If you really want to drop the unemployment levels, lower the minimum wage.

Is that a wise thing to do? Maybe. I’m not considering any effect except lowering unemployment.

Posted by: TBox at August 1, 2003 11:44 AM

Unemployment didn’t really go down- it was just that a lot more people sopped looking for jobs because they were discouraged. This won’t really help Bush, as those people are going to get more and more annoyed, and this temporary decent article for him will eventually blow up in his face.

Posted by: Daniel at August 1, 2003 04:10 PM

I’ve just been on a Job Interview this week and I got another job Interview tomorrow. I’ve only been looking for a job for what… 3 weeks? What do you think of that you, ‘Economy Bashing because the president is a Republican’, Liberals.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at August 1, 2003 11:32 PM

The economy is in a shallow climb and people are becoming cautiously optimistic. Manufacturing is coming back very slowly. Things are getting better, but there won’t be any bubbles for the market to play with. It’s just going to take time.

Meanwhile one party prays they can make the economy worse so they can blame the party in power. Only they’re too stupid to turn off the microphones. The media doesn’t give the incident any air play, so there’s nothing to spin, right?

You report, we deride.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 2, 2003 12:50 AM

torpedo_eight

That was both accurate and extremely well put.

Posted by: Seth at August 2, 2003 05:24 PM

Read the later reports on the jobless rate.

The total number of jobs fell.

Posted by: Don at August 2, 2003 07:08 PM

>>I’ve just been on a Job Interview this week and I got another job Interview tomorrow. I’ve only been looking for a job for what… 3 weeks? What do you think of that you, ‘Economy Bashing because the president is a Republican’, Liberals.<<

I think you’re far luckier than the 500,000 of your fellow Americans who just gave up after months of searching, which is the real reason the number fell. The “headline” number is based only on those actively seeking employment. This is covered no farther down than the second paragraph of the report … which, of course, isn’t mentioned much in the news, because we are sadly a one-paragraph-attention-span kind of public.

I’d be the first to tapdance for my fellow citizens getting more jobs regardless of who was President. But just as Mr. Clinton doesn’t really deserve any credit for much of the wealth-creation during his second term, let’s not pretend these numbers are good because they’re somehow “redeeming” for Mr. Bush when they are, factually and demonstrably, not.

By the way, recently Mr. Bush claimed that although we’re on track for an overall loss of 3 million jobs, if we hadn’t passed his tax cuts there would have been an additonal 1.5 million jobs lost. I’m more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but does anyone out there know of any published study, press release, white paper from ANY group which might provide these numbers? I’d love to take a look at their stats.

Posted by: john at August 3, 2003 04:00 AM

Jeff — good luck on the third job interview (too bad about the first two). Remember to smile broadly when you say “Welcome to McDonalds, may I take your order?”

Posted by: john at August 3, 2003 07:26 PM

I think Clinton deserves a lot of credit for growth. He held the line on spending, and by dealing effectively with the deficit and maintaining tax levels on the middle and lower brackets while allowing marginal rates on the upper income to rise slightly. This completely goosed the economy rising it from something like 1.2 or 1.3 trillion to 2.1 trillion during his tenure. In contrast under Bush’s ‘leadership’ he’s increased spending by 18% in just two years, has cut taxes on the richest tax payer (boy Bill Gates really needs those extra BILLIONS, right??) and runs a huge deficit. Now Clinton certainly benefited from the internet buble but that wasnt the leading cause of the economy growing by such a huge amount. Bush’s fiscal irresponability is crapping out the economy and I think its a race to see if he can crap out the economy more (with even more tax cuts to those who dont need them) before even the main stream republicans realize what an idiot and a liar he is and he looses reelection. And to think that these people (republican politicians) supported the balanced budget amendment…Geez what the F-K happened to that???
Support a balanced budget amendment!!!!
(Oh and btway-discretionary wars, like Iraq, need to be acounted for in current spending, and arent an excuse to run an even deeper deficit (as opposed to wars of necessity like afghanistan).
Tax cuts are NOT a zero sum game!

