The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

[Ham Murabi]

I believe the record will show Clinton's first campaign included a promise of a middle class tax cut. Once in office, and with Democrats holding majorities in both houses, Clinton passed huge tax increases, including a 5 cents per gallon tax on motor vehicle fuel. Guess who felt that the most? I'd guess it was the poor.
Clinton also promised welfare reform. He delivered on that "centrist" promise after Republicans gained control of both houses in 1994, prior to that he took no action.
I all in favor of eliminating corporate welfare.
Uber, your contention that a family of four with earnings of $100,000 have that much more disposable income than the family of four earning $50,000 is so full of holes I'm surprised you said it. If both families lived in the same three-bedroom house and drove the same cars that would be true. I don't think it's fair to increase the tax bite on people simply because they are more successful, but if you are so eager to make it an even playing field, I'm confident the family making $100,000 a year will be content to drop back to $50,000. After all, what would be the point of trying to earn more?

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Why pp, no C&P. Damn, hate to start your New Year with such bad news.

Ishmael

Mmmmm...

ppman

 

[ubertroll]

Uber, your contention that a family of four with earnings of $100,000 have that much more disposable income than the family of four earning $50,000 is so full of holes I'm surprised you said it. If both families lived in the same three-bedroom house and drove the same cars that would be true. I don't think it's fair to increase the tax bite on people simply because they are more successful, but if you are so eager to make it an even playing field, I'm confident the family making $100,000 a year will be content to drop back to $50,000. After all, what would be the point of trying to earn more?

So, you're suggesting that the 50,000 family be penalized for living a more efficient, spartan lifestyle? Your analysis is flawed, because, in your method, to paraphrase
"After all, what would be the point of trying to save money?" if those savings just go to the government?




My point was this--after caring for the most basic neccessities of their families, our 50k and 100k housholds have, in this scenario, a discretionary income of 10k and 60k, respectively. If the 60k person pays six times the tax rate on the discretionary income [and if income up to 40k is ignored for tax purposes], then he still makes 6 times the discretionary income of the other family. This method protects the money that any and every family needs to maintain itself, and only taxes the income that would be spent on optional products.

Of course, it's incomplete. I feel the current tax code is needlessly, pointlessly complex.

 

[ubertroll]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Mmmmm...

ppman

I just realized that PPMan and I taking the same position on an arguement.


Dude, if PPMan and I can actually AGREE on something, it can't be TOTALLY wrong lol

 

[Ham Murabi]

So, you're suggesting that the 50,000 family be penalized for living a more efficient, spartan lifestyle? Your analysis is flawed, because, in your method, to paraphrase
"After all, what would be the point of trying to save money?" if those savings just go to the government?
My point was this--after caring for the most basic neccessities of their families, our 50k and 100k housholds have, in this scenario, a discretionary income of 10k and 60k, respectively. If the 60k person pays six times the tax rate on the discretionary income [and if income up to 40k is ignored for tax purposes], then he still makes 6 times the discretionary income of the other family. This method protects the money that any and every family needs to maintain itself, and only taxes the income that would be spent on optional products.

Of course, it's incomplete. I feel the current tax code is needlessly, pointlessly complex.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. The $50,000 family has to live a more efficient, spartan lifestyle simply because they don't have as much money as the family earning twice as much.
Let's look at it this way. If both families pay a 10 percent tax, that means the government takes $10,000 from the family earning $100,000 and $5,000 from the family earning $50,000.
What could be fairer than that? Of course, with a tax system such as that, I think a lot of the desire of some people to tax the "haves" heavily would decrease substantially.
On the bright side, the tax code would not longer be pointlessly complex.

 

[ruminator]

By the definition of corporate welfare listed above, there are several instances that can be found under the current administration. That does not mean it's unique to this one, but many believe it is further out of balance in favor of the corporations.

Instances of favoritism in regard to energy companies, medical, insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, FCC lobbies to name just a few.

There are correlations between the amouts of money donated and favorable legislation. In some cases, such as the energy policy, the Medicare reform and the FCC legislations, many of the policies were compiled with participation of members of the industries who benefitted. Also, some of these meetings were conducted behind closed doors and excluded nonrepublican lawmakers.

edited to add:
Any opinions on these numbers?

