[PEN-L:12050] Re: Big mouth
Max, aha, I misunderstood. Well, when I give money to relatives (and understand, the finances of the 'spinster' sister (niece, aunt, daughter) are always under someones' greedy scrutiny) I consider it a dead loss--and I have been proven correct in my cynicism well more than half the time. As to incompetent relatives--when I took a year's unpaid leave from my job to write my dissertation for the PhD, my mother called two of my brothers and suggested that the family consider legal action to claim I was mentally incapable of handling my own financial affairs and have one of my brothers appointed as some sort of legal care taker for me. To my brothers' credit, after they scraped themselves off the floor from laughing so hard, they called and we've since made it a family joke. Of course, in all this, I have been gainfully employed since the age of 14 (I'm 49) and financially independent of my family since age 17. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 97-08-30 17:21:53 EDT, Max writes: >Since this has come up again, let me say I was >talking about the futility of giving money to >people you know who already have an >adequate income (cash or in-kind) and who don't >have the capacity to make good use of money >(e.g., people like my brother and others who >are simply not capable of caring for >themselves).
[PEN-L:12047] slate on taxes
the web page is: http://www.slate.com/BestPolicy/97-08-30/BestPolicy.asp the text (but not the graph) says: A Brief History of Taxes Are tax cuts good (and tax hikes bad) for the economy? You sure can't prove it from the data. By Jodie T. Allen (236 words; posted Saturday, Aug. 30) For two decades, it has been an article of faith, at least within one potent sector of the Republican Party, that tax cuts are ipso facto good (and tax hikes are ipso facto bad) for the economy, for the financial markets and thus, for all of us. For two decades, as well, taxes have gone up and down, and so have the economy and the financial markets. So how do theory and reality compare? Other things being equal, a tax cut, by stimulating consumption and investment, can help the economy. But many things besides taxes affect the level of economic activity. And then there's the little problem of paying for the nice tax cut. As long as Congress is unwilling to offset revenue losses with real spending cuts (not the vague promises of future rectitude that have been the mainstay of every "historic balanced budget" package since 1981), a cut in taxes means a bigger federal budget deficit. And that, in turn, can drain investment capital, alarm an inflation-wary Federal Reserve Board, raise interest rates, and unnerve financial markets. So, are tax cuts good for the economy and tax hikes bad? Take a look at the record, from Ronald Reagan's famous 1981 tax cut through Bill Clinton's famous 1993 tax hike, and judge for yourself. Of course, President Clinton has since repented his tax-boosting ways. Only last month, he signed off on another big tax cut. Uh-oh. (Of course, the intellectual property rights for the above belong to Bill the Octopus. BTW, the most-often stated reason for MS's bailout of Apple is that MS wants to save its source of new ideas.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html "Dear, you increase the dopamine in my accumbens." -- words of love for the 1990s.
[PEN-L:12046] "Poverty is violence!"
Just thought I'd quote my favorite line by Julianne Malveaux, since the USA Today offering hardly suggests the power of this lyrical and penetrating poetess of the human condition. valis Occupied America Michael Eisenscher said: > As a rule I decline to post articles published in Gannett papers like USA > Today. This will be an exception, because it demonstrates the utter > amorality and hypocrisy of this scab-herding, union-busting, law-breaking > corporation. Julianne Malveaux is a progressive academic and syndicated > columnist. USA Today, in honor of Labor Day, published the following > commentary by Dr. Malveaux. One might ask why Dr. Malveaux would lend > herself to this despicable corporation under any circumstances. But given > their record in Detroit and elsewhere. . . . on Labor Day > -
[PEN-L:12045] Re: Disney Globalization
You probably won't believe this, but I always knew that Darth Vader was really Michael Eisner. A question, though: how does traditional and widely known fantasy qualify as proprietary information? valis Occupied America > --- from Disney's contract with SUBSCRIBERS to its for-pay Web site: > > Disney shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to > the Information of every kind and nature THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE and shall > be entitled to unrestricted use of the Information for any purpose > whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of > the Information. . . > > (emphasis added)