Posted by: Aaron at August 3, 2003 08:33 PM

I think Clinton deserves a lot of credit for growth. He held the line on spending, and by dealing effectively with the deficit and maintaining tax levels on the middle and lower brackets while allowing marginal rates on the upper income to rise slightly. This completely goosed the economy rising it from something like 1.2 or 1.3 trillion to 2.1 trillion during his tenure. In contrast under Bush’s ‘leadership’ he’s increased spending by 18% in just two years, has cut taxes on the richest tax payer (boy Bill Gates really needs those extra BILLIONS, right??) and runs a huge deficit. Now Clinton certainly benefited from the internet buble but that wasnt the leading cause of the economy growing by such a huge amount. Bush’s fiscal irresponability is crapping out the economy and I think its a race to see if he can crap out the economy more (with even more tax cuts to those who dont need them) before even the main stream republicans realize what an idiot and a liar he is and he looses reelection. And to think that these people (republican politicians) supported the balanced budget amendment…Geez what the F-K happened to that???
Support a balanced budget amendment!!!!
(Oh and btway-discretionary wars, like Iraq, need to be acounted for in current spending, and arent an excuse to run an even deeper deficit (as opposed to wars of necessity like afghanistan).
Tax cuts are NOT a zero sum game!

Posted by: Aaron at August 3, 2003 08:33 PM

Aaron, before you wet yourself over Clinton’s masterful handling of the economy: 1) he vetoed the same welfare reform bill twice before he signed it on the 3rd pass (without telling his minions in the field, who were STILLl defending his veto) 2) taxing people has NEVER goosed the economy, perhaps it’s given it a wedgie, but never a goose. The economy slipped into recession 4 months before Bill left office. 3) the US economy is much larger than $1.2 to $2.1 trillion dollars, you’re it confusing it with the federal budget, which is a lot of things, but certainly NOT prosperity. 4) There isn’t a non-democrat in the house that ever believed the dems gave a fig about the deficit, or at least they didn’t in the 40 years they controlled Congress. Feigning concern now is laughable. 5) I will agree with you that Bush has spent like a drunken sailor, but any time someone lets Teddy Kenedy write the education bill I’m going to question their judgement. 6) A lot of the economic bubble was indeed technology related, but Greenspan’s masterful dismantling of the economy through interest hikes (something he doesn’t get enough credit for) and crazy speculation met with full carts in the produce aisle. We really can’t blame Bill for that.

In fact, Presidents rarely have much impact on the economy during the time they’re in office because it takes a while for any change to seep down to the unwashed masses. Besides, congress writes the budget - the President can only veto one he doesn’t like. That is the sum total of his direct influence on the economy. I find people on this board assigning far too much blame or credit directly to the President. Any President.

“In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other.” Voltaire

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 3, 2003 09:39 PM

John - Your comments on Jeff’s situation are sadly typical of the American socialist movement. You pretend to care more deeply than anyone else, or you assert as much, yet if a bad situation confronts your opponent, you can barely contain your glee.

Next time I hear about your movement’s “caring deeply” bullshit, I’ll remember your post.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 3, 2003 10:07 PM

Aaron

No, Monica deserves a lot of credit for Clinton’s “growth”.
Clinton had nothing to do with credit, he was strictly a debit.

Posted by: Seth at August 3, 2003 11:49 PM

T-8:
As to your points:
1) so what
2) Thats not what George W. Bush said after he took office.
3) You may be right, Im not sure about those numbers.
4) So what
5) So what
6) When Clinton was president, Greenspan made numerous warnings about spending. When Bush proposed unsuportable tax cuts Greenspan said we could afford them. He’s the Republican’s Bitch.
And yes presidents have a great deal of effect on the economy, 2 years of Bush are proof of that.
On the plus side, I plan on investing in Real Estate. So long as Bush is in power, the economy is going to be crapping out, and consequently interest rates will stay low.

Posted by: Aaron at August 4, 2003 03:57 AM

Touche sir, you cut me to the quick!!