March 15, 2002
Corporate Income Taxes as % of GDP, 1942-2003
1942 3.3% 1963 3.6% 1984 1.5%
1943 5.3% 1964 3.7% 1985 1.5%
1944 7.1% 1965 3.7% 1986 1.4%
1945 7.2% 1966 4.0% 1987 1.8%
1946 5.3% 1967 4.2% 1988 1.9%
1947 3.7% 1968 3.3% 1989 1.9%
1948 3.8% 1969 3.9% 1990 1.6%
1949 4.1% 1970 3.2% 1991 1.6%
1950 3.8% 1971 2.5% 1992 1.6%
1951 4.4% 1972 2.7% 1993 1.8%
1952 6.1% 1973 2.8% 1994 2.0%
1953 5.7% 1974 2.7% 1995 2.1%
1954 5.6% 1975 2.6% 1996 2.2%
1955 4.5% 1976 2.4% 1997 2.2%
1956 4.9% 1977 2.8% 1998 2.2%
1957 4.7% 1978 2.7% 1999 2.0%
1958 4.4% 1979 2.6% 2000 2.1%
1959 3.5% 1980 2.4% 2001 1.7%
1960 4.1% 1981 2.0% 2002e 1.3%
1961 3.9% 1982 1.5% 2003e 1.4%
1962 3.6% 1983 1.1%


Corporate Tax Payments Near Record Low This Year
Click here to see this analysis in PDF format.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The big corporate tax cut bill just passed by Congress and signed by President Bush will slash corporate income tax payments this year to their lowest level as a share of the economy since the early Reagan administration. This will be the second lowest level in the past 60 years.

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation indicate that corporate taxes will plummet to only 1.3 percent of gross domestic product this year. That will be the lowest since fiscal 1983, when corporate taxes bottomed out at 1.1 percent of the GDP level on the heels of the huge corporate tax reductions enacted in 1981.

Despite the expected economic recovery, the continuing effects of the 2002 corporate tax cuts will keep next year’s corporate tax payments at only 1.4 percent of GDP, the third lowest level in the past 60 years.

In comparison, over the past 60 years corporate income taxes averaged:

5.6 percent of the GDP during World War II,
4.5 percent in the Truman and Eisenhower administrations,
3.7 percent under Kennedy and Johnson,
2.7 percent under Nixon and Ford,
2.4 percent under Carter,
1.6 percent in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and
2.1 percent under Clinton.

http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0302.htm#chart

 

[Guest]

Willie Nelson, Wayne Newton, MC Hammer all got burned by taxes.

cuz they didn't pay for years..of course this will happen.....

And mc got fucked by his money holders...watched way to many mc hammer specials to know this..

willie may be a burn out, but he dug himself out of his hole

wayne well i don't know about him........try not to give out misleading info ok....Good!

with all the taxes i pay...They still keep at least some..unless you are under 18...I did the forms correctly also...

 

[ubertroll]

Let's look at it this way. If both families pay a 10 percent tax, that means the government takes $10,000 from the family earning $100,000 and $5,000 from the family earning $50,000.
What could be fairer than that? Of course, with a tax system such as that, I think a lot of the desire of some people to tax the "haves" heavily would decrease substantially.
On the bright side, the tax code would not longer be pointlessly complex.

Let's look at it THIS way. If it costs 40,000 to fed, clothe, shelter, and provide for the other *most basic neccessities*of the family [eating out, a bigger living space, better clothing, etc NOT counted in this figure], then taxing a family 10% of a 40k income means they'll have to go without food, or perhaps electricity, or housing, or the like.

On the other hand, that same 10% tax on a family making 100k is a drop in the bucket--he'll have to get a slightly less sporty car, perhaps.


I simply suggest that the basic expenses for running and educating a family be totaled in a fair manner, and this value be subtracted from the taxable income. Taxes are supposed to take from DISPOSABLE income--luxeries--not from basic neccessities.


I come from a wealthy family. If we had to pay double our current taxes, it would be a drop in the bucket. Yeah, maybe we'd have to delay the new car, or mow the lawn ourselves, or [if anyone smoked] quit smoking. But that's easy. And with those small sacrifices--meaningless changes in OUR standard of living--we can, in effect, prevent the government from having to tax into ruination half a dozen less wealthy families.


The entire idea of taxes is to take as much as can be taken without significantly impeding the quality of life of the individual. A wealthy person should enjoy a wealthy lifestyle, but everyone deserves basic sustainance.

Also note the entire idea of SPENDING is to use the tax money as efficiently as possible to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and protect individual freedom and liberty [those being two different, albeit related things] to as great an extent as possible.




