‘In the man, or in the jackass?’

Declaration_independence-1

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Those words, published for all the world to see some 239 years ago this weekend, have proved to be among the most powerful ever written. Their author, Thomas Jefferson, took a somewhat vague sentiment that had been bubbling up in the American colonies and crystallized it into a bold, earth-shaking assertion.

And the rumbling hasn’t stopped, as those words continue to challenge us today. They were, for example, the direct cause, inspiration and justification for the Supreme Court ruling last month that gay Americans have the same right as everybody else to marry whom they choose.

Gay or straight, we are created equal. We have, all of us, certain unalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Surely the right to pursue happiness includes the right to marry the person of your choice.

Opponents of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling are admittedly correct when they argue that Jefferson would probably be horrified and astonished to learn that his words were being applied to same-sex marriage. That wasn’t what he had in mind. They are also correct that in the past two centuries, we have expanded the meaning of terms such as equality and liberty significantly beyond what Jefferson had imagined.

But while some see that as a problem, I see it as validation. We are making his words our words. We are taking sentiments and thoughts expressed on a dusty piece of parchment in another era and we are keeping them alive, vibrant and relevant to our own time.

If you believe that liberty and equality are static concepts, it’s worth pointing out that when Jefferson expressed those words in ink, when Georgia’s own Button Gwinnett became the first person to sign it, it was only men who were considered theoretically equal. Only white men. And in many colonies at the time, it was only white men who owned property.

Jefferson supported a property requirement to vote, as did John Adams, his co-author of the Declaration. If you give the right to vote to those without property — the renter, the workman, the servant, the city dweller — “every man who has not a farthing will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state,” Adams warned. “It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”

But Benjamin Franklin, who often had what we would consider a more modern sensibility, thought that property requirement ridiculous:

“Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?”

The answer, as we came to understand, was in the man, and not just in the man but in the person.

Reader Comments 0

622 comments
MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

I am as disappointed in Jay Bookman’s understanding of Jefferson’s mind as I am in his understanding of Washington’s mind.  Lawyers who argue cases are not historical intellectuals, as Jefferson was.  Here are Thomas Jefferson’s words, not Bookman’s words nor the words of attorneys:


“As. . . new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. . . .Each generation. . . has. . .a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness. . . . ‘Nothing then,’ he told Major John Cartwright in 1824, ‘is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.’ ”


So little does Bookman understand Jefferson that he does not acknowledge that Adams and Jefferson were opposed in matters of the average man’s rights in America. That difference in views was a point of difference between them in the election of 1800.  Jefferson’s mind was fluid, not static.  Bookman fails to see that.  Jefferson advocated for public education for all citizens – rich and poor – so that they all could participate in their own self-government.  He purchased the Louisiana Territory in large part so that average men might go west and be landowners.  Jefferson considered Adams to be unduly influenced by status, as had the Royalists been, and Adams was a Federalist.  Jefferson’s support came from the average man because they understood Jefferson’s egalitarian mind better than many today.  Jefferson stood above the other Founding Fathers in moving this nation forward, over centuries, toward progressive ideas. Thomas Jefferson would have supported gay rights and Civil Rights of all kinds, if he had lived today, because of the inherent freedom within.


For more of my thoughts in this regard, please read the content in my personal blog at this link:

https://maryelizabethsings.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/3714/

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Pretty good rundown--takedown?--on the current state of Confederate disownership that seems apparent among many of America's conservatives nowadays.


http://alicublog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/hope-for-americas-future.html


They're annoying, but with their annoyance comes this silver lining: These guys seem ashamed of the Confederate legacy, and whether they're sincere about it or (more likely) totally cynical doesn't really matter.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

...and I'll add, that "cynical or sincere" issue is similarly irrelevant to me most of the time no matter which side of an aisle a politician calls home. I don't really care (for example) if Barack really did believe in marriage equality all along but waited until it was politically expedient to do so, nor do I care if Nikki really thinks the Battle Flag only serves to punch unworthy victims of racism in the gut nowadays. Doing the right thing is what matters, in the end.

breckenridge
breckenridge

As we head into the 2016 election season, it is important to remember there are 2 issues that 80% of American voters do not consider important political issues, and should not be discussed by candidates.  Those issues are:


1. Gay marriage

2. Abortion


If you think candidates should talk about those issues, then  you are part of the republican problem, not part of the answer.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@breckenridge

Well I agree those are loser issues for the GOP and they'd be smart to avoid discussing them, but it's not like their eventual Democratic opponent -- even if the Democrat is a marginally effective campaigner -- only misn't going to give them a very hard time about whatever positions that GOPer has held.

