Politics: J'accuse!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Just want to make sure that everyone is aware that any scenario that includes this situation cannot possibly be pareto optimal.

I divorced him for a reason. Actually, more than one.

Fringie, it's for the good of the group, not you.

[steam]

Originally posted by Duplicity You of heard of need to blow some steam off?

That is so hot.

[Effete Liberal Snob]

Originally posted by Duplicity
LIMBAUGH:
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation

Limbaugh just wishes he knew what goes on at our Skull and Bones initiations.

Oh, did I say that? I meant, this is just like the nonsense that Bush and his cronies used to do at their fraternity and Skull and Bones initiations.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I am secure enough in my masculinity to admit that I'm not sure which way to take this.

Why do you talk to it? If you talk to it, it won't go away.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Fringie, it's for the good of the group, not you.

most of the other liberals at least have coherent arguments and the ability to present a rational position. When I do care to engage I usually pick on you because you are an idiot with sub-standard arguing ability. Thus, from the standpoint of common good for the left here, you should be restricted out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
most of the other liberals at least have coherent arguments and the ability to present a rational position. When I do care to engage I usually pick on you because you are an idiot with sub-standard arguing ability. Thus, from the standpoint of common good for the left here, you should be restricted out.

Unfortunately for you, you have elected me President.

I'm sorry about you and Fringie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Unfortunately for you, you have elected me President.

I'm sorry about you and Fringie.

even on an anon internet board, fringe is too high maintanence, look at my posts I can't pay attention to detail- she'd be mad at me non-stop.


did you hear that Replcaed Texan looks like Christina Ricci?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. Intentionally. He's a god.

B. The rest of my post indicated that I was referring to the difference between projected, and newly projected. Thus, "rising". Not absolute, as I didn't speak thusly - relatively, in terms of the projections. Your argument seems to be that they're not rising enough for you, and I don't think I could ever meet that burden.

So, to help me out here, because I'm slow: You are or you are not asserting that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in higher revenues to the government than would have occured the absence of such tax cuts?

If the first, do we have evidence of that other than the current relief that revenue in 2004 is not dropping as quickly as we had projected in 2003 that it would?

As Hank would say, just an innocent question.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, to help me out here, because I'm slow: You are or you are not asserting that the Bush tax cuts have resulted in higher revenues to the government than would have occured the absence of such tax cuts?

If the first, do we have evidence of that other than the current relief that revenue in 2004 is not dropping as quickly as we had projected in 2003 that it would?

As Hank would say, just an innocent question.

S_A_M

First, was "relief" supposed to be "belief"? I'm not clear on this.

Second, it's all voodoo. Can a tax cut/raise affect the economy in any substantial, measurable way? WTF knows? I don't.

But my point is that Ty (I think it was Ty, but that might just be my "blame Ty" mindset) spent a good deal of time earlier telling us he DID know, and that what he knew was that the cuts would cause it all to go to hell in a handbasket. (A side point: I have never even known anyone who has admitted to owning a handbasket, so I'm not sure why this is still used. Maybe it should be "go to hell in a fannypack.") Well, it didn't, and, in fact, the economy, post cuts, is doing substantially better than forecast. SO, can I prove anything? No, but that wasn't my burden, when reacting to people who claim they can.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I see no value here.

We need a dump, not more McMansions.

You have a dump. This I know for a fact.

Identify a zoning ordinance that prevents locating things at least somewhere. We're not talking about the white-paint requirement on the main street of Concord. Even they have a McDonalds.

It's a time-place-manner restriction at most. Even teh first amendment allows that.

It's not a majority imposing a will on a minority. It's a group specifying what activities will be allowed in what areas. Dump owners aren't excluded; they're just asked to locate in a proper area. What is the dump owner losing? He's not. It's the current property owner who can't turn his manse into a dump, or sell to a dump owner. That's exclusion? Yeah, in some sense. But so are the doors on your house.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the dump owner losing? He's not.

A nice view. An easier drive for his customers. Whatever. But you've decided to make those decisions for him, and, since your decision meets with your approval, well, he's lost nothing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You have a dump. This I know for a fact.

Actually, it's just a transfer station. Unless you count my backyard.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
But my point is that Ty (I think it was Ty, but that might just be my "blame Ty" mindset) spent a good deal of time earlier telling us he DID know, and that what he knew was that the cuts would cause it all to go to hell in a handbasket. (A side point: I have never even known anyone who has admitted to owning a handbasket, so I'm not sure why this is still used. Maybe it should be "go to hell in a fannypack.") Well, it didn't, and, in fact, the economy, post cuts, is doing substantially better than forecast. SO, can I prove anything? No, but that wasn't my burden, when reacting to people who claim they can.

You're saying that Ty said that he knew that tax cuts were going to hurt the economy? I sometimes wonder if you really think that those who disagree with you are as obviously incorrect as the words you put in their mouths.

Of course this could continue my streak of egg-faced posts if Ty chimes in to say he did "know" that, but I really don't think anyone was arguing that cutting taxes was going to hurt the economy in the short run. If they were I'd probably have joined you in your disagreement.

I'd also love to see the cite on your "substantially better than forecast" comment. [eta I see now that you probably were looking at it through the improved tax receipt projections lens, which makes sense. I thought you were looking at other macroeconomic indicators, which I should have guessed you wouldn't do since it's voodoo. Apologies.]

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
did you hear that Replcaed Texan looks like Christina Ricci?

Woo hoo, just when I was thinking it was time for me to say my one nice thing for the year. RT looks like a playboy bunny and is an ender of wars.

Did you hear that?

You did now.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by bilmore
This isn't about defending zoning. The issue was, is it a form of wealth transfer.

Problem here is, one side starts from a premise that individual liberty is the highest value, and the other starts with the value of the collective. To you, there's no transfer if the collective is maximized. That's why there's no communication on this.

That's hardly right. I agree that the underlying principle is consistent with the idea that restricting people's freedom is net beneficial. (This is why we have criminal law and contract law, too.) It's just not right to call it a "transfer." I think that word connotes something more specific -- where you can trace and quantify the amounts that go from one person to another, as you can with rent control.

You and Gx3 seem to think that because I'm defending zoning as a response to a collective action problem, I think any government action which is net beneficial is OK. That just doesn't follow.