And what on EARTH is telling GWB that now is a good time to cut taxes, when the government doesn't have any spare money to cut those taxes WITH? We're in the middle of MASSIVE deficits [Tom Delay doesn't seem as worried about fiscal solvency as when he bitched about deficits Clinton inherited from Bush Sr....] and Bush is 'cutting' taxes with money that doesn't exist! Rather, he is cutting taxes with the money his CHILDREN will one day earn, and be taxed for. He is spending his children's and grandchildren's money on himself. Selfish bastard.

 

[Ham Murabi]

By the definition of corporate welfare listed above, there are several instances that can be found under the current administration. That does not mean it's unique to this one, but many believe it is further out of balance in favor of the corporations.

Instances of favoritism in regard to energy companies, medical, insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, FCC lobbies to name just a few.

There are correlations between the amouts of money donated and favorable legislation. In some cases, such as the energy policy, the Medicare reform and the FCC legislations, many of the policies were compiled with participation of members of the industries who benefitted. Also, some of these meetings were conducted behind closed doors and excluded nonrepublican lawmakers.

Thank God the Democrats aren't swayed by big labor. If that were the case they'd be opposed to reforming the public education system, including the crown jewel of all public education in Washington, D.C. That's why so many leading Democrats are thinking outside the box and openly supporting vouchers, in defiance of the teacher lobby.
Oh, wait. That wasn't a regular cigarette I just smoked.

 

[ruminator]

Thank God the Democrats aren't swayed by big labor. If that were the case they'd be opposed to reforming the public education system, including the crown jewel of all public education in Washington, D.C. That's why so many leading Democrats are thinking outside the box and openly supporting vouchers, in defiance of the teacher lobby.
Oh, wait. That wasn't a regular cigarette I just smoked.

Pass it on over and thank god I'm not a democrat.

 

[teddybear4play]

OK WE, want to make a friendly wager? I'll wager that if Dean is nominated, Bush will carry at least 45 states and close to 60% of the popular vote. That is a landslide by any definition.

I don't think it will be quite that much.

2004, Bush will lose [I'd bet 4-1 against his reelection], and odds are the GOP will lose at least one house of Congress [2-1 against the GOP keeping both].

Here's the bet I want.

You come from a wealthy family, ubertroll? Then me putting $100 on both bets against $400/$200 for you shouldn't be a big deal, right?

TB4p

 

[Ham Murabi]

Let's look at it THIS way. If it costs 40,000 to fed, clothe, shelter, and provide for the other *most basic neccessities*of the family [eating out, a bigger living space, better clothing, etc NOT counted in this figure], then taxing a family 10% of a 40k income means they'll have to go without food, or perhaps electricity, or housing, or the like.
On the other hand, that same 10% tax on a family making 100k is a drop in the bucket--he'll have to get a slightly less sporty car, perhaps.
I simply suggest that the basic expenses for running and educating a family be totaled in a fair manner, and this value be subtracted from the taxable income. Taxes are supposed to take from DISPOSABLE income--luxeries--not from basic neccessities.
I come from a wealthy family. If we had to pay double our current taxes, it would be a drop in the bucket. Yeah, maybe we'd have to delay the new car, or mow the lawn ourselves, or [if anyone smoked] quit smoking. But that's easy. And with those small sacrifices--meaningless changes in OUR standard of living--we can, in effect, prevent the government from having to tax into ruination half a dozen less wealthy families.
The entire idea of taxes is to take as much as can be taken without significantly impeding the quality of life of the individual. A wealthy person should enjoy a wealthy lifestyle, but everyone deserves basic sustainance.
Also note the entire idea of SPENDING is to use the tax money as efficiently as possible to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and protect individual freedom and liberty [those being two different, albeit related things] to as great an extent as possible.
And what on EARTH is telling GWB that now is a good time to cut taxes, when the government doesn't have any spare money to cut those taxes WITH? We're in the middle of MASSIVE deficits [Tom Delay doesn't seem as worried about fiscal solvency as when he bitched about deficits Clinton inherited from Bush Sr....] and Bush is 'cutting' taxes with money that doesn't exist! Rather, he is cutting taxes with the money his CHILDREN will one day earn, and be taxed for. He is spending his children's and grandchildren's money on himself. Selfish bastard.

