LIE
1.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. 3. The Primary tool of politics used by Republicans.
Now if Luskins analysis is wrong, I'm sure Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman would have columns that dispute his assertion... yet it's been over two weeks that their nemesis published this (along with a WSJ editorial saying the sane thing) and I've seen nothing! Hmmm, maybe Supply Side economics DOES work.
Then the economy should be doing so well that the Bush regime doesn't feel the need to sell off public lands to pay for rural schools. Wake up. They are pissing on us and telling us it's raining.
Selling off public land to pay for rural schools?... Sounds like a good idea to me... If the zoning rules are set correctly, this is a no brainer. Letting a private citizen maintain the property makes a lot of sense. How much does the Sierra Club take in on an annual basis? Instead of wasting money on lobbyists and ad campaigns, have 'em buy the land outright and preserve it instead of asking the government to maintain it for them.
Or how about tax corporations at the same rate they were taxed in the 1950s? You are obviously far more conservative than I am. I hate the direction this country has taken and am so angry I can hardly see straight. The only interests that are represented in D.C. are those of corporations. We are over $700 billion in debt to nations like China. We can't keep this up. The Bush regime is killing us with more debt, more pollution, more military buildup, more wars....
As to selling off the public land, jfh you simply don't get it. It is public land. It is there for the benefit of the public. That also means the public pays to protect and maintain it. Not a corporation (whose interests do not include the public or the environment). Not even a foundation. Not everything in this country has to be owned by companies. Not everything in this country has to be sold. But Republicans and many Democrats have bought so deeply into this "whore thinking" that they can't see beyond the bottom line. This is the fundamental difference between right and left. Right sees the role of government as one of protector of the business class. Left sees the role of government as protector of those in society who can't protect themselves.
lynn, in the 1800s the federal government GAVE AWAY land so that people could settle it. How does the public NOT benefit if the government, elected by us, makes money on land that is owned by the public.
We live in a capitalist society. It's the reason why we are the richest, most well off countries in the world. If this land isn't being used by the public as a park to be enjoyed by many, why not sell it to someone, who will be a good steward of the land, perhaps even making money that we strengthen the economy even more.
What do you have against businesses? Are you not employed by one?
Troll? Moi? I beg to differ... By the way, what is your standard of measuring the wealth and well being of a country (e.g. why is my assertion a common fallacy)
I'm guessing you are in a comfortable place financially. I won't tell you where I work but will tell you that I am a graphic designer who is a state employee. And that my mom, aunt and I all live together because none of us can afford to live alone. And that even though I have health insurance, I was left with over $30,000 in medical bills after my husband died from cancer. If I sound angry it's because I am. Very much so. I was raised to believe that this is a good country to live in but this is not the same country now. For the past 25 years the wealth has flowed upward at an alarming rate. American CEOs now make 431 time what their lowest paid workers make. In Europe and Japan the rates are no more than 25 times higher. I could go on and on and quote more stats but I'm too darned tired.
9 comments:
Hey John, you DO realize that the CBO's estimates for the "costs" of the Capital Gains cuts were exactly the opposite:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/nrof_luskin.asp
Now if Luskins analysis is wrong, I'm sure Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman would have columns that dispute his assertion... yet it's been over two weeks that their nemesis published this (along with a WSJ editorial saying the sane thing) and I've seen nothing! Hmmm, maybe Supply Side economics DOES work.
Then the economy should be doing so well that the Bush regime doesn't feel the need to sell off public lands to pay for rural schools.
Wake up. They are pissing on us and telling us it's raining.
Selling off public land to pay for rural schools?... Sounds like a good idea to me... If the zoning rules are set correctly, this is a no brainer. Letting a private citizen maintain the property makes a lot of sense. How much does the Sierra Club take in on an annual basis? Instead of wasting money on lobbyists and ad campaigns, have 'em buy the land outright and preserve it instead of asking the government to maintain it for them.
Or how about tax corporations at the same rate they were taxed in the 1950s?
You are obviously far more conservative than I am. I hate the direction this country has taken and am so angry I can hardly see straight. The only interests that are represented in D.C. are those of corporations.
We are over $700 billion in debt to nations like China. We can't keep this up. The Bush regime is killing us with more debt, more pollution, more military buildup, more wars....
As to selling off the public land, jfh you simply don't get it. It is public land. It is there for the benefit of the public. That also means the public pays to protect and maintain it. Not a corporation (whose interests do not include the public or the environment). Not even a foundation.
Not everything in this country has to be owned by companies. Not everything in this country has to be sold.
But Republicans and many Democrats have bought so deeply into this "whore thinking" that they can't see beyond the bottom line.
This is the fundamental difference between right and left. Right sees the role of government as one of protector of the business class. Left sees the role of government as protector of those in society who can't protect themselves.
lynn, in the 1800s the federal government GAVE AWAY land so that people could settle it. How does the public NOT benefit if the government, elected by us, makes money on land that is owned by the public.
We live in a capitalist society. It's the reason why we are the richest, most well off countries in the world. If this land isn't being used by the public as a park to be enjoyed by many, why not sell it to someone, who will be a good steward of the land, perhaps even making money that we strengthen the economy even more.
What do you have against businesses? Are you not employed by one?
It's the reason why we are the richest, most well off countries in the world.
Common fallacy. We are not.
John, where in the heck did you pick up this troll?
Troll? Moi? I beg to differ... By the way, what is your standard of measuring the wealth and well being of a country (e.g. why is my assertion a common fallacy)
This site has a comprehensive comparison of the U.S. with other industrialized nations. We don't compare very well.
I'm guessing you are in a comfortable place financially. I won't tell you where I work but will tell you that I am a graphic designer who is a state employee. And that my mom, aunt and I all live together because none of us can afford to live alone. And that even though I have health insurance, I was left with over $30,000 in medical bills after my husband died from cancer.
If I sound angry it's because I am. Very much so. I was raised to believe that this is a good country to live in but this is not the same country now. For the past 25 years the wealth has flowed upward at an alarming rate. American CEOs now make 431 time what their lowest paid workers make. In Europe and Japan the rates are no more than 25 times higher.
I could go on and on and quote more stats but I'm too darned tired.
Post a Comment