"ScottW" wrote in message
news:64fpb.53389$gi2.18405@fed1read01...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

We've had campaign finance reform, guess who keeps fuking it up? The
reason
we seem to keep reforming it is because they keep breaking the existing
laws. The only reform we should have is anybody should be able to give
as
much as they want to any body they want. Otherwise they might as well
throw
the First Ammendment out with the trash.

Disagree. Government beholding to big business and deep pocket special
interests is all you get then.
How is that good for "the people"?

ScottW


You have to couple it with real free market capitalism. No corporate
welfare, no pork barrel, no government contracts for anything, other than
the few things that governments need to do their logical business.

Contributors wouldn't be buying off someone in hopes of a vote for or
against something, since those sorts of items would never come to a vote in
the first place.

Without government involvement in the economy, passing laws giving this tax
break here or that tax hike there, no reason to pay off protection money
would exist. That's what campaign contributions are now protection money.

..

But it is what you are dooming us to when you insist on having government
take care of people who for whatever reason aren't taking care of
themselves.

Removing the CHOICE to help our fellow humans means that the government is
no better than a thief who takes you money at gun point because he NEEDS
it
to feed himself.


First of all you aren't being deprived of any choice, not any more than any
other
tax for any other purpose deprives you of choice. Second of all, providing
educational and other opportunites makes society a better palce overall
for you to live in. It makes it safer, more peaceful and more secure. It
also
helps the economy by providing better and more highlt trained labor.
For society to work cohesively, it takes a little lubrication to remove the
friction.

The question is what type of programs work, and, at the same time,
provide incentives (or "at least" don't contain disincentives) for people
to become more self sufficient and able to break the cycle of poverty.

Many of the libs favortie programs (Sacred Cows) are long term failures
(public housing, subsidized housing, welfare are examples)

With smaller government and less taxation you get a stronger economy
and
higher employment, morer people working and better able to take care
of
themselves.

That's the myth.

It's not a myth, if it were this country which has less regulation in many
areas than most other countries would not be the economic engine driving
the
world.


This country has TONS of regulations

Every time there's been a tax cut the economy takes off like a shot.
That's
not a myth. Every time a tax cut is proposed the left opposes it. That's
a
fact. I can only conclude that the left is determined to keep people
miserable and dependent rather than happy, prosperous and self sufficient.

Tax cuts work to alleviate recessionary cycles. It primes the pump by
putting more buying power in the marketplace. Of course, if we
simultaneously
cut government spending by the like amount, the benefit gets acncelled out.
So, tax cuts work to pump teh economy temporarily, and only if
accompanied by temporary deficit spending.

However, a perpetually low tax rate will not automaically make poor
people happy, prosperous and self sufficient.


On
Tax Day Thank the Rich and Support Lifting the Tax Yoke off Them
The following editorial has been produced by the Ayn Rand
Institute's
MediaLink department. Visit MediaLink at
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.


Released: April 5, 2002

On Tax Day Thank the Rich and Support Lifting the Tax Yoke off Them

Lowering taxes on the rich is a just step toward letting the
productive
keep what they earn rather than forcing them to support the
nonproductive.

By Edwin A. Locke

On Tax Day consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of
the
taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96%
of
the
total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost
nothing.
In
short, the income tax system soaks the rich. In the name of justice,
the
President, Congress and the American public should be demanding a
tax
cut
that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy.
But the opponents of tax cuts do not want justice. They want
redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned
by
the
wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. They want the
rich-which includes the most productive people in society-to be the
servants of the poor.
The moral principle used to justify income redistribution is
altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern
for
the
less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that
it
is
your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life,
property
and well-being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under
altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the
non-productive
are those who receive. The inability or unwillingness of the
non-productive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those
who
do.
The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning
money
through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in
order
to
achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the
property
of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.
The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce)
guilt.
It makes the successful feel that they have no right to their
achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers
morally
so
that they will not defend their right to their lives and property.
Thus
the rich often support higher taxes for themselves. Remember in
recent
years, just as one example, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett
attacking a repeal of the estate tax.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is
the
moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's credo
was:
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
Man
has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of
the
state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.
No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though
the
progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means
you
have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your life
and
property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means
that
the
government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights.
Acting
in
one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is
fully
moral-it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy
life. It
means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign being.
It
means that your property belongs to you. It means that every
individual,
whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not
self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. On Tax Day support tax cuts
by
promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man keeps
what
he
earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.

