On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:14:16PM -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

P.P.S. I LOLed when you said "people like to hate the Bush tax cuts, but they are working." How is it that they're "working"? Are they _designed_ to ruin the economy and bog us down in an unnecessary war? Because if that was the plan, apparently they worked!

The expiration of the tax cuts in 2010 will have an enormous impact on my financial status. My federal tax due will _increase_ by approximately $17 per day. That's more than my car payment. Thanks, -- Hal

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't get what your anecdote about IHOP means. So because you saw someone you _suspect_ was illegal simply because he didn't speak English (huh?) working at a job where he made minimum+ wages, then therefore illegals aren't doing low-paid work anywhere?

My point on their English is that they were recent, meaning they obviously hadn't taken an ESL course to gain citizenship, or had been here long enough to be under the Regan amnesty. I know they were illegal, it's not a guess on their handle of English, it was a point on how fresh they were to this country. The point i was responding to was one of letting the illegals wwork the low paying jobs so they can pay taxes, and also that they are working jobs regular Americans won't do. Both of which are false.

I appreciate that you, through obvious keen deductive reasoning, have deduced someone's immigration status simply via their language abilities, but I think you fail to realize that just because you know two examples doesn't make your case typical. The reality is that the garment industry (though not so much any more, as it moved overseas) and crop harvesting employ many, many illegal immigrants, and they usually aren't paid minimum wage.

So the arguments made about illegals working low paying jobs the Americans don't want being false you seem to be supporting. Why are you arguing with me?

As far as working two jobs go, apparently you've just had it easy in life. I worked two jobs (loaded trucks and worked at Pizza Hut) for five years while paying my way through college. I also speak Spanish. Hrm, does that make me an illegal immigrant?!

Where did I say I only work 1 job? Why does that matter to the argument of an illegal working more than one job that an American could do, and as you point out, aren't low paying. I am a citizen, I have a right to work any or any number of jobs I choose. An illegal should not be working, period.

You probably don't work on a fruit farm. I don't either. However, I happen to know that fruit picking is overwhelmingly done by illegal immigrants, as the pay is extremely low. I also believe a lot of harvesting of other crops are done by "migrant workers", which are also poorly paid and is another way of saying "illegal immigrant".

So now you argue about low paying jobs done by illegals?

Jeffrey.

P.S. Please learn to use paragraphs more or we might suspect you of being an illegal immigrant based upon your poor mastery of English...

Oh, a grammar nazi, too? I had 3 distinct paragraphs. One that summarized points of "jobs we won't do," a second that recounted the stats of the 2006 tax season, and a third that made statements about fact vs opinion. Where have I gone wrong in my use of the English language oh sage master of communication? (Sarcasm. Really, I don't care.) Or are you trying to draw me into a troll about my skills of English vs those of whom I was describing earlier? Oh, wait, I've been an Editor and published before. Your bad.

P.P.S. I LOLed when you said "people like to hate the Bush tax cuts, but they are working." How is it that they're "working"? Are they _designed_ to ruin the economy and bog us down in an unnecessary war? Because if that was the plan, apparently they worked!

How did the tax cuts (that have brought more revenue to the treasury) ruined the economy and done anything to the war? Oh, we are in a recession, is that the current economy scare line? Is that it, because just a week or so ago I heard that we had nearly 2% growth in the last quarter. A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of *negative* growth. Jon.

...

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com> wrote:

...

Well, I am sorry to hear that you have been laboring for so long below minimum wage.

If I live in a nice house and obviously have the means to help others, and there are people that come to my door for help, if I do not answer the door then I am being irresponsible. It is not a bad thing to have money and be wealthy (relative to the countries we are discussing we are very wealthy), it is another thing to be responsible with that wealth and not use it for the betterment of others. I don't understand people who feel so threatened by people from other countries coming over here to try and make a better life for their families back in their countries. Personally, I admire them for having the courage to do what is necessary in life to try and give their kids a better life. If they make the money here to send their kids to a better school, then maybe their kids will not be coming here to work but will be working in their own country. Probably doing the jobs that we will not be able to do in the future because of the lowering of the educational systems here in the US.

