From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #481 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, February 4 2008 Volume 16 : Number 481 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Ralph! [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: Ralph! [Capuchin ] Sorry Jill [Tom Clark ] Re: Sorry Jill [2fs ] Humble Pie ["Stacked Crooked" ] luck and skill are not the same [Marcy Tanter ] Re: Humble Pie ["Stacked Crooked" ] RE: something I've been wondering about [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Sorry Jill [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Sorry Jill [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] Re: luck and skill are not the same [Jeff Dwarf ] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd:_Get_"Show_Cat"_by_Robyn_Hitchcock_for_=A39. 99?= [lep] Red-Hooded Sweatshirt ["Guntarski" ] Re: "lolita" in the bedroom [craigie* ] Re: NASA to Beam Beatles' 'Across the Universe' Into Space [craigie* ] Re: Humble Pie [Steve Talkowski ] Re: Humble Pie [HwyCDRrev@aol.com] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Get_"Show_Cat"_by_Robyn_Hitchcock_for_=A39._ 99?= [cra] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] Re: Ralph! [FSThomas ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:11:07 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: Ralph! On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > > > Are you alluding to the absurd "money = speech" ruling? Because how on > > earth > > > is money speech? Bribery should be legal then, right? It's just an > > > expression of opinion. > > > > Money isn't necessarily speech, but advertising surely is. > > It is? So, if I phone up _Newsweek_, and say I want to pay for the first > 30 pages and the cover of the next issue - and I can afford to do so - > they *have* to say yes, just because I can afford it? No - of course > not. It's their magazine: they have the right to refuse my > "advertising." Advertising is, by definition, paid speech. Someone's > getting paid; someone can accept that pay or not. No argument here. But I hope the government wouldn't try to stop this from happening. > Now, for independent media, government regulation of that sort of thing > becomes iffy. But for broadcast media (whose airwaves are, you will recall, > a public resource), of course it should exist: the theoretical point is that > the airwaves are a scarce public resource over which the government is to > exercise custodianship. True. > It doesn't, of course, and hasn't - but in theory, it could - and should. > The problem is where advertising speech is concerned, it's a limited > resource - and this is true even in privately owned news publications. And > the problem with that is that one person's ability to pay for more speech > effectively can shut out someone else's speech, if they can't pay for it. > The point of prohibiting govt. from restricting speech was not to turn the > right to speak into an auction, sold to the highest bidder. Good point. > So you're saying if, say, Bill Gates decided he'd spend the entirety of his > fortune so that all ads in the US for the next two years said nothing but > MICROSOFT IS GOOD, you'd have no problem with that? Never said anything of the sort. I just thought "money != speech" was too simplistic. That said, if he wanted to do this with the PRINT media, I think I'd have a problem if the government tried to get involved. I think consumers would be able to take care of this one themselves--remember the LA Times Staples kerfuffle? > Or perhaps we should just say that all campaign ads need to be vetted by a > committee of scholars and shorn of any and all lies, inaccuracies, false > implications, and innuendo...does that seem reasonable? ;-) Scholars? Nah :) > > > Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions > > > > whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. > > > > > > Funny how every other industrialized nation on earth disagrees with you. > > > > That aside, does anyone know how much our taxes would have to go up to pay > > for it? Serious question. 1%, fine--I think you'd have very few people > > against it. Bring back Depression-through-Carter rates and regardless of > > the cause I think people will balk. > > The problem with taxes is that no one likes to see them go up. Yet they're > necessary to the functioning of modern society. "Depression-through-Carter" > is a pretty huge continuum, during which there was a fair amount of > variance...but it wasn't as if the nation was suffering from its huge tax > burden during those years. Arguably, in fact, many of those years were the > nation's peaks in terms of power, influence, wealth, and productivity. I agree taxes are necessary--I just don't see our citizenry accepting, say, marginal tax rates up to 75% (which is why I mentioned "Depression-through-Carter"--the Depression was when they first started heading that high and the end of Carter is the last time we saw them). As for peaks, a