tax.
What I would strive for in designing a tax system is one that, while funding the social obligations of the government, promotes good social behavior and inhibits bad social behavior by individuals. That is, to the degree that an individual's behavior impacts society and society has to clean it up (or facilitate it), then society can bill the individual.
Property taxes, sales taxes, pollution taxes, luxury taxes, "sin" taxes are IMO better ways to go than income taxes. Working is something society wants people to do, but--to pick on the current political hobgoblin--driving an SUV is not (and driving an SUV is something that affects the common good). Presumably those behaviors that hurt society as a whole the worst would be commensurately taxed, whereas taxes on ordinary foodstuffs could be, for example, very low.
Your "standards" are conceptually indistinguishable from "fairness." I agree that fairness is subjective; my point was that we just have to deal with it.
I try very hard to leave "fairness" out of my arguments for the reason that it is so subjective. Whenever I see someone trying to justify a political position on the grounds of "fairness", I am reminded of small chilren vying for position. As with children, they view their position as "fair" and anything else as "unfair".
Since your positions are just as subjective, just as based on a contingent notion of fairness, arrogance like that demonstrated in the tripe above is unjustifiable.
I think you might be making a false empirical claim -several of the poorer states are net-exporters of tax revenues (bigger states have higher infrastructural costs, etc.). I'll try to find some statistics.
Aytchman -
Aside from your clearly erroneous assumption about KY and TN being similar, it would be impossible to get reliable results from such a small sample. KY is much more cosmopolitan, sophisticated, and better governed that TN; we have an income tax, for Christ's sake. The only thing TN is good for is fireworks.
But how would you objectively pick a winner?
We all agree it's a fantasy. But just for fun, can no imagine carving out two nearly identical state-sized areas for said experiment? There actually is a point to all of this that has not been revealed.
Based on the metrics selected (last para of my post).
Get real. All of my criteria are less subjective than "fairness". We can tell how much the government spent to implement and enforce a tax policy. We can estimate how much taxpayers spend by looking at their expenditures for accountants and tax preparers. You and I can at least agree on what economic impact is. There is no way you and I would ever agree about what is "fair".
Claiming my criteria are no more objective than "fairness" is a dodge to avoid the issue. I'm not buying. Try again.
Apparently you didn't actually read my argument above.
Your "criteria" are not standards. They are predictions. How you choose between two predicted outcomes is based on an appeal to fairness.
Additionally, your reasoning for selecting certain predictable characteristics over others is based on your particular notion of fairness. Why choose "overall economic impact" (which I assume you relate to growth?) over "overall impact on the disparity of wealth"?
Oh yeah - what issue am I dodging? I admit that appeals to fairness are hopelessly subjective. My point is that all decisional criteria are similarly subjective.
I think measurements such as per capita income assume that the populations under study value the same things as the researcher.
Are you saying you would use total population as the only measure? Remember, both governments have near-dictatorial power (whatever that means).
I don't have time to get into a long discussion of utilitarianism, but I disagree with your characterization of it. There is Benthamic hedonic utilitarianism, Millian paternalistic utilitarianism, and everything in between.
Free immigration only necessarily increases personal if it is truly cost free (i.e., there are no transaction costs). For example, there is currently much discussion about the effect that the elimination of de jure barriers to integration had on inner city minority communities. The transaction costs of the move (i.e., the money) resulted in much greater social stratification, locking poor blacks into communities with no social resources. Was the decreased utility of those left behind outweighed by the increased utility of those who fled?
JJ -
It's funny. I think I see pretty clearly. You act like your "criteria" are neutral and objective because your ideology holds them to be desirable. They aren't objective, they just hide the considerations of fairness further down in the analysis.
Feel free to tell me what I'm missing.
Hmm...Dave...I don't think I characterized utilitarianism, but rather made a statement of how I would measure which system was accomplishing the most good for the most people (which is usually considered the basic tenet of utilitarianism, but like you, I'd rather not argue over that, preferring to express my own views rather than interpret exactly what someone else--namely, John Stuart Mill--meant).
And I considered making immigration cost free by saying that in the interest of this experiment the researcher would provide means of transportation. But if immigration occurs in spite of obstacles, all the more reason to think that those immigrating have great incentives to do so.
Remember, it's a closed system, so in theory no one will move from the good place to the bad, despite disproportionality of ease of movement. Just look at the historical example of the Iron Curtain.
>>Aside from your clearly erroneous assumption about KY and TN being similar, it would be impossible to get reliable results from such a small sample
Again acknowledging that this is all fantastical, why would it be impossible to get reliable results (and draw some reasonable conclusions) from a 40-year experiment involving several million people in roughly equivalent conditions? (Not necessarily Ky and Tn.)
If you've not revealed the point of the exercise by tomorrow, I'll give it another go.
My bad about the utilitarianism comment.
I don't understand your middle paragraph, though: what if there are people who can't afford to emigrate and are hurt by the emigration of those who can? The flight of the black middle class is a good example. Russian brain drain is the counter to your example in paragraph three.
This is a relevant consideration in a lot of the liberty-type arguments that are increasingly popular. School vouchers and home schooling, for instance. I can easily see (and am half persuaded by) an argument that voluntary homeschooling should be illegal because it deprives other students of role models and interaction with academically gifted peers. The argument is much more solid with regard to "tracking" or vouchers, imho. De jure free immigration runs a serious risk of hurting those that are still de facto constrained.
Attention Flame Warriors!
I'm not saying that the posters to this message board would ever resort to personal attacks, but I'm sure you've heard of this happening at other message boards and news groups.
This website does a pretty good job of pegging the personalities of them people behind the keyboard in any good flame fest...
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
Anyone who has posted to a message board or news group for any amount of time will know why this is funny...
Also:
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
Attention Flame Warriors!
I'm not saying that the posters to this message board would ever resort to personal attacks, but I'm sure you've heard of this happening at other message boards and news groups.
This website does a pretty good job of pegging the personalities of them people behind the keyboard in any good flame fest...
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
Anyone who has posted to a message board or news group for any amount of time will know why this is funny...
Also:
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
Attention Flame Warriors!
I'm not saying that the posters to this message board would ever resort to personal attacks, but I'm sure you've heard of this happening at other message boards and news groups.
This website does a pretty good job of pegging the personalities of them people behind the keyboard in any good flame fest...
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
Anyone who has posted to a message board or news group for any amount of time will know why this is funny...
Also:
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
The link wouldn't clicky! Here it is again:
Flame Warriors
And hey, look!...It's my page again! :-)
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
The link wouldn't clicky! Here it is again:
Flame Warriors
And hey, look!...It's my page again! :-)
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
The link wouldn't clicky! Here it is again:
Flame Warriors
And hey, look!...It's my page again! :-)
The Conservative Hall of Fame, as decadent as it gets!
I didn't hit my last posts 2 times, the message board did that. Is it because I'm using Webtv?
I didn't hit my last posts 2 times, the message board did that. Is it because I'm using Webtv?
I think hitting refresh just after posting causes a repost.
George W. Bush Jr.
Mr. Ryerson clearly believes that this makes GWBush look like a doof, but, in fact, it indicates that Mr. Bush has a better understanding of both politics and the cosmos than the people who put together the above website.
1. Number of people living below the poverty line (per capita).
2. Composite index of the level of medical care and life expectancy.
3. Index of the equitable distribution of ethnic groups across major job categories.
4. Composite index of wealth and income ratios of top 5% to bottom 5% of population (to be within certain limits).
5. Composite environmental indicator combining several types of pollution measurements
6. Average per capita educational level
7. Composite measure of quality of life for seniors, children and disabled (something combining standard of living, health, etc.)
8. Cultural index of museums, libraries and arts venues per capita
9. Gross Domestic Product of the state.
Krugman doesn't usually indulge in pap. I am inclined to follow his lead on most issues, and am glad to hear that he has spoken on the matter.
NOT DANGEROUS ENOUGH!!!!!!!
As hard as it may be for Krugman and others on the left to believe, there is a substantial number of people in this country who are not driven by blind greed, insatiable envy, and overwhelming avarice. These people can look at the success of someone like Bill Gates and feel encouraged that great success is possible in this country. They don't feel cheated or threatened by his or anyone else's success and good fortune.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party gives voice to those who hold accomplishment in contempt. They cloak their rhetoric in the righteous sounding words, but their message is clear.
I hate to burst your carefully constructed bubble, but corporations are owned by individuals who have the same rights you do. Whem you attack a corporation, you attack the individuals who own it. I guess in your book anyone who ownes stock in a corporation is automatically "rich" and therefore fair game for whatever indignities you wish to heap upon them.
Biener,
Krugman commits the occasional journalistic sin, but pap is not something that he is generally prone to. Your notion that Krugman indulges in class envy and a contempt for people like Bill Gates is unwarranted and off base. (For example, check out his stance on the Microsoft antitrust trial). On the inheritance tax issue, Krugman is basically saying that there should be some compelling argument for foregoing the revenue currently received from the inheritance tax. At present, he thinks no such argument has been made by those who support a repeal of the tax; and I am inclined to agree.
Contempt for people like Gates is a general characteristic of people on the left, not necessarily Krugman in particular. The inheretance tax is based solely on class envy. The question should not be whether there is "some compelling argument for foregoing the revenue currently received from the inheritance tax" but rather is there some compelling argument to keep it. The argument heard most often is that it only affects the "super-rich" and this is an argument based on class envy. Krugman's assertion that the vote in Congress was bought and paid-for is based on the assumption that class envy is universal and sufficient justification for the inheritance tax. It provides no possibility that the inheritance tax could be opposed for legitimate reasons.
"Class envy" is the term of choice for those who disparage the entire notion that society is composed of clssses. Which is it? Make up your mind.
"Individual" is wedge word.
As always the name of the game is Divide and Conquer. That individuals may cometogether to peition for common grievances is anathema to the status quo.
And this is precisely what I object to. It is the idea that the "rich" don't deserve their wealth. Therefore the government has the right (or obligation some say) to take that money and give it to someone else who for some reason they believe deserves it more. The heart of this argument is envy.
It is not that the rich don't deserve their wealth; just that they are not necessarily entitled to ALL of their wealth. Money makes money -- but (at least to some degree) for reasons independent of the wealthy's wealth producing activity.
Estate taxes do not penalize the wealthy per se. Their burden is on those who would take from the wealthy. Their legatees may be poor, rich or charitable. The tax falls upon the poor as well as the wealthy.
Wow BienBrain, you swallowed Niner's goose shit in one gulp. Are you that hard up for a rationale? It's a question of manipulating crony politicians into doing the bidding of the super-rich -- who got that way because they're so good at exploiting people and situations. It has nothing to do with "envy" or "class" --it's about subverting a constitution that was meant to protect all of us from the tyranny of exploitation.
JJ-"These people can look at the success of someone like Bill Gates and feel encouraged that great success is possible in this country. They don't feel cheated or threatened by his or anyone else's success and good fortune."
Talk about "pap!" Bill Gates is a thug riddled with fear over losing his power and dominance, which compelled him to intimidate his associates and collude against his competitors -- that's not success, that's extortion -- whether you care to admit it or not. The only reason he became as rich as he did, was the fact that he could exploit other people's ideas and efforts so well. You're the perfect mouse for this type of Pied Piper, JJ -- your naivete is breathtaking!
If we should treat corporations as individuals because they are owned by individuals, then we should treat dogs, trees and automobiles as individuals.
Is this what I said? No. It is not even close. A corporation is only a legal representation of individuals who own it. You can't pretend that you can attack and harm corporations and not harm the individuals who own it.
Are you saying a person is not entitled to money earned as interest on an investment? How did you come to this conclusion?
Then why do its proponents make that claim?
Joe Wealthy decides to give his property to Joe Wealthy Jr. He can do so. The law doesn't prevent him from doing so.
If the gift is large enough, it is subject to a gift tax.
The inheritance tax only comes into play if Joe Sr. dies and can't do it himself.