“So what?” I’ll have to remember that one.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 4, 2003 08:41 AM

Aaron:

Look, here’s the thing: I consider most of what goes on here open debate. With that in mind, it follows you can call into question another’s premise without descending into name-calling or, to borrow from Monty Python “the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says”. It’s obvious you can’t distinguish between the federal budget (a cost) and the economy (free enterprise).

As far as your Greenspan argument, cutting government spending is not the same as increasing government revenues. One reduces the total outlay for expenditures, the other reduces the amount of money that can be used productively by the American economy. It is a fallacy to say that tax cuts “cost” the government anything, unless tthe government owning our entire paycheck is your original premise. I don’t know, maybe that IS your original premise, but I’m not buying it.

And as far as the President affecting the economy, I didn’t say they didn’t. I said every economic effect is delayed, so the total effect of what a President accomplishes appears several months or years later. Therefore such arguments as the democrats put forward now, that the tax cuts are effecting the deficit - are ludicrous. All of these cuts are backloaded and don’t really kick in for several years. I doubt seriously the government is missing the 2 checks they gave me for $700 and my tiny payroll tax cut. It doesn’t amount to 1% of what my wife and I send them every year. Either you’re not reading what I wrote, or you’re parroting something you heard. Either way, it’s not the way to run a debate.

I don’t mind intelligent discourse on the economy, I feel arguing with you is watering a dead plant.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 6, 2003 12:30 PM

Not to interrupt a healthy train of thought for YOU, but I’m curious about the NIC, T-8. Are you a Navy vet? It means nothing in the matter of discourse, but you seem to be an intelligent fellow with something to contribute, and I wondered if the NIC was of some significance.

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 6, 2003 12:38 PM

Cap’n, excuse my ignorance, but are you referring to the National Intelligence Council? I am aware of them, but I’m thinking this is one of those TLAs (3-lettered acronyms) that could stand for just about anything.

I’m basically a libertarian, if anything, and read a lot. I haven’t found a philosophy I completely buy into, but would love to see the country return to enumerated powers, limited government and peace. The peace can come through negotiation with those who can be reasoned with, or by the physical elimination of threats, it really is up to them. I belong to the Cato Institute, so my basic approach to politics is this: the battles today are not so much between democrats and republicans, or conservatives and liberals, for that matter, but between communtarians and libertarians.

I’m not a veteran, but my family is full of them. I used to get the abstracts from the Naval Institute as well. I like Reason, The American Enterprise and Aviation Week & Space Technology (except for its price).

So have you been with the NIC?

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 6, 2003 04:13 PM

T-8 - Sorry. Your NICkname, torpedo_eight…

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 6, 2003 05:28 PM

Sorry for the long winded commentary (wheee!) - Torpedo Eight flew off the Hornet in the Battle of Midway. Of the 15 Devastators that left for the Japanese carriers on 6/4/42, none returned. They lost their air cover and attacked without fighter escort. Not a single plane registered a hit and 29 men were lost (one survivor - Ensign Gay). These guys pretty much knew they were doomed going in, as the Devastator was a dog. But they never questioned their mission and they knew what the stakes were. They did what was expected of them and their attack contributed to the chaos that led to the loss of the 4 main Jap CVs.

I took the name in tribute to these men. Which explains why I got a little exercised a week or 2 ago when someone implied that patriotism was DOUBT. These guys didn’t doubt anything. You don’t die for what you doubt.

You die for what you believe.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 6, 2003 06:50 PM

torpedo_eight - Thank you. I needed that. I assumed some significance, although I only vaguely remember the incident. Whether you were a veteran or not, you just became a brother. :o)