Phil

From: James Sissel [mailto:jimsissel@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:45 PM To: Phil Thayer Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008

And have you ever worked one of "those" jobs? I have for years and your arguments are very hollow. Let them stay in their own country and make their own contry better. Just because you live in a shit house doesn't give you the right to break into my nice house and live there.

Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com> wrote:

I agree with you. However, when the procedure to become legal becomes so cumbersome that a person's family may starve or otherwise not survive, then it becomes a necessity to them. At the same time there are jobs here that due to the type of work it is and the pay scale nobody is willing to take except the people who are desperate enough to put their lives at risk to come here and work them. The combination of these two elements mean one of two things will happen. Either we will have a continuing influx of illegal aliens doing the work that nobody else wants to do or the jobs that nobody else wants to do will be moved overseas and everyone will be mad about jobs moving overseas. At least of the illegal aliens are here in the US working they will be paying taxes just like we do. If the jobs go overseas we will not have that tax revenue and all of our taxes will go up.

Phil

From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:19 PM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008

Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures.

Follow the laws and its not such a bog deal.

Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people.

Brian Kelsay

________________________________

From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:09 PM To: watts@jayhawks.net; James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

Really? The Mexicans wrote GNOME? I didn't know that. The comment about support for illegal aliens might be construed as racist but, I think it is just paranoia about losing a low paying job that nobody else in the US wants to do anyways.

From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Watts Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:52 PM To: James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksAct of 2008

Espero que no usas GNOME, que fue escrito por los mexicanos, después de todo!

Espero que algún día la gente pueda superar su racismo hacia hispanos.

Jeffrey.

P.S. By the way, this is a Linux list. Just in case you've forgotten. Good luck in November.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy.

_______________________________________________

Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

--

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I'm sure they work some minimum wage jobs. I'm just pointing out that your comments are flimsy and smell of racism. My mother-in-law's sister is an American citizen and speaks very little English. So what?

When did I ever make a point of the racial origin of the people I described? I clearly recall never mentioning a race, but nationalities. I also never mentioned a specific language other than English. So, how am I a racist, or are you just troll baiting?

You offered as part of your "proof" that they were working two jobs. I pointed out that that isn't very unusual.

The fact that they are employed at all is a big enough issue, let alone being employed at more than one job. I was making a point about illegals working in multiple jobs "that Americans won't do" not about how the number of jobs defines a persons legal status. You came up with that on your own to deflect the issue.

I'm arguing that the bulk of the jobs done by illegal aliens are jobs that are in violation of labor laws.

Wow. We agree on something. Illegals are working illegally. Why has it taken this long to come to that point?

It's called "irony". And yes, while you used paragraphs, you obviously don't know when to properly use them, as your writing was hard to read and poorly formed. Making judgements about folks for poor English skills while writing poorly is ironic.

People who can't speak the local language while working amongst and for groups of people that do. Irony. Dividing my post into groups of topical sentences. Irony. I fail to see your point, though I see what you were trying to do. I am not writing for a professional basis here, yet the people I was describing were working in jobs that require interpersonal communication. I write for free here, thus my application of the formal rules of grammar and structure are not being followed to the point that I would if I were being fiscally compensated for it. I still fail to see your irony.

You obviously live in a different country than I do, sir. In my country milk and other basic foods have doubled in price, gasoline is through the roof, my house lost value, my neighbors have been foreclosed on, the deficit and debt are at historical highs, and inflation is the highest in almost thirty years.