If taxes are just to be taken from disposable income, then I've been royally fucked, and that was three times as true when I had two infants and both my wife and I worked.
I despise any formula that's supposed to tell me how much money I should be glad the government allows me to keep. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I asked for no help from the government when I was raising my children, I ask for none now that both are going to college.
And I think the deficit would just flat go away if Congress would stop spending money like sailors on shore leave (with the complete permission and encouragement of our "conservative" president), and started rolling back any number of programs that are duplicated by any number of other programs.
There is ample evidence that once the government decides to "help," such as with college tuition or medical care, the cost of tuition and medical care will skyrocket.
I want my government to spend money on defense, a state department, and not much else. If people want cradle to grave government involvement in their lives, then let them move to states that offer these so-called "benefits" that take money away from productive citizens and give them to non-performers.
If that were allowed to happen, in ten years it would be evident the most prosperous states were those that meddled the least in the lives, and wallets, of their citizens.

 

[ruminator]

If taxes are just to be taken from disposable income, then I've been royally fucked, and that was three times as true when I had two infants and both my wife and I worked.
I despise any formula that's supposed to tell me how much money I should be glad the government allows me to keep. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I asked for no help from the government when I was raising my children, I ask for none now that both are going to college.
And I think the deficit would just flat go away if Congress would stop spending money like sailors on shore leave (with the complete permission and encouragement of our "conservative" president), and started rolling back any number of programs that are duplicated by any number of other programs.
There is ample evidence that once the government decides to "help," such as with college tuition or medical care, the cost of tuition and medical care will skyrocket.
I want my government to spend money on defense, a state department, and not much else. If people want cradle to grave government involvement in their lives, then let them move to states that offer these so-called "benefits" that take money away from productive citizens and give them to non-performers.
If that were allowed to happen, in ten years it would be evident the most prosperous states were those that meddled the least in the lives, and wallets, of their citizens.

This is something I see often and I wonder where this position puts the lowest level workers on the pay scale.

If Govt spending is limited to what you specified, and waste is trimmed from any remaining programs, what programs would remain?

What would the pay scales be for common positions of employment? Would the current $60,000.00 income drop to $45,000.00 because less taxes would reduce business overhead? Would the lowest wage rise in demand to something closer to $10.00 - $12.00 per hour or would value of real estate decline to meet the minimum wage that would be without govt subsidies?

Does this take into account the reduction in inflated cost for govt contracts? If those industries are reduced in gross profits from reduced lower level society cashflow, wouldn't that hurt the investment income of the upper level?

 

[Ham Murabi]

kiginally posted by ruminator [/i]
This is something I see often and I wonder where this position puts the lowest level workers on the pay scale.

If Govt spending is limited to what you specified, and waste is trimmed from any remaining programs, what programs would remain?

What would the pay scales be for common positions of employment? Would the current $60,000.00 income drop to $45,000.00 because less taxes would reduce business overhead? Would the lowest wage rise in demand to something closer to $10.00 - $12.00 per hour or would value of real estate decline to meet the minimum wage that would be without govt subsidies?

Does this take into account the reduction in inflated cost for govt contracts? If those industries are reduced in gross profits from reduced lower level society cashflow, wouldn't that hurt the investment income of the upper level? [/QUOTE]

I would imagine the lowest level workers would do what they do, which is gain experience and pay. Life is not stagnant, and neither is income.
What programs would you want that can't be supplied by state government? Pick and choose where you want to live and how much money you want the government to take out of your wallet.
If business overhead were reduced simply because taxes were lower, I imagine pay and benefits for workers would increase. Good businesses want good employees. You are treating, judging by your question, heavy taxes as something that are inevitable. I view them as a drain on the economy, money that can no longer be "invested" in purchases, wages, or business expansion. As for the price of real estate, that will be just like everything else — based on supply and demand.
I'm not sure I get the point of your last paragraph's question.

 

[ruminator]

kiginally posted by ruminator [/i]
This is something I see often and I wonder where this position puts the lowest level workers on the pay scale.

If Govt spending is limited to what you specified, and waste is trimmed from any remaining programs, what programs would remain?

What would the pay scales be for common positions of employment? Would the current $60,000.00 income drop to $45,000.00 because less taxes would reduce business overhead? Would the lowest wage rise in demand to something closer to $10.00 - $12.00 per hour or would value of real estate decline to meet the minimum wage that would be without govt subsidies?