And it's virtually impossible for any GOPer to get nominated who won't, at minimum, continue to hold harshly unpopular views on choice, and who'll have some regrettable history on marriage equality. the latter issue might rate a pass by the electorate because it might be seen as by-the-boards, settled law by mid 2016, but abortion rights continue being fought tooth and nail in Red State America and surely will next year as well.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@lvg -  "Now all the cons are trying to backtrack and say the right to pursuit of happiness is none of the government's business and that even slaves enjoyed that right regardless of their condition.( See Wingfield's blog)And  that is coming from the party of Lincoln!"


Interesting that you brought this up.  Have our Priest over today and he also bought up a very interesting thought.  They allow murderers to marry in prison, (example: Ted Bundy); they allow rapists, human smugglers, anarchists, thieves, people who blaspheme the name of God; people who break every one of the 10 commandments; people who commit patricide and matricide -- all these people can marry and the church does not protest; religious people don't say that their "religious freedom" is being desecrated by the mere fact that these people have married.  All these sinners are allowed to marry without one word from the church


Now the US says that homosexuals can marry -- now all of a sudden the church is protesting that they're rights are being violated because the US is "condoning sin".  What makes one sin worse than another?  Is a murderer LESS of a sinner than a homosexual who has never murdered or stolen from someone or cheated someone?  


How about the people who have sex before marriage?  This is against biblical teachings; this is a commandment thats broken yet not one church protest against fornicators being married.  Again, what makes one sin so much worse than the other?  


Homosexuality is NOT part of the 10 commandments; and people break those DAILY, yet they're allowed to get married and the church doesn't protest -- yet for some reason the "sin" of homosexuality (in the US Church's eyes); is more heinous than any other and people who are can't be given the same exact rights as the murderer or the pedophile or the adulterer.  Why isn't the church demanding that people who break the 10 commandments NOT be allowed to marry?  Why just single out homosexuals?


Food for thought.  

Dusty2
Dusty2

@DebbieDoRight @lvg 


Debbie may give us food for thought but this is not entirely accurate.  When you say" churches" you have to include  Catholic, Protestant, all denominations, independent faith centers and more.  There are many differences among them.  The direct command for all is "Love one another.".  The differences come when sinfulness becomes such an objection to faith that the church cannot approve of such a sinner's action, that it would be approval of such action. 


The Catholic Church has a long procedure for people who wish to remarry.  All are not accepted for second or more marriages.  I do not know about homosexual marriages.


The Pastors of most denominations usually have conferences with people who want to marry or remarry.  All are not approved for various reasons, some with no connection to the Ten Commandments. Some denominations, not all,  believe that certain sins  prevent marriage, homosexuality being.  one of them.  At the moment, I read that more and more denominations are accepting homosexuals for marriage. Often  these are members of that church. 


Thus it is incorrect to say that NO churches are performing marriage for homosexuals.  Some are and some are not.  

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Dusty2 @DebbieDoRight @lvg -  "Thus it is incorrect to say that NO churches are performing marriage for homosexuals."


That is not what i said. What I said is that there aren't any "churches' or religious entities in the US which are protesting that their rights are being violated when murderers, pedophiles and fornicators are given the right to marry, as they are doing since homosexuals have been given the same right to marry, as an adulterer or a pedophile.  


The churches or religious entities are speaking out the side of their necks when they are proclaiming that their religious sensibilities are being threatened by homosexuals marrying BUT are silent when a mass murderer like Ted Bundy married -- while in jail on death row.  Which is the greater sin?  Being a homosexual or being a mass murderer?


Funny how silent they are when you ask them that -- or how they try to change the subject. 

Dusty2
Dusty2

@DebbieDoRight @Dusty2 @lvg 


My church  denomination, not Baptist, discussed homosexuality and felt that homosexuals were children of God who came to worship. They do not compare them to Ted Bundy or mass murderers if marriage is discussed or requested...


If you were an active church member I think you would have seen  & heard much discussion about homosexual marriage, racism and even environmental concerns.  Churches are not as backwards as you like to picture them.  They do promote faith  and love as they look at a problematic  world  with concern.

LeninTime
LeninTime

What Doom doesn't seem to realize is that he not only needs to show that tax cuts increase revenues, but that they do so in real terms, taking into account the expected effects of inflation and population growth, and that they do so more rapidly than would normally be expected given these normal expectations. Therefore tax revenues as a percentage of GDP should really be used.

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@LeninTime 

That would take a level of self-reflection and intellectual honesty that Doom lacks.  Anyone who lifts complete passages from an 11 year old article by Laffer without attribution and then uses the phrase "intellectually dishonest" has minimal sense of irony.

You are right about the "real terms" as well - a 2% growth in GDP in a country with a flat population is a heck of a lot more impressive than one with a 3% growth in GDP with a 3% growth in population - assuming the same inflation rate.

CherokeeCounty
CherokeeCounty

@PaulinNH @LeninTime 

One only need look at Kansas, or Louisiana.  Or compare the economies of Wisconsin and Minnesota - Wisconsin lags far behind Minnesota in almost all metrics now, thanks to supply side economic policies.


