Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Thought of the Day
To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors.
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 12:04 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I am sure that, every chap with a golden spoon in his mouth is giving an heart felt aplause to late mr.Mill.
# posted by 
: 3:49 AM
: 3:49 AM
Shouldn't you be more conservative, living, as you do, in the most conservative province of Canada? Thanks for the knee jerk 'down with the rich' reaction your ilk apparently can do it its sleep.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Roger, I think that this comment bears some examination. What we are currently experiencing is a de facto oligarchy of the uber rich.
Given the current state of the deficit, against which the 3 or so billion dollars a week that we are expending in Iraq does not count, Mr. Mills comment is to me a pleasentry that we as a nation cannot afford.
Shifting gears, this morning, when my radio dial inadvertantly strayed to NPR, I was informed that the marines are calling up 1,200 reservists--inactive reservists I believe--for deployment to Iraq next spring.
I recall a recent post in which you advised that the services had met or exceeded their recruiting goals. I also know that the commandant of the Marine Corps would like to increase its size by about 4,000 but is unable to do so b/c of the expense. What is the explanation here?
Regards,
T
Given the current state of the deficit, against which the 3 or so billion dollars a week that we are expending in Iraq does not count, Mr. Mills comment is to me a pleasentry that we as a nation cannot afford.
Shifting gears, this morning, when my radio dial inadvertantly strayed to NPR, I was informed that the marines are calling up 1,200 reservists--inactive reservists I believe--for deployment to Iraq next spring.
I recall a recent post in which you advised that the services had met or exceeded their recruiting goals. I also know that the commandant of the Marine Corps would like to increase its size by about 4,000 but is unable to do so b/c of the expense. What is the explanation here?
Regards,
T
# posted by : 3:12 PM
: 3:12 PM
Tony, one more time. I'm OK with paying the rent, my fair share of what it costs to run the government and guard the coast. Making me pay more than my fair share is wrong. As is allowing some slacker not to pay his fair share. Taking more than the fair share from a person with a flat rate is bad, but having a progressive rate is evil (and I refer to Mill, who could read Latin and Greek upside down when he was 5, for support). Lower rated tend actually to produce more tax revenues (at least they have done so every time they've been tried) so it is not deleterious to the nation's fiscal health to lower tax rates. I thought they called up nearly 5,000 of the Marine Reserves, who, like Michael Corleone in Godfather III,-- every time they think they were out, they drag them back in. Good marines are of a limited quantity, I guess. I believe that sometimes the military doesn't have the money to do exactly what it wants. I think that's good. The Marines never bitched and moaned as much as they did about the short end of the stick they clearly got at Guadalcanal, since then they've gotten what they needed if not what they wanted. Take care, man.
Well clzdwh. You've broken your vow of silence. Conrad Aiken was right. All lovely things must have an ending.
I understand that you are an attorney and as such I expected that you would have more regard for the evidence and facts but I suspose you are infected w/ the same lunacy as the administartion you support.
Please remember that when the Supreme Court annointed Mr. Bush president, he inherited a budget that was balanced and was predicted to run a surplus. Now, we should praise him for cutting the deficit to 296 billion from 346.3 billion. This sounds even better c/c the White House predicted a budget deficit of 427 billion.
Let me take the wind out of your sdales Roger and state that the deficit is 2.3% of GDP and the deficit as a % of GDP has been higher in 17 of the last 25 years. (See Ronald Reagan)
The truth is that most people when they vote care more about taxes than the deficit, but lest you start dancing the kazachok, remember that opeations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the deficit and cost 3-4 billion dollars a week.
So, let's have a few more tax breaks for the uber rich while the rest of pay the freight.
You see George W. Bush doesn't care about the average American. He only cares about very wealthy Americans which is why our tax system is morphing from an income tax to a salary tax.
Rog, please check your e-mail.
As ever,
T
I understand that you are an attorney and as such I expected that you would have more regard for the evidence and facts but I suspose you are infected w/ the same lunacy as the administartion you support.
Please remember that when the Supreme Court annointed Mr. Bush president, he inherited a budget that was balanced and was predicted to run a surplus. Now, we should praise him for cutting the deficit to 296 billion from 346.3 billion. This sounds even better c/c the White House predicted a budget deficit of 427 billion.
Let me take the wind out of your sdales Roger and state that the deficit is 2.3% of GDP and the deficit as a % of GDP has been higher in 17 of the last 25 years. (See Ronald Reagan)
The truth is that most people when they vote care more about taxes than the deficit, but lest you start dancing the kazachok, remember that opeations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the deficit and cost 3-4 billion dollars a week.
So, let's have a few more tax breaks for the uber rich while the rest of pay the freight.
You see George W. Bush doesn't care about the average American. He only cares about very wealthy Americans which is why our tax system is morphing from an income tax to a salary tax.
Rog, please check your e-mail.
As ever,
T
# posted by : 1:05 PM
: 1:05 PM
Tony, my memory is not the razor it used to be but I could have sworn that George Bush became president after the Electoral College voted and Bush won. The Chief Justice (the late Rehnquist) applied the oath in January but that was about it. Oh, you mean the court case where the US Supreme Court stopped an out of control, partisan Florida Supreme Court from aiding in Al Gore's attempted theft of an election George won fair and square. If you think it was otherwise your self delusion has reached new levels. I responded to the email, thanks very much.
Post a Comment
<< Home