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 6, 2003 07:29 PM

T-8,
So let me get this straight, were talking about the economy, and you giving me arguments about ted kenedy and an education bill, clintons voting record on a welfare bill, and some right wing stereo typing of ALL democrats as being oblivious to the deficit. And then your surprised that I respond ‘so what’ and you respond that I’m off point! Here’s a clue: its ‘so what?’ becouse were talking about the economy. Have you read what you wrote???
Here’s a clue: your Republican politicians are itching to institute another tax cut! Which we can afford ever less!!!!! And whose going to stop them? Oh my yes its those democrats who care about the deficit. But hey, why deal with the current events when you can resort to a made up stereotype??? Hey heres a name in the news for ya, Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings. His rep in 50 years is a hawk on Washington deficits.
Heres another clue: its called financial markets. And the financial markets respond readily to political decisions. As in the same day. And they pay attention to the news.
You were right about my numbers being wrong. Those numbers that I quoted are the federal governments tax revenue during the clinton admin.. So despite a huge increase in federal tax revenue we had strong growth in the economy. And that was Clinton instituting a sound fiscal policy, something that Republican politicians really need to take a lesson from!
Also affecting the economy now: the republicans attitude has encouraged non payment of taxes, increasing use of dodgy tax shelters and tax avoidance schemes by businesses and the rich which have seriously cut into revenue.
And here’s another clue. The government provides services. Services that cost money. So when the governement takes in less money in taxes and still provides those same service, well gomer, surprise, surprise, surprise, its a cost!
Oh and I really love your ‘presidents actions take time to take effect’, ‘maybe even years’ argument. After all why should Bush take responsability for the economy when you can blame Clinton. Way to pass that buck! Hey here’s an idea for you: The president can is acountable for what happens on his watch! Its called responsibility. Wow you republicans might try it out!!
As for your greenspan argument, not a clue what your talking about. My point was that Greenspan acted responsibly when clinton was in power. Now that bush is in power he’s not. which interest rate hikes are you talking about and when? And where is this produce cart?? And somehow theres something about “tthe government owning our entire paycheck …as my… original premise” in your argument? Thats great, if you dont like what I say just make stuff up. Or is that just Bush’s purview?? Why dont you question my patriotism while your at it???
And your right when you say your $400 dollar tax rebate was small. But that actually goosed the economy. Its unfortunate though that the Bush administration used it as a payoff to cover for the $50,000 tax break it gave to those with million dollar incomes. Hey, how about if I give you a $50 to look the other way while I ram your car into a tree? Im sure the benifits you get from that $50 will more then make up for the damage done. Oh and look, a tax cut thats already kicked in!?! What a surprize.

Posted by: Aaron at August 8, 2003 04:25 AM

Aaron! Woowdoggies! Someone lit your fuse! The government takes its money from me every day. Fuel tax. Income Tax (I pay quarterly as well as biweekly, since I am not only employed, I also have my own business), and I’m sure that there are other little holes in my jeans where the coinage falls in the public trough that I’m not considering. I don’t mind that I pay taxes. I mind how my taxes get spent. If you think that GWB is misspending your taxes, say so. If you don’t like the way the government takes your money, say so. If you don’t like the way the government spends your money, say so. BUT. You aren’t going to get a whole lotta folks to listen to you tell someone to shut up, or call them ‘gomer’, and make a whole bunch of points for your team.

If you want to spend your income on sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, that’s your business. We all have a vested interest in how our collective money gets spent. If YOU don’t have it, YOU can’t spend it! Is there some rocket science involved in that process? No. It’s pretty freakin’ simple math.

You are spouting pure crap when it comes to fiscal reposibility from liberal Democrats, of which you can include your friend Bill. Why should they care about fiscal responsibility? It wasn’t THEIR money they were spending, it was MY money they were spending. And guess what? The President, be he Dem or Rep, needs help to spend money, cuz he can’t do it on his own.

Where did you get your economic advice from, your bookie?

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 8, 2003 05:52 AM

Gee Aaron, thanks for all the clues, I knew nothing about economics until I read your post…….

Where do I begin? First off, I’m not a republican, I’m a libertarian, so you can start bad mouthing THEM, okay? I know you get locked into this “two party” thinking, but trust me, there are a lot of flyover people who don’t see a real difference between the 2 major parties.

So if we’re going to end the stereotyping, you’re going to have to cooperate. To say democratically-controlled Congresses since 1958 were unconcerned about the deficit is not a stereotype, as the deficit was NEVER reduced in that 36-year period. Additionally, Congress devised some “creative” financing during that time which pulled unfunded SS liability OFF THE BOOKS, so the fact is, we’ve NEVER had a surplus in my lifetime.