And this makes it legitimate? It's alright to steal from the dead since they can't fight back?
Estate taxes do not penalize the wealthy per se.
Of course they do. That is the only justification for tham.
Their burden is on those who would take from the wealthy. Their legatees may be poor, rich or charitable. The tax falls upon the poor as well as the wealthy.
This makes no sense. Please clarify.
The income generated from inherited wealth is taxed. How much more do need?
It is obtuse to deny that luck and happenstance play a significant role in the return that investors receive on their investments --especially when you are talking about large fortunes. A point is inevitably reached where natural law arguments collapse; at some point, one can no longer seriously claim that they are naturally entitled to ALL of the fruits of their investments.
That you would follow a question like this with the follow statement
It's a question of manipulating crony politicians into doing the bidding of the super-rich --who got that way because they're so good at exploiting people and situations.
is too funny for words.
It has nothing to do with "envy" or "class" -- it's about subverting a constitution that was meant to protect all of us from the tyranny of exploitation.
This is a novel approach. We are now Constitutionally required to confiscate wealth from the rich. Creative interpretation there, Wiz.
Bill Gates is a thug riddled with fear over losing his power and dominance, which compelled him to intimidate his associates and collude against his competitors -- that's not success, that's extortion
Sure, Wiz. Anything you say. It's the Revenge of the Nerds all over again, right?
You're the perfect mouse for this type of Pied Piper, JJ -- your naivete is breathtaking!
My naivete? You are the one seeing boogeymen, not me. You really need to stay away from those conspiracy web sites. You are losing touch with reality.
And this makes it legitimate? It's alright to steal from the dead since they can't fight back?
So it's alright to tax income if it comes from one's sweat or inventiveness but not if it comes from Ma and Pa?
I don't deny it. I just deny its relevance.
-- especially when you are talking about large fortunes.
The size of the fortune is also irrelevant. Unless of course basing your case on envy, then it is relevant.
A point is inevitably reached where natural law arguments collapse; at some point, one can no longer seriously claim that they are naturally entitled to ALL of the fruits of their investments.
Why? Because you don't like them? So far your entire argument can be attributed to envy. That is not a valid basis for law.
Okay Biener,
Parsing is fun isn't it Biener. Let's try this: why do you think that wealth should be shielded from taxation?
If you want to deprive someone of their property, you have to justify why you are doing it. Just claiming they aren't entitled to it doesn't cut it. If they broke the law, then the law should handle it. If they didn't break the law, you have no claim.
Perhaps another way of measuring this (besides immigration) would be each year of the experiment, all members of each population vote in secret on whether they approve of the way things are being done, and the winner being the one with the highest grand total for all 40 years.
Now, that's how I would measure a head-to-head competition as you're describing. My own ideals would be reflected in a society that had (no particular order): sustainability (low pollution, efficient use of resources, positive or at least neutral fiscal trends), security (from crime and tyranny), maximum education, "full" employment, mobility (geographic and vocational) for those who wanted to take advantage of it, flourishing and diverse culture.
Don't know how you measure some of those things, but I expect a society adept at most would do well in my earlier described metrics.
It's not because I say its so, JJ, it's the tax code. Without a specific exception, inheritances are income.
Oh come on. Nobody has an absolute entitlement to whatever wealth they happen to come by. Entitlement to wealth is usually justified by some sort of natural rights (fruits of labour) type argument -- which has its merits, but inevitably breaks down at certain levels of wealth. IF you want to argue against (or for) a tax, you need to do so based on issues of fairness or policy. Does the given tax make good sense as a matter of policy? Does the tax unfairly burden a particular segment of society? Those are the pertinent issues with regard to justifying a given tax or taxation policy.
You sem to be equating taxation with theft, which is the crankiest of crank philosphies -- and the most dubious of starting points for meaningful discussion.
I mean, sure, you have lots of high minded rhetoric about "economic benefit" and "collateral effects" (well, it's really not all that high minded), but that's all window dressing for what can adequately be explained by naked greed.
If people should be taxed for making "outs" not "hits," why tax consumption? Is that an "out," like pollution? Is it bad? Something we don't want people to do? I think on the contrary it is the point of all this. Consumption creates utility, the ultimate "hit" in economic policy. I guess everyone's consumption should be subsidized.
(But then, since only relative prices matter, we'll be just where we started.)
You can't just keep saying that.
Since Biener keeps recasting every argument in terms of envy, it is sort of hard to avoid being repetitious.
As for school vouchers, I don't have hard scientific research either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if in actuality "gifted" students really excel when concentrated with other "gifted" students and are insufficient to "salt" a wider student population. The stereotype is, of course, that gifted students are abused and picked on by their more numerous peers residing in the fat part of the bell curve. Could be just a myth, though.
In terms of anecdotal evidence, I went to a public school but was fortunate enough to be in a program that did let the "unique"--their word--students have two half days per week to do "creative" stuff. I remember learning more in that program than all the rest of the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades. Two of those teachers gave me a sense of confidence, self-worth, and "normality" when I wasn't getting it much anywhere else, too. (That is, my regular school experience and much of my family life wasn't a lesson in the importance of brainpower.)
Try again. This defines "gross income" not "income". It already assumes a definition of income. There are many transfers of wealth that are not taxed and income is just a transfer of wealth.
Base on what? Just because you keep asserting it doesn't make it true.
Entitlement to wealth is usually justified by some sort of natural rights (fruits of labour) type argument -- which has its merits, but inevitably breaks down at certain levels of wealth.
Why? At what levels? Based on what?
IF you want to argue against (or for) a tax, you need to do so based on issues of fairness or policy.
How can we base tax policy on fairness when you and I will never agree on what is fair? I don't think an inheritance tax is fair. I don't believe a highly progressive tax is fair.
You sem to be equating taxation with theft, which is the crankiest of crank philosphies
I have neither said nor implied this.
Welcome to the wonderful benefits of democracy.
Not true. Quite the opposite in fact. The liberal argument is based on greed as well as envy. Here is the definition of greed:
excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness
The conservative argument is based on one's right to retain one's wealth. The liberal argument is based on using government to acquire the wealth of others.
Tabouli was trying to establish an actual justification other than mob rule. Unfortunately for him, that is all his argument can come down to.
Now if you had a first principles argument about the equivalence of envy and the liberal position that would be one thing, but you don't. You claim to see through high minded rhetoric to the truth. And you apply a different standard to your own position, evidently simply because it's your own.
Another example would be taxing the electricity a factory used rather than the goods it produces.
The reason I used hits and outs is in terms of baseball the visiting team has 27 outs. Regardless of how many homeruns, walks, etc., it will eventually use up 27 outs. What it uses those outs for determines whether it wins or loses.
BTW, this discussion began with the preface of "how I would design the tax code." I see the function of taxes as being to fund the government, not social engineering. But if I were to create a tax code to encourage what I consider good social behavior and discourage bad, I would base it on consumption rather than production.
Bzzzzzz! Wrong answer. Thank you for playing. You will receive some lovely parting gifts.
Wanna buy a bridge?
I think you can justify progressive taxation along the semi-Rawlsian lines that Slackjaw has mentioned. But working out the exact details, and weighing the benefits of fairness against the problems of economic efficiency is something which is perfectly suited for the democratic process.
Biener,
When you boil it down, it is probably impossible to come up with an exacting definition of a concept such as tall, for example. Still,despite the elusiveness of a fixed definition, people are able to discuss "tallness" and everyone woould agree that Shaquille O'Neal is tall. Ditto, for the concept of fairness.
As for all of your other comments: I will just agree to disagree with you at this point.
That is, you can talk about fairness and devise policies around the issue of fairness, despite the impossibility of arriving at a universal definition of fairness.
This is pure sophistry. You do not have to unanimously agree on exactly what constitutes "fraud" "assault", or "rape" to pass laws against them. You do not have to have a universally excepted definition of poverty to try to alleviate it. You do not need to have everyone agree on what free speech constitutes before agreeing to protect it. And you do not have everyone agree on what "fair" means before setting it up as a policy goal.
Yeesh. Name *any* policy goal for which there is universal agreement about the definition. Equity? Prosperity? lack of crime?
I'm sure Gov. Bush will know exactly what you're talking about -- he's great at imbecile-speak too... 
Fairness is a purely subjective concept. Taxation consisting of a fixed dollar amount, a fixed percentage or an increasing percentage can all be justified as being fair depending on what you believe is fair. When you claim that something is based on fairness, all you are saying is that you believe it is fair. You are merely restating your opinion. You aren't justifying anything.
Biener,
But what is your definition of tall.
No we don't need to agree exactly. We can come up with approximate definitions for these words which can be agreed upon. But with "fairness" we can't even get an approximate definition. If one group believe a progressive tax is fair and another group believes a flat tax is fair, how can "fairness" be used as any kind of meaningful criteria?
"For example, only so much land exists. If I use some of it for one purpose, it can't be used for another, so a tax would be partly an offset against the opportunity cost."
That's what prices are for. Why piggy back taxes on top of them? They are redundant if this is your goal and can't reflect changing and dispersed information as fast as market prices can anyway.
What difference does it make? That isn't a response.
You can sort out the bookkeeping of motivation vs. basis in your own lexicon. The point is, the conservative argument rests on greed just as the liberal one used to rest on envy, and now rests on greed too.
"Second, the desire to keep one's own property is not greed per the definition provided above."
Really? Why is it not "reprehensible aquisitiveness" to want to pay lower taxes while some human beings live in medieval squalor? Who gets to decide "reprehensible"? You? No Biener, I see through your argument. You want to take a principled road, and some of your *words* indicate that, but I know what you really mean.
"Greed is aquisitiveness which is the basis of the liberal argument."
That doesn't mean it can't be for the conservative one too. There's plenty of greed to go around.
Just giving you a taste of your own sophistical medicine.
Problem: not only is 675K not super-rich, 1 million isn't super-rich. 4 million is not super-rich.
$20 million and beyond is super-rich. I'll even settle for 10 million. Krugman's argument fails the moment he uses the term "super-rich" to discuss the fairness of the inheritance tax, which is currently applied to the "not-even-all-that-wealthy".
How is "fair" any tougher to define than "crime" or "poverty"? I think you confuse the ease of defining fair (equal distribution of a given amount of resources or assets) with the difficulties in weighing the tradeoff between fairness and prosperity. That is, most people would be willing to tolerate a degree of unfairness in exchange for a large increase in their standard of living. (Choose between the two societies, one where I make $100k, and you make $50k, and one where we both make $10k).
"If one group believe a progressive tax is fair and another group believes a flat tax is fair, how can "fairness" be used as any kind of meaningful criteria?"
Through the democratic process, just as it is done for every other subjective standard that government has to make (like "what is a crime"). You still seem to think that fairness is somehow different.
There is no greed involved.
Why is it not "reprehensible aquisitiveness" to want to pay lower taxes while some human beings live in medieval squalor?
Because there is no acquisition involved. You can't have reprehensible acquisition when nothing is being acquired.
No Biener, I see through your argument. You want to take a principled road, and some of your *words* indicate that, but I know what you really mean.
You know what I really mean? What I mean is clearly written in the preceding posts. If you think there some secret meaning beyond what I have said, you are mistaken.
It is not greed to want to keep your own property. It is greed to want property that belongs to others.
Krugman's point is that the big beneficiaries of this are the hundreds of people with hundreds of millions or more. If the bill proposed increasing the ceiling, or exempting real property or something, then I think you'd have more of an objection. When I'm feeling libertarian rushes, favor confiscatory estate taxes. Citizens should have to earn their living, not have it handed to them by the state through complicated court actions. Any asset held by a dead person should go up for auction. If parents want to give things to their kids, they can do it while they're alive.
Not according to most dictionaries. Mine says "the excessive desire to acquire *or possess*, as wealth or power, beyong what one needs or deserves".
Like the browser marketplace?