Does this take into account the reduction in inflated cost for govt contracts? If those industries are reduced in gross profits from reduced lower level society cashflow, wouldn't that hurt the investment income of the upper level?

I consider fair taxation a means of enforcing balance in the system. I hear both sides say things about minimum/maximum taxation, but nothing to address the consequences of anything.

Responsible taxation helps the balance that gives money it's value. It's not the only element, but it is important. Some measure of control over business is necessary also because if it's left unchecked, business will likely not act responsibly to the society that supports it.

I think you know that the idea of those who want services can go to the state that has the highest taxes just isn't logical. If they had the money, they wouldn't need the services. What you're saying sounds like economic segregation.

Does this take into account the reduction in inflated cost for govt contracts? If those industries are reduced in gross profits from reduced lower level society cashflow, wouldn't that hurt the investment income of the upper level?

I would imagine the lowest level workers would do what they do, which is gain experience and pay. Life is not stagnant, and neither is income.
What programs would you want that can't be supplied by state government? Pick and choose where you want to live and how much money you want the government to take out of your wallet.
If business overhead were reduced simply because taxes were lower, I imagine pay and benefits for workers would increase. Good businesses want good employees. You are treating, judging by your question, heavy taxes as something that are inevitable. I view them as a drain on the economy, money that can no longer be "invested" in purchases, wages, or business expansion. As for the price of real estate, that will be just like everything else — based on supply and demand.
I'm not sure I get the point of your last paragraph's question.
And I think the deficit would just flat go away if Congress would stop spending money like sailors on shore leave (with the complete permission and encouragement of our "conservative" president), and started rolling back any number of programs that are duplicated by any number of other programs.

There is ample evidence that once the government decides to "help," such as with college tuition or medical care, the cost of tuition and medical care will skyrocket.
I want my government to spend money on defense, a state department, and not much else.

IMO, part of our current problem is the overinflated price of government services. On your assessment, would all government contractors be forced to trim down all waste, fraud and questionable practices?

If each State is left with that much control over it's own affairs we would cease to be united. There has to be a control at the top for balance. The produce grown in Florida doesn't stay just in Florida and if it did, it would have less value. It might not pay to ship it to Idaho and charge the same price for it. There has to be balance.

The same with the employees. Without subsidies, many low income workers would not have housing and/or some basic utilities. There percentage of qualified employees decreases as the pay increases. Without the lowest level doing the menial shit work, the cash flow for the system is skewed and the higher wages are worth less. Helping the bottom tier helps all tiers.

Without subsidies, and higher homelessness at the lowest level, it increases the supply of housing because fewer people can afford it. This would drive the price of real estate down or a 'minimum wage' up. Either way, it decreases the value of the wealth at the middle and upper levels.

I think it's all dynamic and one chage effects everything.

I just want balance.

 

[ubertroll]

Hey, if the government had a balanced budget, had enough social programs to keep the population out of abject poverty, and to provide a world-class education to everyone who sought one, orgaize the country sufficiently to provide coherant, representative government, protect citizens from personal and international violence, and do all the other spiffy government functions, AND was fiscally solvent, I wouldn't REALLY care about the tax structure.

But, as it is, there was a tax cut that heavily favored the rich that was payed for with MASSIVE debts [just like the Regan, Bush Sr., and now Bush Jr. spending sprees were payed for with massive debts, accruing] that I and my generation, not that of Regan, or the Bushes, will have to pay for.

I am paying for the prodigal actions of another.

As a result, I deeply care as to how government funds are acquired. Since my parents' generation acquired a massive debt, I feel it is incumbant upon THEM to pay that debt--everyone capable of paying extra without suffering significantly should be compelled to do so, because they all enjoyed the stregnth and might of the US in its victory over the USSR, and THAT is what they are paying for. They are retroactively paying for a Cold War, and all the exegiencies thereof.