Doom is probably a smart guy, and a small businessman.  Why is someone like that - who would be so harmed by a return to supply side economics - so invested in promoting such things?


Makes no sense to me.

JayBook
JayBook moderator

@LeninTime 

No, tax revenue as percentage of GDP is not at all the right metric. The whole concept of supply side economics is that if you lower the percentage of GDP going to taxes, GDP will increase so much that it will more than compensate for the lower rate. 


That said, GDP DOESN'T increase so much that it more than compensates.  It doesn't come close to doing so. Even conservative economists acknowledge that basic fact, because the data give them no alternative but to do so.

Doom's bluster cannot alter that basic fact.


 

LeninTime
LeninTime

@PaulinNH @LeninTime 

Bruce Bartlett - one of the original proponents of the Laffer Curve - repudiated the nonsense that tax cuts led to revenue increases quite some time ago.

**

Yep. He and a couple of other veterans of the Reagan years have since distanced themselves from the more harebrained right wing circles.

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@LeninTime 

The Heritage Foundation - LOL.  Now why doesn't that surprise me?

BTW - Love the date of the report.  He has been yammering on about how I didn't take into account the affect of the 2003 Bush tax cuts.  The curve I posted was through 2005 and he is pulling information from a report in 2004

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

He learned two or three ideas in college and little since then.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@PaulinNH @LeninTime

Ok, I laughed at this:


My only question about Wanniski's version of the story is that the restaurant used cloth napkins and my mother had raised me not to desecrate nice things.

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

Dang - someone has way too much time on their hands - about 2000 words worth by the look of it. 

I am not going to bother answering when such Republican economists as Greg Mankiw, Robert Carroll, Alan Viard, Jim Nussle, John Snow and, of course, Douglas Holtz-Eakin (the guy who wrote the report containing the graph that has DCL in a tizzy) can do it for me.


Holtz-Eakin said it fairly clearly

I have never been in the camp that believes that quote 'tax cuts pay for themselves.' There is no serious research evidence to suggest that. The work we've done on what would happen if you were to sort of raise or lower taxes suggest about a 20 to 30 percent offset, depending on how you do it. And I think that's in the mainstream of the thought. [Think Progress, 8/5/10, emphasis in original]


There are a number of CBO reports as well

Congressional Budget Office, "Sources of Growth and Decline in Individual Income Tax Revenues Since 1994," May 2008, p. 11. For more on this issue, see the following CBPP reports: "Experts Agree that Capital Gains Tax Cuts Lose Revenue," revised May 7, 2008; Aviva Aron-Dine and Joel Friedman, "The Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Cuts and the Economy," revised March 27, 2006; "Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities," revised May 9 2008.


LeninTime
LeninTime

Doom, are you building your argument on extensive passages copied directly from other published works, without including a link or even a citation? 

PaulinNH
PaulinNH

@LeninTime 

He's going for the trifecta of ways to respond

ad hominem attack  - "intellectually dishonest"  #irony!

rewrite the facts -

red herrings - pile on mountains of extraneous "information"

His citations can be found here

www.buttyank.com

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

PaulinNH,


You need not answer all the data I presented here today- since the evidence is so overwhelming. 


All I want to know from you is why did you present a graph that is so intellectually dishonest that it omitted tax cuts in its timeline that didn't fit its narrative- as clear cut a case of intellectual dishonesty as I have ever seen. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

While we're at it let't take a look at what the  top 1, 5, and 10% of taxpayers paid in terms of their share of the tax burden under Reagan.  


Top 1% 1980 paid 19.1% and in 1988 paid over 27%

Top 5% 1980 paid 36.8% and in 1988 paid  45.5%

Top 10% 1980 paid 49.3% and in 1988 paid 57.2%


The rich paid more in absolute terms and in total % of the taxes paid under Reagan. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Oh noes. PaulinNH's intellectually dishonest graph only mentioned the 1981 Reagan tax cuts and left out the fully bulk of the Reagan tax cuts fro 1982 through the fully realized cuts of 1983. Well, lets just see what happened. 


"In August 1981, President Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, also known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut). The ERTA slashed marginal earned income tax rates by 25 percent across the board over a three-year period. The highest marginal tax rate on unearned income dropped to 50 percent from 70 percent (as a result of the Broadhead Amendment), and the tax rate on capital gains also fell immediately from 28 percent to 20 percent. Five percentage points of the 25 percent cut went into effect on October 1, 1981. An additional 10 percentage points of the cut then went into effect on July 1, 1982. The final 10 percentage points of the cut began on July 1, 1983.


Looking at the cumulative effects of the ERTA in terms of tax (calendar) years, the tax cut reduced tax rates by 1.25 percent through the entirety of 1981, 10 percent through 1982, 20 percent through 1983, and the full 25 percent through 1984.


