Can JK beat GB?

[OperaTenor]

Hi Mary, so just what political leanings do Piq's profile photo indicate?!!





Or mine, for that matter?

[piqaboo]

originally posted by Marye:
Still, profile pictures give away political leanings, and personalities in a more direct fashion, don't you think?

:D
You wouldnt be referring to those who were photographed in defensive postures, aptly armed were you?

Theoretical Q: Wand vs Automatic gun-type thing.... ??

[Marye]

Originally posted by operatenor:
So just what political leanings do Piq's profile photo indicate?!! Or mine, for that matter?

The Magic Party .... You are both magical

[barfle]

Haggis, I believe you've misinterpreted what I wrote.

The 9/11 attacks were quite sudden, unexpected, devastating, killed a few thousand people, and amazed us that anyone could be so brutal and evil. But they were local events, by and large. I didn't lose my job because of the attacks (some did, but not in the droves that were driven out by the great depression), and much of the US treats the incident like the anomoly it was. Please not that this does NOT mean I think we should simply go about our lives as though it hadn't happened, although many of us do. The depression didn't permit that.

And saying what might have been had they had the resources is meaningless, because they didn't have them.

And the reasons behind the events has no bearing on the comparable seriousness of the two crises.

We got in the scrap because the scrap came to us, after decades of watching it happen elsewhere. Was I appalled when I saw what happened? You better believe it. Are we on the right track to prevent another attack? Not until Islam is extinct, I fear. This isn't a situation where some leader in a funny suit goes to a battleship and signs a declaration of surrender. We'll never know when this thing is over, because that's the fight we've gotten ourselves into.

In my not so humble opinion, we would be far better off to quit meddling in other peoples affairs, pissing them off at every turn, and let the other guys do what the other guys want to do.

The attacks were in retaliation for our heavy handed influence in the Middle East, not because of our civilization of infidels, not because our women don't wear burkhas, not because of our music, not even because of our dependence on their oil (and the shift in tradition the wealth from that has caused), but because of our meddling.

I also describe my politics as libertarian, and I am even a member of the party. I'm far from one of those "anybody but Bush" people. I feel, as I outlined above, that he's done much to soil the US and its image abroad, but the other possible winner has equally serious issues with me.

[shostakovich]

Haggis, I'm impressed with your knowledge of laws and their identifications. Thanks for posting with facts. Part of what you wrote follows.
--------------------------------------------------
Before the “Patriot Act” was passed, we had a much more egregious law on the books, the “Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act” enacted by President Clinton in 1996, after the Oklahoma City Bombing.

This law gives the U.S. Attorney General the power to use the armed services against the civilian population, essentially nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That certainly went much further than the Patriot Act.
--------------------------------------------------
This reminds me of the action taken at Kent State, where the national guard was brought in to quell the student riots (not much different from the Chinese and Tianenman Square). This was obviously not a consequence of the 1996 law. I wonder what law was enacted.

You rightly pointed out that the US has many times created and invoked shameful laws that make the Patriot Act pale in comparison. I'm not so upset with the Patriot Act itself (I'm willing to trade some freedom for safety) as I am fearful of its use by members of the PRESENT administration.
Later in your note, you wrote
--------------------------------------------------

For instance Including local taxes, Sweden's top marginal rate of income tax is almost 60%, and (worse still) becomes payable at an income of SKr209,200 ($28,000). In contrast, America's top federal tax rate of 40% does not bite until over $260,000. No wonder many talented scientists and engineers have been leaving Sweden.

Shos, Sweden is a good model for the type of entitlement programs that you favor. Do you still think the U.S. should start taxing people at the 40% rate when they earn $30K?

Shos, what part of the economy worries you the most?
--------------------------------------------------
Thirty years ago I spoke with a friend in Sweden. My jaw dropped when he said "60%". Yet he paid nothing for health insurance, and the elderly were taken care of. He was not in the least upset. But 30 years ago in a European country the mindset on MONEYMONEYMONEY was not what it is now, here. I'm sure you and I realize there are things of great value (e.g. music) other than money. Yet we live among many who obviously don't. When a company is in financial trouble, and a pay CUT (unthinkable for most) would save all jobs, we find layoffs or bankruptcy as the company's (or CEO's) solution. Companies are thought of as families in Japan. Personnel are expendable here.