 

[Ham Murabi]

I consider fair taxation a means of enforcing balance in the system. I hear both sides say things about minimum/maximum taxation, but nothing to address the consequences of anything.
Responsible taxation helps the balance that gives money it's value. It's not the only element, but it is important. Some measure of control over business is necessary also because if it's left unchecked, business will likely not act responsibly to the society that supports it.
I think you know that the idea of those who want services can go to the state that has the highest taxes just isn't logical. If they had the money, they wouldn't need the services. What you're saying sounds like economic segregation.
IMO, part of our current problem is the overinflated price of government services. On your assessment, would all government contractors be forced to trim down all waste, fraud and questionable practices?
If each State is left with that much control over it's own affairs we would cease to be united. There has to be a control at the top for balance. The produce grown in Florida doesn't stay just in Florida and if it did, it would have less value. It might not pay to ship it to Idaho and charge the same price for it. There has to be balance.
The same with the employees. Without subsidies, many low income workers would not have housing and/or some basic utilities. There percentage of qualified employees decreases as the pay increases. Without the lowest level doing the menial shit work, the cash flow for the system is skewed and the higher wages are worth less. Helping the bottom tier helps all tiers.
Without subsidies, and higher homelessness at the lowest level, it increases the supply of housing because fewer people can afford it. This would drive the price of real estate down or a 'minimum wage' up. Either way, it decreases the value of the wealth at the middle and upper levels.
I think it's all dynamic and one chage effects everything.
I just want balance.

Why would business not act responsibly to the public that supports it? It seems to me public support would go away quickly. If Wal-Mart stopped cleaning its stores, hired rude cashiers, or raised its prices 30 percent, how long do you suppose it would be supported by the public?
Of course the idea of going to the states with the most services (and taxes) isn't logical. What state legislature (other than California's) would place the burden on its citizens like the federal government does?
As for the cost of government services, contractors bid for jobs and the cost won't get any cheaper until something is done about the bid process. It's not uncommon for government bids to be checked, rechecked, then checked again, over a period of months. When government steps aside, as it did after a California earthquake about 10 years ago, roads and bridges were repaired in about the time it would take for the first bids to go out. Of course, they got to skip the part about the environmental impact statements and other minutiae that makes it so hard to comply with government bids.
Another huge part of the cost of government services is the cost of government employees. In Nevada government workers earn more than their counterparts in the private sector, plus they get a juicy retirement system that not only allows them to forego payments to social security, it gives them an income of, depending on how long they worked, pretty much equal to the salaries they had when they
Produce grown in Florida can't be taxed as it moves from state to state. That would violate the constitution. The "balance" you speak of is settled by supply and demand, not by government regulation.
I would suggest a national defense, composed of men and women from every state, would be a pretty unifying thing. Ditto with having senators and congressmen working together, and everyone electing the president.
On the contrary, "helping the bottom" has done nothing but spawn generations of welfare families. Families and individuals left to their own devices get out of that cycle of poverty and handouts. Workers who want to live in better homes don't need subsidies, they need better jobs — and they get them without government help. What kind of subsidy to you get? This is paternalistic crap.
You act surprised that the percentage of qualified employees decreases at the pay increases. Sorry, not everybody gets to be the boss. But if you look at the huge middle class in America, a hell of a lot of people do just fine not being the boss.
The cost of housing is based on demand. If the people living in the area can't afford the housing, it stands to reason the cost of housing will decrease. Why try to sell a home for $200,000 when there is no one who is going to buy it?
Of course, the cost of housing can be affected by something other than the ability to pay. For example, you could have any number of laws (such as those requiring open spaces) that limit where houses can be built. Those laws, the product of government, raise the prices of homes. That's why some 1,000 square foot homes in California sell for $500,000.
In Las Vegas housing costs are increasing by 15 percent a year. Why? Well, other than the fact people are moving here faster than homes can be built, there's also a dramatic shortage of land. And why is that the case? Because Las Vegas is surrounded by "federal" land. More than 85 percent of Nevada is "federal" land.
How's that for "balance."

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

You stole my thread!

Here's an offering from one of my political heroes...

Thursday Jan. 1, 2004; 6:40 p.m. EST
Carville: Dean Suffering From 'Political Lobotomy'

Top Clinton advisor James Carville is blasting Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean for making a series of devastating gaffes in recent weeks, saying the ex-Vermont governor sounds like he's suffering from a "political lobotomy."

"I'm scared to death that this guy just says anything," Carville said Monday while cohosting CNN's "Crossfire." "It feels like he's undergone some kind of a political lobotomy here."

Carville's comment suggesting that Dean sounds crazy is the harshest assessment yet by any Democrat - and is especially damaging coming from a charter member of the Clintons' inner circle.

Ironically, Dean himself admitted two weeks ago that he's a volatile personality, saying he was so easily provoked by critics that he sometimes needs to be "restrained."

 

[ubertroll]

But what does Tucker Carlson say? lol

 

[Ishmael]

You stole my thread!