Fuel costs aren't tied to the tax rate, but rather the value of the dollar (through equity adjustments) and market rates. Food costs have been historically low due to govt sponsored subsidies that prevented the market from raising prices in reaction to economic conditions. Now the prices go up and people scream bloody murder at the correction in prices that were artificially low. How is that related to the tax cuts? Current foreclosure rates were rising, yes. In 2007 Missouri had a foreclosure rate of .91%. Now it's over 1%. How is that related to the tax cuts and and people working low income jobs? I work in an industry that involves real estate agents and home sales. Houses are still being bought and sold (just like they were back in the late 70's when interest rates were nearly quadruple what they are now), but it's mostly the people who took out loans that they shouldn't have qualified for that are having trouble. Loan interest rates are extremely low. How is that related to the previous discussion? You still haven't answered what I asked: How did the tax cuts (that have brought more revenue to the treasury) ruined the economy and done anything to the war?

I guess in your country everything is peachy, all due to the excellent work of George Bush and co.

And how is that a part of the tax cuts? I'm not arguing good vs bad on Bush as a whole, but the tax cuts. Govt spending is the real bad issue right now. That's where the debt and deficit come from, read the facts. Jon.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com>wrote:

Fuel costs are DIRECTLY affected by the value of the US dollar. The US dollar has been plummeting in recent years due to the increasing debt load of the US government and the subsequent devaluation of US Treasury bonds. The tax breaks dramatically increased that debt load, and therefore contribute to the devaluation of the US dollar.

I should have added that the poor financial footing the government is on affects perception of the value of the US dollar on exchange markets. This perception is key, and much like a corporation might have its credit rating devalued due to poor financial performance or management, our dollar isn't perceived to be as valuable of a currency to own recently. This scares off investment in Treasury bonds, and so forth. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

On 8/13/08 12:39 AM, "Jeffrey Watts" <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Fuel costs aren't tied to the tax rate, but rather the value of the dollar (through equity adjustments) and market rates. Food costs have been historically low due to govt sponsored subsidies that prevented the market from raising prices in reaction to economic conditions. Now the prices go up and people scream bloody murder at the correction in prices that were artificially low. How is that related to the tax cuts?

Fuel costs are DIRECTLY affected by the value of the US dollar. The US dollar has been plummeting in recent years due to the increasing debt load of the US government and the subsequent devaluation of US Treasury bonds. The tax breaks dramatically increased that debt load, and therefore contribute to the devaluation of the US dollar.

The dropping dollar increases fuel costs (as oil is traded in dollars), which not only affects costs of basic goods (as they must be shipped) but also dramatically increases the cost of cereal food products such as wheat, corn, soybean, etc as farmers are planting corn in droves to be used in ethanol production, which due to the high fuel costs is now very lucrative.

So yes, the tax breaks and poor fiscal management of the GOP and Bush have directly lead to higher fuel prices and basic goods costs. Yes, speculation and increasing demand also contribute, but the poor financial footing the US government has right now is a major problem, one that will only get worse as we spend spend spend and yet are foolish enough to want lower taxes. Can't have both.

