On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>> RoMunn wrote:
>> year being spent on average just for SOX compliance. No, I don't agree
>> that more regulation is the answer.
>>
>
> You can keep fighting the facts, but it is what it is.
>
> Freddie and Fannie are bankrupt and being bailed out
links please
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good luck with that. Put too much regulation in place and you will
> discourage business activity. Look at the unintended consequences of
> Sarbanes-Oxley- companies taking themselves private, more startups
> cho
> RoMunn wrote:
> year being spent on average just for SOX compliance. No, I don't agree
> that more regulation is the answer.
>
You can keep fighting the facts, but it is what it is.
Freddie and Fannie are bankrupt and being bailed out by the taxpayer.
Whether you like it or not.
Fact is, priva
Good luck with that. Put too much regulation in place and you will
discourage business activity. Look at the unintended consequences of
Sarbanes-Oxley- companies taking themselves private, more startups
choosing an exit strategy of acquisition rather than going public
because of the insanity that i
> RoMunn wrote:
> in that kind of situation, i have no problem with wiping out the
> shareholders, taking away the managers' bonuses, and jailing the
> guilty. i'd put the company into govt ownership, hire a new management
> team to fix it, and sell the fixed company to the highest bidder. not
> id
in that kind of situation, i have no problem with wiping out the
shareholders, taking away the managers' bonuses, and jailing the
guilty. i'd put the company into govt ownership, hire a new management
team to fix it, and sell the fixed company to the highest bidder. not
ideal, but better than letti
> Sam wrote:
> Wait a second, Obama admits it'll hurt the economy so he'll wait for
> it to get stronger and then zap it?
> Who's his advisor this week?
>
I dunno Sam, that water's pretty deep and scorpions can't swim.
~|
Adobe®
Wait a second, Obama admits it'll hurt the economy so he'll wait for
it to get stronger and then zap it?
Who's his advisor this week?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080907/D93228880.html
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's
tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he b
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mm yes well you either use monetary policy of fiscal policy right? So
> your alternative to tax policy is raising/lowering the interest rate,
> which is also dangerous to your pocketbook.
>
> Industrial revolution -- may be of histo
mm yes well you either use monetary policy of fiscal policy right? So
your alternative to tax policy is raising/lowering the interest rate,
which is also dangerous to your pocketbook.
Industrial revolution -- may be of historic interest but...
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL
>> Elect the smart guy.
> Brain surgery? Select the SMARTER Lawyer?
Brain Surgery? John McCain couldn't perform brain surgery of 5 and a half years.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~
> Sam wrote:
> I forgot the theme is America has failed on so many levels.
>
You now must turn that knowledge into action, defy your nature, and
not sting the toad.
Can you do it? Can you defy your nature and make the right choice?
~~~
> RoMunn wrote:
> Oh fine, then. Taxation is not just the means by which the government
> collects revenue to undertake its daily business, it is an instrument
> of policy. Can we all agree on that?
>
> Tax hikes against a group, a sector of the economy,
All 100% right (to me). Here's the problem
Oh fine, then. Taxation is not just the means by which the government
collects revenue to undertake its daily business, it is an instrument
of policy. Can we all agree on that?
Tax hikes against a group, a sector of the economy, or a type of
economic activity (such as capital gains from the sale o
I forgot the theme is America has failed on so many levels.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Gruss Gott
> Experience at what?
>
> Bankruptcies? Lining the pockets of millionaires? Wars of choice?
> Budget deficits? Dropping the median income? Inflation? Pork
> spending? Ignoring coming crisise
> Sam wrote:
> Why do you think any of the hundreds of Obama advisors are better then
> the McCain's advisors?
> Again if we look at experience McCain's team wins
Experience at what?
Bankruptcies? Lining the pockets of millionaires? Wars of choice?
Budget deficits? Dropping the median income?
Like you dealing insults instead of facts?
Let's try another approach.
Why do you think any of the hundreds of Obama advisors are better then
the McCain's advisors?
Again if we look at experience McCain's team wins, but your argument
is experience is the enemy, we need to have an open mind and a
> RoMunn wrote:
> "Big money" is not what powers the economy. Little money powers the
> economy. Small business powers our economy, not big business.
>
False.
(1.) The money to start up and run small business comes from banks.
(2.) Small business' customers are or are paid by big business. Thin
> Sam wrote:
> I'll take McCains team
>
>
Duh. Of course you will. Your thought process defines problems to
fit a solution: the Republican candidate.
