Jeff Mullen wrote:

> Day Brown wrote:
>
> >AbelMalcolm@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> >>The bubble did it. Or so goes the Republican sponsored spin, a
> >>no-fault explanation for the avalanche of corporate scandals that could
> >>very well plunge us into another Great Depression, just like in 1929.
> >>
> >
> >Well, yeah. The GOP sux. But you really awta read Machiavelli sometime.
> >Republics that pander to the masses alway promise entitlements which cost
> >money. Since raising taxes does not get support, they borrow the money. But
> >eventually the debt becomes unsustainable, there is governmental collapse,
> >and the entitlements are abandoned in the chaos. I dont see where the
> >Liberals have provided a viable fiduciary plan.
> >
> So...let's get this straight...
>
> Policing our corporations and punishing corruption are "...entitlements
> which cost money?"
>
> What part of hyperspace did you pull that out of? It has no resemblance
> whatsoever to reality!
>
> This is taxobabble, plain and simple.
>
> "It's the entitlements! Cut my taxes and run up the debt! We don't
> have any choice!"
>
> Liberals (well, more than Liberals--non-Conservatives) have
> offered a viable alternative, but you and your taxobabble chums
> have chosen to ignore it even when it was spelled right out in
> front of you:
>
> * Balance the budget
> * Prevent corruption at the highest levels
> * Keep the tax codes fair so that the middle class can grow
> * Facilitate collective bargaining so that people can earn a
> living working at a job
> * Stop exporting jobs
>
> This alternative is not only *viable,* it's *superior to the way
> things are being done now.*
>
> >
> >Everyone here is into the same kind of One Handed Economics that Truman
> >wanted, but all he ever saw were the multi-handed variety.
> >
> No. The Reagan Junta is getting its "one-handed economics" and it's
> ruining the country. It is their policies--the ones that concentrate wealth
> and reward corruption--that are destroying this country, and none of
> the taxobabble that you use to try to cover it up is going to change that.
>
> Jeff

It's peculiar the way you have limited 'entitlements' to the corporations when
I mentioned those specifically for the masses. Such as the new drug plan. Which
I dont have any doubt will end up as a huge cash cow for the pharmaceuticals,
who seeing that uncle Sam will pay for the prescriptions, will jack their
prices even higher, and make the working poor, [who will not get this
entitlement] even more desperate.

I read Machiavelli, and see that I dont need to defend a conventional political
turf of either the left or the right Jeff, despite your effort to place me in
Bush's camp so as to denigrate my comments. Nor do I doubt that the GOP will
ruin things for themselves and everyone.

That is not the issue I address, which is to consider the unintended
consequences of popular programs of either the left or right. In either case,
DEM or GOP, I dont see spokespeople try to delve into the ambiguities of
policy, but act like *salesmen* with a one sided pitch.

The failure of Bush to act against corruption has cost the GOP small
stockholders billions in their IRAs. The inaction of the FEC to protect the
interests of small stockholders has not been lost on them, and the losses are
already reflected in the polls. George Bush has done more to cripple the
Republican party in future elections than any policy or proposal that the
liberals would ever come up with.