As far as jiggering with the tax rates, without a computer simulation to show the probable effects on the amount and distribution of tax revenues - well, you might as well be "whistlin' Dixie" (maybe with Chip..)
It's D-U-B-A-I, not D-U-B-Y-A ... rinselberg's latest OpEd post is available online at Laramy-K Optical's professional forum.
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-27-2006 at 09:54 AM.
a flat tax would cut virtually all the government costs of the IRS, and eliminate the tax accounting industry. Unfortunately that would increase unemployment.
I haven't noticed this. Perhaps some actual data? For every Bill Gates I fear there are dozens of Ken Lays.Originally Posted by chip anderson
I get it, you first posted about the OMB report, and then referred to a summary by Boortz of it - well, I thought you were still referring to the same report, since you didn't mention any other until now. I figure you didn't know to which report Boortz was referring, but now you've figured it out.
I didn't say I had read the House report, which I have not done - I've only read about it. I may not have time to read it in the near future, but in any case, you seem to be saying that we agree, that FEMA's response was incompetent.
As far as what the OMB report actually says is concerned, the link is there, people can read it, and decide what it says to the best of their abilities. They may, unlike you, notice that while it certainly documents abuses - that's what it's all about - it doesn't say who committed these abuses. Unless you believe that all of the victims of Katrina were "poor", the report does not support your initial assertion that was, you may recall, that the poor are defrauding us (as opposed to, for example, the colorable position that "at least some of the victims of Hurricane Katrina defrauded us").
Of course you have supported this quite effectively by other means, namely in making us aware of this:
Then how do you account for all the "Spreewells" rotating around on cars in federal housing projects and other low income housing areas. Those suckers cost a bloody fortune but you see thousands of them on Cad's, Nav's, and other pimp mobiles.
I guess I'm going to have to spend more time scrutinizing low income areas. I had no idea they were overflowing with thousands of Cad's and Nav's sporting "Spreewells". (Actually, I don't know what these are; maybe that's why I'm so poorly informed).
As far as my incessant criticism of the Bush Administration is concerned, I'm content to let the readers of your posts, and mine, decide whose criticism is well-founded, and whose is based on hyperbole, anecdote, and repetition of misinformation spread by the right-wing propaganda machine.
Speaking of which, should you think that last bit excessive, let me relate to you an observation I made just yesterday. Steven Hadley (the National Security Adviser) appeared on Face the Nation. In trying to put a positive spin on the bombing of the Al'Asqiya Mosque, he said that he thought this could actually turn out to be a positive development, as the violent response would cause all Iraqis to "peer into the abyss" of all-out (as opposed to limited, he did not add) civil war, and back away.
One half-hour later, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) appeared on Meet the Press to express, together with several other Republicans, dismay at the Administration's incompetence in handling the Dubai/ports issue. I nearly dislocated my jaw when, in response to a question about Iraq, he used exactly the same words as Hadley - "peer into the abyss," etc. - to try to put a positive spin on the Mosque bombing.
I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories, but it's clear that somewhere, there is a person (Karl Rove?), or some number of persons (Karl Rove and Karen Hughes?), who are disseminating the very words that these people are compelled to use.
That the Republicans in Congress would disseminate such talking points amongst themselves doesn't surprise me (although I find the practice disgusting, as it is intended to substitute sloganeering for public debate). But it shocks me to find the National Security Adviser literally on the same page.
So, there you are: an instance of Bush Admiinistration competence. They know how to sell a message. That's also known as "marketing".
Too bad it has nothing to do with "governing".
Last edited by shanbaum; 02-27-2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason: typo
Shanbaum: read a review of Paul Bremer's book, forget the title. In it he (according to the review) reveals that during his tenure in Iraq both his and Gen Sanchez's (sp?) requests for additional troops were repeatedly turned back by the White House. From their position they readily saw that the troop level was woefully inadequate to secure the country. This of course fell into that increasiningly broad category of "stuff Bush doesn't want to hear", so it was ignored.
I suspect this (Bremer's book) is the beginning of a number of insider folks who will be calling out the administration on their bush league (pun intended) handling of this whole mess.
The question that Bremer needs to answer is of course, why didn't he speak out at the time.
This "peering into the abyss" thing is so typical. Bush gave a short interview on-board AF One re the UAE deal and was asked for his reaction to the current situation in Iraq. You will be pleased to know he remains "optimistic". Which is a very reasonable reaction to "staring into the abyss" as any fool knows.
Saints preserve us.....
There's a really funny, really devastating piece on W in this month's Vanity Fair. Talks about how he uses the military as staging--e.g dressing up in Members Only "military" jackets and making policy speeches on bases and military academies. (Kinda ****** off folks at the Naval Academy, where he directly attacked the democrats for criticizing his policy--this is a big no-no. Any military person would know this--oh wait, I get it....)
The dress up thing is especially telling, the article compares Bush to presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Bush I--folks with actual military bona vides--who bent over backwards NOT to assume any military accoutrements.
Actually, now that you brought it up, I do have that peering into the abyss feeling......
Last edited by chm2023; 02-27-2006 at 02:02 PM.
Colin Powell - a name that's been brandished from time to time by some of the administration's sharpest critics onOptiBoard - sounded pretty upbeat to me about the DP World contract - on the Tonight Show. Looks like a done deal to me.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...3-051657-4981r
At issue is a 1992 amendment to a law that requires a 45-day review if the foreign takeover of a U.S. company "could affect national security." Many members of Congress see that review as mandatory in this case.
But Bush administration officials said Thursday that review is only triggered if a Cabinet official expresses a national security concern during an interagency review of a proposed takeover.
"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment," said Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt.
So here we have another case of the administration doing something secretly, scoffing at American laws, showing a lack of good judgement, and warping the interpretation of laws. More of the same.
