I know... I've waited 24 years for this to happen again. The last 3 years, they have come close. Hell, 3 years ago, they made it and blew it. It was not that bad for me, because the Sox derserved that! One day I would like to see the Cubbys get it. Of course they will have to play in a stadium devoid of their moron fan base. I've gone Cards mad. I vowed if they made it to the Series this year, I would shave my face with an Imperial, like Speizio and die it red. I've got the imperial as of Thursday Night! Today, I get it died red. If they win, I'm shaving my hed and dieing the fuzz red. I'd really like to have a STL shaved in the back too. 24 years! That's a long time to wait to see them win again. So to keep this sort of on topic, they should tax the crap out of the bastards that sell that expensive beer at the ball park.
I'm quoting this for the record. Pictures are required (not the back) upon unlikely victory. No post editing
Yeah, I am thinking of doing a bit of Nintendoesque Voyeurism. Are you sure you want to go through that?
Love it! love it! hopefully all these taxes hit you guys and nintendo's fans. Then I get tremendous tax relief! so long as you raise enough...I'll roll over and support repeal of the estate tax. Just as long as it covers bigger deficits. There are some pics over at "Why fat people aren't beheaded" Tax by the pound and all deficits will be wiped out!
I've always been concerned by the amount of oxygen that fat people use up. They are using more than their fair share of air and space. Tax them!!! Lose weight? Consider that a TAX deduction
Yeah, I just love it when the goverment "gives me" MY money. That's so generous of them. All I ask is that they just let me keep more of it to begin with. That or let me decide what part of society I want to put my "fair share".
If they let you keep your money, you might not spend it right. Who knows what sort of crazy ideas you got in your head
of course most the money from taxes goes to defense and law enforcement that would be great if you could just choose to pay taxes on stuff you agree on, like I wouldn't have to help pay for the Iraq war or oil company subsides, I don't really mind helping to pay for pell grants and roads
You sir have defined liberalism. Which is exactly where i would choose to place my money. Without that, Freedom and Liberty would cease to exist, and money would not mean a thing at that point. And you would instead reach a headless end with an empty tank. Ifin that be the case, why not just find a kid that needs money for college and give it to him? Hell, you're not having any anyway.
Well, it would be nice if we followed the constitution to a tee ie we official declared war, and we really questioned whether welfare was a part of federal authority. A gentle swipe to left and right behaviour.
Sometimes Corporate Welfare works. Think of Harely Davidson, [SIZE=-1]Chrysler, Amtrak and others. [/SIZE]
I spent part of the last 2 weeks looking back at a debt explosion that occurred in the commercial real estate world in the US around the late 1980's and early 1990's. Its impact was drastic in that industry and for all its players. The impact severely limited bank funding to all industries and had a draining and lagging effect on other businesses in that lending was restricted. It ended commercial real estate loans for about 3-7 years (or longer) (depending on the type) It didn't kill the economy as a whole but put a serious nick into it. In researching and recalling, its occurance probably took about 10-12 years. I didn't personally start to see it till about 1983...but it started earlier. It started after the high interest rate period of the late 1970's. That period dented the Savings and Loan industry. Till that period S&L's were restricted to making only residential loans. After that high interest period lending on commercial properties was opened up to the S&L industry. They made tons of bad loans over about a decade of time. The debt problem grew year by year. I recall hearing smarter people than I warning about the issue at least 2 years before all lending got shut down. The problem was becoming evident though noone did anything about it. The analogy about federal debt and things like the estate tax.....at least as I see it are as follows: Responsable (probably non-political) economists see a growing federal debt problem. there is a reference to that issue from a non-political source ; http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1677034&postcount=30 The simple fact is that it is easier to lesson and reduce the potential problem by dealing with it earlier rather than later. Waiting till the problem becomes horrendous leads to drastic measures. Now suppose we added $100 billion of federal debt today. Fed's take loans and at current rates payments made on the fed debt come to about $4 billion/year. At the size of the fed government Nobody really suffers with that increase today. One alternative is the government absorbs and keeps on going. Second alternative is that the gov decreases $4 billion in other expenditures and cuts a little bit out of different programs. Could be welfare, roads, congressional earmarks, cuts waste and spending, defense, .....anything. They could take out a $100 million here, there, and everywhere and the impact wouldn't be drastic. Alternatively the gov could eliminate certain proposed tax cuts. Take the estate tax as an example. As I said earlier, get a tax increase of $1,000/year. Bam it hits yours and my pocket. I don't like it. Gas prices go up $1/gallon. If you drive 20,000/miles in year with a car getting 20 miles to the gallon. Bam you are hit with an expense of $1,000/year. Your house tax assessment goes up. Bam you are hit with higher taxes. All those examples hit us today. The debt issue will hit big time in the future. It's impact is not being felt on a similar dollar basis today. It's projected growth is through the roof. The consequences are major league ugly. It would be wise to look earlier rather than later at a combination of ways to avoid a horrendous debt crisis. At least that is my read on singular issues that could affect the debt crisis.....such as the estate tax issue.
earlpearl: How does your theory account for the demonstrated effect of tax increases shrinking the economy, and thus causing tax revenue to fall in the long term?
Many reputable economists dispute the deep effectiveness of tax cuts to spur the economy enough generate enough tax money to make up for the cuts. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. In going back to look at and try and recall elements of the commercial real estate caused recession of the late 1980's and early 1990's. It leads me to suggest that some of the economic boom of the 1980's during Reagan's presidency was probably due to the growth in the commercial real estate business across the country. That boom caused more office space to be built than any decade before it. There was more office space built in suburbs than all aggregate suburban office space before then. That growth spurt was incredibly favorable to the US economy. Unlike almost any other business that type of investment is virtually totally domestic. Materials come from the states. All employment is local. The development spreads throughout an immense number of individuals and businesses and is very effective as an economic multiplyer. The growth had zero to do with lower tax rates. ZERO. In fact during the 1980's one of the killer tax write off programs tha was a huge inducement to develop real estate was killed off. Regardless record construction continued through the decade. The growth was spurred by incredibly easy and low cost money available from all types of sources. Frankly the development boom and the developers, buyers and builders couldn't have given a cr@p out of taxes as the profit scene looked so good. I'm sure that was a serous contributor to economic strength in the 1980's. Combine that with lower tax rates and other favorable situations and there was a boom. But don't attribute it to just the lower tax rates. That is a political myth. During the 1990's we had another economic boom. That came with the tech and telecom explosion. That occurred during periods of higher taxes that arose through Bush I and Clinton. Yet there was a boom. Don't get me wrong. Every little bit impacts things but I strongly suggest that marginal differences in taxes have a marginal impact on an economy. During the early years of the Bush II presidency he lowered taxes...but the economy was shrinking due to a recession after the tech boom. People can argue that the tax cuts "cushioned" the recession. Big deal. It had a minor impact as opposed to the cyclical conditions of business. The opposite of what you suggest, Will, is that the American economy boomed during the 1990's after both Bush I and Clinton raised some taxes.