lot of those had to do with war--endless war... > Also, several surveys have asked the public exactly that question...and > large numbers of the public *do* say they'd be willing to accept increases > in taxes *if* it meant guaranteed health care for everyone, for life. I guess that's good, then--any idea what they'd be raised to, though? > I believe everyone should have access to good health care in this country > > regardless of their ability to pay. That said I wonder if *nationalizing* > > the system is the best way to make that happen. > > Well, that's an interesting debate. But I don't think it's very useful for > someone just to say, oh, government will fuck it up because that's what > govts. do. Some governments fuck some things up, yes. Generally, the reason Well--even though that's what I tend to think--I'd be glad to have the debate. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:02:05 -0600 (CST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Ralph! On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > The "feh" was more geared at the author than the content. Well, it's good to know you're not making snap judgments without being informed. Oh. Sarcasm. My bad. > Nader is one of those people who I've learned to routinely disregard. He > and Ross Perot are to an older generation Ron Paul is today: an aberrant > figure who may raise the odd good point but is far out on the fringe > that he renders himself entirely un-electable. I think you're taking a little blip at one far end of a man's life and letting it supercede all the amazing hard work he's done for your benefit. And, of course, it's important to remember that the Nader Presidential campaigns were neither his idea nor ultimately about electability. (Also, I'm kind of wondering why you think Nader's views are "out on the fringe".) The purpose of these (for lack of a better term) "wild card" campaigns is mostly to get the self-involved and self-interested parties to cut their ridiculous game of skirting around reality for the sake of elections. And, indeed, Nader's article here is all about focussing on real issues. > Regarding the debate: it was safe and boring, but I expected little else > from the performance based on the audience at the Kodak that evening. And because you expect it, it does not disappoint you? Why do you accept an expectation so low? > Regarding the Israel question poised by Mr. Hedges: When Hamas stops > lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel the blockade will stop. If the > rocket attacks don't cease then neither should the blockade. (And yes, > it really is that easy.) I find it borderline hilarious how Nader and > the media at large turn a blind eye to Hamas's use of terror tactics > while summarily slamming Israel for creating a "humanitarian crisis." > The crisis is of Hamas's making, not Israels. Um, this is not about attacking Hamas. This is about hurting innocent civilians. The blockade is a terrorist act. It is very much "the use of violence and/or threat of violence against a population for political purposes". This isn't attacking Hamas, this is making children suffer in order to strong-arm a political organization. > In regards to violating the Constitution, Nader has something in common > with current candidate John McCain: an apparent love for campaign > finance reform. McCain-Feingold pretty clearly violates the first > amendment, but no one seems to grouse about that. (MF is one of a list > of reasons I cannot support McCain.) I don't think you can call giving money away "speech". It's not a expresison at all. So unless you're arguing that political contributions are somehow an establishment of religion that Congress wrongly respects in its legislation, I have no idea what you could mean by this. > Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions > whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. Yeah, tell that to the ... well, to the entire rest of the industrialized world and much of the second and third world. The average person gets much better care and is not forced to make economic decisions regarding their health. That's a big win over the current system. Across the population, it will be a boon. Studies show this and the only counter-indications are anecdotal. > Keep in mind that there are very, very few things the Federal government > does well. They were entrusted with Social Security (nothing more than > an entitlement plan mean to earn votes and a bad idea in the first > place) and see how well they've done with that. Does anyone really want > to entrust them with the health care of every man, woman and child in > the US? The idea scares the utter crap out of me. Nobody's entrusting the Federal government with health care. We're entrusting the federal government with the regulation and fund-distribution in health care. The doctors and nurses will not be Federal employees. It scares you because you clearly don't understand it. That's a very common human reaction. Ignorance