You're like the scorpion that stung the toad as they were crossing the river.
You can't help it, it's just your nature.
~~~
This weeks lead foreign policy adv for Obama:
Susan Rice claims her mentor is Madeline Albright.
Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under
Bill Clinton while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a
bloody genocide.
Who's Obama's latest Economic advisor?
Jaso
> RoMunn wrote:
> Based on your own argument that divided government is better than a
> single party controlling both Congress and the Presidency
But that would bely history. We need to repeat 1992: elect a
democrat, 2 years later have a republican congress. That brought us
success before and ca
kwe qwrpo spsd pp. Don't understand? Buy a book. I dunno if that works
on Beth Robert -- I suspect not -- but it definitely doesn't work with
me. You're back in the world of faith-based policy. That's fine but
don't patronize the people who say wtf.
Dana
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Robert Mu
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Beth wrote:
> Industrialization has something to do with taxes? Do elaborate.
I'm debating, not teaching economics. Buy a book.
> You "disagree" based on what? you just feel like giving the governement
> money is bad? Because if thats the sum of your argument,
> The last twenty years were very good economically. Low inflation, a
> couple of mild recessions, lots of growth, and today in industrialized
> nations, people have all sorts of benefits and conveniences that no
> one, even the super-rich, had twenty years ago. That doesn't sound bad
> to me. In f
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Dana wrote:
> ok well. I think Keynes was on the right track, personally. He did
> only engineer the end of the Depression. The whole Laffner curve thing
> is mostly dismissed anymore. If there were any validity to it the last
> twenty years or so would have demonstr
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Larry wrote:
>
> So political propaganda and BS trump showing actual evidence. Glad to see
> that you're following the theory of the big lie so well.
>
> By your standards, even if something is a complete and utter failure, if the
> propaganda and the authorities s
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Gruss wrote:
> So if it's not the democrats and it's not the republicans, what is it?
> The combination. But I'll go one step farther.
> Of course I think that's Obama and you will say it's McCain.
>
> The difference between us is that you could convince me to v
>i don't need to link to anything. I would have thought the "how we are
>buying freedom for the Iraqi people" a rather straightforward thing-
>we have spent American lives and American dollars to rid them of a
>murderous dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a 35+
>year reign of te
> RoMunn wrote:
> I agree, but the same goes for the Democrats, only they will spend
> even more money and raise taxes
That's a huge assumption based on old school thinking. Further, it's
not backed up by the facts since 8 years of Clinton didn't prove our
your theory; so empirically you're simpl
ok well. I think Keynes was on the right track, personally. He did
only engineer the end of the Depression. The whole Laffner curve thing
is mostly dismissed anymore. If there were any validity to it the last
twenty years or so would have demonstrated it. Bush the Elder called
it right: it's voodoo
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Munn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Obama vs McCain - a pro/con list of sorts
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
>> Thus we'
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Gruss wrote:
> Thus we've proven that the Republican
> party, by itself, is incapable of responsibly managing our budget.
I agree, but the same goes for the Democrats, only they will spend
even more money and raise taxes, thinking that they can just tax their
way
> Beth wrote:
> asking them to pay another 3% of their enormous salaries isn't "punishment"
> and it certainly won't hurt their ability to live.
>
I don't agree with you there.
If you're living on $50k/yr then $350k/yr seems like a lot of money,
but lifestyle simply adjusts to it. Now all of a s
> RoMunn wrote:
> Punishing success is not a formula for eliminating poverty. In a
> global market, successful people will just take their marbles and go
> elsewhere to play.
3 problems here Robert, but first let me repeat that, in theory I
totally agree with you. It's in practice that it doesn't
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Munn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Obama vs McCain - a pro/con list of sorts
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Mary Jo wrote:
>> The fact is, that m
> Pretty much.
>
> Thomas Paine said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a
> necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
>
> Taxes are the oxygen of government. Why should we allow government
> more oxygen, when the net effects are inevitably destructive?
Maybe you ought to
> This country is going to become poorer largely because we are
> transferring our wealth at an alarming rate from people who work to
> people who don't through Social Security and Medicare. Until these two
> programs are addressed, nothing is going to make a difference to the
> long-term prospects
> Apparently all rational thinking about economics has gone out the
> window on this list. Lower taxes are good for the economy, good for
> everyone who participates in the economy. Higher taxes are bad for the
> economy, bad for everyone who participates in the economy. That is not
> an "I" issue,
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Mary Jo wrote:
> The fact is, that many of us accept and are willing to deal with the fact
> that some people will get aid that don't deserve it, in order to make sure
> that those that really need it get it. Rather than to just refuse to give it
> at all.
