(1)

“Price of French Language to Be decided by Japanese Court” July 15, 2005 article

(2) “French Economy Gets a Boost After Paris Loses 2012 Olympics to London” July 7, 2005 article

“http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog”

Alas, things always look worse on close inspection.

Markus, your isolated-fact cherry-picks, non-sequiters, and mischaracterizations in this thread alone would write a good book for TV sound-bite Dem economic-analysis.

On the other hand, nice display of energy. Too bad you’re invested in all that socialist rot. It most hurts the most vulnerable. Your SocSec “floor” that frees up investment is absurd, as you know…waste helps no one, ever–except those in the waste business.

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page today (sadly, it’s subsciption only, but I’ll quote some of the amusing part

Let’s see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it’s bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it’s still bad news.

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week’s report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn’t coming from wage income, but rather from investment income — that is, the so-called “non-withholding” income tax collections which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. “These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur,” he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on … dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to “recur,” maybe he’ll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

Jamie Irons

Ireland looks to me like a good example of striking a reasonable balance between social programs and free-market policies (as does the US, frankly, though I personally would like to see the government get smaller). Total tax burden is roughly the same as in the US. The Irish have certain advantages – a relatively low public debt, little military expenditures to speak of – and that frees up resources for social welfare spending. Ireland is also a comparitively tiny country, so I’m not sure how reasonable it is to expect their policies to “scale up”.

I believe Ireland’s health care system is “semi-socialized”, with both private and public aspects (I know there is a means-tested component, much like in the US, but don’t know the details).

By the way, I don’t think that reducing tax rates was a bad move. The budget deficit this year will be under 3% of GDP, which is remarkable, and sustainable indefinitely (assuming the economy keeps growing at its historic rate), though of course I’d prefer no deficit (all else being equal). And I do think the cut provided a significant economic stimulus.

The idea of a minimum economic floor that we will noy let people fall below is basically good. But what has happened is that it has greatly expanded to a point where it doesn’t make economic sense for families to take care of their parents in their declining years and let the government do it for them.

What I am about to describe is not an attempt to pat my family on the back. What we are doing for our parents should be considered the norm and the requirement of the offspring of parents. And this also means that those seniors who have no offspring should be taken care of.

My parents are 88 and 87 and can not be left by themselves. When our family set down years ago and discussed what we were going to do when they began to physically break down we decided that we wanted, if possible, for them to live their remaining years at home and die there.My parents main asset was their home and a series of cash investments. My brother is a Investment counselor and knew there were ways we could shield our parents home from the state. When my father became wheelchair bound and my mother couldn’t handle the house we got together and had one of the kids move in to take care of them. we are using there assets to pay for their needs. We could have dumped them onto the state and if we had chosen too we could have protected many of their assets and kept them for when they died. that is one of the major social problems of the nanny state attitude. I am not talking about going back to 1850 and abolishing all government aid. But any system that allows adult children to shift the resposibility of the care of their parents on to the state is just wrong and it is bad for the family structure. Many people are in situations where there is no other choice and this is not intended to make them feel guilty. The 15,000(I think that is accurate) seniors that died because of neglect in france should never be allowed to happen. The actual increase of the temperature was not that great. It was simply the fact that so many french citizens had simply left everything to the state regarding their parents. Children taking care of their parents in their last years is not always the right choice. But I feel the attitude of “it’s the responsibility of the state” is growing and unhealthy and demoralizing.

Kevin Peters

if it keeps up for more than a few quarters, they’ll rival the Bush 41 and Clinton tax INCREASES in effectiveness.

or

Hey, if they can accomplish all this with low corporate taxes as well, more power to them!?

And with this question, this self-indulgent boomer says, good night, y’all.