Edwin A. Locke is Dean's Professor Emeritus of Leadership and
Motivation
at the University of Maryland at College Park and is a senior writer
for
the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and
The
Fountainhead.


Ayn Rand was a simplistic fool.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Nobody has an automatic claim on the fruits of other people's labor.

Nobody but the taxman!


But it's not a moral claim.


Yes it is, if you want any government at all.
Our founding father's accepted the morality of taxes.
The only question concerned who was
going to control the governemnt levying the taxes.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:zrXob.20689$d87.19366@okepread05...

It is common sense.

Full employment would wreck corporations ability to dictate
wages.

The economy would collapse.


I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:dtXob.20690$d87.16227@okepread05...


Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:AmUob.20207$d87.6746@okepread05...

It needs to have the government leave it the hell alone.
While I'm opposed to forced taxation in principle, if we're going to
have
it, let's do a flat tax or a consumtion tax and leave it at that. Take
away
the power from politicians to raise taxes whenever they feel like it and
see
what a stabilizing effect this would have, not to mention stimulation.

A consumption tax begins to make sense, but the rabid tax
cutters in the Republican party have fought that one tooth
and nail forever.


I was listening to a conservative advocate such a policy just last
Friday. I think it was economist Walter Williams subbing for Rush
Limbaugh. Of course, he wanted to substitute it for the income tax.
A consumption tax is a regressive tax that overtaxes the poor.
Necessity dictates that they spend a very high percentage of their income.





Believe me, none of those guys running around praising the
"American Free Market" actually want to face a truly *free*
market economy and all it entails.



Probably but let's give a chance to those who do.

A truly free, totally unregulated market would be incredibly
destructive.


Look at the period between 1860 and 1900. Predatory
practices abounded during the era of the Robber Barons.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:KtXob.20691$d87.10817@okepread05...


Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:BbHlb.2483$d87.1770@okepread05...


Michael Mckelvy wrote:



Better to let Sadaam keep killing innocents?

That was not a stated cause for going to war.


Most Americans don't think so.

try again.


The French governemnt was obviously to afraid of what we'd find there.

US made weapons parts?

Nexus 6


French Nuclear parts and weapons.

US munitions and chemical and biological weapons materials.

Nexus 6



Dream on!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


The answer is, that people who poison people or produce defective products
still would go too jail or be fined by courts just like now.


You seem to respond well to simple common sense.
Have you ever heard this?
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?


I was going along with Nexus' assumption of massive corporate collusion.
If wages are set to low all across the board, there is no purchasing
power for consumer products, thus
stifling the economy and corporate well being.

Your question appears to relate to just any one corporation, apart
from corporate collusion on wages.

My theory doesn't address the circumstances as contained in your question.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"pyjamarama" wrote in message
m...

So the left is now vested in the foreign policy wisdom of Ozzy
Osbourne...

How fitting.

When can we expect Twisted Sister's economic plan?

When Hillary gets elected President in 2008.


LOL!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:dtXob.20690$d87.16227@okepread05...


Michael Mckelvy wrote:

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:AmUob.20207$d87.6746@okepread05...

It needs to have the government leave it the hell alone.
While I'm opposed to forced taxation in principle, if we're going to
have
it, let's do a flat tax or a consumtion tax and leave it at that.
Take
away
the power from politicians to raise taxes whenever they feel like it
and
see
what a stabilizing effect this would have, not to mention stimulation.

A consumption tax begins to make sense, but the rabid tax
cutters in the Republican party have fought that one tooth
and nail forever.


I was listening to a conservative advocate such a policy just last
Friday. I think it was economist Walter Williams subbing for Rush
Limbaugh. Of course, he wanted to substitute it for the income tax.
A consumption tax is a regressive tax that overtaxes the poor.
Necessity dictates that they spend a very high percentage of their income.


It would therefore
have the rich still paying more of the tax burden becuase they spend more
in actual dollars.

The more you spend the more taxes you pay. It's not unfair at all.



Believe me, none of those guys running around praising the
"American Free Market" actually want to face a truly *free*
market economy and all it entails.



Probably but let's give a chance to those who do.

A truly free, totally unregulated market would be incredibly
destructive.


Look at the period between 1860 and 1900. Predatory
practices abounded during the era of the Robber Barons.

There's more myths about that era than about why the Red Line in Los Angeles
disappeared.

Mostly people were appalled that other people with more money could buy
people out and gain control of a given market. This of course meant that
for a while they could charge high fees for goods or services as the case
might be. Natuarlly prices eventually always came down because of
competition or learning what the market would bear.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?

