On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:35 PM, denstar wrote:
>>> Did you notice it's not constant?
>>
>> Which, death or taxes?
>
> Taxes and spending. Goes up and down. When it's down, not much of a
> problem, but when it gets out of control...
It's been out of control for as long as I can remember, really, 'cept
for a time towards the end of Clinton's tenure (guess "he" robbed
social security to do that tho?).
>> Oh yeah? It must be one of those counter-intuitive deals then, right?
>>
>> And you're speaking to the revenue of those taxing or those taxed?
>> Both, it sounds like, which seems pretty cool to me.
>
> When the tax rate goes down people invest more. The take more chances
> with investments, expand businesses etc. Why take the chance of
> doubling the size of your business if all the new profits go to uncle
> Sam?
Because then you'd pay *less* taxes, relatively? Get access to a
whole slew of different loopholes and whatnot?
>> You have to spend money to make money, right?
>
> Nope, you need to incentive investment so you can earn the tax revenue.
Ah. When you say "investment" here, you're referring to the ultra
wealthy, I take it? Not exactly hearkening the time where more
Americans lived within their means vs. on credit.
>> The point of our system is that there are checks and balances. Not
>> that we "trust" people to be Good(tm).
>
> The checks and balances work much better when you hire competent people.
No, they work better when "we the people" fill our role as "we, the people".
>>> Haven't heard about it. I thought we were talking about the US?
>>
>> Yes, it was *our* hardware. I think *all* modern hardware comes with
>> these "back doors" built into it.
>
> So the US government is spying on Greeks? That's another issue.
I'm sure they (we) are. Or maybe we still use the Brits to do it, I
don't recall. Probably don't even need to go that far these days...
My point is that we've mandated surveillance technology be built into
everything we use. Not a Smart Idea (Re: The Greeks).
>> Makes you hope the "bad" guys never get 'hold of the stuff they
>> shouldn't. Guess we just have to "trust" that only Good people know
>> how these things work, or are capable of finding out how...
>>
>> 'Course, I'd rather that there was *nothing* like that built in, as it
>> just begs for abuse.
>
> I recommend you unplug your computer and step away from it.Then throw
> away your cell.
Nonsense. Knowing you're being listened-in on leads to all *kinds* of
interesting possibilities.
As does inconsistency (unless it's consistent). :)
>> What do you use to feel, your fingers? Try using your mind, it's far out.
>
> If I stick my finger in my nose will I feel my mind?
LOL! Only our mothers know the answer to that one. :)p
>>> I don't know about any gay haters but I can accept their abortion
>>> stance even though I disagree.
>>
>> Because you don't see anything wrong with legislating morality?
>
> Because the definition of life is tricky.
>
>> It's o.k. to kill in the name of War, but otherwise it's Bad(tm)?
>
> Sometime you need to kill to save.
>
>> We should all be vegetarians, maybe?
>
> Then we'd have to kill the veggies to eat them.
The definition of life must not be *that* tricky, then.
Are there only certain things worth saving enough to kill for? Seems
like you'd have to draw the line somewhere, else you're out there
moving bugs off the road, out of harms way and whatnot.
>>> The government has the ability to transform healthcare for the better,
>>> they chose to destroy it instead. So much for bipartisanship.
>>
>> Destroy it? Do you have a dream of the future too? Mine is more upbeat.
>
> Even the NYTimes is realizing the dangers. You need to change your goggles.
If I take off the glasses it's too bright out there.
{refrain} I gotta wear shades, I gotta wear shades.
>> Frankly I think bipartisan stuff would be easier if the Republicans
>> were just fiscal conservatives, vs. socially AND [theoretically]
>> fiscally conservative.
>
> Compared to the Democrats running things today they are. Why don't you
> ask the same of them?
Look bub, we *all* know dems ain't fiscally responsible. That's why!
They don't seem to pretend as much as the Republicans. But they're
also less cohesive.
Less dangerous.
And yet here I am telling people to keep on voting and being involved
and whatnot. Sheesh. Do we even really *want* "people" running
stuff?
>> Is national debt some new thing then? How do you think it gets paid?
>
> The size is new.
It got a lot bigger under Bush43, but I note that fiscal
responsibility wasn't on that "Bad Bush" list, per-se. Cool that you
put the attempted fix on there tho. Real cool.
Be better if some precedents hadn't been set in the first place, IMO.
A good bit of these tea party folks didn't seem to have a problem back
then.
Or maybe they "felt" they were "saving" something, and thus it was "worth it"?
>> By cutting taxes?
>
> Too late for that, you need to rein in the spending.
No! Rain in the spending! If we do it on the Good Stuff, we'll all
be rich, RICH!
>> Hey, I like the sound of that. Sort of an "and eat it too" type of
>> mentality.
>>
>> Cake rocks.
>
> So spending the peoples money on things they don't want with no way to
> cover it is a go
od thing? Sure. Been doing it since before I was born. Why stop now?
=]
:DeN
--
Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at.
Jimm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:318400
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