The acquisition of wealth requires an enormous state role. Societies without complex states don't have much wealth. People who acquire wealth like to say that they did it on their own, but great wealth is not possible without state supported infrastructure. Is it unreasonable to expect people who have benefited disproportionately (even if it took talent or luck) from the existence of the state to support somewhat disproportionately?
It's not acquisition in that definition, but acquisitiveness. That's different -- it's about eagerness and desire, and lies beneath the drive to lower taxes.
The essence of the liberal argument about taxation contains nothing about envy or greed. It is clearly spelled out. How have you come to know its true nature then? Is it because you are special? I too am special, and I know you are a money grubber. Fess up.
Not at all. I make no claims as to what lies in their secret heart of hearts. I am merely discussing the nature of the ideas themselves and the emotions their arguments stir up.
Or, you can take up the invitation for a first principles argument that it is indeed reprehensible.
Or, you can find the verse of liberal dogma that says these ideas of taxation are in some sense reprehensible.
Why not?
Seriously, we have to put the taxes somewhere, right? Prices don't necessarily reflect social cost*, nor would my tax scheme be based purely on prices, such as a straight sales tax (though that might be an element of it). What I'm talking about generally is a tax strategy rather than tactics--the individual society and its representatives would have to decide which behaviors it wanted to reward and/or punish--but here are a couple of specifics:
1) No tax on personal labor at all. Whatever is paid you for your own productivity is yours free and clear. This would seem to make labor cheap relative to other means of production, meaning unemployment should be low.
2. Start out by taxing the big commodities, like energy and raw materials because they would be simplest. As you determine other economic scarcities (or environmental costs), put taxes on them as well.
I think bubbaette pointed out the biggest problem with such a tax system...unwieldiness, so if simplicity is your goal, mine is a weak candidate.
*An example: undeveloped rain forest may be longterm very valuable for survival of our species but if so, market price doesn't seem to reflect it.
I don't think your definition is at all accurate. In fact I believe in many cases equal distribution is blatantly unfair.
Through the democratic process, just as it is done for every other subjective standard that government has to make (like "what is a crime"). You still seem to think that fairness is somehow different.
As I just demonstrated, fairness is different.
From the article.
The current inheritance tax applies only to estates of more than $675,000, with the cutoff scheduled to rise to more than $1 million over the next few years; as a result, only about 2 percent of estates pay any tax at all -- a fact that opponents of repeal tried in vain to publicize. But even that 2 percent figure quite literally doesn't tell the half of it. Because of the power law, a good deal more than half the value of that top 2 percent of estates actually lies in the top 0.4 percent. And since only the amount over $675,000 is taxed, and the tax rate rises with the size of the estate, the bulk of each year's inheritance tax is actually paid by only a few thousand multimillion-dollar estates. This really is a tax levied almost entirely on the very, very well off.
Well, no it's not. It is really a tax levied on the well-to-do and up. It's just that the bulk of the money comes from the very, very, very well off. Using that reasoning, why not eliminate the tax on the well-to-do and apply it only to the people that he thinks it should be applied to?
If you only want to smack the really, really, really rich, then apply it only to those people. I agree that they are the primary beneficiaries of the repeal, but that is no justification for keeping the tax as it is if they are the ones you want to apply it to. In general, I think our income taxes think of "rich" by 1900 standards. Don't get me wrong--if you want a tax to hit the well-to-do, then by all means, do so. And argue accordingly. But don't apply a tax to the well-to-do and above and then justify it by saying that we need to even things out among the super-rich.
As for your libertarian proposals--I think that someone ought to be able to give their estate to whoever they wish. But I think there are a number of ways to design a system and I have no particular attachment to this one.
Ye Gods, man, I have explicitly said that not everyone has to agree on the definition, but you said it was impossible to create a definition at all. I was demonstrating that you were wrong.
"As I just demonstrated, fairness is different."
How, by disagreeing? My point is that any one person can disagree with your definition of absolutely *any* policy goal that you care to name. Again, try to define "what should be a crime". Or "justice"? Or "obscenity" in free speech issues? Or define a religion, so that we can precisely clear on what falls inside and what falls outside constitutional protection?
Like "fairness", these are all things for which we follow approximate definitions - a "I know it when I see it" approach which occasionally has to have a somewhat arbitrary standard hard-written into law as a practical necessity.
As such, lack of unanimity about what a standard should be is not an obstacle for implementing such a standard.
I'm not at all sure that one who has worked harder than others, or who has taken greater personal risks than others, or who has had greater talent than others, can be said to benefit disproportionately from the state.
And I agree that generally a strong state respecting property rights and the rule of law is necessary for wealth to be created, but that does not mean that a strong state must also be a large, complex, or intrusive state. Great wealth was produced in this country earlier in its history while the state was strong but small.
Inheritances are exluded from gross income. Again, why should they be different from earned income? What principled difference is there between inherited income and that which is earned? Don't bother with the "it's already been taxed" crap, as that is true for any number of other forms of income.
Cal: keep in mind that the first 650k (rising to over a million soon)is *exempt* from estate taxation. That is, if your estate is one million, only 350k of it is taxed. As such, we see that the tax incidence is pretty damned low for those with "only" net wealth of a million or so, so it already is largely falling on the more well-off within that group.
But if all you are doing is quibbling over whether the cut off should be 650k or 2 million, I doubt Krugman would care.
Of course market prices don't always reflect opportunity cost. But you brought that up, and your commodity or consumption taxation is a stab in the dark. If you want prices to reflect opportunity costs, you have to think about it and use institutions that are known to be effective in equating the two. The tax that equates prices and social costs (the Pigouvian tax), which you seem at times to be advocating, is probably not that effective in practice.
As you determine other economic scarcities (or environmental costs), put taxes on them as well.
How are you to determine this scarcity? Something like a market price, perhaps? Then the price already reflects all the cost society needs for efficient allocation. An extra tax is simply distortionary.
Why not? Because if you do the opportunity cost thing right, turning around and taxing consumption just screws you.
The root word in acquisitiveness is acquire. In the conservative argument there is no attempt to acquire anything from anyone. That is not true of the liberal argument. The liberal argument tries to justify the taking one person's property to benefit another. In other words, its is based on acquisitiveness. If word "greed" is to be applied to either argument, it has to be applied to the one arguing for acquisition, the liberal argument.
Who cares if the root is acquire? YOUR definition says "acquisitive."
Just as "itch" does not imply "scratch," that does not imply acquisition but a desire for it or eagerness for it. The conservative argument is based on acquisitiveness, the acquisitiveness of the taxed to be taxed less than they currently are -- to acquire more for themselves than the current bundle of legal entitlements allows them. Furthermore, since they have this acquisitiveness in the face of subhuman living conditions it is reprehensible. Ergo, it is greedy.
The liberal argument, on the other hand, is based on holding people to commitments they very likely would have voluntarily made if they had the chance, and are now reneging on.
But if all you are doing is quibbling over whether the cut off should be 650k or 2 million, I doubt Krugman would care.
No, more like 10 or 20 million. If he still doesn't care, then we're in business.
If you use the stock market as an indicator of the amount of wealth created, I suspect it will show you that the largest growth in the creation wealth began fifty years ago, and has increased with the growth and complexity of the state.
You and I can look at a situation and come to an agreement on if it should be a crime. We don't have to agree on a definition of crime to agree that armed robbery should be illegal. For the record "justice" and "obscenity" are as ambiguous as "fair" and should not be used to justify legislation. The "I know it when I see it" argument is pure bullshit and should never be tolerated.
Like "fairness", these are all things for which we follow approximate definitions
But we just demonstrated that our definitions are not even approximately the same. In fact they are diametically opposed. There is no approximate definition that will suffice.
Phooey. You and I can just as easily look at a given outcome and agree whether or not is fair. We don't have to agree on a strict definition of "fair" to determine that a child growing up in illiterate squalor within the shadow of a billionaire's mansion is "unfair". If you don't see that as unfair, I will put it to you that in such a situation many would not see armed robbery as wrong either.
Do you actually read my posts or do just make it up as you go. You can't point to the definition for gross income because it depends on the word income which you haven't defined. You haven't established that an inheritance is or even should be considered income. You claim that it is and insist you're right.
For the sake of argument, I claim that inheritance is not income, it merely a transfer of capital. As such it is not subject to taxation. It is no different than the investment of principle in a business by a third party. The investment is not taxed therefore the inheritance should not be taxed.
Once you start distinguishing between the rich (anyone with a net worth of more than a couple million in my book), super rich, filthy rich, and obscenely rich, I don't see a huge need to split hairs.
The point was that Krugman did distinguish between them. Had he not done so, I wouldn't have argued. But he did distinguish, and his point was that the super super super rich are the ones who made out like bandits. Welll, if he wants them taxed, then tax 'em. If he wants the rich taxed, then just say so. He didn't say so.
Also, anyone with a net worth of two million is wealthy, but not rich. At this point in time, I'd say "rich" starts when you have a yearly income of about $500K or more, with a net worth of say five million or more, qualifies as rich.
And that distinction is why the five Bay Area Dems voted to repeal the tax.
No, I don't assume that my experiences are typical. But it really doesn't matter. There are fewer people with net worths of 1 million dollars in other parts of the country. And there are more people living on less. But the fact that there are fewer people making $200K/year doesn't make them any richer in Podunk, Minnesota. The standard is the same throughout the land. They just have better housing.
"Because if you do the opportunity cost thing right, turning around and taxing consumption just screws you."
Not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean if you've already taxed opportunity cost then you shouldn't tax consumption, or do you mean that without taxes the market has set the opportunity cost correctly and now taxes will screw it up.
If the latter, how so? (Of course conservative economic theory is that taxes in general screw things up, but I'm assuming you're talking about something different because I don't get the sense you're a conservative economist.)
The liberal argument, on the other hand, is based on holding people to commitments they very likely would have voluntarily made if they had the chance, and are now reneging on.
Reneging on commitments never made? That is absolutely hilarious.
And furthermore, Biener, Message # 30961 says nothing about the reprehensibility of the liberal position on taxation, yet your definition requires it.
Reprehend - to voice disapproval of
Reprehensible - worthy of or deserving reprehension
Trying to deprive someone of their property is reprehensible. Doing it under the guise of "fairness" makes it even more so.
Sure it does. Money is just paper. Its value is in what it can buy you. If you live in an area with a lower cost of living, $200k can buy you more, and you are therefore richer.
The standard is the same throughout the land. They just have better housing.
The standard doesn't have to be the same throughout the land. You can do geographic exemptions. But I wouldn't want to. If people want to live in an expensive area, that is their own choice. We don't cut them slack on income taxes either. I don't see much value in raising the entire tax threshold to help the relatively small number of people who live in the Bay Area, Southern California, and Manhattan.
Sounds like you are back on the "taxation is theft" train.
Nope. I am just trying to defuse a meaningless argument.
I mentioned housing. Overall, that's about it as far as lower cost of living. At $200K, a 5% decrease in car insurance or movie prices doesn't matter a damn--and it's usually offset by more expensive services that are cheaper in the expensive areas (more demand). So no, I don't think you will find a significant difference in "rich" throughout America.
You realize that the amount taxed isn't dependent on the wealth of the recipient, but on the size of the transfer, right?
It doesn't seem necessary to provide a credit for the amount necesary to amake a person "rich" however much that amount may be. I think that the claim that the inheritance tax diproportionately affects the rich is based on an empirical observation of the typical socioeconomic status of the recipients.
Not likely.
We don't have to agree on a strict definition of "fair" to determine that a child growing up in illiterate squalor within the shadow of a billionaire's mansion is "unfair".
As deplorable as the situation may be, it is not inherently unfair. If the child is in that situation because his parents refuse to provide for the child, the result is fair. That doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to remove the child and provide him with a better life, but fairness isn't one of them. You may think the siutation is unfair, but that is a purely subjective evaluation.
If you don't see that as unfair, I will put it to you that in such a situation many would not see armed robbery as wrong either.
Is fairness determined solely by the majority and then imposed on everyone else? I thought our Constitution was designed to prevent that.
Have you ever been to the midwest? Life is a lot cheaper there.