I was going along with Nexus' assumption of massive corporate collusion.

I assumed he meant that each corporation wants to spend as little as
possible on salaries. Labor is a commodity, but unlike like capital
goods and components, there is a finite amount of each kind. So how
can corporations collude to keep wages down? The number of people
involved in such a conspiracy would be large, and hence it would be
impossible to get away with it. I'm sure you misunderstood the
contention.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


The answer is, that people who poison people or produce defective
products
still would go too jail or be fined by courts just like now.


You seem to respond well to simple common sense.
Have you ever heard this?
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."


That's what laws are about. You don't need a massive, slow behmoth
government agency to accomplish what a few years in jail or a nice hefty
fine does all by itself. At the local level people know who doing the
poisoning, if it drifts across state lines the Feds can get involved.

I'm not know nor have I ever advocated letting people or businesses get away
with actual harm to peersons or property. I just want it done in the
simplest, least expensive way possible, that precludes Federal agenices in
most cases. If states want to set up their own EPA's, I'm fine with that.
Local control is more efficient and closer to the problem.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Nexus 6" wrote in message
news:zrXob.20689$d87.19366@okepread05...

It is common sense.

Full employment would wreck corporations ability to dictate
wages.

The economy would collapse.


I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.


Very similar to the myth that women make 35% ( or whatever the figure is)
less than men doing the same job.

This number only workd when don't include the fact that women get pregnant
and take time off from work to have babies. When compared on the basis of
time on the job teh numbers are pretty equal. If they weren't you'd have
employers fireing all their men and replacing them with lower paid women.
Profit motive and all that, don't ya know.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:42:41 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?


I was going along with Nexus' assumption of massive corporate collusion.
If wages are set to low all across the board, there is no purchasing
power for consumer products, thus
stifling the economy and corporate well being.

He's right--that's why corporations came around to supporting the New
Deal in its second, Keynesian phase.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:43:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


The answer is, that people who poison people or produce defective products
still would go too jail or be fined by courts just like now.


You seem to respond well to simple common sense.
Have you ever heard this?
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Also product liability is the result of regulatory legislation and
liberal jurisprudence. How is someone supposed to prove in court that
a given cancer is the effect of, say, 10 years of accumulation of a
chemical in a food additive? In the late 19th century--the high point
of laissez-faire--it was pretty much caveat emptor. In fact tort
reform is one of the key conservative causes--I'm surprised you're not
in favor of it, Mike--along with say child labor for unregulated wages
and unregulated hours in unregulated safety conditions.

--

Jacob Kramer

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:64fpb.53389$gi2.18405@fed1read01...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

We've had campaign finance reform, guess who keeps fuking it up? The
reason
we seem to keep reforming it is because they keep breaking the
existing
laws. The only reform we should have is anybody should be able to
give
as
much as they want to any body they want. Otherwise they might as
well
throw
the First Ammendment out with the trash.

Disagree. Government beholding to big business and deep pocket
special
interests is all you get then.
How is that good for "the people"?

ScottW


You have to couple it with real free market capitalism. No corporate
welfare, no pork barrel, no government contracts for anything, other than
the few things that governments need to do their logical business.

I don't have a problem with business lobbying government. I have a
problem with politicians needing business and special interest
money to be politicians.

Contributors wouldn't be buying off someone in hopes of a vote for or
against something, since those sorts of items would never come to a vote
in
the first place.

One of the most obvious payoffs in Ca. had to do with environmental
protection. The government has to regulate some business activities
for the common good.

Without government involvement in the economy, passing laws giving this
tax
break here or that tax hike there, no reason to pay off protection money
would exist. That's what campaign contributions are now protection
money.

I think you are being far too idealistic. Government is needed and there
is no
way to accomplish what you propose. What isn't needed is multimillion
dollar
election campaigns.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but,
just to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?

I was going along with Nexus' assumption of massive corporate collusion.

I assumed he meant that each corporation wants to spend as little as
possible on salaries. Labor is a commodity, but unlike like capital
goods and components, there is a finite amount of each kind. So how
can corporations collude to keep wages down? The number of people
involved in such a conspiracy would be large, and hence it would be
impossible to get away with it. I'm sure you misunderstood the
contention.


I assumed he was talking about a corporate collusion to supress wages.
If he were talking about each company acing independently, I would agree
with you.
I don't think a collusion is possible in developed democracies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:42:41 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but, just
to
illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If corporations
control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw thmeselves,
because that would implode the economy by severely lowering
consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be profitable,
wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?