Ernest Hollings is a good man. Ron Paul is a good man. But both are lost in a den of thieves. That would leave us 533 people who are more concerned about being re-elected than they are about our financial future. Many lawyers, but few economists, and it shows.

To say that the economy grew while Clinton increased taxes is to say the sun came up today because I beat trash can lids together at 5 AM. They are not connected. The economy grew IN SPITE of tax increases. Taking money out of the productive side (the market) and giving it to the non-productive side (government) has NEVER sparked any economy - EVER. However, I’d be willing to hear your explanation of how that’s even possible.

Republican attitudes have nothing to do with the non-payment of taxes. People have avoided taxes in this country from the get-go, from pitching tea into Boston Harbor (over a 2% tax) to the Whiskey Rebellion, to present day. Statist views contend you can generate 2% more revenue if you increase taxes 2%, but raising taxes from the population is like squeezing a handful of water. Don’t be surprised if people take advantage of loopholes. That’s why Congress put them there.

The only way to avoid loopholes is to throw the present mess in the trash and start over, either with a flat tax or a national sales tax (AFTER first repealing the 16th Amendment). Tinkering with the edges is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Please read the 9th and 10th Amendents while you’re at it. Congress is spending money it is NOT authorized to spend. The powers of Congress are clearly enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments. Nowhere in there is a mention of education, healthcare, prescriptions or banking. FDR’s perverted interpretation of the interstate commerce act let loose the floodgates in the ’30s and now we reap the whirlwind.

And I’m not surprised that you haven’t a clue about what I’m talking about as far as Greenspan goes. He hiked interest rates about 8 times in a 2-year period starting in 1998. He was concerned about inflation resulting from a robust economy. Inflation never materialized, but he did manage to kill the flow of capital into new business starts and, coupled with the dot.bomb bust in the computer industry, we slipped into recession in 2000. He has not changed under Presidents. His behavior is still questionable.

Finally, I’ve been over this once, but I’ll reiterate. My letting you keep what you make is not me “affording” your paycheck. You see, I don’t OWN your paycheck. Me letting you keep your car is not my “affording” you keeping your car. It’s your car. I may talk in terms of how much I could save if I took your car to Seattle and back, but that doesn’t change ownership. Only thieves see other’s possessions as their own - which brings us to Congress. Congress does not “afford” tax cuts. Letting us keep what we earn is not some nobless oblige on their part. They may need my ENTIRE paycheck, but that doesn’t give them a right to it. The question, rightly stated, is how much government I can afford. Because it is highly inefficient and staffed with people just as flawed and stupid as I am, it is in my best interest to keep it as small as possible. This was a concept the Founding Fathers called subsidiary government. One that supports the nation, and nothing else. The smallest one you can get away with. Exactly what we don’t have now.

And a nation sadly divided between those who know what the Founding Fathers wanted (me) and those who never learned (you).

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 8, 2003 10:35 AM

I’d like to correct myself, if I can. The Supreme Court has ruled (forgot the case) that the federal government has every right to tax your entire income - 100% of it. The amount they want to let you keep is entirely up to them.

Also, there is no “social contract” as far as SS is concerned. Another case in the late ’50s regarding a deported autoworker from Cleveland who turned out to be a Nazi prison camp guard had the guy claiming his SS retirement income. The Supreme Court ruled the government owes you NOTHING. There is nothing binding the government to pay SS benefits. If they want to stop tomorrow, there’s nothing preventing them.

Rest easy, everyone.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 8, 2003 10:46 AM

T-8 - A moment regarding a Flat Tax - when do we start? Yesterday? Would yesterday work for you? How come you ain’t runnin’ for office?

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 8, 2003 11:29 AM

T-8 - Frankly, I think it’s a dream, but it sure sounds ‘right’, and it’s the only ‘fair’ tax that I know of. Am I headed in the ‘right’ direction here?

