Politics: A new beginning

[off steam]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Was it good for you? I certainly had a good time.

Wait a minute.

That's the guy you blew off.

Remember me?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
...[1000 feet proposal]...

Uh, can they really do this? I would think that due process/the takings clause/whatever would require the showing of a link between the property and illicit activity that rises to a level above "a pattern of drug activity within 1000 feet." Anybody familiar with these types of ordinances elsewhere?

It seems rather arbitrary. If you can tie the home to drug sales in the home, outside the home, 20 miles away from the home, a million miles away from the home, then you should be able to take the home.

Assuming the "tie" is somewhat reasonable. But that proposal you are posting leads me to believe they are trying to reduce the reasonableness of the "tie" in favor of the mere proximity of the home to something-or-other. Doesn't work for me.

You either have the "tie" or you don't. If you do, then nuke it, tear it down, burn it down, seize it, whatever. If you don't, then don't touch it.

It really is as simple as that to me.

FWIW, FYI, tHe heightened-penalty school rules make sense to me (500 feet of a school...), because they are tied to increased danger to innocents.

Hello

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
It seems rather arbitrary. If you can tie the home to drug sales in the home, outside the home, 20 miles away from the home, a million miles away from the home, then you should be able to take the home.

So you are not a drug-legalizer?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Bil Mo'
I am Bil Mo'. You are missing Bilmore. Give it up. He's gone. He didn't fit in. Now you have me.

How much do you want to bring Bil Mo' back? Please release him. Bil Mo' always stood up for what he thought was write. Bil Mo' helped protect me from a crimenal gang rape here won night. Bil Mo' was an all-around stand-up Minnesotanite. You better not hurt my Bil Mo' or there will be Hell to pay.

Bil Mo' Bil Mo', please come home? Can you hear me Bil Mo'?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So you are not a drug-legalizer?

I am sooo a drug legalizer. But, in the context of illegal drugs, there are still some things that work better than others.

The only thing I'm against in any context is putting a felony on some kid's record for trying to make a dime.

Take their home away though? Yup, I'm all in favor of making mommy and daddy ensure Jr. ain't standing out in front inviting a drive-by from the competition.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) Nonsense. Bush made that argument in a speech talking about direct tax relief to individuals during his campaign. In fact, the bottom 60% of taxpayers received 14% of the tax relief. This argument was close to an outright lie.

This is how biased you are, you don't even see the other side of the argument. You are looking at % in terms of total dollars, rather than reductions to the marginal rates being paid.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man (c) Check the statistics. You're incorrect. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We had that -- though each year was net positive.

So if we grow 5% in one quarter, followed by 4.9% and 4.8% in subsequent quarters, we are in a recession? You better check your sources. Negative growth means a contraction, which just so happens to be a synonym for recession.

[ms. naughty diplomat]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is how biased you are, you don't even see the other side of the argument. You are looking at % in terms of total dollars, rather than reductions to the marginal rates being paid.

right, because its sooo misleading to think that people care more about dollars than marginal tax rates.

[rufus leeking]

........................... the Democratic presidential candidates are passing up a big political and economic opportunity. The candidates should stop rearranging the Bush tax cuts and start proposing fundamental reform of the tax code.

Flat Tax!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is how biased you are, you don't even see the other side of the argument. You are looking at % in terms of total dollars, rather than reductions to the marginal rates being paid.

So, do you really think that, in his stump speech, the "benefits" of his tax plan to which Bush II was referring were the reduction in marginal rates paid -- of which you allege "most" does indeed " go to those at the bottom" -- rather than the actual reduction in taxes paid?

Have you ever heard an administration official make this argument? I never have heard it, I'm not sure that I understnd what you mean, and would not have conceived of it -- so it is not an issue of bias. DO you have any basis for believing that id what Bush actually meant? Or, are you just defending what appears to be a flatly false statement by just making shit up?

It makes no sense to say that the President was telling the truth bcause he was using words in a way that no normal person would understand them.

Originally posted by sgtclub
So if we grow 5% in one quarter, followed by 4.9% and 4.8% in subsequent quarters, we are in a recession? You better check your sources. Negative growth means a contraction, which just so happens to be a synonym for recession.