>
> The
Pretty much.
Thomas Paine said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a
necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Taxes are the oxygen of government. Why should we allow government
more oxygen, when the net effects are inevitably destructive?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:59 PM,
>Like I said, I am all in favor of helping people who need help. I have
>a problem giving $1,000 a year to a semi-employed young adult who is
>perfectly capable of working a regular job but chooses not to. That is
>what Obama's plan will do.
And if you can figure out a way to actually separate out
uh. It really is that simple in your mind?
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And yet you hold economic policy positions that are based on political
> beliefs - that is, on faith - rather than on economic analysis.
>
> http://mises.org/story/2061
>
> Essential
And yet you hold economic policy positions that are based on political
beliefs - that is, on faith - rather than on economic analysis.
http://mises.org/story/2061
Essentially, taxation is a means of wealth destruction. Higher taxes,
more destructive, lower taxes, less destructive.
On Sat, Sep 6
but you are asserting that lower taxes are good for the economy. What
is your evidence for this? It isn't an article of faith for all of us
you know -- some of us prefer to avoid faith-based policy :)
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is a policy debate
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> 1.) Healthcare costs
> 2.) Social security
> 3.) Medicare and Medicaid
> 4.) Government spending (pork, war, administrative, et al)
> 5.) Sinking median income
> 6.) Rising energy prices
> 7.) Shrinking middle class
> 8.) Rising food prices
> 9.) In
> RoMunn wrote:
> Apparently all rational thinking about economics has gone out the
> window on this list. Lower taxes are good for the economy
Here is the problem; The US is approaching a nexus of financial
problems, each of which are unsustainable:
1.) Healthcare costs
2.) Social security
3.) M
this is a policy debate, not a news story.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> links please
>
>>Lower taxes are good for the economy, good for
>> everyone who participates in the economy. Higher taxes are bad for the
>> economy, bad for everyone who participates
links please
>Lower taxes are good for the economy, good for
> everyone who participates in the economy. Higher taxes are bad for the
> economy, bad for everyone who participates in the economy.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 softwa
Apparently all rational thinking about economics has gone out the
window on this list. Lower taxes are good for the economy, good for
everyone who participates in the economy. Higher taxes are bad for the
economy, bad for everyone who participates in the economy. That is not
an "I" issue, it's an e
I think you and I disagree on the definition of small business.
> If we elect Barack Obama, we're sticking it to the people who lead our
> economy forward. That's bad policy. Instead, we need to make sure that
> tax policy encourages innovation and growth in small business by
> keeping taxes low a
ayup. But remember, they were free from tyranny when they died :)
> And so have WE. We've killed a crapload of Iraqis.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
htt
I agree, innovation comes from people from all walks of life.
Otherwise, that argument, though compelling, misses the point. As a
country, we should encourage innovative people to put their lives into
building businesses and professions in order to grow the economy for
everyone. Why should we then
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>> Denny wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>>
>>> Iraq was a horrible place before we ever got involved.
>>
>> Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
>
> Ah, Denny, ya can't listen to Robert; he's the official mouth
> no, I really don't actually. Strip out the emotional language from
> your argument, and essentially we have spent all these billions to
> remove Saddam Hussein, destroy the infrastructure, and put someone
> else in power. I grant you that Saddam killed some Iraqis. And so have
> the people curren
> Again with the emotional arguments.
This isn't an emotional argument. Someone here said that people who make
250,000 a year work VERY HARD to make it. i'll argue that some of the
richest people in the country don't work hard at all.
> No, I don't think really rich people necessarily work har
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>> Beth wrote:
>>> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
>>> people of Iraq and security for ourselves with our investment.
>>
>> wow, this is great propaganda. I dont' buy it but maybe you should be a
>> campaign ma
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Gruss wrote:
> Ah, Denny, ya can't listen to Robert; he's the official mouthpiece of
> McCain campaign children's divison.
and Gruss is the mouthpiece of the Obama poopy pants division
~|
Adobe®
> Denny wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
>> Iraq was a horrible place before we ever got involved.
>
> Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
>
Ah, Denny, ya can't listen to Robert; he's the official mouthpiece of
McCain campaign children's divison.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> Iraq was a horrible place before we ever got involved.