I think a large part of our economic problem comes from high wages, prices (and standards of living). They make outsourcing so appealing. To reduce wages and prices by fiat is "un-American". However, taxing the shit out of salaries (even to 60%, with the benefit of health and welfare) would approximately have the same effect. It would also re-orient thinking about MONEYMONEYMONEY. There would be no point in being a pig. Money really doesn't buy happiness, at least for those addicted by it. Ask Martha Stewart. Of course, in her case, it will buy favorable "justice".

And what part of the economy worries me the most? Our free market capitalism allows pigs* to scoop up wealth that should be more evenly distributed so that all (non-loafers) can exist with some modicum of comfort.

*My apologies to pigs for calling some humans by their name.
shos

[shostakovich]

Want to really “wind up” the “Bush haters”? Point out to them that Jeb Bush might run for president in 2008………just a thought
Haggis
--------------------------------------------------

OUCH!!! Haggis, you really know how to hurt a guy.
Shos

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
Want to really “wind up” the “Bush haters”? Point out to them that Jeb Bush might run for president in 2008………just a thought
Haggis
--------------------------------------------------

OUCH!!! Haggis, you really know how to hurt a guy.
Shos

Shos, want to join us in NZ if it turns out to be true?

[OperaTenor]

Hi DB,

Any room for imported tenors in NZ?

[dai bread]

Originally posted by Haggis:

FDR’s presidency is probably as close as the U.S. came to losing control of "government by the people" since Washington was offered a Monarchy or the Generals decided to take over after Lincoln’s assassination. He came very close to following through with his threat to increase the size of the Supreme Court; something I can’t believe our current President would suggest nor would the people accept it; and believe me, when FDR threaten to do that, he had the support of the American public. It’s not for nothing FDR was the sole reason the 22nd Amendment was passed!

[b]Dai Bread,
Thank you for your comments concerning taxation in NZ. That proves that simply passing restrictive and complicated tax laws mean people will try to get around them. Failing that, they normally move somewhere else where the tax laws are more favorable to them. I’m not familiar with NZ tax levels, but if they’re anything like England or Sweden, they are probably so high that most Americans would be shocked.(Subsequent research reflects that NZ’s tax rate is around 40%?? Is that right? At what amount of income does that kick in?)

For instance Including local taxes, Sweden's top marginal rate of income tax is almost 60%, and (worse still) becomes payable at an income of SKr209,200 ($28,000). In contrast, America's top federal tax rate of 40% does not bite until over $260,000. No wonder many talented scientists and engineers have been leaving Sweden.
[/b]

I always wondered why that restriction on presidential terms was passed AFTER FDR, who, as far as I can gather, was one of the most popular presidents the U.S. ever had. Thanks for the info.

As far as taxes go, try here

I don't know what U.S. rates are, or U.K. ones either. Suffice to say that no matter what they are, I'm still surprised the U.S. rich pay them.

[dai bread]

[quote]Originally posted by operatenor:
[b] Hi DB,

Any room for imported tenors in NZ?

[dai bread]

Originally posted by piqaboo:

Dai, what does it cost to get an immigration visa to NZ? For a british citizen? For a yank? Any work in biotech out there or should I get my teaching credential?

I'm not sure how you'd get on applying for a teaching job unless you were prepared to live somewhere other than Auckland.

There's some high-powered biotech work being done in several places, mostly connected with temperate-zone farming, but some not.

Truffle-growing, for instance.

We could do with a good alto, though.

[Marye]

I see Haggis, I can no longer say

"Is that a Red Ryder BB Gun in your profile ... "

[haggis]

Dai Bread,
39% on $60K NZ?!?! That’s like...(multiply by current exchange rate, carry the one drop.... darn! I always screw up multiplication in my head, time for the calculator) $40,500 US.

So if you make $60K NZ you pay $23.4K NZ in taxes?

Four out of every 10 dollars goes to the taxman?

AND a 12.5% sales tax??

Do you also have payroll taxes?

Ouch, I hope that socialized medicine is really, REALLY good. Ya wanna rethink the immigration angle again Piq??

” I don't know what U.S. rates are, or U.K. ones either. Suffice to say that no matter what they are, I'm still surprised the U.S. rich pay them.”

Maybe some don’t, but the top 0.1% of American taxpayers account for 19% of the total tax revenues, that’s pretty incredible.

The minimum Adjusted Gross Income required to be included in the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers was almost $1.6 million for 2000. These taxpayers reported 10.6 percent and 19.0 percent of the total for adjusted gross income and total income tax, respectively.

In 2000, before the latest Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of taxpayers (with an adjusted gross income of $269,496) paid 34.8% of federal income tax revenue and the top 5% (with an AGI of $114,729) paid 54%; that is, 5% of all tax paying Americans paid over half of all income tax revenues. Put another way, the bottom 50%--fully half of taxpayers--paid only 4.2% of the tax take while the top half accounted for 95.8%.

Taxes on a typical middle-income family have fallen to their lowest level in more than 20 years. So, without a reduction of the payroll taxes, it would be impossible to reduce taxes more for poorer people, many who aren’t paying any income tax to start with!

If the U.S. Congress were really serious about helping the poor, they would reduce the payroll tax. The payroll tax is horrible, especially to the poor who pay a disproportionate share of their income to the federal government long before income tax time rolls around. No president since Ronald Reagan has even suggested cutting the payroll tax and I think that’s shameful.

[OperaTenor]

Actually, the socialized medicine is one of the reasons I'd want to emigrate.

Question: How much of the total earnings in the US do the top 0.1% account for?(Just posting the question for Piq, can't claim credit for it)

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by dai bread:

Originally posted by operatenor:
[b] Hi DB,

Any room for imported tenors in NZ?

CHOIR?!! I am a soloist, sir! (That is, of course, unless it's a good-paying choir job.)



<Ed: "There's goes that d@#% tenor ego again. But I notice you're not too proud when it comes to the almighty dollar!">

[haggis]

Barfle,

” The attacks were in retaliation for our heavy handed influence in the Middle East, not because of our civilization of infidels, not because our women don't wear burkhas, not because of our music, not even because of our dependence on their oil (and the shift in tradition the wealth from that has caused), but because of our meddling”

As I mentioned earlier, we’ll have to respectfully disagree on this issue. You said “anomaly.” Increasingly the answer that is being given to this question by liberals is to simply repress the memory, push it out of our mind; or if you absolutely must refer to 9/11, pretend it was something along the lines of an earthquake or a freakish tidal wave -- a natural disaster without the slightest political implications. A tragedy, of course, but something we should all put behind us and move on.

9/11 was not an act of crazed loonies, unlikely to reoccur; it was the symbolic gesture of an entire culture that looked upon those who died in carrying out their mission as heroic martyrs who triumphed over a vastly more powerful enemy. That is why so much of the Arab world celebrated the great victory accordingly, by dancing in the streets and cheering the collapse of the Twin Towers -- another set of images that liberals are forced to repress, since to acknowledge such behavior is to acknowledge the concept of the “enemy” that is embodied in such wild rejoicing at the annihilation of men and women whom you had never met.

We will not placate them by hiding in the U.S. and, yes I believe it IS our music, our culture, our films or way of life that frightens them to a degree that they would like to destroy our way of life.

I’ll let you have the last word on this, I’ll stop talking about 9/11 and deal with other questions.

Shos, my favorite liberal!
Sweden has always been my favorite whipping horse among socialized countries. It’s taxation rates are among the worst in the world, the rising medical costs and retirement benefits have almost bankrupt the country and based on GDP alone it’s poorer than Mississippi.

In addition Sweden, that great beacon of Socialism, collaborated with the Nazi during WWII and forcibly sterilized women considered “socially unfit” from 1936 until 1976.

My favorite quote from that article?

” Since the Swedish case came to light, it has been revealed that many other countries carried out sterilisation programmes, based on eugenics ideas linked to the Nazis. They include Austria, France, Finland, Norway and Switzerland.”

As I’ve mentioned before, socialist states get up to all kinds of mischief that could not happen in the U.S.
So my question remains, Europe and the EU are relevant to our way of life..because??