I was going along with Nexus' assumption of massive corporate collusion.
If wages are set to low all across the board, there is no purchasing
power for consumer products, thus
stifling the economy and corporate well being.

He's right--that's why corporations came around to supporting the New
Deal in its second, Keynesian phase.


Henry Ford, asshole that he was, recognized it early on.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I don't buy into your paranoia over corporate dictatorship, but,
just to illustrate something, let's assume you are correct. If
corporations control wages, and they set wages to LOW, they screw
themselves, because that would implode the economy by severely
lowering consumer buying power. So, for corporations to be
profitable, wages have to be at a reasonably high rate.

Under your theory, is it better for a corporation to have 10,000
well-paid employees or 20,000 poorly paid ones?

Henry Ford gave the accepted answer to that question when he raised the
daily rate for workers at his factory to an unheard-of (at the time) $5 a
day. He figured out that to make money you have to spend money, and no way
was he going to get 20,000 workers without paying them well. The unintended
consequence of his act what that he sowed the seeds that built a market of
wealthier consumers who could afford to own relatively expensive
possessions, like houses and cars.

(pyjamarama) wrote in message om...
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message ...

(snip)

When can we expect Twisted Sister's economic plan?

Dee Snider of Twisted Sister is working with Arnold Schwarzenegger, so
the Twisted Sister/Republican economic plan you seek may be
forthcoming. See:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...er&sa=N&tab=in

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...er&sa=N&tab=gw

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...zenegger&meta=

BTW, California has a population of 30 million. The recall vote cost
estimates I saw during the campaign were from $65 to $100 million. Is
there anybody besides me who's thought of different ways that the
election money could've been better spent, instead of having a recall
election?

For example, even if each Californian received only $1 million, there
could've been $35 to $70 million left over that could be used to pay
down the state's $38 billion deficit. Perhaps a Twisted Sister
economic plan will explain all...

BTW, I saw a newspaper story on the web where a California citizen
complained about having to pay $600 to register his Mercedes. Things
are tough all over. Good thing he hadn't thought far enough to wonder
whether the state could've paid him $1-3 million instead of having the
election.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"pyjamarama" wrote in message
m...

(snip)

When can we expect Twisted Sister's economic plan?

When Hillary gets elected President in 2008.

No, no, no, you're getting this all confused. Twisted Sister's Dee
Snider is on Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's team. So we'll
probably see the Twisted Sister economic plan under President
Schwarzenegger's regime. No need to point out that Arnold's foreign
born and can't be elected president; the Republicans have sunk so low
that that won't matter.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:3fmpb.53480$gi2.40121@fed1read01...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:64fpb.53389$gi2.18405@fed1read01...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

We've had campaign finance reform, guess who keeps fuking it up?
The
reason
we seem to keep reforming it is because they keep breaking the
existing
laws. The only reform we should have is anybody should be able to
give
as
much as they want to any body they want. Otherwise they might as
well
throw
the First Ammendment out with the trash.

Disagree. Government beholding to big business and deep pocket
special
interests is all you get then.
How is that good for "the people"?

ScottW


You have to couple it with real free market capitalism. No corporate
welfare, no pork barrel, no government contracts for anything, other
than
the few things that governments need to do their logical business.

I don't have a problem with business lobbying government.

I do.

I have a
problem with politicians needing business and special interest
money to be politicians.

Then you want free market capitalism.

Contributors wouldn't be buying off someone in hopes of a vote for or
against something, since those sorts of items would never come to a vote
in
the first place.

One of the most obvious payoffs in Ca. had to do with environmental
protection. The government has to regulate some business activities
for the common good.


No they don't, not in any sense other than making sure they aren't violating
someone's rights or property.

Naturally, if anybody is poisoning the air or water you punish them. You
don't need reams of laws for that.

Without government involvement in the economy, passing laws giving this
tax
break here or that tax hike there, no reason to pay off protection money
would exist. That's what campaign contributions are now protection
money.

I think you are being far too idealistic.

I think I'm being just idealstic enough, better than that, I think I'm being
correct.

Government is needed and there
is no
way to accomplish what you propose. What isn't needed is multimillion
dollar
election campaigns.

ScottW

With what I propose you wouldn't need them.
Remeber the money spent on campaigns is contributions from people who want
something in return, namely legislation. Eliminate the reason for the
legislation and you eliminate the payoffs.

"Neil" wrote in message
om...

