Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 218

bilmore · 10-19-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ishiguro is a craftsman. He develops charecter and tells a story better than any other living writer I'm aware of, but he isn't on any soapbox.

No, I didn't mean "point" in the PB sense. "Schtick", or "grabbing theme", or . . .

And I have liked a few of his. But, "Top 100"? C'mon, John D. McDonald has the first 68 or so already sewn up, and that barely leaves room for Michener and DF Wallace.

Replaced_Texan · 10-19-2005, 04:34 PM

Uh, not that I've been here to look, but I would have thought I would have heard the screaming over at the FB from you guys over the elimination of the state income tax deduction and the elimination mortgage deduction.

notcasesensitive · 10-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Uh, not that I've been here to look, but I would have thought I would have heard the screaming over at the FB from you guys over the elimination of the state income tax deduction and the elimination mortgage deduction.

He thinks this doesn't constitute a tax increase? I'm pretty sure I have a good constitutional challenge to the elimination of the state income tax deduction within one year after I moved from a state with zero income tax to one of the highest state income tax jurisdictions. That constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, right Burger?

bilmore · 10-19-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Uh, not that I've been here to look, but I would have thought I would have heard the screaming over at the FB from you guys over elimination of the state income tax deduction and the mortgage deduction.

Are you nuts? Unless you live in NY or CA, or some such place with higher wages, big state income tax rate tables, and huge mortgages, this is a dead-bang winner. Note how he waited until the AMT started to impinge on red-state wage levels? Shrewd . . .

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-19-2005, 04:58 PM

"Arrest Warrant Issued for Delay"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

A standard step given the indictment, but you'll hopefully get a chance to see pictures of the booking and fingerprinting. Maybe a copy of the mug shot for your wall.

S_A_M

P.S. His lawyers have tried to subpoena the DA himself and other prosecutors to testify . . . now that's ballsy.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-19-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you nuts? Unless you live in NY or CA, or some such place with higher wages, big state income tax rate tables, and huge mortgages, this is a dead-bang winner. Note how he waited until the AMT started to impinge on red-state wage levels? Shrewd . . .

True -- it most impacts the Blue States, but folks in the red states like their piddly little deductions too.

BTW -- Congratulations to you rock-ribbed fiscal and national security conservatives on seizing the pimp-hand from Bush (at least until Harriet is confirmed). See where Bush is now taking tougher public stands on illegal immigration?

He's trying to placate y'all by giving a bit on all the issues you've been unhappy about. we'll see if it lasts.

S_A_M

bilmore · 10-19-2005, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
True -- it most impacts the Blue States, but folks in the red states like their piddly little deductions too.

Only up to that point where TurboTax says "Now calculating AMT" . . . followed by "Please ignore all previously-discussed deductions".

bilmore · 10-19-2005, 05:36 PM

I may have to re-think my estimates for H. Clinton's chances now that Ms. Sheehan is ripping her a new one for her war stance.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-19-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I may have to re-think my estimates for H. Clinton's chances now that Ms. Sheehan is ripping her a new one for her war stance.

This can only help. Her base loves her enough for other things that she can withstand the ire of America's own little Dalai Lama.

(BTW - I liked Limbaugh's suggestion that, now that Ms. Sheehan has dared to cross a Clinton, she will soon "be silenced.")

S_A_M

Penske_Account · 10-19-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I may have to re-think my estimates for H. Clinton's chances now that Ms. Sheehan is ripping her a new one for her war stance.

Hank Chinaski · 10-19-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Your wife ran a 4:30 800? were you married to Fringey?

Spanky · 10-19-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
First you get suckered by Paigow into reading the latest dreck from one of the most overrated hacks this side of Norman Mailer.

And now you are letting another person con you into reading the unneccesary ramblings from the 4th least annoying NYT Op-Ed person.

:wtf:

I saw him on charles Rose discussing the book. He is very annoying but some of his ideas seemed interesting. I don't read the NYT and you shouldn't either.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-19-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Rules that are imposed to protect the health of the worker or consumers almost always decrease competition. Same with rules against fraud. They take priority over competition. But when the rules are applied they should be applied with the idea of effecting competition the least.
ho usually has a lot of lobbyists in Washington.

How do rules against fraud reduce or harm competition? I suppose one could say that rules against murder harm competition, because it means the mob can't compete using their business tactics. But fraud is the antithesis of competition--it's using misinformation, duplicity, and other forms of untruths to "compete". It's like the old adage about "letting them play" (that is, don't call penalties/fouls)--all that does is let the hacks win unfairly.

The only way rules against fraud harm competition is if they're so broad that it reduces information flow. For example, some securities disclosure rules seem to have led to less overall information (Rule FD, IIRC), because people now instead of telling some people something tell no one anything.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-19-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
He thinks this doesn't constitute a tax increase? I'm pretty sure I have a good constitutional challenge to the elimination of the state income tax deduction within one year after I moved from a state with zero income tax to one of the highest state income tax jurisdictions. That constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, right Burger?

Huh? Not so sure on that, but the reforms made sense. The basic premise of the state tax part is that if you live in a high tax state you probably get high benefits. Why should the federal gov't subsidize that. The problem is compounded by some states' using sales taxes.

As for mortgages, same problem--what do we get from the subsidy? An "ownership society"? The benefits also accrue more to the rich, beyond just that they have bigger mortgages.

bilmore · 10-19-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The benefits also accrue more to the rich . . .

Actually, equally to the mortgage industry. What public policy argument justifies my newly increased mortgage deduction as a result of my new car purchase?