Here's an offering from one of my political heroes...

Thursday Jan. 1, 2004; 6:40 p.m. EST
Carville: Dean Suffering From 'Political Lobotomy'

Top Clinton advisor James Carville is blasting Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean for making a series of devastating gaffes in recent weeks, saying the ex-Vermont governor sounds like he's suffering from a "political lobotomy."

"I'm scared to death that this guy just says anything," Carville said Monday while cohosting CNN's "Crossfire." "It feels like he's undergone some kind of a political lobotomy here."

Carville's comment suggesting that Dean sounds crazy is the harshest assessment yet by any Democrat - and is especially damaging coming from a charter member of the Clintons' inner circle.

Ironically, Dean himself admitted two weeks ago that he's a volatile personality, saying he was so easily provoked by critics that he sometimes needs to be "restrained."

LOL, I beat you to it and didn't C&P.

Yes, Carville might be considered a "Clinton" insider. But he's also one of the most rabid, partison Democrats you'll ever meet. Strong words indeed concerning the Democratic front runner.

If Dean reacts thusly to ads run against him by his Democratic rivals, mild ads at that, how is he going to react when the Republican media blitz hits after the convention? They're going to have that boy bouncing off the walls. He's going to fold in the intensity of the stretch run. That is the Dean that the voters are going to see and decide about.

Hence my prediction that the Democratic center will have no choice but to vote for Bush or stay home and not vote at all. And that's a prescription for a landslide my friend.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

I had loaded that up for the Dean thread and decided while I was here, what the hey!



It's kinda cool to once again see something us evil conservatives have been talking about and pointing out to the politically blind knee-jerk Democrats out there is actually closer to the truth than probably the truth itself!

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Is Tucker Carlson the bow-tie guy?

We had an old addage growing up: Never trust anyone with two first names, you know, like Jim James...

I'll submit a new one.

Never trust anyone with TWO last names!

 

[Ishmael]

I had loaded that up for the Dean thread and decided while I was here, what the hey!



It's kinda cool to once again see something us evil conservatives have been talking about and pointing out to the politically blind knee-jerk Democrats out there is actually closer to the truth than probably the truth itself!

Hey, you can still use it over there if you want.

But you did touch on an excellent point there. There are many Party operatives out there that are scared shitless of Dean. What I mean by Party operatives are those folks that are decoupled from the politics of cult following and are more firmly wedded to the Parties agenda. Their interests are in furthering the agenda and they really don't care who the standard bearer is as long as that person follows the agenda and has a reasonable chance of winning. They work for the Party, not necessarily the candidate. I put Carville more in that category.

Too many of the Democrats fall into the trap of 'Cult" worship of their favored candidate. I have no idea why that is, it just seems to be so. Seemed to start with FDR and never quit since then.

The Republicans tend to be more agenda driven. They will defend the candidate/office holder, but are more likely to be driven by the agenda than the personality. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the Republicans do act in a much more cohesive manner than the Democrats.

Ishmael

PS It looks like it's time to start another "Income Tax" thread and do a little newbie and oldbie edumacationing.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Good post.

I have heard it suggested that Dean will fade in the primary as more and more "Party" people understand the peril of Dean and that Gephardt could actually end up with the nomination, especially when the primaries hit the South's Super Tuesday where despite his baltant race-baiting, Dean will not get ANY of the Confederate Flag in the back window of the pickemup crowd!

Yes. Here's to the National Sales tax and Internet taxes! I want my right to privacy back!

 

[Ishmael]

Good post.

I have heard it suggested that Dean will fade in the primary as more and more "Party" people understand the peril of Dean and that Gephardt could actually end up with the nomination, especially when the primaries hit the South's Super Tuesday where despite his baltant race-baiting, Dean will not get ANY of the Confederate Flag in the back window of the pickemup crowd!

Yes. Here's to the National Sales tax and Internet taxes! I want my right to privacy back!

LOL, and we will disagree on I-net taxation.

There have been many suggestions concerning Dean. The fact is that he now has the momentum and the $$$$. And the $$$$ make a BIG difference. Kerry is on the rope, Graham is out. Gephardt, Clark, and Lieberman still all have chances. Albeit slim chances.

Gephardt has a LONG iron tail he's dragging that the Republicans will exploint to full advantage. Lieberman is truly an ethical man, but unexciting. Clark is the joker in the deck.

Ishmael