BTW, California has a population of 30 million. The recall vote cost
estimates I saw during the campaign were from $65 to $100 million. Is
there anybody besides me who's thought of different ways that the
election money could've been better spent, instead of having a recall
election?

For example, even if each Californian received only $1 million, there
could've been $35 to $70 million left over that could be used to pay
down the state's $38 billion deficit. Perhaps a Twisted Sister
economic plan will explain all...

BTW, I saw a newspaper story on the web where a California citizen
complained about having to pay $600 to register his Mercedes. Things
are tough all over. Good thing he hadn't thought far enough to wonder
whether the state could've paid him $1-3 million instead of having the
election.


Whoa, boy. your math is way off. It is off exponentially by a million to one
ratio. $100 million divide by 30 million people is $3 per capita, not
$3 million per capita.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Neil" wrote in message
m...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"pyjamarama" wrote in message
m...

(snip)

When can we expect Twisted Sister's economic plan?

When Hillary gets elected President in 2008.

No, no, no, you're getting this all confused. Twisted Sister's Dee
Snider is on Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's team. So we'll
probably see the Twisted Sister economic plan under President
Schwarzenegger's regime. No need to point out that Arnold's foreign
born and can't be elected president; the Republicans have sunk so low
that that won't matter.

Idiot!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:43:18 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


The answer is, that people who poison people or produce defective
products
still would go too jail or be fined by courts just like now.


You seem to respond well to simple common sense.
Have you ever heard this?
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Also product liability is the result of regulatory legislation and
liberal jurisprudence.

The regulatory legislation is redundant. If products hurt people because
they are faulty, there's a lawsuit and liability.

How is someone supposed to prove in court that
a given cancer is the effect of, say, 10 years of accumulation of a
chemical in a food additive?

The same way they always done it with scientific evidence. Given a couple
of high profile decisons on products recently it's stilla crapshoot.
Silicone breast implants for example were not the cause of any of the list
of illnesses that were attributed to them, yet a company wwas forced to pay
billions and they were taken off the market.


In the late 19th century--the high point
of laissez-faire--it was pretty much caveat emptor.

As it should be. That doesn't mean you get to make a product like a car
that that blows up or aspirin laced with rat poison.

In fact tort
reform is one of the key conservative causes--I'm surprised you're not
in favor of it, Mike-

I'm all for loser pays.

-along with say child labor for unregulated wages
and unregulated hours in unregulated safety conditions.

I think people ought to be allowed to whatever work they choose. Is it
better for a family to go on welfare or have an able bodied kid work? I
think that's a choice for the family to make not the government. If a job
is dangerous they will have to pay more to get it doen or nobdy will do it.
I don't assume people are stupid enough to not require safety equipment. I
know I won't risk my life for money without taking all the precautions I
think are required.

Jacob Kramer

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...


Nobody has an automatic claim on the fruits of other people's labor.

Nobody but the taxman!


But it's not a moral claim.


Yes it is, if you want any government at all.
Our founding father's accepted the morality of taxes.

Though tarrifs. Not income tax.

The only question concerned who was
going to control the governemnt levying the taxes.

The thing was who was going to be paying them.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...



Yes it is, if you want any government at all.
Our founding father's accepted the morality of taxes.

Though tarrifs. Not income tax.

Property taxes were levied back then, most definitely


The only question concerned who was
going to control the governemnt levying the taxes.

The thing was who was going to be paying them.

Wrong!
go back to US History 101, please.
'Who' paid the taxes wasn't the issue.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Neil" wrote in message
om...
(pyjamarama) wrote in message
om...
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

(snip)

When can we expect Twisted Sister's economic plan?

Dee Snider of Twisted Sister is working with Arnold Schwarzenegger, so
the Twisted Sister/Republican economic plan you seek may be
forthcoming. See:


http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...er&sa=N&tab=in


http://www.google.com/search?num=100...er&sa=N&tab=gw


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...zenegger&meta=

BTW, California has a population of 30 million. The recall vote cost
estimates I saw during the campaign were from $65 to $100 million. Is
there anybody besides me who's thought of different ways that the
election money could've been better spent, instead of having a recall
election?

For example, even if each Californian received only $1 million, there
could've been $35 to $70

Those numbers were from focus groups the Davis people used to see what
number would **** off the electorate. The real cost was about 35 million.

million left over that could be used to pay
down the state's $38 billion deficit. Perhaps a Twisted Sister
economic plan will explain all...

It couldn't be worse than the **** the Democrats made of things over the
last 5 years when revenues increased 24% and spending went up 37%.