[Shapley]

"A nation that takes control of the economy for the good of the people ends up taking control of the people for the good of the economy."
- Bob Dole -

[piqaboo]

extracted from post by Haggis: Socialist states get up to all kinds of mischief that could not happen in the U.S.

The Tuskegee syphilis "experiment", release of flu and other viruses over cities to determine contagion and transmission patterns, eugenics american-style (including forcible sterilization of those with lower than normal IQs, or those thought to be retarded, perhaps because they were immigrants who didnt speak English, only "gibberish").

These are the few that come to mind with no reference back to my biomedical ethics texts. The no-socialist-US is not as pure of hand as it would like to believe it was and is.....


re the Dole quote on economics - I think that is more strongly true when applied to "security" in place of economics. Every tiny trade of freedom for security is a step toward a completely controlled life (in this case, controlled by the gov't "for the people's safety"). Some tradeoffs are worth it for some people, but each one needs to be scrutinized because it nibbles away at our freedom(s).

[haggis]

OT, the number is there, the top 0.1% accounted for 10.6% of the national adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2000. I can’t find any more recent data than 2000.

I’m sure there are lots of good reasons to immigrate to NZ in addition to the socialized medicine. Its got pretty good weather and the scenery is drop dead gorgeous, plus everyone (more or less) speaks the same language.

Personally, if I made $40,500 US I think I could buy a pretty good medical plan for $10,300 a year for me and my family (I deducted the 15% ($5,495) tax you would pay in the U.S. from the 39% ($15,795) tax you would pay in NZ and $10,300 was the difference. This was using the 2001 tax tables so it will be a little less this year.

Of course the $40,500 in the U.S. would be the AGI after mortgage and dependent deductions. I’m not aware if the NZ tax rate is on total or AGI income.

Add a 12.5% sales tax on everything in NZ and that's a BIG chunk of your money going to the State.

Look, I’m not knocking socialized medicine (much) it’s just not for me. I have some Canadian friends who come to the U.S. for routine surgeries and medical procedures that they can’t get on a timely basis in Canada.

When I lived in England I worked with a British cop who had been scarred on his cheek in a motorcycle accident (in the line of duty) and he was on a waiting list for SEVEN YEARS before his turn came up for cosmetic surgery!!

I also am very nervous of the power that “Nanny” states have over their citizens. Barfle would go nuts in Europe if he thinks the U.S. government has more power than he is comfortable with.

You can read my comments on Sweden’s (and other European countries) “Eugenics” in my post above. The ultimate, (to me) Nanny state power is euthanasia.

euthanasia, legalized in another of the “nanny states,” Belgium in 2002, although it had been accepted in practice since at least the early 90’s.

“a number of quantitative studies of the rate and major characteristics of these practices have been conducted in 1990, 1995 and 2001. These have demonstrated a disturbingly high incidence of euthanasia being carried out without the patient’s explicit request and an equally disturbing failure by medical professionals to report euthanasia cases to the proper regulatory authority.”(Emphasis added)

In addition, another survey (I’m still looking for the link) indicates that many of the euthanasia cases being reported now show that family members were “strongly” urging their ill elderly relatives to consider euthanasia, presumably to relieve the family members of a perceived burden.

Can you for a moment believe that any U.S. Administration would survive if it arbitrarily condones forcible sterilization?

And Belgium’s experience with euthanasia has pretty much scared me away from that particular slippery slope.

I guess I have a different philosphy about how I want to live my life from some of you. I believe tthat I can spend my money more effectively than the government can and I believe I'm responsible for the welfare of me and my family.

[haggis]

Piq,
Sterilization was a national program policy in Sweden (and other countries) for almost 40 years. The Tuskegee experiment was a horrible aberration in one state for a relatively short period of time involving a relatively small number of people.

Unless you can point to a national program in the U.S. to deny treatment to every black male who developed syphilis or a secret U.S. program to sterilize women and female children deemed “unfit” or the mentally unfit, then yes, I can state unequivocally that the U.S. is “pure of hand.”

Some states (like New York) were fond of lobotomies for mentally unfit people in the 20’ and 30’s (JFK’s older sister comes to mind) but those were state and, in some instances, municipality but not national policy.

If you do know of one, I would certainly like to know of it please.