I know I am coming into this thread late, but it seems to me that the basic premise of this thread is faulty. I think this country has a large middle class with a smaller amount of poor people and rich people.
I have found two articles of interest with regard to the ports issue. I don't know if the TNR article is viewable to non-subscribers, but it explains the deal in a way that it is, at least, intelligible (hint: it's actually all about airplanes).
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060220&s=judis022506
And in today's NYT, there's a brief but excellent analysis and proposal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/op...html?th&emc=th
One thing I notice in that article: those who have been taking the "don't worry, the Coast Guard and Customs Service are in charge of security" will no doubt find comfort in the observation that these agencies have one hundred of their top men on the job.
Chip,
Aren't you concerned about the immortal soul of these people who take more and more from those less fortunate, even though they have alot already?
One of the seven deadly sins.Sinopsis
What it is: Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Why you do it: Because you were weaned improperly as an infant.
Your punishment in Hell will be: You'll be force-fed rats, toads, and snakes
gluttony</H2>Gluttony is NOT just about eating! :hammer:
Pronunciation: 'gl&t-nE, 'gl&-t&n-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ton·ies
1 : excess in eating or drinking
2 : greedy or excessive indulgence
I am not thier judge. Don't know why they have nots or the have a littles feel they should be.
I do feel that we will all face judgement on our acts (no I don't believe in grace alone or last minite redemption) but the judgement will not be mine.
Chip
And yet you feel compelled to judge the have-nots, convicting them of laziness and fraud.
No convicting them of wanting what the haves have to the point of dictating by taxation what they should do with thier money, or how much they should be allowed to earn.
Ok, so you judge poor folks, not the filthy rich. That's brave, yet somehow touching.
Last edited by Spexvet; 03-01-2006 at 08:16 PM.
No, what they're actually saying is that since those with no money are lazy, giving them more money will make them even lazier. But on the other hand, giving the wealthy more money makes them more "productive".Ok, so you judge poor folks, not the filthy rich. That's brave, yet somehow touching.
source: Bloomberg.com quoting a Federal Reserve report
The net worth of the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. families rose to a median $924,100 in 2004 from $887,900 three years earlier, a 4 percent rise, the report showed. Net worth for the poorest 20 percent of the population fell 11 percent to $7,500. Those in the next highest income group saw net wealth fall 13.4 percent, to $34,300.
You know those surveys you see all the time where the numbers show a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction?
Look those living in the "poverty level" in the U.S. live higher than most of Europe and Asia's population that is concidered reasonably affluent. If they are not starving, have two color T.V.s and at least one car why do we need bleeding hearts for them?
Do I feel a little jealousy for those with Yachts, very high priced cars, estates, etc? Yea a little but if I take things like this away from them, you can bet they are not going to bust thier chops just to provide me with things.
You did notice that Marxism(Socialism) Didn't work in the Soviet Union, Germany, Cuba, or any other company with a we should all be equal policy did you not?
Chip
SpexVet: A flat tax would put a lot of accountants and tax collectors, etc. out of work. This would not necessarily increase unemployment. These people could be employed in actual productive occupations as opposed to bean counting. They could actually make things. They could stop watering at the government t***.
Chip
Chip, this is my federal tax plan (subject to revision), and I'll implement it if you elect me king of the world.
Deduct the cost of supporting yourself and your family from your household income. Whatever your adjusted income is, as a percent of all incomes in the whole entire country (including business) should be your percent of the national tax buden.
Example:
My portion of income is .0000000004%. The annual federal budget is $8 trillion. $8,000,000,000,000 * .0000000004% is $3,200
good way to scare business people out of the nation.
That is a little too progressive.
Chip, Why do you feel so threatened? What are you afraid of? I suggest that $150 million more than anybody needs (not wants, but needs) for an entire lifetime. I suggest that income in excess of that be VOLUNTARILY distributed in some other way. I specifically did not recommend that it go to the government, I did not mention welfare, I did not espouse communism. And you make all these leaps as though I was taking your wallet from you and giving it to the unemployed minority drug addict down the street. How do you get from what I said to your response?
Which is saying that they don't want to pay their fair share, right?
No, it is saying that they can get it for cheaper somewhere else.
Maybe it's because Chip has read so many of your OTHER posts.
I hardly need to speak for Chip, and I would not presume to, but let me speak for myself. I don't feel threatened by your ideas - but I must admit to being thoroughly puzzled by the "nature of your game" here. You don't strike me as "dense" or "slow to catch on" - anything but. And yet, for every smart post you make, I can go to your OptiBoard Profile, summon up the list of all of your previous posts, and find any number that are as dumb (or dumber) than your latest post is smart.
You're like a promising politician who's running for office (again), but can never quite escape his "baggage" of bungles and screwups all across his previous record(s).
Since I don't understand the nature of your game here, I can only speculate on what motivates you to post - but you might consider whether making only smart posts would be more in line with your (mysterious) objectives.
A word of advice to all who may be newly arrived on these fog-shrouded and surreal shores: Before you're tempted to respond in haste to the latest Spexvet post, consult his OptiBoard Profile and take a more carefully researched measure of the "total man".
And it's not just Spexvet - that's sage advice (if you'll pardon me complimenting myself) in the case of ALL of us here in "Opti-World".
We should always be carefully deconstructed by our readers.
Insofar as one can define existentialism, it is a movement from the abstract and the general to the particular and the concrete ...
Rinselberg, don't confuse posts with which you disagree with being dumb. Please cite where I've been innaccurate or, in your words, dumb.
I don't have a game. Maybe that's why you're puzzled. Your game may be to promote Centcom and to warmonger, even some W idolitry, and maybe even to promote jazz music, but I am what I am.
What in my OTHER posts would lead Chip to make the leap that he did?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks