October 24, 2006
WHY VOTING MATTERS
Bleak House: Republicans deserve to lose, but what happens if Democrats win?
First, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has promised that election of a Democratic House would insure "a rollback of the [Bush] tax cuts." Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who would be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would make sure no tax cut extension bill would ever get to the floor. He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the bill that later extended the tax cuts until 2010 (as did all but seven of the 205 Democratic House members). In September Mr. Rangel said that he "cannot think of one" Bush tax cut he would agree to renew.
Investors Business Daily recently pointed out that since the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003, "the economy has added $1.26 trillion in real output, $14.4 trillion in net wealth and 5.8 million new jobs." But that progress doesn't seem to matter to the liberals, whose primary goal is to raise income tax rates. "Taxing the rich" will be the leading economic argument of a 2007 Democratic House, and a rollback tax bill of some kind will reach the floor.
Second, President Bush will not be able to re-energize his effort for individually owned Social Security accounts, for "preventing the privatization of social security" is in the Democratic National Committee's "6-Point Plan for 2006." Democrats don't trust people to own or invest their own retirement funds--better to let a wise government do that, for as socialist Noam Chomsky says, "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together." And since Congress gets to spend Social Security tax receipts that aren't needed to pay benefits, letting people invest their payments in their own retirement accounts would be a costly revenue reduction that the new, bigger-spending Congress won't allow to happen.
Via Instapundit. Yikes. Read the remaining points. Double yikes.
Posted by: Sarah at
11:31 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
But reflect on this: the very people saying these things are confident that they're going to sweep into power and sweep the Republicans out. Why? How can they be so sure that there are enough lunatics out there to accomplish that miracle? Mark Foley?
(By the way, your anti-whatever filter keeps rejecting my E-mail address and URL because it ends with dot-info. What on Earth is wrong with dot-info domains?)
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at October 24, 2006 12:41 PM (PzL/5)
2
Unfortunately, I share a whatever-filter with about a hundred other mu.nu bloggers, so whatever one filters, we all filter. Sorry. But no worries, I know who you are!
Posted by: Sarah at October 24, 2006 04:58 PM (7Wklx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 22, 2006
LIFE IMITATES ART
Woah. It's a real-life
John Doe! I wonder if this guy knows how many dimples there are in a golf ball...
Posted by: Sarah at
02:14 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
http://anticollective.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-i-saved-world.html
Posted by: I at November 03, 2006 04:30 AM (Z9Jj/)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 20, 2006
LINK
John Hawkins has a
great interview with Larry Elder on race, health care, free trade, and blogging.
Posted by: Sarah at
10:50 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Man, I love Larry Elders.
Posted by: Erin at October 20, 2006 05:07 PM (023Of)
2
There's a lot of constructive and destructive things to say about Larry Elders. Instead I'll just write out dictionary definitions.
Liberal - 1. abundant, ample, 2. giving freely, generous, 3. open minded, 4. not strict or rigorous, 5. for the general broadening of the mind, 6. favouring moderate politcal and social reform.
Conservative - 1. adverse to rapid change, 2. moderate, avoiding extremes, 3. (of an estimate, etc.) purposely low, 4. tending to conserve
Oxford dictionary puts the most important meaning of each word (in modern English) first.
All of this confirms my suspicion that dictionaries are useless.
Posted by: Will at October 20, 2006 06:03 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2006
GOOD LINK
I started feeling antsy and came in to check blogs. I found a great post on the supposed
654,965 dead Iraqis over at Annika's. And I was so engrossed in reading it that I missed Suppan's homerun. Dangit.
Posted by: Sarah at
03:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Numbers like these are bound to happen when the military starts running foreign policy. The CIA should be in charge of this mission, not Rumsfield, Cheney and the PNACs.
Posted by: Will at October 15, 2006 03:11 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 13, 2006
BLAH
Lileks has a
good bleat today and a link to an article called
"Imagine Earth Without People". Take a deep breath and dive in. Now, I'm no biologist, but you know what else earth probably wouldn't have if it didn't have people? Pandas.
Posted by: Sarah at
04:24 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Pandas? What are you talking about?
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 01:55 PM (QRBGL)
2
Panda females reject their young. Humans have to force pandas to mate and then keep the infant panda alive with great effort. Pandas don't breed well on their own, but we want to keep them alive because they're cute and fuzzy.
Posted by: Sarah at October 13, 2006 03:23 PM (7Wklx)
3
Wow, that's pretty dumb Sarah. How do you think Pandas have existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
The worst part about this post is now I have to think about humans forcing pandas to mate.
Posted by: Will at October 13, 2006 10:54 PM (QRBGL)
4
And like the article hypothetically daydreamed, if all humans disappeared right this second, there'd be about 1000 pandas who fight when they mate and reject their infant young and spend 14 hours a day eating bamboo instead of mating. Maybe their numbers could bounce back eventually, but zoos are the ones fighting to keep panda numbers up right now.
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_pand.html
http://www.usaweekend.com/01_issues/010624/010624panda.html
So maybe my offhanded snide comment wasn't 100% perfect, but it's not entirely without merit.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 03:05 AM (7Wklx)
5
Yeah, it's too bad we've nearly driven them to extinction. If I were a right-winger trying to back up my position, I'd just say that all the animals would be dead anyway if it wasn't for Noah and his ark. Now there's some hypothetical daydreaming you can sink your teeth into.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 12:01 PM (QRBGL)
6
Will, that last comment makes absolutely no sense. Wanna try again?
Posted by: piercello at October 14, 2006 12:30 PM (Rg1Yo)
7
Sorry I don't fit into your stereotype, Will, but I don't believe in the Ark.
Posted by: Sarah at October 14, 2006 01:00 PM (7Wklx)
8
It's hard to pigeon-hole you Sarah... I hate that... it makes your blog way too addictive.
Posted by: Will at October 14, 2006 02:43 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 12, 2006
October 02, 2006
LINK
Absolutely horrifying:
Is There Blood On His Hands? The Case Against Kofi Annan
And absolutely mindboggling:
At Gitmo, detainees get La-Z-Boys, pastries
Posted by: Sarah at
02:44 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Do you really think the UN has any power without the support of America. The UN is around because of America, and with America disowning it, it cannot function. You can't really pass off the genocides of the world as the UN's responsibility. With America tied up in Iraq, there's no hope for Darfur.
Posted by: Will at October 02, 2006 01:04 PM (H4u2c)
2
So what you are saying, Will, is that the UN is useless
at best and we might as well shut it down?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 02, 2006 10:31 PM (FRalS)
3
Pixy dust,
I guess I am saying that, if this is the best we can do.
However, I was kind of hoping that after all the good it did in WW2, America would want to continue on its promise of supplying freedom and hope to the world. You know, the opposite of occupation?
Posted by: Will at October 12, 2006 12:05 PM (QRBGL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
55kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.0795 seconds.
53 queries taking 0.07 seconds, 197 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.