BTW, I saw a newspaper story on the web where a California citizen
complained about having to pay $600 to register his Mercedes. Things
are tough all over.

Because it was illegal for him to have to pay that amount, Davis raised the
tax by fiat.

Good thing he hadn't thought far enough to wonder
whether the state could've paid him $1-3 million instead of having the
election.
If we hadn't had the election the democrats would still be spending money
hand over fist and riasing taxes to do it. Even in light of the deficit the
budget they came up with still included new spending. Perhaps the fact that
61% of the state voted Republican will serve as a wake up call for them to
pull their heads out of their collective asses and start doing some needed
reforms.

Yeah the Republicans have sunk very low, they won an election.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
.

But it is what you are dooming us to when you insist on having
government
take care of people who for whatever reason aren't taking care of
themselves.

Removing the CHOICE to help our fellow humans means that the government
is
no better than a thief who takes you money at gun point because he NEEDS
it
to feed himself.


First of all you aren't being deprived of any choice, not any more than
any
other
tax for any other purpose deprives you of choice.

You're right, they are all equally wrong.

Second of all, providing
educational and other opportunites makes society a better palce overall
for you to live in.

Then we needn't force people to participate then, they'll see the value and
gladly contribute of their own accord.

It makes it safer, more peaceful and more secure. It
also
helps the economy by providing better and more highlt trained labor.

Except for when the schools turn out functional illiterates who can't read
their own diplomas.

For society to work cohesively, it takes a little lubrication to remove
the
friction.

At the point of the tax collectors gun.

The question is what type of programs work, and, at the same time,
provide incentives (or "at least" don't contain disincentives) for people
to become more self sufficient and able to break the cycle of poverty.

The question is, is it right to force people to participate in programs they
may or may not see any value in. I say it's better to let each individual
choose his own path. When enough of them agree, let them pool their
resources.

Many of the libs favortie programs (Sacred Cows) are long term failures
(public housing, subsidized housing, welfare are examples)

With smaller government and less taxation you get a stronger economy
and
higher employment, morer people working and better able to take care
of
themselves.

That's the myth.

It's not a myth, if it were this country which has less regulation in
many
areas than most other countries would not be the economic engine driving
the
world.


This country has TONS of regulations

Yet less than most others.

Every time there's been a tax cut the economy takes off like a shot.
That's
not a myth. Every time a tax cut is proposed the left opposes it.
That's
a
fact. I can only conclude that the left is determined to keep people
miserable and dependent rather than happy, prosperous and self
sufficient.

Tax cuts work to alleviate recessionary cycles.

Which the government causes.

It primes the pump by
putting more buying power in the marketplace. Of course, if we
simultaneously
cut government spending by the like amount, the benefit gets acncelled
out.
So, tax cuts work to pump teh economy temporarily, and only if
accompanied by temporary deficit spending.

Bzzzzt.

However, a perpetually low tax rate will not automaically make poor
people happy, prosperous and self sufficient.


Nor did I say it would. It will however give the maximum oppurtunity for
entrepenuership to thrive and thereby allow all those who can and do want to
work the opportunity to do so.

On
Tax Day Thank the Rich and Support Lifting the Tax Yoke off Them
The following editorial has been produced by the Ayn Rand
Institute's
MediaLink department. Visit MediaLink at
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.


Released: April 5, 2002

On Tax Day Thank the Rich and Support Lifting the Tax Yoke off
Them

Lowering taxes on the rich is a just step toward letting the
productive
keep what they earn rather than forcing them to support the
nonproductive.

By Edwin A. Locke

On Tax Day consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of
the
taxpayers pay 34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96%
of
the
total bill. This means that the least wealthy 50% pay almost
nothing.
In
short, the income tax system soaks the rich. In the name of
justice,
the
President, Congress and the American public should be demanding a
tax
cut
that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy.
But the opponents of tax cuts do not want justice. They
want
redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income
earned
by
the
wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. They want
the
rich-which includes the most productive people in society-to be
the
servants of the poor.
The moral principle used to justify income redistribution
is
altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern
for
the
less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that
it
is
your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life,
property
and well-being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under
altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the
non-productive
are those who receive. The inability or unwillingness of the
non-productive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon
those
who
do.
The tax code enforces altruism through coercion. Earning
money
through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by force in
order
to
achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the
property
of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.
The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce)
guilt.
It makes the successful feel that they have no right to their
achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers
morally
so
that they will not defend their right to their lives and property.
Thus
the rich often support higher taxes for themselves. Remember in
recent
years, just as one example, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett
attacking a repeal of the estate tax.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that altruism is
the
moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's
credo
was:
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his
need."
Man
has no right to exist for himself in this view; he is a servant of
the
state or society, to be disposed of as they see fit.
No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet,
though
the
progressive income tax has been a step in that direction.
Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means
you
have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness," which includes property rights. It means that your
life
and
property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It means
that
the
government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights.
Acting
in
one's own self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is
fully
moral-it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy
life. It
means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a sovereign
being.
It
means that your property belongs to you. It means that every
individual,
whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not
self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. On Tax Day support tax cuts
by
promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man keeps
what
he
earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.