breeds fear. > Lastly, regarding Nader's last point on corporate welfare: I'll support > an end to nurturing business in the country the moment other welfare > programs are likewise removed. The task of helping individuals in > unfortunate circumstances is best left to the private, local level and > not from on high. The whole reason we form societies and build civilization and establish public agencies is to administer mutual aid. He's writing about removing subsidies that prop up organizations that should, if we are to believe the myths of capitalism, be self-supporting and typically put down the common worker. Helping the unfortunate is exactly the reason we have public agencies. If they are not doing that, they should not be doing anything at all. > And why would anyone want to hinder business, anyway? Uh... this isn't about "hindering business", it's about accepting the reality of capitalism: that big business cannot survive without direct redistribution of public funds into private hands. Taxes are collected from the public and paid to the businesses. The paychecks written by those organizations amount to only a small fraction of the total income they receive (the smaller the better, if you ask them). Their principle objective is proving for a very small percentage of the population. > Because they want to get the economy to stumble? Because they want to > see a spike in unemployment? A drop in the GNP? Is it due to a general > disdain for capitalism? Is it "disdain" or is it a willingness to be honest about the goals, effects, and requisite mechanisms of capitalism? > A desire to suppress individuality and to punish those who manage to > achieve or, God forbid, over-achieve? It doesn't make any sense. What doesn't make any sense is this apparent ideological link you are trying to make between individualism and capitalism when it is all-too-clear that capitalism cannot exist without a massive state siphoning the wealth of most poeple into the hands of the few. The state is a friend of capitalism and an enemy of the individual. > Hell, even Bill Clinton said recently, "We just have to slow down our > economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ..." That sounds like > a fantastic idea. I'm certain China and India will be on board with that > one and follow suit immediately. If Jimmy and Billy were going to jump off a bridge... > And that's why I gave it a "feh" and moved onto other things. Uh... you wrote earlier that it was just the author and not the content that made you write "feh". So which is it, Mr. Self-Contradiction? J. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:31:56 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Sorry Jill But The New York Football Giants are Super Bowl Champions!!! Oh yeah!! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:58:23 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Sorry Jill On 2/3/08, Tom Clark wrote: > > But The New York Football Giants are Super Bowl Champions!!! Oh yeah!! I'm curious: given that there hasn't been a New York Anything-Else Giants for 50 years or so, why the phrase "Football Giants" here? Oh wait - I suppose I'm overlooking, say, the New York Karaoke Giants, or the New York Form-Filling-Out Giants, or the New York Standing-Around-Looking-Like-Robert-Mitchum Giants... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:23:52 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Humble Pie i said here that the patriots couldn't be defeated. i was wrong. props to michael bachman for having called the upset. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:56:08 -0800 (PST) From: Marcy Tanter Subject: luck and skill are not the same The NYG won by a fluke, they didn't earn the title. (sour grapes? moi? never!) Marcy - --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:30:14 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: Humble Pie by the way, i say the manning-to-tyree hookup was the greatest play in superbowl history -- or at the very least, since i've been watching (the denver-dallas game in '77). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:34:02 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: something I've been wondering about Michael Sweeney wrote: > ...I won't even spend the > less-time-than-it-would-take-for-me-to-type-this to > check, but I think he did a voice (the tow truck) in "Cars" -- but > his lameness is undeniable on a Dane Cook-like level... That's not quite fair; Dane Cook's bit about flinging cashews into his mouth off the glans of his erect phallus is at least peculiar in achieving it's tediously lame status instead of predictable. "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:43:09 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Sorry Jill 2fs wrote: > Tom Clark wrote: > > > > But The New York Football Giants are Super Bowl Champions!!! Oh > > yeah!! > > I'm curious: given that there hasn't been a New York Anything-Else > Giants for 50 years or so, why