So now our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to rid the world
of all the monsters.
That was the first, and worst, of them, which is why we started there.
Didn't old Adams sa
> Beth wrote:
>> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
>> people of Iraq and security for ourselves with our investment.
>
> wow, this is great propaganda. I dont' buy it but maybe you should be a
> campaign manager.
>
Yeah, Robert, where are those investment number
er are now *yelling*
stupid autocomplete.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, I suppose if you are shi'ite it is better. If you are sunni it
> is worse. It still looks to me like we just picked a side and are now
> yellow about the moral superiority of that si
well, I suppose if you are shi'ite it is better. If you are sunni it
is worse. It still looks to me like we just picked a side and are now
yellow about the moral superiority of that side, as opposed to the
side we were touting the moral superiority of before.
.Overall not worth a few billion,
we'll just have to agree to disagree about that
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Dana wrote:
> my point would be that it is NOT better and may well be worse.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic r
my point would be that it is NOT better and may well be worse.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless you were a cute young woman and happened to get pulled off the
> street, raped and murdered by Uday. Or unless you were a Kurd and you
> got gassed for pr
Unless you were a cute young woman and happened to get pulled off the
street, raped and murdered by Uday. Or unless you were a Kurd and you
got gassed for protesting government action against your village. Or
unless you were a Shiite and you got butchered like cattle for any
convenient reason...
remind me never to make you chief of the tribe.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Dana wrote:
> Based on the ability to walk down the street unhindered -- my own
> personal test of the safety of a place -- we have made the life of the
> average Iraqi somewhat worse. We may well be on the way to re
no, I really don't actually. Strip out the emotional language from
your argument, and essentially we have spent all these billions to
remove Saddam Hussein, destroy the infrastructure, and put someone
else in power. I grant you that Saddam killed some Iraqis. And so have
the people currently in pow
oh, is that insider information from the campaign? :-P
n Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Gruss wrote:
>
> Yes Obama, who teaches at the most conservative of the T5 law schools,
> is of course not just socialist but also has poopy pants.
~~~
Again with the emotional arguments.
No, I don't think really rich people necessarily work harder than
really poor people, but we're not talking about really rich people,
we're talking about a class of people called the "working rich",
people who have made their own money, largely through owning a
i don't need to link to anything. I would have thought the "how we are
buying freedom for the Iraqi people" a rather straightforward thing-
we have spent American lives and American dollars to rid them of a
murderous dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a 35+
year reign of terror.
- Original Message -
From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Obama vs McCain - a pro/con list of sorts
>> Beth wrote:
>> I haven 't noticed that people who make more t
> It's Robin Hood economics. Steal for the rich and give to the poor.
> We know that tax breaks work and that's why the 2001 recession was so
> short. If we penalize the wealthy they won't take the risks.
"stealing " and taxation are a little different in my mind and thats a very
inflammatory te
ople who simply cannot afford healthcare if they want to eat?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Obama vs McCain - a pro/con list of sorts
>
please explain how we are buying either freedom for the Iraqi people
or security for ourselves.With links, please :)
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Beth In Alaska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
>> people of Iraq and security for
8 PM
Subject: Re: Obama vs McCain - a pro/con list of sorts
>I guess I am more worried about getting them food than improving their
> moral fiber.
>
> I specifically mention children since you really can't argue that they
> should get a job. If a kid is hungry that is a proble
> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
> people of Iraq and security for ourselves with our investment.
wow, this is great propaganda. I dont' buy it but maybe you should be a
campaign manager.
~~~
links please
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like I said, I am all in favor of helping people who need help. I have
> a problem giving $1,000 a year to a semi-employed young adult who is
> perfectly capable of working a regular job but chooses not to. T
> Denny wrote:
> Socialist?
>
Yes Obama, who teaches at the most conservative of the T5 law schools,
is of course not just socialist but also has poopy pants.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Loathe wrote:
> McCain = Safe
I am *s* tired of trading Freedom (which is inherently risky) for
Safety (which is at best, an illusion).
We need real change. Not this flip-flop type change.
"Nothing is wrong, but I'm going to change the stuff that's wrong
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Gruss wrote:
>>> Erika wrote:
>>> I'm just trying to figure out which one has the economy's best interests at
>>> heart and that essentially boils down to taxes.
>
> Obama is a socialist, keep that in mind. His u
> Beth wrote:
> I haven 't noticed that people who make more than 250,000 per year work any
> harder than poor peoople.