Edwin A. Locke is Dean's Professor Emeritus of Leadership and
Motivation
at the University of Maryland at College Park and is a senior
writer
for
the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The
Institute
promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and
The
Fountainhead.


Ayn Rand was a simplistic fool.

An opinion you get to have.

Thank God Greenspan was one of her students, even if he didn't learn all the
lessons.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"Neil" wrote in message
om...
(pyjamarama) wrote in message
om...

BTW, California has a population of 30 million. The recall vote cost
estimates I saw during the campaign were from $65 to $100 million. Is
there anybody besides me who's thought of different ways that the
election money could've been better spent, instead of having a recall
election?

For example, even if each Californian received only $1 million, there
could've been $35 to $70 million left over that could be used to pay
down the state's $38 billion deficit. Perhaps a Twisted Sister
economic plan will explain all...

BTW, I saw a newspaper story on the web where a California citizen
complained about having to pay $600 to register his Mercedes. Things
are tough all over. Good thing he hadn't thought far enough to wonder
whether the state could've paid him $1-3 million instead of having the
election.

Poor Neil. Proof that no matter how much money we spend on
education, it won't be enough.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message news:mKDpb.1366$Zb7.791@fed1read01...
"Neil" wrote in message
om...
(pyjamarama) wrote in message
om...

BTW, California has a population of 30 million. The recall vote cost
estimates I saw during the campaign were from $65 to $100 million. Is
there anybody besides me who's thought of different ways that the
election money could've been better spent, instead of having a recall
election?

Hmmm...this is what happens when I post when I can't sleep...I'm not
that good at math, but this is ridiculous!

(snip)

Perhaps a Twisted Sister
economic plan will explain all...

Sheesh, I just hope Twisted Sister is doing better math than I am.

BTW, I saw a newspaper story on the web where a California citizen
complained about having to pay $600 to register his Mercedes. Things
are tough all over.

(snip)

Poor Neil. Proof that no matter how much money we spend on
education, it won't be enough.

My point there was that somebody who can afford a Mercedes can also
afford $600. Hearing luxury-car owners gripe about fees sounds a bit
silly to me. YMMV.

(Neil) wrote in message . com...

My point there was that somebody who can afford a Mercedes can also
afford $600. Hearing luxury-car owners gripe about fees sounds a bit
silly to me. YMMV.

Check again Neil. $600 is for a cheap Mercedes. Try $3000 for an S
class.
I got a Toyota Avalon and a Chevy pickup. I'm gonna be paying about
$1200.

And for what? So Steve Peace (the dumbass who concocted the Ca.
energy deregulation scheme who is on Davis staff) can keep his wife on
the garbage commission for 100K a year? ****off you dumbass. Do
you even live in Ca?

ScottW

ScottW said:

(Neil) wrote in message
.com...

My point there was that somebody who can afford a Mercedes can also
afford $600. Hearing luxury-car owners gripe about fees sounds a bit
silly to me. YMMV.

Check again Neil. $600 is for a cheap Mercedes. Try $3000 for an S
class.
I got a Toyota Avalon and a Chevy pickup. I'm gonna be paying about
$1200.

And for what? So Steve Peace (the dumbass who concocted the Ca.
energy deregulation scheme who is on Davis staff) can keep his wife on
the garbage commission for 100K a year? ****off you dumbass. Do
you even live in Ca?

Arnold has promised to repeal the increase and refund the money, hasn't he?
Hopefully this is a temporary thing. Even tripled, it's still less than that
outrageous Personal Property Tax I had to pay every year in Virginia, which
could be as much as 5% of the total worth of the car every year. I've never
been so ****ed as when I walked across the new $5 million marble floor of the
Fairfax County Government Center to pay close to $1000 annually for a '92
Nissan Sentra and a '94 Nissan pick-up. And I STILL had to pay for DMV
registration AND state inspections.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
ScottW said:

(Neil) wrote in message
.com...

