Waiting for Fitzgerald

[bilmore]

Originally posted by nononono
. . . the UN wanting to develop some sort of oversight over the internet. Here's what was in the Corner:

NORM COLEMAN VS. THE UNITED NATIONS, CONTINUED

Here in the land of fish, we love our Norm.

Imagine Mugabe having a vote on what's acceptable public discourse in the net.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, I still can't believe that you're a Republican. Sniff.

If you ever meet her I'm still betting you're wrong about some other stuff too.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Apropos of nothing, I still can't believe that you're a Republican. Sniff.

Oh, but just think of the endless conversations we can have. Imagine, the PB all the time!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Heh. But if he were dead he's be rolling over in his grave to hear the mischaracterization, I am sure.

\

I am not sure I get the above, are you awarding me a point for my gracious compliment of your cyber presence?

Originally posted by nononono
Speaking of massive governmentalism, I scrolled quickly past something over there about the UN wanting to develop some sort of oversight over the internet.

That was a lot of words, most of which I avoided getting, but I do know that any thought of giving the UN oversight of the Internet is another reason why we should kick the UN out of the US and return our membership, retroactive to the late 40s and demand a refund of our dues or ELSE!!!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here in the land of fish, we love our Norm.

Imagine Mugabe having a vote on what's acceptable public discourse in the net.

Or China. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Great Britain or Japan, for that matter.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
One of the things I have problems with is the idea of "baseline economic activity". Since neither the government nor the economic activity exist in a vacuum, the only baseline that exists is itself the result of a series of policy decisions, and cannot be divorced from them.

This is as useful as deconstruction is to understanding english literature. Start with the premise one needs revenue for a government. So you have taxes. Figure out how best to raise those taxes so as not to distort free-market economic activity. Mix in the need for social goals, such as modest redistribution of income/wealth. You would not end up with a system as complex as ours in doing that.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you ever meet her I'm still betting you're wrong about some other stuff too.

Not over that yet? I am so, so wounded.

[nononono]

Originally posted by bilmore
Here in the land of fish, we love our Norm.

Imagine Mugabe having a vote on what's acceptable public discourse in the net.

I can't believe it's even been suggested. Norm Coleman rocks, generally speaking.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The proposal is to eliminate the deduction for new home mortgages and to phase out the deduction for existing mortgages over five years.

Eliminating for new mortgages, while understandable, creates a massive problem for anyone looking to buy a new house or sell their old one. Dropping the deduction will have an effect on housing prices. So to reduce the severity of that, one needs to gradualize that effect. So one needs to phase out for existing and new mortgages.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Yes, he's dour. Too dour at times - I get frustrated with him. Sometimes I've thought it must mainly be a schtick, but I think it's pretty genuine.

This is the same thing Wonk said about me........

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
I thought the AMT helped move us much closer to a flat tax, since it gets rid of the effect of many of those deductions you are railing against. (Simple? No. Flatter? Yes.)

Given thta in about 2 years it will be more costly to repeal the AMT than the regular tax, I'd wait until then, abolish income tax, go with the AMT, and make a couple of adjustments to avoid some of the problems it has.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the babyjesuschristsuperstar hates the hate.

What is babyjesussuperstar doing about middle east peace--and the hate? Same thing as for the last 1000 years-crusades?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
According to the Statistics of Income Bulleting, for 2003, the last year for which data are available, taxpayer with between $100,000 and $200,000 accounted for 10% of all taxpayers. Taxpayers earning over $200K amounted to 2.8-2.95% of all taxpayers.

Like I said, you're rich.

And he says -- "No -- 98% of the population is middle class or poor."

Sebby apparently thinks of "rich" in absolute, not relative, terms measured against certain symbols of conspicuous consumption and/or ability to make certain lifestyle choices.

S_A_M

P.S. Do those numbers reflect wages, or income from all sources?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
\

I am not sure I get the above, are you awarding me a point for my gracious compliment of your cyber presence?

And just when I thought you were done grubbing. Hmmm, a half-point, maybe. I'm such a sucker.

That was a lot of words, most of which I avoided getting, but I do know that any thought of giving the UN oversight of the Internet is another reason why we should kick the UN out of the US and return our membership, retroactive to the late 40s and demand a refund of our dues or ELSE!!!

Doesn't it seems like it sould be satire?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is the same thing Wonk said about me........

But we all have hope that the UN might rein in the photoshopping a little now that it will have some teeth.