Additionally, your notion of wealth as purely quantitative (i.e., what one can buy) ignores its status component. The person with the most money is always "wealthy," in my opinion.
JJ -
"Acquisitiveness" implies a desire to keep for one's own benefit/use. Redistribution is based on broader social concerns.
The geographic distribution of cost of living changes is pretty widely available. I can't imagine how you can even deny that living in a place like San Francisco has no significant impact on wealth.
Armed robbery isn't a crime in any essential, non-tautological sense. In Zimbabwe, for example, I have no problem with the black africans seizing property from the white farmers.
You realize that the amount taxed isn't dependent on the wealth of the recipient, but on the size of the transfer, right?
The size of the transfer taxed is based on notions of what "extremely rich" are, I believe. If not--and this is the source of my issue with Krugman's article--then just say it's intended to get the well-to-do, the wealthy, the rich, the super rich, the obscenely rich, anda so on.
It doesn't seem necessary to provide a credit for the amount necesary to amake a person "rich" however much that amount may be. I think that the claim that the inheritance tax diproportionately affects the rich is based on an empirical observation of the typical socioeconomic status of the recipients.
Actually, Krugman himself argues that the tax disproportionately affects the super super rich, which is why he opposes its repeal.
You missed the point. Taxation to pay the cost of government is a proper function. Using the government to deprive someone of their property is reprehensible. There are plenty of utilitarian and expedient ways to determine levels of taxation. The debate here is not utilitarianism or expediency. It is about a moral justification for confiscation.
Sure it is, it isn't the child's fault he has shitty parents.
"You may think the siutation is unfair, but that is a purely subjective evaluation. "
As is the determination of whether something should be a crime. So what?
"Is fairness determined solely by the majority and then imposed on everyone else? I thought our Constitution was designed to prevent that."
You can't be this naive. Of course there are checks and balances, and limited Constitutional protections which make it difficult for a small majority to make drastic changes, but you can hardly look at the Constitution and think that it was designed to prevent the majority from *ever* imposing its will on a minority. I don't think a democracy can ever pass a law without imposing an unwanted decision on *some* minority.
I lived in North Carolina, and the housing was cheaper. The property taxes were (as a percentage) much higher. Insurance was cheaper. Lattes, chiropractic, acupuncture, and facials were far more expensive. So after housing, everything pretty much balances out for us well-to-do folk.
The person with the most money is always "wealthy," in my opinion.
If that were true, then we should have a sliding tax. Living in Boondock Mississippi, you get taxed on inheritances over $500.
I get it. If the dictionary definitions don't work for you, you just make up you own. How Clintonian of you. What do you think the definition "is" is?
You make it sound like there is some clear-cut distinction between "the costs of government" and the sort of progressive taxation aimed at income maldistribution. I had thought Pseudo had beaten it into you long ago that all government expenditures are income redistribution.
I know that the tax disproportionately affects the super rich; that is an empirical observation. The wealth of those affected, though, should be determined by looking at the median/mean of the top 2% of the population, not by looking at the size of the transfer credit. For all I know, the mean wealth of the top 2% is $10 million. In that case, the tax would meet your standard of only affecting the super-rich.
I am sure the next mugger who assaults you will be glad to know you won't press charges. Perhaps you should wear a T-shirt with that emblazoned on it.
In Zimbabwe, for example, I have no problem with the black africans seizing property from the white farmers.
I guess that makes one of us.
As I just said, the percentage of increase isn't much when you're talking about people who make over $200K a year (or even $100K)--and it is offset by the higher cost of luxuries out in the boondocks. I was outraged when I had to pay $125 to get my legs waxed in Cary. That was five years ago, and it is still only $55 in this area as an average. Cheaper if you hunt around.
The geographic distribution of cost of living changes is pretty widely available. I can't imagine how you can even deny that living in a place like San Francisco has no significant impact on wealth.
Anecdotal: I don't know a huge amount of people who make over $200K a year--although I know more than a few. I do know a large number of people who make over $100K/year, and I know them from all over the States. I can tell you that we all consider ourselves to be of the same socio-economic status, and our differences are more of approach to debt and savings, not how much money we make. The difference is how much house you can buy, and that's it. The rest of it really doesn't make much difference once you get past a certain level. If you make $200K/year in Podunk, you can get a great house and you're wealthy, but not rich. If you make $1M/year in Podunk, you can get a mansion with 100 acres, and you're rich.
The problem is that the barrier to entry in the Bay Area is higher. But once you're in, you're not any more or less wealthy than anywhere else.
Also, it is generally known (at least in high-tech) that you are to sneer at the employers who try to get away with offering you less money for a job in Salt Lake City. Why? Because the supposed lower cost of living doesn't offset the drop in income. Employers still occasionally snow people, but it's happening less and less.
Sorry, the determination of what is a crime is not purely subjective and there is little disagreement.
Of course there are checks and balances, and limited Constitutional protections which make it difficult for a small majority to make drastic changes, but you can hardly look at the Constitution and think that it was designed to prevent the majority from *ever* imposing its will on a minority.
That is not what I said. I limited it strictly to the concept of fairness. The majority cannot not determine what is fair and what is not fair and force the rest of the country to believe it. They can only determine what is legal and even that is limited.
I thought you were discussing the preference-staisfying benefits of immigration generally, not just in reference to Aytchman's plan. If you were only talking about aytch's plan, then my comments weren't particularly relevant.
Your comment on vouchers is contentious. There is plenty of evidence, at least anecdotal, which indicates that classrooms need academically proficient children to be educational at all.
There is a clear-cut distinction. I don't fall for Orwellian redefinition schemes aimed at distorting the situation.
I had thought Pseudo had beaten it into you long ago that all government expenditures are income redistribution.
And black is white, up is down,
But Krugman's entire point is that it isn't the top 2% that is the super-rich. It is the top .0000004% (or some such) that is the super-rich.
Your formalism is quaint.
I don't care about Krugman's article. I just thought you were using your numbers wrong. Neither Krugman's article nor the estate tax has anything to do with inheritance recipients with wealth of $675,000.
So when you say in Message # 30947:
Problem: not only is 675K not super-rich, 1 million isn't super-rich. 4 million is not super-rich.
I think you are misspeaking a bit. A tax can affect only the super rich (i.e., those with wealth over 10m) and still have a credit of 675k.
Neither Krugman's article nor the estate tax has anything to do with inheritance recipients with wealth of $675,000.
????
I was objecting because Krugman justified the tax on the grounds that the super-super-super-rich (way over 10 million, even) are affected. My only point was that if this was his argument, he should support a tax that restricts it to that level. In other words, start the exemption at the first 10 million. Or, if you like, apply the tax at 10 million, but only give a 675K exemption.
Second, it contains the assumption that everyone needs to learn the same thing. Not everyone is cut out for an academic setting. Not everyone wants it. For most of our history not everyone received it. Is it unreasonable to ask whether this same education paradigm might not be applicable in colleges? Should we force all universities and colleges to admit students willy-nilly because by having standards you perpetuate an elitist system in which those who don't go to college don't learn much?
If you have links or sources on this BTW, please post them.
Thanks for the response. It took me a long time to find it.
Your idea on a kind of popular personal-satisfaction-with-the-system vote is interesting. I haven't heard that one before. It's certainly straightforward.
Since my exercise never got airborne, I'll go ahead and reveal what I found interesting the last time I did this. Each side started with substantially different sets of measures. But, as they refined them, the two sets started to converge somewhat. Then, the fun began. Both sides proceeded to spend all of their time criticizing the other side's measures as 'unfair' or 'unjust' or whatever. Ultimately, much to my amazement, they could never agree on the next step in the exercise: a simple combination of the two sets of measures to apply to both states with which to declare a winner. I won't characterize either side as more or less reasonable but there was a marked difference in the types of arguments made.
Sure Biener, I am guilty of all sorts of gyrations and funabulisms...like fastidiously sticking to the definition of greed you yourself provided but no longer want to stick to because you didn't fully think through it.
Reprehend - to voice disapproval of
Reprehensible - worthy of or deserving reprehension
Trying to deprive someone of their property is reprehensible. Doing it under the guise of "fairness" makes it even more so.
So you ignore all points relating the conservative stance to greed, as you defined it, opting instead to cite the etymology of some items in your definition. (And then accuse me of "dancing"! All I did was use the exact words you provided.) You are specifically asked about "reprehensible" and can only voice your own disapproval.
Do you believe that your own personal disapproval is sufficient to make it reprehensible? If not, then keep going because your insistence is not sufficient. Don't just assert, demonstrate -- objectively. (This will require more than one sentence with a linking verb.) If so, then take your seat among the class of special people with a self-awarded penetrating insight -- i.e., boring hacks.
Please, how do you know, as you said, that the high minded rhetoric behind liberal views of taxation is bogus and it's really about greed?
Do you mean if you've already taxed opportunity cost then you shouldn't tax consumption, or do you mean that without taxes the market has set the opportunity cost correctly and now taxes will screw it up.
If the latter, how so? (Of course conservative economic theory is that taxes in general screw things up, but I'm assuming you're talking about something different because I don't get the sense you're a conservative economist.)
The first option makes no sense to me so I'm not saying that. I don't know about "conservative" economic theory, but the correct economic theory holds that taxes in general are distortionary relative to market outcomes (that is really the point of taxes designed to change behavior). Whether the market prices are adequate reflections of opportunity cost is a different question.
But saying that you want to tax electricity because it is scarce makes no sense unless you argue that it creates greater costs to society than its market price reflects. You have not made that argument. You have simply said that factors of production should be taxed on the basis of their scarcity, and that is what prices do. If you add a tax to that, the end price faced by producers using the factor will be too high -- using a unit of the factor will have a lower social cost than its price reflects. Even if there is a negative externality in using the factor, which will break the equality between opportunity cost and price, this is typically not about the scarcity of the factor so your scheme will not get at the right problem. If its supply is cartelized price will also not equal opportunity cost -- it will be higher than the opportunity cost. So a tax making it seem even higher isn't right.
The blocked part in 31012 is Biener's.
The point Krugman is making is that the reduction in revenue that would come from the estate tax if the limit were raised to 10 or 20 million dollars would be small, because the bulk of the tax dollars come from the incredibly wealthy on the far right hand tail. The desire to cut taxes to these people cannot have anything to do with votes, other than getting money to buy votes^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrun advertisements.
The point Krugman is making is that the reduction in revenue that would come from the estate tax if the limit were raised to 10 or 20 million dollars would be small, because the bulk of the tax dollars come from the incredibly wealthy on the far right hand tail.
Then it seems odd he doesn't point out the obvious solution. Don't apply it to anyone except the people on the far righthand tail. Then you utterly destroy the argument of the opposition, who will have a great deal of difficulty mustering support for those making in excess of 10 mill.
Again, it's not so much whether I disagree or agree with the inheritance tax (although this recent discussion has actually tilted me towards repeal). It's just that his argument, his facts, and his priorities don't seem to match up.
The first option [if you've already taxed opportunity cost then you shouldn't tax consumption] makes no sense to me...
Well, that was pretty much how you worded it here:
Because if you do the opportunity cost thing right, turning around and taxing consumption just screws you.
That's why I was confused because "doing the opportunity cost thing" was certainly vague phrasing and ambiguous in context.
The correct economic theory holds that taxes in general are distortionary relative to market outcomes.
The conservative position is that this distortion is generally always a bad thing. When you use words like it "screws you," that makes you sound like a conservative economist, but your other comments vis-a-vis JJ seem to favor a more interventionist position.
(As an aside, if there is but one "correct" economic theory, I'm surprised economists don't agree more often.)
You have simply said that factors of production should be taxed on the basis of their scarcity, and that is what prices do.
I do see where the word "scarcity" slipped in, but what I have said should be the determining factor is social cost. Resources in general are finite, but I think I explained my meaning as primarily nonrenewable resources and have also differentiated between a person's own labor and raw resources that seem more communal in nature because they have not been "mixed with the sweat of one's brow." That is, I would prefer taxing a resource like land, which IMO is on one end of the scale between a social resource and an individual resource, instead of, at the other end, work.
