Taro T
-
Posts
4,955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Taro T
-
-
Remeber going to see a Genesis cover band named Pegasus at McVans several times in the early 80s. Been a long time, but I was at Sheas for the U2 concert in 83 or 84, thought that was the last "rock" concert they allowed in there.
BTW, guy that works for me has also heard alot about the reunion tour fwiw
No, they've had rock shows in there since, but they did reinforce the balcony after the U2 show. It's a good thing they did too because they stopped an INXS show there mid-encore because the balcony was "boucing" a couple of years after the U2 show.
-
Boston/SJ
The Boston Bruins have traded Joe Thornton to the San Jose Sharks in exchange for forwards Marco Sturm and Wayne Primeau as well as defenceman Brad Stuart.
I'd say that's a little backwards. The Bruins traded for Stuart primarily and wanted Sturm. Oh yeah, they also got Primeau.
Sturm hasn't fully lived up to expectations in SJ but has been a good player. The Bruins appear to be hoping Sturm becomes the player the Sharks thought he would be when they drafted him with the 21st pick of the '96 draft. I hope he doesn't pick up his play, but it did work for the Bruins a few years back with Glen Murray's 2nd stint in beantown. He had been a good player in LA, but definitely took it up a notch for the B's.
Stuart brings some much needed speed to the B's blueline.
-
-
-
They have a loge section at the front of the balcony. If you can get them, those are the best seats in the house IMHO. I saw Gilmour play there many years ago. The seats were looking right down on him.
If you can't get loge, I'd go floor before sitting further back in the balcony.
-
-
-
Oh... That also brings me to the WKRP show... Remember when Herb was trying to convince Les what side he was on.
Herb: The whole world is in revolution, and not just here, but everywhere. And you know who's at war?
Les: No.
Herb: It's the dungarees versus the suits, Les. The whole world is in two armed camps - over here, we have the dungarees, and over here the suits. Remember the riots from the sixties? It was the dungarees versus the suits. And then Watergate. Those guys arrested were wearing dungarees, and who suffered for it?
Les: The suits!
Herb: Exactly!
Les: But there were issues, Herb.
Herb: The issues, issues, were a smokescreen. Now listen. When a son disobeys his father, what's he wearing?
Les: The son? Uh... dungarees!
Herb: And what's the father got on?
Les: Probably a suit!
Herb: D'ya see what I mean, Les?
Les: Yeah!
Herb: And do you know what's worse?
Les: What?
Herb: The fathers are beginning to wear dungarees too!
Les: That's right!
Herb: And so are the mothers!
Les: It's just like "The Bodysnatchers"!
Les: Herb, do you know who I think is behind all this?
Herb: Who?
Les: Levi Strauss!
Herb: Could be.
I know this belongs on Off the Wall and not PPP, but when the h*ll are they going to release WKRP on DVD?!?!?
-
-
12) Lawn darts are illegal in Canada.
Not sure if they are illegal in the US, but I know it's illegal to manufacture / sell them in the US.
-
Well you've all come up with a lot of good ones, but the best lyrics for a TV show (although they were only played in the 200th episode in the case of the former and not at all for the latter) have to be Cheers (Where Everybody Knows Your Name - 2nd Verse) and M*A*SH (Suicide is Painless).
"Roll out of bed, Mr. Coffee's dead, morning's looking bright.
And your shrink ran off to Europe and didn't even write.
And your husband wants to be a girl.
Be glad there's still 1 place in the world ..."
The lyrics for Suicide is Painless were in the movie.
Great songs. (I also liked WKRP's theme song but it wasn't nearly depressing enough!)
-
I saw the other posts...
"Near, far...Celine in a Bar" Admit it, you'd do her. I would. She sings good. Not fat, either.
This whole thing is a Canadian conspiracy.
Which brings us back full circle.
The Canadian military sunk the F. Scott Fitzgerald to obtain U.S. foreign aid. Has no one seen the epic documentary called "The Moose that Roared" ?
Close. It was chronicled in the documentary "Canadian Bacon" and was narrated by John Candy in his final stage play. Although he does appear on the classic game show "Dead or Canadian" quite often now as a trick question.
-
Well then look at the aggregate data:
Personal tax revenues
2000 $1 tril
2001 $994 bil
2002 $858
2003 $794
2004 $809
Obviously part of the decline was attributable to the slowdown in 2001-02, but much of it was due to the cut in personal tax rates. The Laffer curve is nice in theory, but no one has ever shown any evidence of it--please show me if you have any.
Let me try and explain the mathematics:
Your income is $50,000 and personal tax rate is 10%, so you are paying $5,000 in taxes. If your income grows by 3% next year, you are now making $51,500. If the tax rate remains constant, you are paying $5,150 in taxes. If you reduce the tax rate by 3% (a decrease from 10% to 9.7% is a 3% decrease) to 9.7%, then you are paying the same absolute tax value as before: $51,500x0.097=$5,000, but your tax rate is now the lower 9.7%. The 3% increase in your income is offset by a 3% decrease in your tax rate.
Now, if taxes are decreased by more than 3%, say a 10% decrease (going from from 10% to 9% would be a 10% decrease), then tax revenues will fall. Taxes paid=$51,500x0.09=$4635. The only way tax revenues can increase is if your income increases by more than the 10% cut in your taxes. That is the crux of the SS argument--the only way that revenues can increase is if taxable income increases by more than the decrease in the tax rates. Their argument is that the cut in taxes either increases the growth of income faster than it would've been, OR people were hiding income in tax shelters, so the lower tax rate will induce them to shelter less income.
As i recall, Bush had a 3-year phase in on his tax cuts, which is consistent with the data above--personal income tax revenues fell every year.
Ist off, I'm not certain where you got your numbers from because they don't match up with info on the IRS web site. That is neither here nor there for the point of this discussion.
2nd off, you seem to basically understand SS, but don't seem to fully grasp it.
What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that the money that is not collected by the government is going to be put to much better use by the individuals and corporations that are generating it than the government will. As YOU have stated in your earlier posts, overall revenues went up. This would imply that the money that was not taxed initially was put to productive use and generated additional taxable revenue that would otherwise have not existed. If the government had taken the money out of the system, overall GDP would have been lower than actual and although the tax rate would have been higher than it actually was the total taxes collected would have been lower. Or to put it another way, the income had to have grown by a larger percentage than the tax cut (as you posted), or else overall revenues would have decreased. That hypothetical $365 appears to have had at least a 100% return on investment as the overall revenues increased (again, per your previous posts).
I will not have the time to try to look it up until sometime after this weekend, but government revenues increased in the '20's, '60's, and '80's after tax cuts were introduced.
My point in my earlier post, which you have not addressed, is that the deficit went up because SPENDING increased more than revenues did. Your final point in your reply to GG shows that you don't factor spending into the equation at all. Lowering tax rates and increasing the output of the economy will never result in a surplus if they are always accompanied by massive increases in spending.
-
I am told I qualify as a "lefty nut" and yet, never have I posted a thing about Fox. Thus, my anecdote obliterates your argument and you owe me five quatloos, six if you can't tell me where the reference "quatloo" comes from without googling it.
The guantlet having been suitably flung, I now return to my drawing room to enjoy a snifter of Brandy while I wait to hear from your seconds.
How many quatloos for Shahna? Can the bidding start at 10?
-
New Rules
New Rule: Just because your tattoo has Chinese characters in it doesn't make you spiritual. It's right above the crack of your ass. And it translates to "beef with broccoli." The last time you did anything spiritual, you were praying to God you weren't pregnant. You're not spiritual. You're just high.
I don't know why, but that one cracked me up.
-
No question we lost to a very good team in San Diego. But just because we are still in the race, it doesn't say much for our football team.
I was at the game in San Diego, and the talent gap between the two teams was immense. The Bills were outclassed in the warmups.
I appreciate the positive post and I would definitely love a playoff game, but it is hard to get excited knowing that it will be a road playoff game against a good team, and we are 0-5 on the road. The loss at New England was supposedly a way to validate that this team can play well on the road, but what if New England isn't very good either? That puts us behind an average team, and ahead of the Jets and Dolphins. Woohoo. (Don't get me wrong- ahead of the Jets and Dolphins is much better than behind them; it's just not saying much, as I think we expected to be ahead of them.)
So yes, while we did lose to a very good team, it further exposed our major problems for which there is no quick fix. Our O-line can't pass block, and our D-line can't get to the QB without blitzing (and even then they have trouble.)