Club -- I try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but it seems to me that you are being unusually stupid on this point. What you have just said is in no way related to what I said. I said that a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth, or "contraction". Your example is of three quarters of positive, though slightly slowing, growth. So, what's your point? Has there been some new revision to the GDP figures thqt I missed, which would showthat there was never actually a recession in 2001? Last I recall, the right was using as Bush's defense the figures showing that the economy was "already in a recession"by March, 2001.

S_A_M

[Bil Mo']

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How much do you want to bring Bil Mo' back? Please release him. Bil Mo' always stood up for what he thought was write. Bil Mo' helped protect me from a crimenal gang rape here won night. Bil Mo' was an all-around stand-up Minnesotanite. You better not hurt my Bil Mo' or there will be Hell to pay.

Bil Mo' Bil Mo', please come home? Can you hear me Bil Mo'?

Bil Mo' is here, and Bil Mo' will stay here (and Bilmore will stay away) until this board is focused on serious discussion of the issues of the day.

That means no flirting with fringey.

Bil Mo', of course, will do nothing to encourage Bilmore's return. I kind of like it here.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Bil Mo'
...and Bilmore ... Bilmore's

Look tweety, I don't know nuthin about this Bilmore character. I'm just saying that you better be a good puffin and think twice before you harm the real Bil Mo'.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So if we grow 5% in one quarter, followed by 4.9% and 4.8% in subsequent quarters, we are in a recession? You better check your sources. Negative growth means a contraction, which just so happens to be a synonym for recession.

let's get this one out of the way quickly: that's not a recession, because there's no negative growth. Now, if growth is
Q1: 5%; Q2: -2.5%; Q3: -2.5%; Q4: 5%, technically we had a 2 quarter recession. But would it matter? Probably not, because the overall growth for the year was about 5% (no, I didn't do the compounding math). In that case, would we worry? Probably not. Problem here is it's more like Q1 and Q4 were 1%, so overall annual growth was small.

This is how biased you are, you don't even see the other side of the argument. You are looking at % in terms of total dollars, rather than reductions to the marginal rates being paid.

Forget marginal rates and forget the share of the tax cuts. What's most relevant is each person's tax burden at each level of income as a percent matter. Any tax cut, even a completely neutral one, will go mostly to the rich. Why? BEcause they pay a frighteningly large share of all taxes. Marginal rates are also irrelevant in determining who gets the tax cut, because at low levels it's deductions and exemptions that matter more, not marginal rates.

So, who's got the relevant figures: in each quintile, how much did overall tax payments decline, as a percent of total tax payments?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -- I try to avoid ad hominem attacks, but it seems to me that you are being unusually stupid on this point. What you have just said is in no way related to what I said. I said that a recession is defined as two quarters of negative growth, or "contraction". Your example is of three quarters of positive, though slightly slowing, growth. So, what's your point? Has there been some new revision to the GDP figures thqt I missed, which would showthat there was never actually a recession in 2001? Last I recall, the right was using as Bush's defense the figures showing that the economy was "already in a recession"by March, 2001.

S_A_M

I appreciate the no ad hominem attach rule and I try to adhere to it myself. My post was in response to yours which said that there had been a recession. There has not been negative growth in this country for decades, so I think we are now in agreement. As far as I know, the only administration quotes that resemble the one above is that the economy had slowed by 3/01.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
let's get this one out of the way quickly: that's not a recession, because there's no negative growth. Now, if growth is
Q1: 5%; Q2: -2.5%; Q3: -2.5%; Q4: 5%, technically we had a 2 quarter recession. But would it matter? Probably not, because the overall growth for the year was about 5% (no, I didn't do the compounding math). In that case, would we worry? Probably not. Problem here is it's more like Q1 and Q4 were 1%, so overall annual growth was small.

Small but not negative, so no "recession" as defined, correct? That was my only point.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) Forget marginal rates and forget the share of the tax cuts. What's most relevant is each person's tax burden at each level of income as a percent matter. Any tax cut, even a completely neutral one, will go mostly to the rich. Why? BEcause they pay a frighteningly large share of all taxes. Marginal rates are also irrelevant in determining who gets the tax cut, because at low levels it's deductions and exemptions that matter more, not marginal rates.

Agreed. This was the intent of my original point, I just stated it poorly.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
Flat Tax!

Flat Tax! Flat Tax! Bear
Your proportionate burden!
Cancel Caymans trip.