Moreover, I used the example of the rain forest to show that prices don't always reflect social cost (or even to use your word, true scarcity).
I agree that taxes are distortionary and therefore ought to be minimal. But if the primary means of taxation is on income (in particular, labor), isn't the distortion most likely to result in unemployment?
Work doesn't seem to be a resource we would want to artificially inflate.
Who Stole the Nuclear Secrets from the Los Alamos Vault? Would/Could this be a Bush Trick?
Bush has my vote as having a hand in the stealthing of nuclear secrets. If Bush Looses Big Time...will he hold the World hostage?
Drooling moron or evil super-genius or both? 
Relatives waste more damn money.
Sounds like the left's view of Reagan. Supposedly he was a drooling idiot who couldn't tie his own shoes and yet was guilty of being the mastermind of a several vast, international conspiracies so devious investigators could find no evidence of them. It is nice to know the left isn't hampered by a need to be consistent.
Another is that true-blue, red-blooded patriotic Americans removed them from the purview of people like Clinton, Richardson, etc. in order to prevent them from being sold to or simply handed over to the ChiComs and such.
Both courtesy of yesterday's Rush Limbaugh show.
I can't help it if you don't like the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster, but you can't make words mean what you want them to. We aren't playing Alice in Wonderland here. You can't just claim that the desite to keep one's own property is aquisitiveness when that is not what the word means. The problem is that "greed" is such a nice perjorative that you aren't willing to give it up, even when it is demonstrated to be inapplicable.
Do you believe that your own personal disapproval is sufficient to make it reprehensible?
I am hardly alone in believing that depriving someone of their property is worthy of voicing disapproval. If I were to deprive you of your car I am sure you would be rather vocal in your disapproval.
Please, how do you know, as you said, that the high minded rhetoric behind liberal views of taxation is bogus and it's really about greed?
That is not what I said. Please read carefully. The greed and envy are not hidden in some secret agenda. They are manifest in the so-called high-minded rhetoric you refer to.
My original point is that without a specific exclusion in the tax code, inheritances would be considered taxable income. I ask you to give a principled distinction between this sort of income and earned income. You have yet to do so.
I give you the legal definintion of income for purposes of income tax. You attempt to weasel out by seizing on "gross" in the definition. We are talking about the current tax code, not your fantasy world. The definition I gave is Congress' definition, not my assertion. You can stamp your feet, plug your ears, and hum "For the sake of argument, I claim that inheritance is not income, it merely a transfer of capital." all you want, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Be a man and offer a principled distinction between earned income and inherited income for income tax purposes or concede the point.
My original point is that without a specific exclusion in the tax code, inheritances would be considered taxable income. I ask you to give a principled distinction between this sort of income and earned income. You have yet to do so.
I give you the legal definintion of income for purposes of income tax. You attempt to weasel out by seizing on "gross" in the definition. We are talking about the current tax code, not your fantasy world. The definition I gave is Congress' definition, not my assertion. You can stamp your feet, plug your ears, and hum "For the sake of argument, I claim that inheritance is not income, it merely a transfer of capital." all you want, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Be a man and offer a principled distinction between earned income and inherited income for income tax purposes or concede the point.
My original point is that without a specific exclusion in the tax code, inheritances would be considered taxable income. I ask you to give a principled distinction between this sort of income and earned income. You have yet to do so.
I give you the legal definintion of income for purposes of income tax. You attempt to weasel out by seizing on "gross" in the definition. We are talking about the current tax code, not your fantasy world. The definition I gave is Congress' definition, not my assertion. You can stamp your feet, plug your ears, and hum "For the sake of argument, I claim that inheritance is not income, it merely a transfer of capital." all you want, but it has nothing to do with reality.
Be a man and offer a principled distinction between earned income and inherited income for income tax purposes or concede the point.
I can't help it if you don't like the definitions provided by Merriam-Webster
On the contrary, I think they are swell. That's why I stuck to the one you gave and you went in search of etymological slips. I challenge you to find one post where I attempted to switch one letter in the defintion. It's easy to find one where you did, because acquisitive is not the same as acquisition.
I am hardly alone in believing that depriving someone of their property is worthy of voicing disapproval.
Is that sufficient to make it reprehensible? Because then we have a problem. There are also millions and millions of people who don't think it's reprehensible to redistribute income or generally follow liberal philosophies on taxation. How do you adjudicate between these contradictory claims which each have huge quantities of supporters? And, if "I am hardly alone" is sufficient objective proof, then you must also conclude the conservative view is greedy.
That is not what I said. Please read carefully. The greed and envy are not hidden in some secret agenda. They are manifest in the so-called high-minded rhetoric you refer to.
How are they manifest? Where does it say that greed and envy are really driving this cart? Don't just tell me you or lots of other people think it's reprehensible, because that's about as useful as the subjective fairness arguments you won't accept. So applying the same standard to yourself that you do to others, I want you to objectively show me that it's greedy.
I can't believe you use the word "income" to define the word "income" and you have the nerve to insult me! It is like saying black is any color that looks like black. You haven't defined the word "income". You have used the word "income" to define "gross income". No matter how you many insults you throw around, that fact doesn't change.
My original point is that without a specific exclusion in the tax code, inheritances would be considered taxable income.
You original point is nonsense as I have pointed out. If you consider income to be any transfer of wealth between two parties, there are many instances which are not taxed. Do you need examples? Money passed between family members. Gifts below a specfic amount. Loan principle. Investment principle. Charitable donations. Employer-provided health benefits. 401k contributions. Political contributions. Government grants. Child support and alimony. These are all transfers of wealth which are not taxed.
Let's look at those transfers that are subject to income taxes. Wages, salaries and tips from employment. Profit from a business. Interest and dividends from investments. None of these have anything to do with inheritance.
Now, if you want to make to make a case that inheritance should be taxed like these forms of income, make it. Don't just claim that inheritance is income and should be taxed as such. If you want to use a different definition for income than the one I used, then justify why your definition should be adopted.
You are explaining economic theory, whereas the discussion that prompted my remarks was taxes as an instrument of social policy.
And the social goals you brought up had to do with opportunity cost and its relation what people pay for things. At that point economic theory becomes relevant and we are not just talking past each other.
SJ: The first option [if you've already taxed opportunity cost then you shouldn't tax consumption] makes no sense to me...
IJ: Well, that was pretty much how you worded it here:
SJ: Because if you do the opportunity cost thing right, turning around and taxing consumption just screws you.
There's nothing there about "taxing opportunity cost," a phrase which I do not understand.
The conservative position is that this distortion is generally always a bad thing. When you use words like it "screws you," that makes you sound like a conservative economist, but your other comments vis-a-vis JJ seem to favor a more interventionist position.
That conservative position is not based on any actual economic theory. But while it is in principle possible to craft just the right distortion, it is hard, and the determinants you wish to use, like scarcity, would probably not be effective. And, along those lines, it seemed to me that taxing on the basis of scarcity was not just a small part of your agenda.
(As an aside, if there is but one "correct" economic theory, I'm surprised economists don't agree more often.)
Most economists agree all the time about established parts of economic theory. At the frontiers of course there is debate about the direction, magnitude and importance of relationships, just as there is in any science.
Resources in general are finite, but I think I explained my meaning as primarily nonrenewable resources
Again, these are not special in terms of the relationship between their price and their scarcity. Market structure held constant, pricing relative to scarcity works the same for these as for anything else.
That is, I would prefer taxing a resource like land, which IMO is on one end of the scale between a social resource and an individual resource, instead of, at the other end, work.
What does this mean? The property rights regime determines whether a resource is social or not. I don't understand your scale.
The social cost of the distortions created by taxes in the use of some factor have in principle already been accounted for in measuring that distortion. If it's smallest for labor then tax labor. You don't need to pay special attention to it besides the info already contained in the size of the distortion, which you are proposing to do.
It appears that you have several, not necessarily compatible goals that you would like this tax system to meet, and it is not necessarily clear how they will be traded off. Do you want to use taxes to correct inefficiencies, or to reflect scarcity that may or may not already be reflected in prices, or only to raise revenue? Do you want to minimize the distortion of taxes, or satisfy some philosophical goals about taxing "social" resources and leaving "individual" ones alone?
Moreover, I used the example of the rain forest to show that prices don't always reflect social cost (or even to use your word, true scarcity).
Again, you do not need to convince me that prices do not always equal social cost.
Find a post? It is your entire argument. You keep trying to change the definition of acquisitiveness from "the desire to obtain property" to "the desire to keep one's own property." No matter how much you fuss and fume, the two are not the same thing.
It's easy to find one where you did, because acquisitive is not the same as acquisition.
They are both based on the same root and are used in a complementary fashion. If someone is acquisitive they desire the acquisition of property.
There are also millions and millions of people who don't think it's reprehensible to redistribute income or generally follow liberal philosophies on taxation.
I never mentioned either redistribution or liberal philosophy. I limited my comment to depriving someone of their property. I even gave an example.
Where does it say that greed and envy are really driving this cart?
Reprehensible acquisitiveness. Redistribution of weath is the acquiring of one person's wealth to transfer it to someone else. The desire to redistribute wealth is the desire to acquire. Hence acquisitiveness. If a person were to redistribute wealth with .38 in a dark alley, there would be little disagreement that the act was represhensible. Performing the same act with a law instead of gun doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act. Hence, reprehensible.
You may believe you are operating with the best motives and that you are good and pure for doing so. There may even be utilitarian and expendient reasons for doing so. Just cut the crap that you are being "fair" and anyone who disagrees with you is being greedy.
I agree.
i like that idea!
Good. Then you should be able to find a post easily. If you can't let's just assume you're full of shit and apply different standards to your own arguments and everyone else's, okay? Now, please, one post where I tried to change the words of the definition you provided.
You keep trying to change the definition of acquisitiveness from "the desire to obtain property" to "the desire to keep one's own property."
It's the desire to obtain more property than you've currently got under legal entitlement. How is that not exactly what your position is about?
They are both based on the same root and are used in a complementary fashion. If someone is acquisitive they desire the acquisition of property.
And that doesn't mean that (i) someone who acquires property is reprehensibly acquisitive (which you must show they are to equate greed and the liberal position), or (ii) someone who fails to acquire is not acquisitive.
I never mentioned either redistribution or liberal philosophy. I limited my comment to depriving someone of their property. I even gave an example.
Oh, then you're just being irrelevant. Fair enough, thanks for admitting it.
SJ: Where does it say that greed and envy are really driving this cart?
JJ: Reprehensible acquisitiveness. Redistribution of weath is the acquiring of one person's wealth to transfer it to someone else.
The desire to redistribute wealth is the desire to acquire.
No, it's a desire to redistribute. The people who support redistribution do not necessarily benefit from it.
(cont.)
Well, it does actually, since the law puts no life or limb in danger. That's an important part of the reprehensibility of armed robbery.
This argument assumes that a person is entitled to all of his or her fruits, an argument you have yet to objectively demonstrate. You can't just keep asserting it or glossing by it.
And the social goals you brought up had to do with opportunity cost and its relation what people pay for things. At that point economic theory becomes relevant and we are not just talking past each other.
I'm not so certain that we aren't. As an economist (I presume), you are inclined to see everything as an economic issue, and that is why I think we are having this miscommunication. Economically, any taxation distorts the functioning of the free market--I think we're in agreement on that. But if the goal is to affect social outcomes, rather than just efficient allocation of resources (economics), then it's a different problem.
A comparison with biology: By Darwin, it is clearly more biologically effective to allow nonadaptive genes to take themselves out of the gene pool, so, for example, eyeglasses distort evolution. From a sociological or values perspective, however, we may not want that. Therefore, we choose to distort the gene pool "marketplace."
I don't believe value is synonymous with price. There is, for example, a different social value between paying $20 to park in a legal lot and paying a $20 parking ticket.