IF the Bills get into the playoffs they will have a home game as the only way they get in is as the East Division winner. They'd probably have to host either Cincy or Jacksonville. On the outside chance they surpassed that hurdle, that is when the hurting begins. They most likely would have to go to Indy, and I don't see any way the Bills stay within 2 touchdowns of the Colts.
It's all moot anyway, as the Patriots need to play very poorly over the last 6 weeks (w/ 2 games against the Jets and 1 against Miami) and the Bills at a minimum need to go 4-2, and probably 5-1 or 6-0 due to the Pats' remaining schedule.
-
He had previously been diagnosed with a heart condition. I've known of blows to the chest (hockey, baseball) causing heart attacks (hitting the chest at the wrong point in the heart beat...)...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/hock...ex.html?cnn=yes
I know some players in Europe have died from getting hit directly on the heart, haven't heard of any having it happen in NA, but if I'm not mistaken Chris Pronger collapsed a few years back after getting hit with a slap shot directly over his heart.
As others have stated, thank God that Fischer appears to be ok.
-
Cripes! And I thought you were taking the Keynesian side...
You supply-siders keep making that argument, but none of you have ever provided evidence. And to simply show that dollar revenues went up, is not evidence, because revenues will increase as national income increases. What you have to show is that revenues as a % of income increased, and that's just not the case. When you break down the deficits, they have increased because of the combination of increased spending plus lower tax rates.
year Rev Exp personal inc rev
2001 19.8% 18.5% 9.9%
2002 17.8% 19.4% 8.3%
2003 16.4 19.9 7.3
2004 16.3 19.8 7.0
For the first 4 years of Bush, revenues fell as a % of GDP and exp. increased--his deficits were a combination. I've included the personal income tax revenue % as well, since that was the major source of tax cuts.
And i agree with you about the surpluses; only problem with that argument is that the SS revenues have also made Bush's deficits look better because of your same reasoning. So, Bush's "true deficits" are even worse.
PLEASE don't make me have to argue for the Keynesians!
I don't follow your argument that revenues need to increase as a %age of national income in order to have truly increased. If that were the case, the only way to ever maximize revenues to the gov't's coffers would be to have a 100% tax. By lowering the tax rate, you increase revenues, but by definition have lowered the percentage of the GDP that the revenues make up. (Obviously, there is some tax rate where overall revenues will decrease, but my guess is that we are still comfortably on the high side of the inflection point.)
As you admit, the economy picked up after the tax cuts, (I realize you believe that would have occured with or without the tax cuts) had spending been anywhere close to where it was prior to 2001, then the percentage of GDP shown as expenditures would at a minimum remain constant; it actually SHOULD decrease much as the revenues as a %age decreased. The fact that it grew by more than a full %age point indicates that spigot got opened a heck of a lot more than the tax cut would have accounted for.
Had expenditures remained constant, or even close to constant, the deficit would have been a lot lower. I will not state that all of the increased spending was necessarily bad, as much of the military budget increases were necessary due to the US being at war. A certain amount of the discretionary spending was also necessary to get out of the brief recession. There was, however, a lot of unnecessary spending and that definitely ballooned the deficit.
I agree with you 100% that the true deficits are worse than they look due to the SS "surplus". I wish the politicians were forced to keep them separate from the rest of the gov't's funds so people would see just how bad Congress is at staying in a budget.
-
I was specifically addressing the question of the impact tax cuts have as viewed by Keynesians vs. SSs. For Keynesians, all else constant, a cut in taxes is expansionary because it increases deficits. For SS, tax cuts are supposed to change behavior--increasing work effort and productivity, so that the tax cut leads to higher growth, and therefore lower deficits, eventually...
Otherwise I agree with your description of "functional finance." By the way, every policy is really "by and large Keynesian." The evidence from the impact from both Reagan and Bush2 tax cuts is that they caused higher deficits. As Reagan's former budget director wrote in his "tell all" book, Supply-Side theory was really a ruse to re-direct income from the bottom to the top.
The tax cuts did NOT increase the deficit. They led to increased government revenues. The deficit increased because spending increased more than the increase in revenues. Had the tax cuts not been enacted, the deficits would have increased even more as revenues would have been lower, assuming as you do that all else remains constant - i.e. that the increase in spending would have occured regardless of revenue.