>
Well, just BSing here, but I have. For example, most people making,
say, 50k/yr in a major city probably put in 40, maybe 50, hours per
week.
People making, say, $150k/yr or
> That is old-school, command and control socialism. Obama is pursuing a
> policy of new-school soft socialism, but debating semantics just
> dodges the issue: Obama will take huge amounts of money from people
> who work very hard and give it to people who don't necessarily do
> anything.
So you t
> RoMunn wrote:
> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway.
Great to hear!
Please tell me the ROI, NPV, and maturity date.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
ht
> tBone wrote:
> How so?
>
Obama has both lived the American dream and dedicated the majority of
his life to service to his fellow American.
For you to slander his service is to slander Americans and the
American spirit brotherhood.
~~~
On 9/5/08, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you seem to be missing the main point that your "right leaning
> source", the Tax Foundation arguments are entirely built using the "left
> leaning" Tax Policy Center's research and data. So I am unclear on how
> this is supposed to balance a
Like I said, I am all in favor of helping people who need help. I have
a problem giving $1,000 a year to a semi-employed young adult who is
perfectly capable of working a regular job but chooses not to. That is
what Obama's plan will do.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Dana wrote:
> But since yo
Robert Munn wrote:
> Ian neglected to mention that the top earners already pay the VAST
> majority of all income taxes.
No, Ian wasn't contrasting the plans, rather pointing out that saying
source B is better then source A is rather silly and shows poor logich
when source B is exclusively using
Sam wrote:
> Can you explain tha again, seems to be key words missing or it's time
> for happy hour.
Yes, the was an unfinished thought in my invitation to debate the
differences between the two proposed tax plans if anybody wants to do that.
But you seem to be missing the main point that your "r
I guess I am more worried about getting them food than improving their
moral fiber.
I specifically mention children since you really can't argue that they
should get a job. If a kid is hungry that is a problem, sorry. Other
people may need help but the categories get more nuanced there.
But since
Ian neglected to mention that the top earners already pay the VAST
majority of all income taxes, and under McCain's plan, they will still
pay the vast majority of income taxes.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Sam wrote:
> Can you explain tha again, seems to be key words missing or it's time
> for
Here we go again with the poor children. The emotional argument for
"helping the poor children" falls flat when you look at the history of
welfare and what it did to those poor children. It didn't make them
wealthier. It didn't make them healthier. In fact, it encouraged them
to stay in entrenched
Can you explain tha again, seems to be key words missing or it's time
for happy hour.
On 9/5/08, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now if one wants to debate while it is bad to shift that top 1% tax
> burden to, fine lets discuss that and contrast that discussion with the
> opposite shift
Sam wrote:
> Taxpolicycenter is from the left leaning Brookings and Urban Institutes.
>
> Let's be balanced and look at a right leaning source:
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html
Sam;
Since we have to balance the left leaning Tax Policy Center with the
supposedly right l
please provide a cost-benefit analysis for Iraq. Remember to include
the externalities.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
> people of Iraq and security for ourselves with our investment. Is
ok so let me see if I have this straight. Giving money to poor
children = bad. Giving money to rich corporations = good.
I'm not talking about customers and you know it :) This is a
discussion of government spending.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That w
Iraq is an investment, not a giveaway. We are buying freedom for the
people of Iraq and security for ourselves with our investment. Is the
cost high? Was the cost of destroying- and then re-building- the
economies of Japan and Germany too high? No way. We demonstrated good
faith toward people who o
That would be customers - filling their gas tanks.
The oil companies are the ones earning the money. They get tax breaks
for re-investing money earned into new exploration and production. Or
perhaps you would prefer that they be taxed to death and make no
re-investment in infrastructure, and than
Taxpolicycenter is from the left leaning Brookings and Urban Institutes.
Let's be balanced and look at a right leaning source:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23319.html
On 9/5/08, Maureen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Updates of tax plans by both candidates:
>
> http://taxpolicycen
That is old-school, command and control socialism. Obama is pursuing a
policy of new-school soft socialism, but debating semantics just
dodges the issue: Obama will take huge amounts of money from people
who work very hard and give it to people who don't necessarily do
anything.
That, my friends,
How so?
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> I don't agree that they are both patriots. I think Barry has shown he
>> is not a patriot through his action, his associations, even his own words.
>>
>
> So have you then.
>
>
~|
1 - 100 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
