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.

Day Brown wrote:

>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.
>
With all due respect--and you deserve a *lot* more respect than the Limbaugh
Loonies I've locked horns with recently (one of whom you are obviously
not)--
I made no such limitation. My argument was that you were passing off as a
juggernaut something over which the American people still have a great
number
of choices to make and a great deal of control.

I apologise if I did not fully communicate my opinion that it's not the
"entitlements,"
as you call them, that are causing our current budget woes, but rather a
set of
policies that are heavily-handedly carried out by an incredibly underhanded
administration whose specific, if undeclared, purpose is *precisely to
cause
them.*

I don't believe that there's any natural progression, as your earlier
post states,
at work here, but rather that the budget problems that we're having are the
result of a deliberate, underhanded manipulation by a junta whose primary
interest is in the bankrupting of our government. I believe that people
with
a better plan, a better vision, can reverse the damage that the Limbaugh
Loonies have done and continue to do.

>
>
>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.
>
Yours was *precisely* the kind of rhetoric--the stuff that I call
"taxobabble"--
that is often used to justify the horrid deficit spending and failed
trickle-down
economics of the right wing. Forgive me if, entering late into the
argument, I
mistook the end that you were attempting to justify with the their means.

Still, my critique--that taxobabble is based more on a set of biases than on
ascertainable facts--holds, regardless of what the taxobabble is used to
attempt to justify.

>
>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.
>
I would *love* to deal with ambiguities; unfortunately, I find myself
forever
having to put out fires of Limbaugh Lunacy--blatant lies and half-truths
used
to justify stupid or immoral acts--until my energy is dissipated on these
activities. You will note that I am fully capable of comprehending the
difference
between your position on this issue and what that of a Limbaugh Loonie
would be. Despite this, I find my fellow countrymen pursuing policies based
not on the kind of intelligent distinction of which you are obviously
capable,
but on hyperspace reasoning that leaves all semblance of reality behind.
This is unacceptable and I will not sit still while it is being done.

Thank you, nonetheless, for the breath of fresh air. I shall endeavor to
add Macciavelli to my "required reading" list.

>
>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.
>
Although they hold no exclusive contract to its fielty, the Reaganite
Junta, of which George W. Bush is the current head-man, and
corruption are firm andlong-time friends. This was the primary
reason why I voted against them in the last two elections. I agree
with you that, in the face of their lack of credibility and accountability,
taxobabble and the rest of the Conservative Crock of Crap are
small issues indeed!