Had spending remained constant, the tax cuts would have REDUCED the deficit as they increased revenues. Deficit = Spending - Revenue when Spending > Revenue. If spending < revenue, you get a surplus. By the way, the '90's "surpluses" were not true surpluses as they were created using SS money that has been earmarked for future outlays.
-
I did find in one of text books that the US did ratify Chapter 1, Article II, the text of the relevant passages follow:
While it may not speak to the specifics regarding resolutions, it does seem to indicate that the virtually unilateral actions of the US in invading Iraq were illegal. All in all, a moot point, since we are there.
I guess the bigger concern right now should be what we do while we're there, and making sure that it's done before we leave, my posts of the other day notwithstanding.
As to your 1st point, my guess is that that is an issue that was argued here long before I started posting on this board, namely, was the US led invasion of Iraq a dispute between the US and Iraq or was it an enforcement of the 18 or so SC resolutions that Iraq was violating. My opinion is that it was the latter and I assume from your other posts that your view is it was the former. My guess is that one or both of us will have carpal-tunnel before we reach an agreement and as you mention, the point is moot.
I agree with your other point about what the current concern should be. I tend to agree generally with BiB's and SnR's posts regarding Iraq, Mickey's protests that nothing specific is being stated at any level notwithstanding.
-
Hopefully at least 14 of them were against the annoying blonde in the beige suit sitting behind him who seemed to be the official Democrat applause starter. Hopefully the last hit was against whoever was the Republican applause starter.
How in the world can these people be so fat when they have to jump out of their seats every 20 seconds to lead the wave throughout the chamber?
-
Speaking of being wrecked...
This thread reminds me of a time when I lived on the shores of Lake Erie (Wanakah to be exact) and the conversations we had when I was wrecked on THC one evening (I found out what that was by taking it
). Everyone was talking at the same time, and only a word or so was heard, before the conversation bounced in another direction. 
Be proud, my longest thread started with a plugged toilet. Yours at least STARTED above toilet level.
Yeah, but then, when it appeared the thread would drop below the toilet level, the Tidy Bowl man floated in on what was left of the Ella Fitzgerald to save the day.
-
And that puts me even farther away from having an anwer! I still believe (not know, only believe) that your specific example would be considered an essentially domestic issue (I'll paste the relevant verbage at the bottom), but I'm not going to pretend to know the answer to what your basic argument is. Hell, I can't even fake it.
I'm a fan of the IDEALS of the UN, and I think most other people are too. Things like conflict resolution, curbing aggression, protecting basic human rights, etc, are important after all.
As far as the UN's actions to try to achieve those ideals, I'm not so much of a fan.
Here's Chapter 1, Article II, No. 7 - the "domestic issue" verbage:
Campy, I went back through the UN Charter again and "upon further review" do not believe that the US has an obligation to absolutely follow any "recommendations" of the GA.
Article 2, Principle 5 states:
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.The only place where "actions" are referred to is in dealing with issues before the Security Council (Articles 25, 36-42). Since the "recommendations" of the GA are NOT actions I do not see where under KRC's hypothetical "Chinese guns are now illegal" would be enforceable against the US (or any other member state for that matter). I come to the conclusion that GA recommendations are not actions because the SC can make recommendations and/or take actions. Actions and recommendations are specifically referred to separately for the SC.
Because the US has it's veto on the SC, I don't see much possibility of overly ambitious busybodies being able to jerk the US around too much, but the possibility definitely is there. As a side note, because the SC CAN essentially declare war or impose significant economic sanctions on whomever it wants, provided it gets 9 votes and no vetos, I would never want the US to unilaterally withdraw from the UN. I see far too real a possibility that in the future some combination of the French, Chinese, and Russians would find some reason to declare war or sanctions on the US and drag the rest of the world with them.
Also, it appears that the UN Charter was amended on at least 3 occasions. Do you by any chance have any information regarding whether the US Senate re-ratified the Charter after any / all of the amendments? I have no information regarding that and was curious.
-
That should teach her to go sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.
National Ballet School of Canada
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I didn't know they had a school for Canadian ballerinas. I thought they learned those moves on their own.
Cool.