A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now that's just pathetic.

I don't give a shit what the idiot says- but fucking with my avatar crosses an artistic line and if you can't see that it's because you have no artistic sense.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't give a shit what the idiot says- but fucking with my avatar crosses an artistic line and if you can't see that it's because you have no artistic sense.

So it's not an homage?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So it's not an homage?

NTTAWWT.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't give a shit what the idiot says- but fucking with my avatar crosses an artistic line and if you can't see that it's because you have no artistic sense.

You don't think your avatar is fuckable?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He still said X, and I, for one, appreciate that you are no longer trying to defend the part of his statement that I was posting about. So stop digging.

Digging?

Ty, don't ever change. Too much logic in the world is always stifling.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So it's not an homage?

You think the knock offs prints of the mona lisa for sale at stands along the Rue de Rivoli are a compliment?
Fine. It stands. But hear me, all of you, I am better at photoshop and all of your avatars are now at risk. You are either with me or against me.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You think the knock offs prints of the mona lisa for sale at stands along the Rue de Rivoli are a compliment?
Fine. It stands. But hear me, all of you, I am better at photoshop and all of your avatars are now at risk. You are either with me or against me.

I dunno. My avatar is from the Department of Homeland Security. Isn't it some sort of crime to deface government property?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, if we want to be completely accurate, it was the lack of taxes on certain teas. But really, you're kind of ignoring the ". . . without representation part."

on your previous:

4) Again, you're always going to be able to squeeze more out of the rich. But why the obsession with squeezing out taxes? What happened to the idea of government for the people? You talk like the first priority should be funding government--I think the opposite: how to we reduce government to the minimum necessary. Hiding taxes by hitting up the rich is one of the most disingenuous solutions. The poor, who derive the greatest benefit from the social services offered by gov't should actually see what it means to pay for them.

You and I are taking a different approach to tax policy.

As I understand your point of view, you are saying that all taxes are bad; the only acceptable goal is reducing them to the greatest extent possible.

My analysis comes from this perspective: (i) we have the goal of providing a certain level of services and support; (ii) therefore the prtoper aim of a tax system is to raise the necessary amount of revenue; (iii) we want the system to be as fair as possible; but (iv) we don't want the system to create greater hardship than we are willing to remedy.

I disagree with your fundamental premises. Or at least I define reducing government to the minimum amount necessary differently. If we place a greater burden for paying for governmental services on the poor because, you allege, they derive the most benefit from them and should "see what it means to pay for them" then we are in fact increasing the need for government services by reducing the amount the poor have to provide for their own support, education, health care, etc.

Furthermore, I think you are very wrong in assuming that the poor place the greatest demand on public services. Someone who has never and will never be able to afford an airplane ticket has no need for our airports, air traffic control, and the massive subsidies and bailouts we have bestowed upon the airlines. An inner-city working class person who doesn't own a car and won't ever buy one doesn't need an interstate highway system, or bailouts for Chrysler. I'm sure you see where I'm going here, so I won't continue my list.

I personally couldn't give a shit if people in the Smokies have power, running water, etc., so I would just as soon the TVA never have been formed. I think it's absurd that I have to pay more than $2 for a gallon of milk but dairy faarmers are allowed to form compacts that would be antitrust violations but for Congress's approval.

We all have our own particular idea of whose ox should be gored. The difference is that some of us recognize that one of the functions of a representative democracy is to spread some of the benefits and burdens of this most economically blessed nation on Earth.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I dunno. My avatar is from the Department of Homeland Security. Isn't it some sort of crime to deface government property?

You're quasi-governemntal. I will no longer discuss this. The time to talk is over. I beleive I know who is guilty, and they will be punished. A true nuisance sock can be an annoyance, as I shall soon remind you all.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A true nuisance sock can be an annoyance, as I shall soon remind you all.

Isn't that what you are now?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Isn't that what you are now?

I think he's going to sic his wife on us. He may be 6'10", but she's the nasty one.

(Hank, have her do me first - I want to see what she can do with the black and white movie still theme).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Isn't that what you are now?

but I turned nice this year-

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
but I turned nice this year-

Funny, I hadn't noticed. Are you sure?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Digging?

Ty, don't ever change. Too much logic in the world is always stifling.

See my edited post 3254, the original of which you were responding to here. I did miss one of yours, and have now responded.

In brief: Your description of FDR's view is fair. But that's not what Hume said in the second paragraph here,* because "supplanted" means "replaced," not "supplemented." The fact that -- as you point out -- he said something accurate in the paragraph before it does not change this.

* Clicking on this link presumably increases FOX's ad revenues.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Funny, I hadn't noticed. Are you sure?

Cite please.