My point there was that somebody who can afford a Mercedes can also
afford $600. Hearing luxury-car owners gripe about fees sounds a bit
silly to me. YMMV.

Check again Neil. $600 is for a cheap Mercedes. Try $3000 for an S
class.
I got a Toyota Avalon and a Chevy pickup. I'm gonna be paying about
$1200.

And for what? So Steve Peace (the dumbass who concocted the Ca.
energy deregulation scheme who is on Davis staff) can keep his wife on
the garbage commission for 100K a year? ****off you dumbass. Do
you even live in Ca?

Arnold has promised to repeal the increase and refund the money, hasn't
he?
Hopefully this is a temporary thing. Even tripled, it's still less than
that
outrageous Personal Property Tax I had to pay every year in Virginia,
which
could be as much as 5% of the total worth of the car every year. I've
never
been so ****ed as when I walked across the new $5 million marble floor of
the
Fairfax County Government Center to pay close to $1000 annually for a '92
Nissan Sentra and a '94 Nissan pick-up. And I STILL had to pay for DMV
registration AND state inspections.

Boon
The California car tax is a personal property tax. It doesn't go to roads
it goes to the genral fund.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...



Yes it is, if you want any government at all.
Our founding father's accepted the morality of taxes.

Though tarrifs. Not income tax.

Property taxes were levied back then, most definitely

At the federal level?

The only question concerned who was
going to control the governemnt levying the taxes.

The thing was who was going to be paying them.

Wrong!
go back to US History 101, please.
'Who' paid the taxes wasn't the issue.


For running the federal government it was. IIRC.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

McKelvy said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
ScottW said:

(Neil) wrote in message
.com...

My point there was that somebody who can afford a Mercedes can also
afford $600. Hearing luxury-car owners gripe about fees sounds a bit
silly to me. YMMV.

Check again Neil. $600 is for a cheap Mercedes. Try $3000 for an S
class.
I got a Toyota Avalon and a Chevy pickup. I'm gonna be paying about
$1200.

And for what? So Steve Peace (the dumbass who concocted the Ca.
energy deregulation scheme who is on Davis staff) can keep his wife on
the garbage commission for 100K a year? ****off you dumbass. Do
you even live in Ca?

Arnold has promised to repeal the increase and refund the money, hasn't
he?
Hopefully this is a temporary thing. Even tripled, it's still less than
that
outrageous Personal Property Tax I had to pay every year in Virginia,
which
could be as much as 5% of the total worth of the car every year. I've
never
been so ****ed as when I walked across the new $5 million marble floor of
the
Fairfax County Government Center to pay close to $1000 annually for a '92
Nissan Sentra and a '94 Nissan pick-up. And I STILL had to pay for DMV
registration AND state inspections.

Boon
The California car tax is a personal property tax. It doesn't go to roads
it goes to the genral fund.

What do you want, a cookie?

Boon

Marc Phillips said:

Even tripled, it's still less than that
outrageous Personal Property Tax I had to pay every year in Virginia, which
could be as much as 5% of the total worth of the car every year.

They've shrunk it down to 2% or so. I may move back to Virginia at
some point.......

Mr. Middius said:

Marc Phillips said:

Even tripled, it's still less than that
outrageous Personal Property Tax I had to pay every year in Virginia, which
could be as much as 5% of the total worth of the car every year.

They've shrunk it down to 2% or so. I may move back to Virginia at
some point.......

When I left Virginia in 1998, they had just elected Gilmore as governor, who
won primarily on the promise to phase that tax out by 2001. When I visited my
brother in Fairfax last May, it was still in effect. I guess Gilmore had to
compromise.

Boon

Marc Phillips said:

They've shrunk it down to 2% or so. I may move back to Virginia at
some point.......

When I left Virginia in 1998, they had just elected Gilmore as governor, who
won primarily on the promise to phase that tax out by 2001. When I visited my
brother in Fairfax last May, it was still in effect. I guess Gilmore had to
compromise.

Who's Gilmore? They're already on to the next guy.

It wasn't so much a compromise as a midstream course change. They
reduced the tax as planned for two years. In the third year, they
continued the reduction, but not as much as planned. In Gilmore's
last year, the reduction was mothballed.

Ironically, voters in Fairfax County, whose roads need the most
improvement of any county in the state, tried to put a self-taxation
measure on a referendum last fall. The Republicans killed it
legistlatively in Richmond.