Ward, I am talking about actual income from the sale of appreciated stock.
I am all for getting rid of all inconsistencies which result in "phantom income" being taxed.
I am interested in all actual, real income, from all sources, being treated as "ordinary income" for income-tax purposes.
[right][snapback]28767[/snapback][/right]

uh oh. Ned ain't so nice.
[right][snapback]28831[/snapback][/right]

OK, Bart, I am hearing you. And I will continue to think about your perspective on it as the issue arises (it seems nearly a constant now). I listened to an NPR report today on Islam in Europe. Tied in nicely with your reports from The Netherlands. There is a lot of dispute, and a lot of problems, with whether Muslims can live in countries with secular governments. That is exactly what I do not want to see further fanned upwards here.

I didn't think you were at CSPAN during the Ned Nice days. I know I wasn't.
[right][snapback]28872[/snapback][/right]

Davis heard rumors.
[right][snapback]28875[/snapback][/right]

Whoa. I joined on the days following 911.
[right][snapback]28879[/snapback][/right]

I didn't think you were at CSPAN during the Ned Nice days. I know I wasn't.

I joined in August of 2002, when it became clear the adminisrtion meant to launch the Iraq war. Bart was Ned about six months to a year ago, as I recall.
[right][snapback]28890[/snapback][/right]

Ned was there early on and then came back a time or two.

Ned was there early on and then came back a time or two.
[right][snapback]28894[/snapback][/right]

I joined in August of 2002, when it became clear the adminisrtion meant to launch the Iraq war.

So tell me veteran Spanners, was there a large influx of newbies when the war was emminent?
[right][snapback]28899[/snapback][/right]

except when the CM was on a warpath. Then we'd get 10 or 20 newbies a day.

like ned and fast katsy?

[right][snapback]28906[/snapback][/right]

like ned and fast katsy?

[right][snapback]28906[/snapback][/right]

So me and space stumbled in about the same time.

Space, you try any other forums first?
[right][snapback]28904[/snapback][/right]

Davis. My original username was a swearword according to the CSPAN filter.
[right][snapback]28908[/snapback][/right]

Froggie?     
[right][snapback]28911[/snapback][/right]

Bite your tongue! I was the cat that chased froggie all over the site asking.. "How does it FEEL?" remember?
[right][snapback]28916[/snapback][/right]

I didn't think you were at CSPAN during the Ned Nice days. I know I wasn't.
[right][snapback]28872[/snapback][/right]

I'm thinking in terms of "backlash can be a biotch"  when it comes to some of the anti-religion movements in the USA.  I harken back to that Madeline Murray O'Hare woman or maybe even further in time.
[right][snapback]28873[/snapback][/right]

except when the CM was on a warpath. Then we'd get 10 or 20 newbies a day.
[right][snapback]28902[/snapback][/right]

Davis. My original username was a swearword according to the CSPAN filter.
[right][snapback]28908[/snapback][/right]

Bite your tongue! I was the cat that chased froggie all over the site asking.. "How does it FEEL?" remember?
[right][snapback]28916[/snapback][/right]

Why do I not remember this?    I remember Bart & Froggies all the hell over those pages, and the CM on both their arses. That whole "frog" thing was indefensible -- and just about the funnieset damn thing that ever did go down there.
[right][snapback]28925[/snapback][/right]

Noted. I suppose it has not been one thing or one time, but many, and in play against each other. I still am having a hard time seeing why it is being ratcheted up so now. I guess I am just skeptical that it is political calculation, exploitation and manipulation. I am also honestly worried about what, in terms of the ferociousness and the divides, it could bring.

I joined in early fall of 2002. When the rattling of Bush's sabres could be heard around the world.

So tell me veteran Spanners, was there a large influx of newbies when the war was emminent?
[right][snapback]28899[/snapback][/right]

I really believe it's coming from the grass roots.  People really have been moving towards going back to church for some time now.  The dems even realize this now and are talking about how to improve their image with religious people, not the othe way around.  The ant-relgion people and the homophiles have just plain picked the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.
[right][snapback]28927[/snapback][/right]

Call me suspicious, but I don't believe this is a genuine grass-roots movement for a second.

It's a "manufactured" moral panic with a vengeance. IMHO.
[right][snapback]28929[/snapback][/right]

Call me suspicious, but I don't believe this is a genuine grass-roots movement for a second.

It's a "manufactured" moral panic with a vengeance. IMHO.
[right][snapback]28929[/snapback][/right]

Take the standard lefty rant about greed and selfishness elsewhere.

I really believe it's coming from the grass roots.  People really have been moving towards going back to church for some time now.  The dems even realize this now and are talking about how to improve their image with religious people, not the othe way around.  The ant-relgion people and the homophiles have just plain picked the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.
[right][snapback]28927[/snapback][/right]

Call me suspicious, but I don't believe this is a genuine grass-roots movement for a second.