the phrase "Football Giants" here? It's pretty much Chris Berman's fault. > Oh wait - I suppose I'm overlooking, say, the New York Karaoke > Giants, or the New York Form-Filling-Out Giants, or the New York > Standing-Around-Looking-Like-Robert-Mitchum Giants... "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 01:49:59 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Sorry Jill to distinguish from the baseball giants that way confusion is always avoided . well almost In a message dated 2/3/2008 11:20:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: I'm curious: given that there hasn't been a New York Anything-Else Giants for 50 years or so, why the phrase "Football Giants" here? **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:44:35 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: luck and skill are not the same Marcy Tanter wrote: > The NYG won by a fluke, they didn't earn the title. > > (sour grapes? moi? never!) Huh. In most part of the country, fluke means something other than "they kicked the Patriots asses." "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 02:00:16 -0500 From: lep Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd:_Get_"Show_Cat"_by_Robyn_Hitchcock_for_=A39. 99?= << From: Amazon.co.uk Date: Feb 4, 2008 1:29 AM Subject: Get "Show Cat" by Robyn Hitchcock for #9.99 To: "softboygirl@gmail.com" Greetings from Amazon.co.uk, As someone who has purchased or rated music by Robyn Hitchcock, you might like to know that Show Cat will be released on 11 February 2008. You can pre-order yours for just #9.99 by following the link below. Show Cat Robyn Hitchcock Price: #9.99 Release Date: 11 February 2008 Track Listings 1. For Debbie Reynolds 2. Never Have To See You Again 3. Love Affair 4. Wind Cries Mary 5. High On Yourself 6. Because You're Over 7. Cat Walks Her Kind Of Line 8. Statue With A Walkman 9. Green Boy 10. Real Dot 11. Nothing But Time 12. Beautiful Shock 13. Baby Doll 14. Shadow Cat >> show cat? is that the british-language release? as ever, lauren -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:47:51 -0700 From: "Guntarski" Subject: Red-Hooded Sweatshirt That was a fantastic game. The one question I have is why would Belichick mess with the streak and break out the red-hooded sweatshirt? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:17:07 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: Re: "lolita" in the bedroom I feel it's just the shop workers who are culturally unsound here... Put into perspective - how many Wal-Mart employees do you think have heard of the book or film? Or Nabokov ?(outside of being in a song by the Police...) It's a sad reflection on our culture that MTV wins out over wider education... I pity the youth... c* On 02/02/2008, Rex wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2008 7:46 PM, lep wrote: > > > http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSEIC16848020080201 > > > > just the thing for the young "lolita"s running about los angeles. > > > > Damn, Brits are illiterate too! Is the novel just not as well known in > the > UK? I know the French are familiar with it... Serge Gainsbourg made > lyrical > references to it long before String ever did... > > So was it just a coincidence that the boys' model was called "The > Humbert"? > > -Rex > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:36:37 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: Re: NASA to Beam Beatles' 'Across the Universe' Into Space ROTFLMAO! On 02/02/2008, 2fs wrote: > > > Next headline: RIAA to Preemptively Sue All Lifeforms for Copyright > Infringement it's funny because it's true... c* - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:51:33 +0100 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: America destroyed by prog-rock - --On 3. Februar 2008 15:29:14 -0800 Terrence Marks wrote: > I've probably been scooped, but.... > I prefer Yes' cover of "America" to the Simon & Garfunkel original. Eh, why?? I like "Yes". I have most of their early records, I've seen them live and when I read (to my big surprise because I failed to see the parallels) that they were fans of Paul Simon and had covered "America" I went out of my way to get that song. I hate it. To me it demonstrates all that is wrong with "Yes" and that they don't seem to understand what it is about Paul Simon's songs that makes them so great. That's my personal view. I guess you could say they see different things than I do, but to me it's an abomination, a corruption of something simple and beautiful. I think Paul Simon should sue them. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 05:55:13 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Red-Hooded Sweatshirt Guntarski wrote: > That was a fantastic game. The one question I have is why would > Belichick > mess with the streak and break out the red-hooded sweatshirt? a) homage to Adam Sandler (rama-lama-ding-dong)? b) to honor those old, non-shite Patriot Uniforms? c) in spite of having the perpetual mood of a man undergoing hemorrhoid surgery, he knows the color sweatshirt he wore didn't mean shit? "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W. Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirize George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporize them." -- Tom Lehrer "The eyes are the groin of the head." -- Dwight Schrute . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:33:30 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Humble Pie On Feb 3, 2008, at 11:23 PM, Stacked Crooked wrote: > i said here that the patriots couldn't be defeated. Seriously, what were you smoking? ;) The Giants played the Pats EXTREMELY well in the last game of the season and I knew they were going to get a second chance to wipe that smirk off of both Brady and Belichick's face. This Superbowl will be remember for the scramble/helmet catch, and for Brady being on his ass nearly every other possession. It really was an incredible ending to a Cinderella season, not to mention one of the most intense playoff series I've yet to see for a team destined to make Superbowl history. - -Steve p.s. I've been on an IODOT jag for the past week and don't know why... - -- Steve Talkowski Character Design & Animation http://sketchbot.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:47:39 EST From: HwyCDRrev@aol.com Subject: Re: Humble Pie i do - it's been re-issued AND RH played it live :-D In a message dated 2/4/2008 9:38:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, stevetalkowski@mac.com writes: I've been on an IODOT jag for the past week and don't know why... **************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025 48) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:48:40 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_Get_"Show_Cat"_by_Robyn_Hitchcock_for_=A39._ 99?= don't care. want one. (and it's available from my birthday! yay!!) C* old enough to know better, young enough not to care... On 04/02/2008, lep wrote: > > << > From: Amazon.co.uk > Date: Feb 4, 2008 1:29 AM > Subject: Get "Show Cat" by Robyn Hitchcock for #9.99 > To: "softboygirl@gmail.com" > > > Greetings from Amazon.co.uk, > > As someone who has purchased or rated music by Robyn Hitchcock, you > might like to know that Show Cat will be released on 11 February 2008. > You can pre-order yours for just #9.99 by following the link below. > Show Cat > Robyn Hitchcock > > Price: #9.99 > > Release Date: 11 February 2008 > > > > Track Listings > 1. For Debbie Reynolds > 2. Never Have To See You Again > 3. Love Affair > 4. Wind Cries Mary > 5. High On Yourself > 6. Because You're Over > 7. Cat Walks Her Kind Of Line > 8. Statue With A Walkman > 9. Green Boy > 10. Real Dot > 11. Nothing But Time > 12. Beautiful Shock > 13. Baby Doll > 14. Shadow Cat > >> > > > > show cat? is that the british-language release? > > as ever, > lauren > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." > > - The Buddha > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:33:30 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! 2fs wrote: > On 2/3/08, FSThomas wrote: >> Capuchin wrote: > > Are you alluding to the absurd "money = speech" ruling? Because how on earth > is money speech? Bribery should be legal then, right? It's just an > expression of opinion. Absolutely. I agree with Benjamin's point earlier: money != speech but advertising == speech It's pretty clearly a move to suppress freedom of speech either on the part of individuals or groups. > Nationalized health care will be a nightmare of untenable proportions >> whether it's Hillary's or Obama's plan. > > > Funny how every other industrialized nation on earth disagrees with you. Funny how every other industrialized nation has problems meeting the demands in any way that comes close to approaching the quality of care available here. I would think it's arguable that the best quality of care available is here. Federalize it and that quality will evaporate faster than an ice cube in Hell. (The exothermic Hell, not the endothermic one.) There's quite a few examples of flaws in Britain's NHS. I'll give you five: http://tinyurl.com/yue6l9 http://tinyurl.com/2nym7k http://tinyurl.com/25btuh http://tinyurl.com/29cvuq http://tinyurl.com/2q7hj4 (Ireland, but close enough) Now look at the current tax levels here in the US (2005 data): Single, no children: 29.1% Married, 2 children: 11.9% Bear in mind this is a country with no full-bore socialized medical plan and a "progressive" tax structure. Look then at the same numbers for the dear right-minded European countries: Britain: Single, no children: 33.5% (+4.4) Married, 2 children: 27.1% (+15.2) France: Single, no children: 50.1% (+21) Married, 2 children: 41.7% (+29.8) Germany: Single, no children: 51.8% (+22.7) Married, 2 children: 35.7% (+25.6) Italy: Single, no children: 51.8% (+22.7) Married, 2 children: 35.7% (+23.8) Sweden: Single, no children: 47.9% (+18.8) Married, 2 children: 42.4% (+30.5) Would you find it completely