Confidence in a currency is not as simple as saying "More debt, bad, less debt, good." If it were, currency trading would not be nearly as profitable (or pregnant with risk) as it currently is for its participants. There are dozens of major streams of economic thought, and currency traders tend to fall into all of them. They tend to follow those ideas when they make decisions about whether to buy or sell currency. It is those decisions that makes the dollar "high" or "low." There are a lot of things weighing on the currency right now, and most of them are out of the control of the government. The war certainly weighs in, as a nation's political standing has an effect on its economic standing. But I think there are some more fundamental issues effecting the currency, and therefore, even if we had never gone to Iraq or Afghanistan, we would still be in this situation today. It is ethnocentric (and dumb) to give George Bush (or any politician) credit for tanking the currency. People invest money where they see the highest, most predictable returns. Thirty years ago, the greenback, the yen, and the pound were the only currencies with substantial trading power, because the American, Japanese, and British economies were the only economies with substantial growing power. Today, however, the EU has allowed the Europeans to combine into a super-economy, and developing countries of thirty years ago (the Asian Tigers, China, Indonesia, several South American economies, some African economies) are now established in their own right. That economic power means that companies doing business overseas need to have access to their currencies, and investors can look to instruments denominated in many currencies, rather than just the pound, dollar, or yen, to make returns. Because other nations are becoming as prosperous as we are (a GOOD thing), their currencies become more attractive, and the limited supply of money has to come from somewhere -- our dollar. While ethanol and the "low dollar" are contributing to price spikes, they are not the sole cause (and in fact, are a minor contributor). The major contributor to higher prices of commodities is greater demand. As consumers in Russia (which was bankrupt a decade ago) and China get more affluent, they want refrigerators, larger homes, cars, and more food on the table. They have more money, so they are willing to pay more for those commodities. But it isn't just those two (admittedly giant) economies; it is also many smaller economies, from Brazil to Viet Nam, that are benefitting and contributing to demand growth. This is a GOOD thing. It hurts us in the beginning, because we are used to lower prices, but eventually, supply will rise to meet demand, and prices will stabilize again. More importantly, higher incomes overseas translate to greater demand for American products overseas, increasing export opportunities and creating jobs.

...

You still haven't answered what I asked: How did the tax cuts (that have brought more revenue to the treasury) ruined the economy and done anything to the war?

Tax cuts while spending billions on a war is something this country has never done before. You must either cut expenditures or raise taxes, should you choose to engage in warfare. This is common sense, and the failure of our government, lead by the GOP, to do this has lead to our historically high national debt and the devaluation of the US dollar.

Prove it. I think you'll find we've managed to fight most of our wars without burdening taxpayers with extra taxes. The Revolutionary War was paid entirely out of tariffs. The Wars of 1812 and Mexico were fought without tax increases, as was the Barbary War. I believe you will also find it true for the Spanish-American War, the colonial wars of the early 20th century, the Korean and much of the Viet Nam war, as well as more recent actions such as Kosovo (which we have now occupied for over ten years), the first Gulf War, and Grenada. Saying "Tax cuts while spending billions..." gives you an out, I suppose, since we didn't spend billions on the Barbary War, for instance. As a percentage of Federal income, however, we spent more on our 19th century wars than we have in the 21st century. The amount we have spent on the war is trivial compared to spending on Social Security, Medicare, and other non-discretionary spending. The war is expensive, and certainly contributes its fair share to the budget deficit, but it alone is not a reason to raise taxes. Regrettably, our social welfare spending is going to force us to do so, whether we want to or not. Now, I am not arguing for or against social welfare. I am simply saying that if we want it, we'll have to pay for it, and it will cost far more than a foreign adventure in Afghanistan.

...

And how is that a part of the tax cuts? I'm not arguing good vs bad on Bush as a whole, but the tax cuts. Govt spending is the real bad issue right now. That's where the debt and deficit come from, read the facts.

Of course you aren't, because people that voted for him now want to pretend that they didn't. The GOP put us in the hole by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Unfortunately given the challenges this country faces I don't feel that we can get ourselves out of it quickly. The levers of power are manipulated by government largesse, and until there's a balanced budget amendment to compel Congress and the President to be fiscally responsible that won't happen.

But at least with the Democrats in power we won't keep up the tax breaks for the wealthy. Trickle-down economics is bunk. Taxes need to go up, spending needs to go down. Operating at a deficit can no longer be allowed to continue.