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 8, 2003 11:55 AM

Cap’n - Russia now has a flat tax - 13%, as so several other countries. There is little to do for tax lawyers, accountants, federal courts. They can concentrate on other matters. The amount of time and money spent by Americans paying their taxes (not the taxes themselves, JUST the preparation) is the equivalent output of GM for the year.

Then we have the top 50% of households paying over 96% of all taxes. There is some perverse about this system. Of course it means ANY tax cut is a “cut for the rich”. How could it be anything else? (especially if your definition of “rich” is about $40K/year). The poor in this country pay virtually no income tax at all. This is not a bad thing, but like I said, our system is perverse. It punishes earning and investment, it subsidizes non-productive behavior. As Milton Friedman reminds us “If you want more of something, you subsidize it, if you want less, you tax it.”

Now the democrats want a tax refund for people who don’t pay any. Somewhat akin to paying farmers not to plant. It sometimes appears that everyone running the country flunked math, econ, or both.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 9, 2003 02:45 AM

What did Perot say about NAFTA, we would hear
a sucking sound as jobs left the US. Now they
want Free Trade all over the world. I didn’t
know we had it with China but they sure are
taking jobs. Guess it will work out as long as
the US workers have a few $ to spend since they
can buy cheaper goods but they will have to get
the money from somewhere. If they hoarded money
they might make it through till all goods are
cheap.

Posted by: Vf at August 10, 2003 04:59 AM

As long as the trade is, indeed, FREE, I‘m all for it. No country was ever harmed by free trade. Perhaps we’ve priced ourselves out of several industries over the years, but competing on the world stage is the best way to hone your skills and fully expose yourself to the whole marketplace.

There is no other direction to go. We will trade with all other countries, as long as we don’t have to go up against massive subsidies (Japanese rice market), outright bribery (Airbus) or political stonewalling (Europe in general).

Remember that a Mexican middle class is more likely to stay in Mexico. No one leaves their home country to search for work in another if there are decent jobs at home. As Mexico moves slowly away from socialism, I think we will see some improvement.

PS I run a deficit with my supermarket. I don’t have anything they want, so all my money flows to them, with nothing in return except groceries. Don’t get sucked into the belief that deficits are the worst thing that could happen.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 10, 2003 11:04 AM

T-8 I realize some of this is plain common sense. Some of it makes sense because it appears to be simple economics. The Flat Tax appeals to ME, for one reason, and one reason ONLY. It is applied without discrimination. If you have only one target (being TAXES in general), then everyone complains about one tax, instead of this ‘fee’, or this ‘surcharge’, or that SinTax. I don’t know how you clean out the leeches (those that feed on the system and keeping it ‘running’ if you can call it that), but if you have some ideas, I’d be willing to listen. BIG. Maybe I’m not alone. It just seems to me that standardizing the bucket would mean we’d be more ‘conservative’ with the dole, and there’s less of a chance of ‘voices’ yelling the loudest getting commensorate consideration.

Posted by: Cap'n SPIN at August 11, 2003 05:24 PM

Cap’n - Taxes, being the monies necessary to run a government, are not social engineering tools. There should be no unequal burdens borne by our population, as that would be inherently UNFAIR. Do we all not equally benefit from a government? Then why are some allowed to opt out of their responsibility to run it? What does it say about our govenment today that fully half of our households pay nothing toward the support of the Union? That many TAKE MORE out of the treasury than they contribute? What was it Kennedy said about “Ask not….”? Was he only addressing those with incomes in excess of $40K/year? I don’t think so.

Our military, our firemen, our police, do not determine a person’s income when it comes to helping them, yet our government has seen fit to unfairly balance the burden of government on a few sturdy backs. Success is justly punished, and therefore discouraged by our own government, as is investment, as is inheritance. Is it not the American dream to leave something to your children? Why are tax collectors standing at the foot of our death beds, first in line for whatever we can bequeath?

Holding everyone to a flat tax on income (or better yet, a federal sales tax) is the only FAIR way to collect revenues. That way, EVERY American shares equally in the burden, as they share equally in the benefits. Democrats know robbing Peter to pay Paul is always going to get Paul’s vote. Republicans want to prove they’re just as kind-hearted by taking a few extra dollars out of Peter’s pocket as a token of their benevolence. Peter wonders when it’s Paul’s turn. It will NEVER be Paul’s turn.