acceptable to adopt a Euro-styled system for a boost in taxation at the average of the above? Or 17.92%/24.98% *over* what is already paid? Naturally we would have to skew the numbers, too, in order to avoid increasing the tax burden on the disadvantaged and/or middle class, so the actual numbers (to those paying the tax) are going to be much higher. Sounds like FUN! > And what are the problems w/Social Security? Reports of its imminent demise > are rather off - and if there is a funding shortfall, simply raising the cap > on FICA can take care of that. It makes no sense that above whatever the > current cutoff is, people's dollars are worth more simply because they no > longer have to pay those taxes on that money. Or raising the percentage withheld. Or pushing the eligibility age to 80. I'm sure there's a fix in there somewhere. - -f. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:03:30 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: Ralph! 2fs wrote: > > This is tending to go off into weird hypothetical areas - simply because the > nature of "speech" has changed dramatically in the 200+ years since the > Constitution was written. Getting back to my earlier hypothetical: it's > reasonable to say that a candidate for public office has certain > restrictions. The President must be at least 35 years old, for instance. The > effect of allowing unlimited spending on political ads would effectively be > to allow wealthier candidates to bribe the public (or the media in which > they're advertising, more directly) - and bribery is, of course, illegal. > That is, it's entirely reasonable to hold candidates for public office to > particular standards, which would include their ability to use their wealth > to influence public discourse. You do realize you're drawing connections between Constitutional dictates (Presidential age) and quite possibly unconstitutional laws passed by politicians acting in some ways in their own self-interest, specifically in protecting their incumbencies? That's funny stuff. And yes, if I were Bill Gates and wanted to blow my fortune buying up all the advertising in Newsweek (or the NY/LA Times) touting my company's dominance than I ought to be able to. Just as I ought to be able to buy all the Ring Dings in a three-state radius around my house if I wanted to. > Or perhaps we should just say that all campaign ads need to be vetted by a > committee of scholars and shorn of any and all lies, inaccuracies, false > implications, and innuendo...does that seem reasonable? ;-) Hah! And who polices them? > The problem with taxes is that no one likes to see them go up. Yet they're > necessary to the functioning of modern society. "Depression-through-Carter" > is a pretty huge continuum, during which there was a fair amount of > variance...but it wasn't as if the nation was suffering from its huge tax > burden during those years. Arguably, in fact, many of those years were the > nation's peaks in terms of power, influence, wealth, and productivity. > > Also, several surveys have asked the public exactly that question...and > large numbers of the public *do* say they'd be willing to accept increases > in taxes *if* it meant guaranteed health care for everyone, for life. Of course they'll say yes because they know that the last possibly thirty years of their life will be spent in a relatively unproductive period of retirement suckling the teat of the Government! It certainly takes the pressure off you from having to actually save and plan for the future, doesn't it? > Well, that's an interesting debate. But I don't think it's very useful for > someone just to say, oh, government will fuck it up because that's what > govts. do. The private sector will always beat government for quality of service, timeliness and cost-effectiveness. Timeliness above all else comes into play with healthcare. Got a bad headache and decide to see the doctor? No problem. Get wait-listed for that MRI? Ok. Die of an aneurysm while you wait? sux0rz. I love that Stephanopoulos got Hillary to come clean and admit that her healthcare plan may lead to wage garnishments on Sunday: - --- "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."* Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone." - --- (http://tinyurl.com/339eqk) First: That's fascism. Second: "Subsidy". It's all about behavioral modification. You subsidize behavior you want to reinforce and you tax behavior you want to suppress. In this case you subsidize healthcare and to pay for it you tax the successful. You score by getting people forever locked into dependency on the government and at the same time suppress entrepreneurial behavior and the desire for success. Like a ouroboros the entire pattern folds back onto itself and leads to growing dependency on the government and further away from freedom, independence, small government and self-determination. Big Government FTW. - -f. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #481 ********************************