Democrats love tax cuts as much as the next man. Obama's platform is full of them, and no matter which party is in charge, the only folks who will vote for a tax increase are those who have signed electoral suicide pacts. "Trickle-down economics" is bunk, because it doesn't exist. It is a political phrase, like "supply side economics," "the Great Society," "the Square Deal," or "the New Deal." It is mouthed by uneducated bumpkins who prefer to jawbone ideology rather than talk real economic theory. We can begin the conversation by admitting that the Federal deficit is a straw man. Every MBA learns that debt is a legitimate financial tool for business growth. Some businesses (Microsoft) have such a commanding lead in their market that they are cash-rich; most companies, however, are not so fortunate. In order to expand in good times, and sometimes to maintain the business in bad times, they need debt. Few Americans could own homes, or go to college, without taking on some debt. Many older Americans rely on the credit markets for income -- they buy the debt of others (bonds, commercial paper) and use the interest for income. If debt is a legitimate financial tool for businesses and consumers (and I assure you that it is), then why is it not a legitimate tool for government? The answer is because political office-holders say so. There is no economic reason why a government cannot borrow money, as long as it pays it back (and the U.S. Government has never defaulted on its debt). The interest generated brings benefits to creditors, the majority of which are individuals like you and I, through our 401(k), 403(b), pension funds, IRAs, 529s, and mutual funds. I am happy for government debt, because it takes some of the volatility out of my retirement portfolios. Government debt has to be balanced against national economic activity, but the fact is that as a percentage of our economy, it is very small right now, no matter how large the numbers look. A nation such as Mexico cannot handle the amount of debt that the US can, just as someone making $17,000 a year cannot handle the same amount of debt as someone with $200,000 in income. If you believe all the kaka flying out of Washington about "balanced budgets" and whatnot, then you are a fool. Now, like everyone else, I get distressed by foolish spending, but the fact is that the amount wrapped up in "Bridges to Nowhere" and research projects on the sex lives of Monarch butterflies pales in comparison to what we spend on Medicare and Social Security. "Earmarks" and "balanced budget" talk points are designed specifically to take your eye off the real ball, which is the failure of our national leadership to take a hard look at our entitlements and how they are to be paid for in the future. It is much easier to sponsor an amendment that will never pass, or rail on someone for a piece of pork, than it is to explain that we have to make hard economic choices if we are to maintain our social safety net. I am certain that the drive to privatize social security by Bush a couple of years ago, or Clinton's universal health care proposal, will elicit a wide variety of opinions. But no matter how you feel about the individual programs, the fact that both Presidents, and substantial numbers of Congresspersons, felt it was important to discuss was a GOOD thing. We need more discussion. Matthew Copple

Jeffrey.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:27:43PM -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

Well, considering how huge our deficit and debt are, I think that's probably about right. We gotta start paying for what we're spending at some point. And before someone cries about it, I probably pay more in taxes than most. I will be just as impacted.

America needs to return to fiscal responsibility. That means balanced budgets and paying for wars and other expenditures with increased taxation. Yes, it will hurt. Arguing for "tax breaks" when we have a record deficit and a record debt is silly.

Jeffrey.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:

...

The expiration of the tax cuts in 2010 will have an enormous impact on my financial status. My federal tax due will _increase_ by approximately $17 per day. That's more than my car payment.

That depends on if the goal is to increase tax rates, or tax revenues. Except for a 4 year period from 2000-2004, tax revenues have increased every year since 1968. (Source: Congressional Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget.) On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:40:35PM -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:

You obviously live in a different country than I do, sir. In my country milk and other basic foods have doubled in price, gasoline is through the roof, my house lost value, my neighbors have been foreclosed on, the deficit and debt are at historical highs, and inflation is the highest in almost thirty years.

I guess in your country everything is peachy, all due to the excellent work of George Bush and co.

J.

Gasoline prices have been falling for approximately the last 3 weeks in Missouri. I ride the city bus, and am therefore able to mitigate much of the volatility in the price of gasoline. Yes, my house has lost value, but so has everything else I purchased in 1997. However, it is nowhere near being below the value I purchased it for at that time. The debt has been at a historic high every year since 1968 except for 1998-2002. The defict is _not_ at a historic high, but rather is down from the high it hit in 2004. (Source: Congressional Budget Office; Office of Management and Budget.) Inflation is at the highest point since June 1985, not _quite_ thirty years ago. Of course we are nowhere near the rates of 1974 through 1982. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics) If housing prices are collapsing wouldn't that be deflationary? Of course if my net income drops by over $500/month due to the tax increased caused by the expiration of the tax cuts in 2010, I could be forced to move into something cheaper. Thanks, -- Hal

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 06:29:10PM -0500, Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] wrote:

...