There's nothing there about "taxing opportunity cost," a phrase which I do not understand.
I did not understand your phrase and asked you to clarify between two meanings. Since then, we've been going back and forth over who doesn't understand who on this point, so let's just drop it.
Here are a couple: #30954 & #30968.
It's the desire to obtain more property than you've currently got under legal entitlement.
This is bullshit. The property has already been acquired and they are trying to prevent it from being taken.
And that doesn't mean that (i) someone who acquires property is reprehensibly acquisitive (which you must show they are to equate greed and the liberal position), or (ii) someone who fails to acquire is not acquisitive.
I never asserted either one and both statements are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
No, it's a desire to redistribute. The people who support redistribution do not necessarily benefit from it.
I never claimed they benifited from it, did I? Do you have any more strawmen to knock down? And to be clear, you can not redistribute something until you first acquire it.
Well, it does actually, since the law puts no life or limb in danger. That's an important part of the reprehensibility of armed robbery.
It is still reprehensible if life and limb are not in danger, i.e. fraud, embezzlement, etc.
This argument assumes that a person is entitled to all of his or her fruits, an argument you have yet to objectively demonstrate.
You have yet to demonstrate that he is not. You have asserted it several times, but if you are going to claim someone is not entitled to his own wealth, the burden of proof is on you.
You can't just keep asserting it or glossing by it.
I can point to the Constitution and the writing of the Founding Fathers. So far you have asserted a vague claim that wealthy people are not entitled to all of their wealth and you have posutlated an imaginary agreement that somehow wealth people are reneging on. So far your arguments have been utter rubbish.
Justice prevails in the case of a shocking hate crime!
Do not waste my time with extra hackery. Both 30954 and 30968 are messages where I hold YOU to the precise terms of the definition YOU gave and then wanted to change. They are not posts where I attempt to alter one letter of that defintion. You can't find any because there are none. What you are doing is called projection.
The property has already been acquired and they are trying to prevent it from being taken.
Exactly -- and thereby acquire more than they would have under the prevailing regime.
And to be clear, you can not redistribute something until you first acquire it.
You have confused yourself with sloppy language. The people arguing for redistribution do not ever acquire the resources redistributed. The state does. The people who espouse the liberal outlook of taxation do not necessarily acquire any resources.
Biener, what do you think when wealthy people support income redistribtution, which will cause them a net loss in income? Are they being reprehensively acquisitive? How can they be when they are not only not acquiring anything, but they are giving something up?
I never asserted either one and both statements are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Actually, if neither the people on the receiving end of redistribution are necessarily acquisitive, nor the people supporting redistribution philosophically are being acquisitive, then you have a very tough sell on your hands, since you argue that the liberal philosophy is reprehensively acquisitive. That will be difficult if no one in particular supporting or benefitting from it is in that class.
(cont.)
I am not trying to. I am not defending any philosophy of taxation. I am trying to figure out how you have this special knowledge of the true greed and envy behind the liberal philosophy -- things that are not at all evident in the statements of that philosophy -- and how you know the conservative philosophy is not also so based.
You have dropped all these points about the opinions of you and your millions of friends demonstrating reprehensibility. Why, then, do the opinions of millions of liberals not demonstrate the rephrensibility of the conservative position?
Economically, any taxation distorts the functioning of the free market--I think we're in agreement on that. But if the goal is to affect social outcomes, rather than just efficient allocation of resources (economics), then it's a different problem.
Economics is about more than efficient resource allocation. It is about defining social goals and evaluating ways to achieve them. Efficient resource allocation is a subset of that.
If your social goals are well defined, then economics can inform your search to satisfy them. That is because it tells you about institutions, the incentives they create, and how this maps into social outcomes. If your social goals are not well defined then there are bigger fish to fry.
A comparison with biology: By Darwin, it is clearly more biologically effective to allow nonadaptive genes to take themselves out of the gene pool, so, for example, eyeglasses distort evolution. From a sociological or values perspective, however, we may not want that. Therefore, we choose to distort the gene pool "marketplace."
All this does is redefine the social welfare function and thereby alter the instruments used to maximize it. It does not alter the analysis of the problem, which is the analogous role played by economics in discussions of social outcomes and taxation.
I don't believe value is synonymous with price.
This is essentially the same as saying that price does not always equal social cost. I can't figure out why you keep saying it.
JJ,
It reminds me of an episode of South Park.
This is as insane as the argument that tax deductions are really subsidies. In your Orwellian view of the world, the man who wants to keep his own property is greedy, but the man who wants to take it away from him is not. This is absurd.
When you can come back with an argument based on reality, instead of twisted fantasy, I will be glad to respond. Either that or tell me that this is all a joke, and I will admit to being had. I can't argue with someone who thinks black is white and up is down.
You're not listening to Slackjaw. The advocates for redistribution are not the recipients. The recipients are marginalized and barely participate in the economic or the political process. The advocates belong to the group opposed to redistribution. Robert Rubin is in the same economic group (in terms of wealth) as Donald Trump, but supports redistribution. The former group advocates greater equity of distribution of income not because they are greedy but for some other reason. I could speculate on the motivation, but it CAN'T be greed or a desire to acquire other people's goods--they're advocating programs that will not benefit them. For example, I could speculate that labor unions support redistribution of income to reduce labor force participation by unskilled workers. In that case, though, they seem to fit your framework of wanting to preserve what they already have.
Yes, I am. I have now taken several trips with him to fantasy land.
The advocates for redistribution are not the recipients.
This may be true in some cases, not all.
The recipients are marginalized and barely participate in the economic or the political process.
It depends on how narrowly you define recipient. Democrats use income redistribution to gain political power. In effect they are recipients as much as anyone.
The former group advocates greater equity of distribution of income not because they are greedy but for some other reason.
Someone in that class can redistribute his wealth anyway he sees fit without imposing his will on others. In one way or another, those who advocate redistribution by government are doing so for their own benefit. It may be financial, political or even psycological, but they are benefiting.
In like manner, Biener, those who oppose income redistribution do so for their own benefit. One can assert that anything anyone does is for some benefit to that person. You cannot get out of your hole in this way. Either you accept that you are in the same class you derided Spudboy for inhabiting, or the conservative philosophy is as greedy as the liberal (for this reason, and also for the millions and millions of people you now want to ignore), and probably more so -- its explicit goal being tied to more property for the people who support it and less for people who live in inhuman squalor.
You choose. I don't care. In any case, per Message # 31048, resignation accepted.
Bienner- You mentioned transfers of wealth that are not taxable. Each of your examples either is not an actual gain of income- for example, loan principal(because it is accompanied by a increase of debt) or it is specifically exluded or exempted by the tax code.
Your specious argument assumes that I am arguing that inheritances are not subject to an exclusion or exemption, which I am not. I stated long ago that it was. What I stated was that it is excluded because it is taxed under the estate tax. When the estate tax is removed, this rationale for exclusion from income fails.
I am still waiting for the principled distinction between inheritances and other forms of income, save for the lame "its been taxed before." First this is not necessarily so, if we assume the estate tax is eliminated, because there are tax free forms of income from bonds etc, or any number of other exlusions or exemptions which could apply. Second, as I pointed out earlier, many other forms of income are taxed from funds who are created by post tax dollars.
Pay attention. This wasn't my claim -- or at least, I wasn't suggesting that I understood those motivations by pulling them out of thin air or possessing omniscient powers, as Biener did here, and has done often previously (see his take on Clinton's post-OKC speech).
I was examining one of David Duke's many attempts to mainstream himself. I pointed out, accurately, that Duke has a predilection for disguising his radical agenda in mainstream terminology. I had, on a previous occasion, tried to explain what Duke's actual intentions are in contrast to the vague terms in which he couches them.
The point, as I mentioned then, is that I don't have to rely on divination or guesswork to discern his actual meaning -- if I did, I wouldn't attempt it. Rather, there is a large body of Duke's own words -- his voluminous writing, his endless speeches -- that make his meanings clear. When he talks, for instance, of "ending forced segregation," he's not merely suggesting we end forced busing -- he means ending all efforts at desegregation, essentially reversing Brown v. Board of Education. He has, after all, expounded on this position at length and often.
I am surprised that you're unable to discern the difference between blind guesswork and careful analysis.
SPARKS FLY: GORE DISSES DONNA, GOES OUTSIDE TO FIND NEW CAMPAIGN CHAIR **Exclusive**
Vice President Al Gore passed over his controversial campaign manager Donna Brazile on Thursday and reached outside of the ranks to replace his ailing campaign chair.
The move caused immediate outrage among Brazile supporters inside of the campaign, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, with several staffers even suggesting that sexist motivations may have been a factor in the decision!
"The job should have gone to Donna," said one insider. "Gore always defaults to the white boys!"
Brazile, the first African-American woman to serve as manager of a presidential race, has been a source of inspiration for the battered campaign, say insiders.
"She is the real star of this campaign," said a Gore source. "I can't believe she was overlooked for the top job."
Gore passed over Brazile and recruited Commerce Secretary William Daley, who will join the campaign in mid-July.
Upon the advice of his doctors, current chair Tony Coelho announced he will resign from Gore 2000.
"The call I made to the Vice President last night informing him of my doctor's advice is one of the most difficult calls I have ever had to make," said Coelho, who is suffering from [divert]iculitis.
George W. Bush has solidified his lead in the presidential race but could face turbulence in his political base if he selects a vice presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.
Still, nearly three-fourths of voters say their opinion of Bush wouldn't be affected by whether he picks a vice president who backs legalized abortion.
Overall, the survey found Bush maintaining a commanding 10 percentage-point lead over presumptive Democratic nominee Al Gore in the presidential race. That's up two points since a Times survey in May.
As Gore embarks on a three-week ''Progress and prosperity'' read: "Smears and Venom" tour meant to highlight the nation's economic gains since he and Clinton took office, the poll finds the vice president continues to be burdened by a slow clouding of the nation's sunny mood. In the survey, the percentage of Americans saying they are satisfied with the country's direction, and Clinton's performance in office, continued to sag -- the latter to its lowest level in almost four years.
The Times Poll, supervised by polling director Susan Pinkus, surveyed 1,686 registered voters from June 8 through 13. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Since the last Times Poll in May, when Bush led Gore 51 percent to 43 percent, the survey finds relatively little movement in the race. In the new poll, Bush leads with 50 percent to 40 percent for Gore, with the rest undecided or supporting another candidate.
In partisan terms, the basic calculus remains unchanged since the last Times Poll: Bush has done a much better job so far than Gore at unifying his base and has also seized the early advantage among independent voters.
I don't participate in telephone surveys anymore. I have to screen all of my calls now.
The surveys must be getting down to the bottom of the barrel of who will pick up the phone these days. Surveys are kind of like juries of people too far out of the loop to have a clue, except they are not as significant.
What Pinocchio Bore might consider doing is to hire Susan Estrogenrich to fire Brazile's ass out of his campaign a la Dukakis '88. No white boy she.
Al Gore will make a reasonable President. I do sincerely hope he turns out to be less bloodthirsty in his foreign policy than Clinton.
I ended up hating Bill Clinton for what he has done to Iraq. He really wants to abuse Colombia, too. He is someone I whose death I would not mourn. The world would be better of without him.
Such actions as those you refer to commonly occur with leadership that believes in 'social programming'.
What's 'social programming'?
Spudboy, the last thing I want to do is trade tendentious hackery for supercilious hackery.
I'm curious - how do you discern meaning from written words? Is it important to examine the author's intent? Are conventional interpretations all that matter? Does the context of the material matter? I disagree with a lot of Spud's rhetoric, particularly this line:
I had, on a previous occasion, tried to explain what Duke's actual intentions are in contrast to the vague terms in which he couches them.
I hesitate whenever anyone claims to be able to know the "actual" meaning. But I definitely think that it is important, especially in a political campaign, to attempt to discern an author's intent. Contextualizing their language, as Spud does well, certainly helps to do that. Frankly, I don't see how it's "supercilious hackery."
