Texsox

And that is the beauty of this plan. No one without a degree in econ can explain it. So the GOP says trust us, it works. And if anyone says it doesn't, they are part of the liberal media and cannot be trusted. It also makes people feel better that they can keep more of their money and the government will have more money too! Wow, isn't that wonderful. The citizens and the government all get more money. We can have our cake and eat it too. There is a free lunch. If we cut everyone's taxes to $2 per year, we would have so much money to run the government we couldn't spend it all. I would love to be convinced this works. It still seems to me if I was scheduled to pay $5000 in taxes and now I pay $4000 someone else needs to pay at least my $1000 for the system to break even. If everyone's rates are cut we need new people (Someone who was scheduled to pay $0 now pays $2000) to begin paying or someone who was scheduled to pay $1000 now pays $2000 (that sounds like an increase).

My fear is if this team does not look like it is going to postseason play, JR will want to dismantle and shoot for 2006 or 2007. We will start trading for "can't miss" prospects. In that scenario, Frank, Maggs, Jose, E-Lo, Sandy, and others are looking good to some other teams and probably not in our 2006/2007 plans.

Ok we cut taxes by $1,000,000,000. How does $1,000,0000,001 get back to Washington? If we cut everyone's tax rate, who pays the increased taxes to have more money in Washington? Do shopkeepers pay more in taxes? So if shopkeepers all get the $1,000,000,000 is their tax rate 105%? If we take the 5% of Americans who are unemployed and give them the $1,000,000,000 is their tax rate 105%

I thought profit was the key. If the shop keeper makes more profit doesn't he have more to invest? Actually I've been a supplier to many different government agencies and they pay some very cheap prices. The expenditures that everyone points to is usually military and those parts are built to much higher specks than civilian. I remember the infamous $1000 coffee pot. That was going on a spy plane and needed zero electrical emmisions so it would not be detected by the enemy. Nothing like a $40 Mr. Coffee kicking on and every tracker in Russia pointing and saying "there it is". And before someone asks why they need a coffee pot, that crew was typically on duty for up to 24 hours.

But how does the $1 multiply? The owner gets a dollar, builds kitchens, hires people, and send $1.20 to Washington? Using a 20% tax rate, the payroll will have to increase $5 for every dollar we take out of the system. Why does payrolls increase 5x for every $1 the shopkeeper gets? Where does the other $4 come from?

mreye, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've ben hearing this for years and no one has been able to explain it. Why do republicans keep repeating this cut taxes to raise revenues, yet have no idea how it works? It seems to me, and using a rather unflattering label, that Tax and Spend Democrates seem more honest in their approach than cut taxes and spend Republicans. On one hand one group is saying "if we want these programs we have to increase taxes to pay for it". The other side seems to be offering "we can have these programs -and- cut your taxes". I would love for that to work, but I do not want a huge deficit for my kids to pay off.

OK she takes the $1.00 and spreads it between three people. How will those three wind up paying $1.20 in taxes? It is still only a $1 going in. If we send $1 to Washington, doesn't Washington spend that $1? Why is it different if the government spends the $1 or me? Besides it makes me feel better. If Washington spends a $1 on buying food for a deserving family, wouldn't the store increase their sales and it would have the same economic benefit?

Ouch. IMHO the least heralded advancement the last century was longevity. We are living an amazing amount of time now. A hundred years ago 50 was a ripe old age. Now it's 80. But we are finding all new frailities of our bodies. Soon we will fix those. 60 years ago a broken hip was damn near terminal. Now it's a concern but not nearly as life threatening. God Bless her. She already has a huge factor helping her, family and fiends who love her and will take an interest in her recovery.

A couple holes. Why would the restaurant owner build a bigger restaurant if they have the same number of customers? It's like the Blackhawks building a bigger stadium. It still comes down to the same number of people in the US sending money to Washington. We have about 6% unemployment. If I spend a dollar, how does another person send in $1.20 in taxes?

From all your friends here

And playing for different teams if we have a s***ty first half

smooth Steff, very smooth. I'll bet Jim didn't suspect a thing . . . Did he say something witty like have a nice trip, see you next fall?

I thought George W and saw it was cw posting and thought WTF?

THE three republicans in my county all happen to be friends of mine and last night they all tried to explain why if we cut individual taxes, Washington gets more money. We were discussing why George W likes to spend money and cut taxes. They tell me it works something like this: Individuals will take their $1 saved from taxes and spend it. The shop keepers will make more money and either: hire more people or reinvest it. Now we've taken 1 dollar away from Washington (increasing the defecit) and bought donuts. How does that $1 multiply so it becomes $1.20 in income tax? If you hire someone with the profits from that $1, I'll use .50 as an example. That person would pay $.13 in taxes. Seems like we lost .87 to fund the military, social security, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, etc. Looks like Washington gives up $1 and gets back less. I do not see anyway for that $1 to magically become two dollars.

BeGood, MAYBE every once in a while, properly done, it would be nice to see an all cap kick off. Or soon we will have a Teddy Patalak on our hands. Obscure reference.

I believe this assertion should be verified, for the integrity of soxtalk. You'll need to send photos

I feel the love . . .

Then would you be against a draft? After all in times of war, it is in our best interest to have a full military. As far a public transportation; would it be wrong to shut off sections of a city to private vehicles to help eliminate air pollutions? Mexico City uses a system where based on your license plate number you can drive on certain days and not others.

And all of these people are in the gene pool

This could be a very significant year in Sox baseball. Lee, Crede, and Olivo are on the rise, Mark and Kong need to regain some career momentum, Frank needs to hang on. Maggs just needs to keep doing his thing. At the mid season point we are going to have a tough decision. If we are in the race, we will be buying. If we are out of the race, we could be in a situation for a big sale with some very good trade bait. If we are not winning we will see a huge turnover of personnel and a few years of crappy teams. I could easily see any of the following gone: Frank, E-Lo, Kong, Koch, and a couple others.

In four months we will be either buying or selling. If we are 8 games out, hell the Yankees may be talking about Mark or E-Lo.

Hmm, would we rather have Marge and a WS victory or JR and a pack of promises?

One issue that is central to this debate is Does our government have the duty to legislate things for our own good? For example increasing the mpg on vehicles reduces our reliance on foreign oil. Many people will agree this is a good thing and in our collective, national best interest. Even though we individually agree that reducing our reliance on foreign oil is good, many Americans believe * you * should drive the small, lightweight, fuel efficient car and I'll drive a Hummer. So left to market conditions, we would not see an increase in over all fuel efficiency. Consumers also would not spend more for fuel efficiency. So by legislating this, the government is telling all Americans you cannot be trusted to do the right thing, we need to do the right thing for you. Is that correct?

Some people have built up a lot of credibility here. They earn that credibility by their posts through the months, and now we can say years. This isn't a government supported forum for free speech. It is owned and continually paid for, by private individuals. (not me) They can establish any rules they like for membership. So far they have been very loose on allowing board members to speak their minds. They have accepted personal attacks and moved on. Some people have been banned, others suspended for their behavior. Other times they have watched as friends and good posters have moved on when things did not go their way. As a moderator, I try and seperate useful debate and disagreement from personal attacks. I do not want to stop a debate that is moving forward and staying civil. I will and have locked threads that have dropped to name calling with the only goal of making another member here look bad. Those are personal issues that can be solved or not, away from the boards.

Too many what ifs. I am glad you recognize the premise that Al would have managed it better I think the auto mpg might be good. Would someone like to summarize why government mandates are a good thing in this arena? Anyone care to summarize why government mandates are not a good thing?