Of course if my net income drops by over $500/month due to the tax increased caused by the expiration of the tax cuts in 2010, I could be forced to move into something cheaper.

LOL - you need to earn $200,000 minumum to have that much impact on the expiration of income tax cuts passed by Bush. So unless you spend a lot of money on software, you'll do fine.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22424.html

Thanks,

Ron Geoffrion 913.488.7664

After the tax cuts expire, the child tax credit will be reduced from $1000 to $500 per child. That increases my tax liabilty by $2500. I will also move from the 10 percent tax bracket into the 15 percent tax bracket which is in itself a 50% tax increase. My standard deduction will also return to the previous pre-marriage-penalty amount. It is a significant tax increase for me. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/134.html Note that I am the head of a family of seven, not a family of four. Thanks, -- Hal

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 12:24:25AM -0500, Jim Herrmann wrote:

Not toget to far into it, but moving from the 10% braket to a 15% braket is not a 50% increase. It's an increase on the last dollars you make, not on the entire sum. You sir, are twisting the math to fit your meme.

Well, since my taxable income in 2007 was 10K, and my tax liability was 1K, and after 2010 the 10% tax bracket will no longer exist and my tax liability would for a taxable income of 10K will be 1.5K how is that not a 50% increase? Thanks, -- Hal

On 8/12/08 4:40 PM, "Jeffrey Watts" <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:30 PM, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:

...

How did the tax cuts (that have brought more revenue to the treasury) ruined the economy and done anything to the war? Oh, we are in a recession, is that the current economy scare line? Is that it, because just a week or so ago I heard that we had nearly 2% growth in the last quarter. A recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of *negative* growth.

You obviously live in a different country than I do, sir. In my country milk and other basic foods have doubled in price, gasoline is through the roof, my house lost value, my neighbors have been foreclosed on, the deficit and debt are at historical highs, and inflation is the highest in almost thirty years.

Your grammar is excellent, your grasp of economics less so. Nearly twenty years ago, while I was a freshman at the University of Missouri, my Econ 101 professor discussed a phenomenon known as "the business cycle." Supply and demand are not static; changes in one often lag the other. When the two are not in sync, we tend to get cycles of inflation (demand outstripping supply) or deflation (supply outstrips demand). Anyone born before 1980 is probably fairly familiar with the business cycle, since many of our parents ended up unemployed during a particularly nasty recession in the early 80's. Regrettably, those who entered the work force in the new millenium grew up under the false assumption that ever-increasing productivity, combined with a massive money supply, guaranteed that the business cycle would never again raise its bloody axe, and we would all be guaranteed good jobs forever.

I guess in your country everything is peachy, all due to the excellent work of George Bush and co.