Lazio Stock Trades Before Takeover Are Called Unusual
Well, at least he wasn't messing around with cattle futures...
What timezone are you in? You keep weird hours.
It doesn't seem to be hackery when talking about the specific case of David Duke. I appreciate the effort he goes through to point out parallels between Duke's "mainstream" stuff and his extreme stuff, though I agree that he phrases it with too much certitude.
I have been reading a work on Coase, The Legacy of Ronald Coase in Economic Analysis. It is actually just a collection of essays on the impact of The Problem of Social Cost on legal theory, but it is pretty interesting. Unfortunately, his unique contribution to causation theory in tort law - the area I am supposed to be researching - is not covered very well.
Who's the editor of that book?
About all I know of Coase's writings is the Coase theorem and the Coase conjecture (and ironically, it's the former that is generally false and the latter which is more robust), plus the stuff on the nature of the firm and some stuff on natural monopolies. So I know nothing of his writing on causation theory in tort law, or at least if I do, not by that name. Perhaps you could expound, but in slow or legal -- I am going to be out of touch until next week.
One more thing. How broad is your knowledge of progressive era economists? People like Hobhouse, Richard Ely, Robert Hale, Morris Cohen, Edwin Seligman, Henry Adams, John M. Clark, John Commons et al.?
I just read a great book on Hale, The Progressive Assault on Laissez Faire by Barbara Fried, and have been looking for some help in understanding/historicizing some of the economics arguments.
It's edited by Steven Medema, an associate professor of economics at the University of COlorado. I have only been working with volume two; volume one deals more directly with Coase's firm related stuff.
I'm more of the mindset that the Theorem is tautological, depending on the scope of the transaction costs. We'll have to talk about it some time.
The difference, whether you agree with Spuds' conclusions or not, or consider them too broad, or whatever, is backing up what is being asserted with substantive and supportive information, something which Spuds has done repeatedly regarding David Duke and in most of his other arguments here, and which Biener has failed to do in this entire exchange with Slack, Jay, Jones, and others.
It's an exchange I've really enjoyed reading, btw.
This is essentially the same as saying that price does not always equal social cost. I can't figure out why you keep saying it.
Because you keep saying that price already reflects value perfectly and any tinkering with it via taxes (likely) screws things up.
In which case, I'd like to go back to an earlier point that I don't think you addressed: Does taxing wages create unemployment?
Currently, the tax is paid by the estate before anyone inherits it (in my limited experience), so the current tax isn't an income tax.
The bulk of an estate is frequently illiquid, meaning that treating it as income might pose a substantial hardship on the heir. The illiquid portion has already been purchased with presumably taxed dollars. If I buy a car and give it to you, you don't have to pay taxes on that gift, correct? How would my death turn it into income? Such a hardship might be especially difficult in the case of a widow or children. Similarly, I don't think one has to pay taxes on life insurance.
Aside from the issue of income, I think it's important to remember that human beings aren't like electricity--you flip a switch, you reroute the circuit--but more like water in that they will continue to try to go where they want to go. So the reasons for preservation of estates aren't just to keep money in the same few hands but because the sense of something continuing after a person dies encourages good husbandry of resources. Should the law change to make it more difficult for a person's wishes to outlive him or her, behaviors would change in perhaps unexpected ways as well.
Yes, Hillary was dealing in cattle. No one in this God's world knows what the future value of cattle, corn, or soybeans, is going to be, therefore, touting (recommending the purchage of cattle futures) is not a crime. On the other hand, if someone is told, for example, that Quick and Reilley, which is selling at ten, has been sold for twenty, and that person has a connection to the law firm that closed the deal, both the purvoyer and recipient of that information are liable for jail time in a federal penitientary. It happens to be a crime under the insider trading rules. The difference can be described quite simply: Speculation in Commodity Futures is a risk-taking venture; Acting on inside information on a stock-take-over is theft.
Once again you missed the point of the conversation. It is not hackery to use someone's past politics as a guide to view their current positions. No one ever claimed Duke had a sudden change of heart. Spuds' hackery is in implying someone who voices a similar position on a specific issue is a racist because a racist claims to hold the same view. Spuds tactic is to take Duke's statement supporting X and demonstrates Duke really means Y. He then goes into full hack mode and implies that anyone who support X is really supporting Y.
Not all of my examples can be dismissed by that argument. You want more examples? Insurance settlements. Judgement in a lawsuit in excess of actual damages. Transfer through common ownership (i.e. putting someone's name on an invetment account). Income from a hobby.
I am still waiting for the principled distinction between inheritances and other forms of income,
I have demonstrated that no such rationale is necessary. There are many other forms of income that are not taxed. If you want to tax inheritance as income, the burden is on you to justify it.
Except this isn't what happened. Hillary did not make her own trades. The man who made her trades for her was also making trades for the Tysons. In the same period that Hillary made $100k, the Tyson's "lost" a great deal of money. The process is simple. He bet on both sides of a trade and in most cases gave the winning side to Hillary. It is a way of laundering a payoff to avoid legal consequences. Bill was AR's AG at the time and was responsible for regulating Tyson.
Actually all your examples are either wrong or the subject of an exclsuion.
So far you have demonstrated that you are unable to present one.
If I buy a car and give it to you, you don't have to pay taxes on that gift, correct? How would my death turn it into income? Such a hardship might be especially difficult in the case of a widow or children. Similarly, I don't think one has to pay taxes on life insurance.
Actually the gift of a car could trigger gift tax. Life insurance proceeds are specifically exluded as income in the tax code.
Finally, I am not advocating that inheritances should be taxed as ordinary income, perhaps a capital gains style tax is more appropriate, or another type of tax altogether. The point I am making, and which Bienner is studiously avoiding, is that the tax code treats inheritances differently than other unearned income. The previous rationale for this was that it was taxed by virtue of the estate tax and there was no need for double dipping by the IRS. Once that rationale disappears, is there another which would justify treating income received from an estate differently that that received from an employer, or the lottery, or from the forgiveness of debt?
The current proposal elevates recieving money or property from someone because they've died into a privileged position. If I give you a million bucks out of the kindness of my heart, then gift tax kicks in. If I die first, you pay no tax. If I pay you a million in wages, you pay tax. If you owe me a million and I forgive the debt, you pay tax.
Lefties typically place their naive trust in a fatally flawed but superficially attractive concept of the 'perfectibility of man'. The obverse and much darker side of this coin is that most, of not all of humanity is then considered by these individuals to be comprised of a 'great unwashed' that is in need of guidance and control, usually at the cost of their civil rights.
Thus modern liberalism tends to set the stage for elitist, non egalitarian approaches to governance without accountability which is unacceptably susceptible to corruption, human rights abuses and degeneration into despotisms.
"...most, if not all..."
"...which are unacceptablly..."
I would imagine the motivation in passing a law (for example) to make forgiveness of a debt taxable income is to keep an employer from paying an employee a wage, calling it a loan, and then forgiving the loan. Almost any income could be disguised this way.
Anyway, I start from the position that government decides what to tax, not what not to tax. As long as the government does tax income including capital gains, I think it would be reasonable to tax any capital gain resulting from an estate inheritance when the gain is realized.
BTW, the estate I executed lost approximately 25 percent of its gross value in fees and folderol before passing to the decedent's minor children, but that was mostly because of the will and litigious circumstances. Settling it took more than five years.
Let me comment on your statement. First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges. Hillary or any other individual is classified as a speculator while the Tysons are defined as hedgers. The Tysons are using the Futures Markets to hedge sales and purchases of actuals. A loss in Futures is offset by a profit in cash or the actual product. In addition, perhaps 80 to 90% of retail commodity traders such as Hillary operate thru managed accounts, that is, their broker controls purchases and sales and it is his or her expertise that the investor depends on. In short, what Hillary did was: Put some money up with a broker and trust him to make money with it. This is being done today as we speak by tens of thousands of individual investors. Regardless of your hypothetical allegations, what Hillary did is the norm. What the facts indicate the gentleman did is to take advantage of inside information to commit a criminal act. Perhaps my knowledge of the facts regarding this gentleman is not correct. Perhaps he put some $2000 into Quick&Reilly because he thought it was a good investment However, if he purchased the stock based on information of a takeover, he is plain and simply guilty of insider trading, the penalties of which are clearly defined.
Those who oppose any change in the inheritance tax seem to focus on the fortunate recipient of the inheritance who may have done no more to deserve it than be a loving, dutiful son or daughter, and do not focus on the unfortunate who is leaving this mortal coil.
The aforementioned Rangel has said the cutoff should be raised from 600K to 4 million, if I heard that correctly. The GOP goes farther, and says it should be eliminated altogether.
But the sentiment here in both cases is for the person dying who wishes to leave something behind for his children. Most Americans, the sentimental slobs that we are, accept this rationale and consider the current tax unfair. Two-thirds of us, by last count (polls).
Congratulations on a semi-lucid post! Did you copy it from somewhere? It seems shallow enough to be from some conservative columnist or a Washington Times editorial. The beauty of it is that by replacing a few words and changing the emphasis a little, you would have an equally useful critique of modern conservatism. Have a nice day!
Ronski:
I don't think anyone here wants to leave the "death tax" the way it is. However, a number of people take the view that the rationale presented for eliminating it is somewhat less than disinterested, particularly with the broad agreement toward raising the amount that is excluded.
Connie knows better, of course. Man is inherently Evil -- unless he becomes a Southern Baptist.
The obverse and much darker side of this coin is that most, of not all of humanity is then considered by these individuals to be comprised of a 'great unwashed' that is in need of guidance and control, usually at the cost of their civil rights.
Not at all true, but why argue with a closed mind?
Thus modern liberalism tends to set the stage for elitist, non egalitarian approaches to governance without accountability which is unacceptably susceptible to corruption, human rights abuses and degeneration into despotisms.
This modern conservatism sets about to undo social programs dating back to Roosevelt, destroying Brown vs. Board of Education by deep-sixing ALL education 'ecept for those who can afford to send the young 'uns to private -- RELIGIOUS -- schools, and pays under the table to despots who murder peasants in Central America. Soldiers are taught at taxpayer expense (the favorite Conservabot phrase) how to thow babies into the air and catch them on the ends of the bayonets -- all the while blathering about "parttial birth abortion," and other invented horrors.
The charge of being less than disinterested strikes me as a phoney one. I have read claims here that people want the tax eliminated because they stand to inherit gobs of money, and also that others want it killed because they identify with those who may become rich or fantasize that they may become so.
Regarding the first, how many of the two-thirds of Americans who support the change stand to inherit lots of money? Not very many, and certainly not yours truly. As for the second argument, it is just plain silly.
I thought we gave up bayonetting infants after Vietnam.
Wombats -
Unlike you, I don't plagiarize. 120,000,000 senseless deaths caused by the attempted applications of leftist ideologies in the 20th Century say you're way off base with your little comment about 'changing a few words' to say the 'same' about 'conservatives'.
The fact that the Republicans are pushing it should give you a clue. Enough Democrats are terrified of having it used as a club against them that they are going along with it (hopefully not enough to override a veto). Reeal disinterested.
A clue that you are hopelessly partisan? We already knew that. (g)
Compared to the usual crap you write, the semi-lucidity of your "analysis" indicated at very least some inspiration from a "legitimate" outside source. If my impression offended you...I couldn't care less.
The hundreds of millions of deaths that you equate to "liberalism" have their origin in the ideologies that came out of the French Revolution. Read Edmund Burke so you can tell the difference between a "liberal" revolution, which he supported, and the extremism that the French Revolution engendered.
My quip about changing a few words around was more local, since many Conservatives in this country have an extraordinary faith in the free market, and tough luck on the great unwashed who do not benefit.
For what it's worth, I support it, although I might be affected by it in its current form. So there ya go.
cllrdr -
Wrongo. Your fave, the WH Rapist, is a Southern Baptist. I'm an agnostic.