Tinkering with the present tax system is a waste of time. Fourteen IRS workers are going to give you 14 different answers to how much you owe this year. We need to sunset the present laws, repeal the 16th Amendment and apply a tax that hits everyone equally. Let’s make ALL Americans aware of the burden so that together we can work to shrink the size of government.

Unfortunately, this idea has a snowflake’s chance in hell. Only seriously disordered individuals like Milton Friedman actually believe such drivel. And it flies in the face of all-American desires to “stick it to the rich”.

People like Ah-nold, who only paid $20 million in taxes on his income of $57 million over 2001-2002.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 11, 2003 09:40 PM

The reason I favor a national sales tax over a flat tax is because I believe it would be harder for those in the underground economy to skip out on their obligation. The cocaine dealer would probably not be too forthcoming on the source of last year’s $38,943,293, but when it came to the jet black cigarette boat he wanted to tool around Miami, the law-abiding boat dealer would still require the 12 to 15% federal cut.

No taxes on investment, no taxes on inheritance, no taxes on earnings. No interest deductions for home-owners, no deductions for charity, no child deductions, child-care deductions, alimony payments. It was your decision to have children and buy a home, and the government should NEVER play favorites, should it? All these little goodies I would be willing to cede, if I could keep what I make, keep what money my paltry investments earn, give what I want to whoever I want in my passing.

To have a government that “will not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”.

That’s all I want. It’s all Jefferson wanted.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at August 11, 2003 09:55 PM

sonnerie -
sonnerie portable -
sonnerie gratuite -
composer sonnerie -
composer une sonnerie -
sonnerie pour portable -
sonnerie polyphonique -
logo et sonnerie -
sonnerie et logo -
logo sonnerie -
sonnerie logo -
sonnerie nokia -
sonnerie pour nokia -
sonnerie mobile -
sonnerie pour mobile -
sonnerie a composer -
sonnerie telephone -
sonnerie portable gratuite -
composition sonnerie -
sonnerie sagem -
sonnerie gsm -
compositeur sonnerie -
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie motorola -
telechargement sonnerie
Anniversaire
sonnerie pour nokia -
sonnerie mobile -
sonnerie pour mobile -
sonnerie a composer -
sonnerie telephone -
sonnerie portable gratuite -
composition sonnerie -
sonnerie sagem -
sonnerie gsm -
compositeur sonnerie -
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie motorola -
telechargement sonnerie
Anniversaire
telecharger sonnerie -
sonnerie alcatel -
sonnerie samsung -
sonnerie gratuit -
sonnerie pour telephone portable -
sonnerie digitalsonnerie
petites annonces
telephone
nice people
blog
informatique
sonnerie portable
aquariophilie
eheim
osmoseur
terrarium
eau de mer
aquarium
samsung
sonneries sagem
sonneries polyphoniques
logos sonneries
sonneries portables
sonneries nokia
sonneries motorola
sonneries alcatel
sonneries gratuites
Klingeltöne
Klingeltönes
ringtones
ringtone
popstars
sonnerie suisse
sonneries suisse
sonneries noel
cadeaux noel
pére noel

Posted by: ali at November 15, 2003 08:30 AM

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Posted by: Waller Lisa at January 25, 2004 04:49 PM

I am new to the internet and I did a search in the search engines on a “real estate blog” and I found your web blog. Let me introduce myself, I am a Halifax Real Estate Agent in Nova Scotia, Canada and I was told that blogs were discussions on specific topics which made me interested in searching for a real estate blog. It seemed like an interesting way to see what trends and technology are happening in the real estate market in other parts of the world besides Halifax. I am considering a blog for myself if I can understand the technology of operating a blog and from what I see I am somewhat hesitant right now even though it was interesting reading.

Respectfully yours
James B. ,
A Halifax Real Estate Agent

Posted by: Halifax Real Estate Agent at February 16, 2004 01:36 PM