Since you are very much into critiquing the work of others, let's analyze your logic. Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States granted Congress, not the President, the power of the purse. I know some are concerned about the power of the Presidency, but I do believe that when it comes to the national fisc, that responsibility still rests with the House and the Senate. Therefore, our budget deficit is the direct responsibility of 535 men and women. The President is not blameless; he could have vetoed the irresponsible spending which has plagued us since the New Deal. But in the end, it is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not the executive, to set the nation's fiscal priorities and fund them appropriately. Congress has chosen not to do so, under both Democrat and Republican control. The President is free to expound on what he thinks tax and budget policy should be. However, he has very little control over how that money is spent; traditionally, the national budget is rather explicit in how pieces of the fiscal pie are divvied up between departments. The President can move some money around, but generally, Senators and Representatives tend to be suspicious of Presidents who take money from Account A and move it to Account B without a hearing and permission from a committee chair, so they generally write the language to be as restrictive as possible. While the government's spending patterns have a discernible effect on the economy, most of the really important money movement is done by groups over which the President has no control. The Federal Reserve System is politically independent; so are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which help fund the credit markets through their mortgage activities. While the government has a discernible effect, as I mentioned above, that effect is rather small when compared to the real drivers of the American economy -- you and me. The new car, the burger at McDonalds, the choice to purchase groceries at Aldi or Price Chopper, all effect our economy far more than tax policy (which again, is a Congressional issue, not a Presidential one) or monetary policy (which is set by an independent Federal Reserve, the President). Our decisions are somewhat influenced by government interference, but in general, we don't consider the overnight discount rate when we choose to spend money; we consider the local effects of supply and demand. The Invisible Hand, not George Bush (or Bill Clinton, or Obama, or McCain, or Hillary, or Reagan) is responsible for our economic situation, and Congress is responsible for the government's poor fiscal record, assisted gleefully by an equally irresponsible President who does not understand what the word "VETO" means. The conclusion is that a ham sandwich could be President of the U.S., and the business cycle would continue, your taxes would be about the same as they are now, and the deficit would be just as great. If you want a balanced budget, demand one from your Congressman/woman. I guarantee Obama and McCain won't give you one, no matter how many platitudes they deliver on the subject. Matthew Copple

On Tuesday 12 August 2008, Jon Pruente wrote:

but could hardly speak a whisp of English, they were so fresh from over the border.

Get over it. Nothing illegal about not knowing English. Nor about not caring. English is one of the hardest languages to learn, and since the US has no official language, there is really no reason to learn it if they can get by fine without it.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

Get over it. Nothing illegal about not knowing English. Nor about not caring. English is one of the hardest languages to learn, and since the US has no official language, there is really no reason to learn it if they can get by fine without it.

I never wrote that it was. I do find it funny that the irony Jeffery was trying to use against me worked more on my side of the coin than his on this bit of the topic. Jon.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Monty J. Harder <mjharder@gmail.com> wrote:

the [English King and his noblemen] spoke Norman French as their first language

And before that Latin, Celtic, Danish, and of course Klingon. In the near term historical future (within three generations) we may see an English King speaking ksh as his first language. That would be cool.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jon Pruente <jdpruente@gmail.com> wrote:

The latest taxes stats that I've seen (for 2006) showed that the top 1% of tax payers paid almost half the taxes paid. That's nearly double the amount paid when taxes were higher under Carter. People like to hate the Bush tax cuts, but they are working. The proof is in the pudding. The top 51% of tax payers? They pay 97.something% of all taxes paid.

I think you should have qualified the taxes paid. You might have meant 97% of Income Taxes paid not all taxes paid. The IRA's site shows: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html Tax Stats at a Glance Summary of Collections Before Refunds by Type of Return, FY 2007 [1] Type of Return Number of Returns Gross Collections Millions of $) Individual income tax [1] 138,893,908 1,366,241 Corporation income tax [1] 2,507,728 [2] 395,536 Employment taxes [1] 30,740,592 849,733 [3] Excise taxes [1] 907,165 53,050 Gift tax [1] 252,522 2,420 Estate tax [1] 49,924 24,558 This works out to Empoyment taxes (FICA and some others see the footnote) being 31.5% of the total. Even if one assumes that the upper 51% pay 100% of all the other taxes that still leave the upper 51% needing to pay about 90% of the Employment taxes to get to 97% of all taxes. Given the flat nature of this tax (~12%) for moneys earned under about $91k and the elimination of the tax on moneys over this mark, I think "income" is the qualifier that should have been used in your statement. This data is form FY 2007, but I can't think of any big tax changes from '06 to '07 that would make this inaccurate. You said your data was from 2006. What was the source? It may have contained a qualifier as to the type of tax. Maybe it contain state and locale tax data? Rod