Humans naturally have group social tendencies and a sense of cooperativeness. I have to laugh, though, at Lefties who attempt to transplant their displaced religious ideas about God and heaven to Socialist and anarchist ideologies, of course this delusion necessitates having a devil, whcih means that it becomes necessary to demonize Conservatives, regardless of any possible facts.
Geez! Will you let your bogus speculation go? Talk about obsessively clinging to an idea.
I'm not he one who is obsessive here, as anyone who has read your ravings about the first family will tell you.
I still do not understand why the sentiments of millions of non-partisan Americans seem of such little importance to those who favor keeping the death tax or favor keeping the threshold low.
And as for the GOP, I criticize them regularly, but they are occasionally on the correct side of an issue. The fact that they often side with people who make and have money does not necessarily make them evil in my eyes. I approve of people being productive.
Really now. That doesn't square with your cult-like support for the Fundies.
Clinton is no "fave" of mine, but in the current climate there's no way of discussing him rationally.
Humans naturally have group social tendencies and a sense of cooperativeness.
"Naturally"? So you're lookign through the world through Rousseau-colored glasses after all. Hilarious!
I have to laugh, though, at Lefties who attempt to transplant their displaced religious ideas about God and heaven to Socialist and anarchist ideologies, of course this delusion necessitates having a devil, whcih means that it becomes necessary to demonize Conservatives, regardless of any possible facts.
Who needs the Devil? We've got Richard Mellon Scaife!
Wombats -
Until now, I didn't read all what you posted a little back. You ought to have a little more respect for your intellectual betters, you know. I have repeatedly crushed your laughable arguments like rotten grapefruit with my logic.
Don't confute my disaffection with corruption and crime in high places with something else. I've never voted for a psychopathic sexual criminal and I never will. Can you say the same?
The question I pose is even if the broker had a power of attorney from Tyson which is absurd to me--considering the people involved--no crime has been committed. Far different with the gentleman in question whom, interestingly enough, you make no pretense to defend. In his case, the remedy is the penitentiary, not the Senate of a nuclear power. The motive you suggest in Hillary's case is to make her some money at the expense of Tyson or maybe at the direction of Tyson. Presuming your case can be made, why have not the Clinton haters proceeded legally against her?
Are you telling me that given such an opportunity, as you suggest, those elements of the Republican right, namely the Neo-Fascists and religious fanatics would have given Hillary a pass ? You would have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe that. The fact is the Republican candidate for the United States Senate is probably guilty of insider trading and for that offense, in this country, you go to jail not to the Senate.
You really think this is a case of insider trading? You may be right. I don't know. But is there much evidence of this?
I don't know all the facts but when you buy something for around $2000 and sell it for $16,000 and you don't have any record of active trading as a regular, and there is a takeover which results in the profit, it is reasonable to assume that he was acting on inside information.
But again, I don't really have the facts, I am just responding to JJ and I note, he does not attempt to respond to my suggestion of insider trading: He just renews his attack on Hillary.
WRT Message # 31068 ... Yeah, I just hate being predictable on the topic of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, hate crimes and domestic terrorism. It's a bitch. However, with half-wits like yourself populating this joint, somebody's gotta do it.
But since I'm tired of the periodic accusations of hackery from doing so, I'm hereby relinquishing the role. See ya.
The question I pose is even if the broker had a power of attorney from Tyson which is absurd to me--considering the people involved--no crime has been committed.
There was no power of attourney. Tyson had an investment account with the same trader that Hillary did. During the period of time in question Tyson lost money and Hillary gain $100k on a $1k investment. If they had the same person controlling their trades, why didn't Tyson come out on the plus side as Hillary did? The only explanation is that the trader placed money on both sides of the trade, the winning side went to Hillary and the loser went to Tyson. As far as no crime being committed, money laundering and bribing a public official are both crimes. Bill was Arkansas' Attorney General with the responsibility of enforcing regulations Tyson was subject to.
Why have they not been prosecuted? Good question. The only witnesses were Tyson, the Clintons and the trader. Unless one them agrees to testify, a prosecutor is left with circumstantial evidence. That could be enough to convict some people, it is not enough to convict a Governor/President or his wife. BTW, the firm where the trader worked was cited in the 80's for hundreds of legal violations.
This can be said of Hillary as well. She invested $1000 and ended up with $100,000. She did not trade before or since. You don't have to be a partisan to see that something questionable was going on. It doesn't help that when she was questioned about it, she lied. First she said she made her own trades. Then she said she had help making trades. Finally, she admitted that the trades were made for her. If everything was proper, why did she feel the need to lie?
Which is worse, Hillary's or Lazio's? Lazio got a tip on a stock and earned $14k. Hillary took a payoff from a business owner regulated by her husband in the amount of $99k. In other words, Hillary is guilty of good, old-fashioned corruption. Are you going to claim what Lazio is accused of is worse?
Working for the Evil forces of Klynton Gore as I do, I've got the inside track.
I'd take all my oney out of savings if I were you.
And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat!
Another false statement: "She [Hillary] did not trade before or since." (Message # 31115) In fact, some months after closing her account with Refco, the brokerage company she and Blair both used, she opened an account with Stephens Inc. and made more money trading in commodities markets.
To say "Hillary took a payoff" from Tyson Foods is just slander.
Apparently, the only defense the fellow travelers of the Republican right wish to mount in respect to Lazio is the amount involved ($14,000). I wonder if they would apply this standard to a single ghetto mother of three, who innocently transported $1,000 worth of cocaine and got twenty years for her trouble. The simple fact is that they respond to any issue by prolonged Hillary attacks.
My standard is a simple one: Know your man by his enemies rather than his friends. Who hates Hillary: The Neo-Fascist wing of the Republican Party, the religious fanatics, the gay bashing alliance of America, the gun worshipers, the white Aryan nation, The Jew haters, The KU Klux Khan, The Southern Baptist wing who regard and pronounce their wives as servants, the confederate flag-wavers, the women haters, in short the real and dangerous enemies of this Republic.
The most recent Field Poll records a whopping 66% approval rating. Fifty percent personally "like Clinton alot", 25% dislike him. One year ago, about the same number like him personally as disliked him.
Which explains why the Moron wants a much bigger system?!?!?!?!
oR Is hE JuSt sToOpId?
I'm quite bored by all this bickering over whether Bush or Gore would be the lesser of two evils. Both support the drug war unquestioningly. Both would continue to deprive individuals of their civil liberties and, as the case of Peter McWilliams illustrates, would even deprive people of their lives, in the name of the drug war. Having to choose between Bush or Gore will be like choosing between Coke or Pepsi. To those who think that it will seriously matter, all I can say is: Gimme a fuckin' break!
Wiz,
I'm no longer convinced that either major party offers any substantive solution for any of the issues you mention. Both Dems and Reps have more of a stake in the status quo than they do in changing things for the better.
Your alienation and apathy are quite understandable given the current wave of scorched-earth politics, unsustainable economics, a spiritually toxic culture that's completely distorted and sensationalized by "corporate-checkbook-journalism." Nevertheless your vote will still determine everyones' reality.
Besides, I still think Gore would be the POTUS if elected, while "Bush_The_Sequel" would be a surrogate for Engulf, Devour & Exploit, INC..
The pressures of the campaign and the debates should determine who'll be the better President. I think your conclusions are premature, fwiw.
"God's Own Party," selects delegates in Houston...
I am not embellishing anything. I am just repeating what was reported at the time.
with the biggest howler being the assertion that in the same period Hillary made her $100,000, "the Tysons" (Tyson Foods) lost money.
No, As I explained above, it was not Tyson Foods but one (or more) of the Tyson's personally who lost money. He lost money on the during the same period using Blair. If they had both made money, no one would have thought anything of it. Does the fact that Hillary made $100k on a $1k investment sound reasonable to you, or is there nothing the Clinton do that you will question?
This is not true, even if by "the Tysons" JJ means Jim Blair, the outside counsel to Tyson and personal friend of Hillary who introduced her to the commodities market.
Jim Blair made trades for Tyson and Hillary at the same time. Considering that Bill was AG at the time, doesn't this make you even slightly suspicious?
In fact, some months after closing her account with Refco, the brokerage company she and Blair both used, she opened an account with Stephens Inc. and made more money trading in commodities markets.
Really? Never heard of it. Do you have any specifics?
To say "Hillary took a payoff" from Tyson Foods is just slander.
It is a reasonable supposition based on the facts. If it was GW's wife in a similar situation, you would be demanding prison time.
Unlike Democrats we don't automatically absove Lazio just because he is a Republican. If he is found to be guilty, he should receive an appropriate punishment.
The simple fact is that they respond to any issue by prolonged Hillary attacks.
The standard response of the Democrats when Clinton was accused was to trot out accusations of similar wrongdong among Republicans whether the they were true or not. Once again I see behavior deemed acceptable when exercised by Democrats is condemned in Republicans.
My standard is a simple one: Know your man by his enemies rather than his friends.
I have seen a lot of stupid statments in the Mote, but this one of the worst. The groups you mention represent a tiny fration (>.001%) of the population and are not representative of anything. They hate everybody. They hate Lazio, too. If that is your criteria, either find a new one, or do us all a favor and don't vote.
Ralph Nader is a real alternative for thinking, caring liberals who are sick of defending corruption and criminality.
Coelho, who is under investigation by the State Department for questionable spending and hiring during the World's Fair in Portugal, avoided television to spare himself tough questions.
Gore is also fearful of live television and usually sticks to tightly controlled press events.
But even as he kicked off a new kind of Gore campaign, Daley, who officially starts July 15, insisted he wouldn't hit Bush below the belt.
"We're not going to go negative," he said on ABC's "This Week." "I want to make sure that this campaign is one that we're all proud of."
Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer quickly hit back at Daley for taking up Gore's heavy lifting while still commerce secretary.
"I hope the president and his Cabinet focus on working for the American taxpayer and don't take up jobs as full-time consultants for the Gore campaign," Fleischer said.
Fleischer also said Bush is ahead because "he is winning the idea race," and mocked the promise by Daley not to engage in negative campaigns.
Clinton's 'jackboot' liberalism
Doug Bandow
By all accounts, President Clinton worries constantly about his legacy. He need not: His assault on constitutional values, as well as conventional morals, is unmatched. Indeed, he has gutted the Democratic Party's commitment to civil liberties.
Democrats like Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis all represented a humane liberalism with a commitment to civil liberties. No one would make that claim about Bill Clinton, who represents a new political philosophy: jackboot liberalism.
Record numbers of wiretaps, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation, support for mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, suspicious Internal Revenue Service audits of political opponents, White House interference with banking investigations, attacks on anti-abortion protesters, threats against critics of federal housing projects, media intimidation, bureaucratic witch hunts, brutal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and FBI raids, interference with state laws relaxing use of marijuana for medical purposes, purloined FBI files. It is a record that puts Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to shame. And it continues today.
With administration support, Congress is pursuing legislation to enhance penalties for methamphetamine production. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act would also impose a dangerously sweeping ban on information pertaining to drugs and drug paraphernalia. No good is likely to come from the measure, since it will be no more effective than past laws in stopping drug use. Even worse, though, buried within the legislation are provisions gutting Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal government would be allowed to carry out secret searches — now allowed only in special circumstances — with notice given three or more months later, if ever (the 90-day requirement could be extended indefinitely).
Moreover, the government would not need to provide an inventory of any intangible property, most importantly computer files or document copies, that were seized. Basic to the operation of the Fourth Amendment is knowing what the government has done. Asks David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, "how can a person challenge a warrant if they never find out about it until after the harm has been done?"
An invisible search is inherently unreasonable. Those who dislike being constrained by the Fourth Amendment hid their handiwork in the meth bill for a reason: it wouldn't pass otherwise. So, according to a Senate Judiciary Staffer quoted by the Asheville Tribune, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, and the Justice Department buried the change "deep in the bill, and nobody noticed until the thing had already passed."
No notice, no hearings. Committee spokeswoman Jeanne Lapatto even disclaimed any knowledge of the provision. The Senate approved the legislation, S. 486