Another example of saying one thing and doing another

Hi, Clay.

>>an old problem that would disappear entirely with a consumption tax system.<<
Along with a large part of the government's revenues, despite what "Fairtax.org" claims. You simply can't devise a revenue-neutral, comsumption-only tax under which "95% of Americans would pay less tax," as Republicans unning on a "fair tax" in Texas claim. BTW, what happens to business taxes in a consumption-based system -- do they also get a free ride, like those who simply reinvest income without buying things with it?
Another question -- what happens to the states and municipalities when they lose the benefit of the tax-free status for their loans? The resulting cost differential would eithergreatly increase state and local taxes or force drastic cuts in services. My take on a "fair tax" is it's an attempt to force draconian cuts in the scope of government at all levels by starving it of revenue.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Hi, Del.

We've been down this road before -- Teddy Roosevelt made it to Mt. Rushmore because he realized that if the average American wasn't included in the country's largesse, the alternative was the Revolution that Emma Goldman and the other Socialists were trying to foment. We're at the same sort of crossroads now, methinks -- but the liberal wing of the Republican Party, which found the proper balance between the Darwinian capitalists and the socialists (and there were indeed socialists then) is sadly no longer represented. Today's Republicans remind me of the rich man outside whose gates the beggar Lazarus pleaded for scraps -- to the neocons, even trickle down is becoming too much to spare!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... there is no proven failed policy to which they will not adhere to redistribute wealth and institute socialism (or defacto socialism through overregulation and government control and wealth confiscation) under the guise of compassion

Evie

Hi, Evie.

What you call "de facto socialism" is so far from socialism it's laughable. BTW, y'all claim that the WHO is off-base when they say our health care "system" is 78th in the world. OK, the parameters of a good and bad health care system are certainly arguable. Let's ask a more concrete question -- where do you think the US ranks in average mortality rate?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave, many others disagree with your reason why TR is on mount Rushmore.
Here's a link tells alot of interesting information about who designed it, and whe he did what he did:
Link: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrushmore.html

I found it to be ineresting reading, but it does not follow KonkelHistory

'Custer was alive when he left North Dakota'. I had a cousin who was on the crew that carved the monument. Teddy was certainly not politically correct ('speak softly and carry a big stick') contrary to what Dave seems to think.

.

I saw a billboard in South Dakota, from the North Dakota Department of Tourism (or something like that) that had one of the faces on Mt. Rushmore with a baloon caption saying "I wish I was in North Dakota!"

DE

1. They've got their hands in someone else's purse so they can 'help the poor'.
2. They will take any measure necessary to gain their political objectives even if it means ruin for everyone.
3. They're willing to sacrifice the innocent to maintain their political power (abortion).
4. They have no respect for their political opponents preferring rather to demonize or ridicule them.

and Lott's sin. Yes, 'Judas' is a strong term, but it seems to describe the Dems so well as they unremittingly attack the country and its leadership for their own political gain. Which point in my post do you think is untrue or exaggerated? I think you need to show that before you can claim demonization. What did you think of Dave's characterization of Republicans as selfish, rich men who have absolutely no compassion for poor and suffering people?

I never 'expounded on Byrd's virtue'. Get a grip.

Voicing objections about the government is every American's duty and should be applauded. You'll have to make a good case for your accusation of 'attacks on the country'.

I'm not claiming demonizing, you are demonizing and I'm just pointing it out. How else would you describe calling someone Judas? Unless you think that's a good thing to be called...

Maybe plank isn't accurate, perhaps welding mask would be more the thing you're hampered by.

Dan

You can't explain why, but you're quite certain of the truth of your accusations. I guess that means you're the authority.

Voicing objections is one thing. Attempting to divide the country for partisan gain is another. The Dems are showing every day in the 9/11 hearings that their concern is not fact finding, but partisan gain. Dividing the country in the face of the enemy is despicable, and that is what the Dems are doing. Perhaps you would like that sugar coated, but I don't see the point in doing that.

Did you know that there were no hearings on Pearl Harbor until after WW II was over? The Democrats and Republicans apparently recognized that hearings would be too divisive. Kudos to the Republicans for putting the good of the country first. It's too bad modern Dems haven't been willing to do the same.

Did you know that there was an election in 1944. There was plenty of criticism of FDR.

Do you wish the nation to wait until the war on terrorism is over to investigate the personal, policy, and systemic failings that preceded 9-11? When will that be and how will we recognize it?

And stop with the sanctimony about political gain. The administration leaked the name of CIA personnel for political gain. Where was your outrage at that? It's a political time. Motives are easily questioned on all sides. With luck some good will come along with attempts at political gain.

Dan

Leak a name!? Get real! The stakes are far higher than that. You're still focused on narrow partisan issues. Yes, in WW II they waited until the war was won before they started 'investigating'. Criticizing the President does NOT mean attacking his war policy. There's nothing to prevent serious people from seeking serious answers to serious questions. That doesn't require the kind of circus that the Dems have been operating.

Hi, KP.

It's particularly used for Catholic Churches, where you genuflect to the tabernacle, but one can also genuflect to a King or Lord.

"First you get down on your knees,
fiddle with your rosaries,
bow tour head with great respect,
and genuflect! genuflect! genuflect!"
("The Vatican Rag, by Tom Lehrer)

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

.

The problems are, obviously, not be caused by the operation of the committee or the questions that are being asked. The problem for the administration is in the answers that are being given. The administration would be much better off today if they had agreed to the formation of the committee earlier, if they had appointed a more legitimate chair earlier, if they had cooperated earlier. They've mishandled their end of things from day 1 and are paying for their usual shortsightedness with a committee that feels no reason to give bush or his minions any leeway now. Respect is paid with respect. Disrespect is paid with what bush is getting now.

Dan

Republicans are grilling Condaleeza Rice and not even bothering to listen to her answer? If President Bush had respected the Dems, they would not be engaging in partisan attacks? Right, and I was born yesterday. The Dems will do ANYTHING to regain their power, and that includes partisan division in the face of the enemy.

No, if bush had respected the committee things might be different.

Dan

...about Dan "expounding on Byrd's virtue and Lott's sin?"

And BTW, Trent Lott said the country would be better off if a man who ran on a segregationist platform had been elected. It may not be a "sin" but it was a few other things, none of them good.

Dan made Byrd sound like a statesman while criticizing Lott. Perhaps you would like to commend a former KKK wizard to us?

He denies that. Since the forum is now searchable, perhaps you could provide a link.

I still can't see where I was expounding on Byrd's virtue. I'm only paraphrasing other's comments. This is my only comment about Byrd in that post:

I have seen no one say, nor am I saying, that Byrd's participation in the KKK forty-plus years ago was anything but disgraceful.

Is that 'expounding on his virtue'? Not in reality-world, no.

Dan

This was not about Byrd? 'a senator who has served long and hard would have been of service to the country in any period of its history.' Any period includes the Civil War period.

And recall the contrast to Lott/Thurmond; 'Lott was saying that a viciously segregationist president would have been a great thing in 1948 and the benefits of such policies would be felt to the present day. Clearly he is endorsing the segregationist candidate's platform.'

One has to work hard to remember which man was in the KKK as a grand wizard.