It's a "manufactured" moral panic with a vengeance. IMHO.
[right][snapback]28929[/snapback][/right]

You don't think it's a backlash against the anti's?
[right][snapback]28931[/snapback][/right]

You're suspicious. And mistaken.
It's the reason the GOP won in 94 and held on, it's the reason W won a second term when clearly he is a one termer.
[right][snapback]28932[/snapback][/right]

From the link

How would a consumed income tax work?
Think of an unlimited individual retirement account. You would simply list your income -- including, possibly, all your fringe benefits and other goodies that are currently excluded -- then subtract everything you save and invest and calculate tax on what is left. Investment earnings would be taxed once they are cashed in and you have used them to buy something.

Why would interest deductions need to go?
Because if you can deduct interest on a loan, invest the money, and earn tax-free profits, you essentially get a government subsidy for investing. That would open up a new world of tax shelters and destroy the benefits of reform. Worse, it would create a system where only wages are taxed. That would be unfair to working people. And a wage tax could never produce enough revenue to fund the $2.4 trillion the government spends each year.

Don't many experts argue that a consumption tax is the way to go?
Only if done right. That would require eliminating interest deductions and other tax breaks -- a tall order for politicians. But if Washington did adopt a well-designed consumption tax, would be simpler than the current code, it would eliminate the double taxation of capital income, and sharply reduce the use of shelters. And most economists believe it would boost growth at least by a few tenths of a percent each year. Economist Alan J. Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley figures it would push up gross domestic product by 9% over several decades. But a consumption tax's biggest virtue, say supporters, is that it is fair. "You work and save. I work and don't. Why should you pay more tax than me over your lifetime?" asks Urban Institute senior fellow C. Eugene Steuerle, who helped draft the 1986 tax reform.

I only wish we actually considered total system overhaul.
Noma, is it that you are opposed to this idea of reform, or is it you don't trust Bush to implement it fairly, or some combination?
[right][snapback]28857[/snapback][/right]

I guess I am just skeptical that it is political calculation, exploitation and manipulation.

Pow.

But you don't think that is a part of what Nomarchy calls manufactured moral panic?

Oh, I read yesterday the first "gay divorces" have been filed for. 

Not to be confused with gay divorcee.  Or maybe it is!
[right][snapback]28936[/snapback][/right]

It's a "manufactured" moral panic with a vengeance.

You've been obnoxiously ranting and raving against imaginary lefty foes, whom you've attempted ad nauseam to paint as supporters of mass murder, forced starvation, gulags, etc. And, when you get bored with that, or it fails, you launch your standard tirade against "eggheads", "sissy intellectuals" and the rest of your "chip on your shoulders" bullshit.
[right][snapback]28935[/snapback][/right]

You don't think it's a backlash against the anti's?
[right][snapback]28931[/snapback][/right]

You're suspicious. And mistaken.
It's the reason the GOP won in 94 and held on, it's the reason W won a second term when clearly he is a one termer.
[right][snapback]28932[/snapback][/right]

But you don't think that is a part of what Nomarchy calls manufactured moral panic?
[right][snapback]28936[/snapback][/right]

How do you manufature moral panic?  This would be especially difficult if the morality wasn't out there in the first place.  Appealing to that is not manipulation, it's just standard stuff. 

Take a successful social movement and look at the climate at the time it worked.  If the climate ain't right, it just ain't going to work.  This is where the small but vocal secularists have screwed the pooch.
[right][snapback]28940[/snapback][/right]

How do you manufature moral panic? This would be especially difficult if the morality wasn't out there in the first place. Appealing to that is not manipulation, it's just standard stuff.

Take a successful social movement and look at the climate at the time it worked. If the climate ain't right, it just ain't going to work. This is where the small but vocal secularists have screwed the pooch.

This is a very good description. I read Bush sr could have launched a culture war too, but he decided he didn't want to split the country. Some say it may have cost him the election.
[right][snapback]28941[/snapback][/right]

It's based on a legitimate gripe against attempts at rationalizing areas of life that have been thought of as best left to "tradition" and "community standards", areas of life where no appeal to superior rational argument or consistency with universalistic criteria or technical efficiency is necessary to justify norms and behaviors.

Yet, those legitimate gripes are mobilized and directed with the exact same techniques as are used in marketing (corporate and political). In the process of defending the "lifeworld" from encroachments of the "system world", the former is further rationalized and politicized. That causes a further erosion of the "taken-for-granted" nature of those traditions, those values, norms and mores. Those whom you call "antis" will follow suit: theirs is also a tradition of sorts which is also now "under attack". "Meaning" and "values" are increasingly going to be subject to being "produced" as if they were "demand" for a product or "support" for a party. The makings of a full-blown legitimation and motivation crisis.

We can see the "colonization" of the life-world already in the whole movement for "faith-based initiatives" and using government funds (i.e. money and power) to support activities and values which are supposed to be "self-rewarding".
[right][snapback]28947[/snapback][/right]

Screwed the Pooch means fucking off. Milking a job. I have know idea how Bart's using it.
[right][snapback]28952[/snapback][/right]

Screwed the Pooch means fucking off. Milking a job. I have know idea how Bart's using it.
[right][snapback]28952[/snapback][/right]