A provision of ERTA also ensured that tax brackets were indexed for inflation beginning in 1985.

To properly discern the effects of the tax-rate cuts on the economy, I use the starting date of January 1, 1983--when the bulk of the cuts were already in place. However, a case could be made for a starting date of January 1, 1984--when the full cut was in effect.


These across-the-board marginal tax-rate cuts resulted in higher incentives to work, produce, and invest, and the economy responded (See Table 7). Between 1978 and 1982, the economy grew at a 0.9 percent annual rate in real terms, but from 1983 to 1986 this annual growth rate increased to 4.8 percent."


Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually."


Aka laka laka BOOM!

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Oh noes! PaulinNH's graph left out the capital gains tax cut in 1996 and its ensuing jump in revenues- which he attributes to Clinton raising taxes. Well, let's just see about that. I find it hilarious that PaulinNH's link shows Clinton's tax increase and increasing tax revenues- due more in part to the historic opening up of the internet age and its prolific growth than anything else. But of course his link doesn't show what happened to revenues with the 1997 capital gains tax cut. 


As expected, increasing the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent to 28 percent in 1986 led to a surge in revenues prior to the increase ($328 billion in 1986) and a collapse in revenues after the increase took effect ($112 billion in 1991).


Reducing the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent back to 20 percent in 1997 was an unqualified success, and every claim made by the critics was wrong. The tax cut, which went into effect in May 1997, increased asset values and contributed to the largest gain in productivity and private sector capital investment in a decade. It did not lose revenue for the federal Treasury.



In 1996, the year before the tax rate cut and the last year with the 28 percent rate, total taxes paid on assets sold was $66.4 billion (Table 9). A year later, tax receipts jumped to $79.3 billion, and in 1998, they jumped again to $89.1 billion. The capital gains tax-rate reduction played a big part in the 91 percent increase in tax receipts collected from capital gains between 1996 and 2000--a percentage far greater than even the most ardent supply-siders expected.

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Viva La Reagan!



"Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.


The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates (See Table 8)."


'Following the 1981 capital gains cut from 28 percent to 20 percent, capital gains revenues leapt from $12.5 billion in 1980 to $18.7 billion by 1983--a 50 percent increase--and rose to approximately 0.6 percent of GDP. Reducing income and capital gains tax rates in 1981 helped to launch what we now appreciate as the greatest and longest period of wealth creation in world history."


Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

And yet again PaulinNH's graph dishonestly only talks about the W tax cut of 2001, which came as tax revenues were already falling in light of the dot.com bust and which took place right before the impact of 9/11 on took another toll on the economy. Nevermind also that the stock market was in the tank those early years and the market provides a great source of capital gains taxes. 


But I digress, as we pointed out yet again PaulinNH's dishonest graph left out the fully realized W tax cuts of 2003. Sooooo. Lets take a look at the effect that these tax cuts had in the next few years. And for that we'll got to the NY Times, that bastion of progressivism. 


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?pagewanted=all


Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Now lets give em a good schooling on the Reagan tax cuts. 


In August 1981, President Reagan signed into law the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA, also known as the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut). The ERTA slashed marginal earned income tax rates by 25 percent across the board over a three-year period. The highest marginal tax rate on unearned income dropped to 50 percent from 70 percent (as a result of the Broadhead Amendment), and the tax rate on capital gains also fell immediately from 28 percent to 20 percent. Five percentage points of the 25 percent cut went into effect on October 1, 1981. An additional 10 percentage points of the cut then went into effect on July 1, 1982. The final 10 percentage points of the cut began on July 1, 1983.

Looking at the cumulative effects of the ERTA in terms of tax (calendar) years, the tax cut reduced tax rates by 1.25 percent through the entirety of 1981, 10 percent through 1982, 20 percent through 1983, and the full 25 percent through 1984.


A provision of ERTA also ensured that tax brackets were indexed for inflation beginning in 1985.

To properly discern the effects of the tax-rate cuts on the economy, I use the starting date of January 1, 1983--when the bulk of the cuts were already in place. However, a case could be made for a starting date of January 1, 1984--when the full cut was in effect.


 Between 1978 and 1982, the economy grew at a 0.9 percent annual rate in real terms, but from 1983 to 1986 this annual growth rate increased to 4.8 percent. BOOM!


Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.


The most controversial portion of Reagan's tax revolution was reducing the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent (when he took office in 1981) to 28 percent in 1988. However, Internal Revenue Service data reveal that tax collections from the wealthy, as measured by personal income taxes paid by top percentile earners, increased between 1980 and 1988--despite significantly lower tax rates (See Table 8).


While we're at it let't take a look at what the  top 1, 5, and 10% of taxpayers paid in terms of their share of the tax burden. 


Top 1% 1980 paid 19.1% and in 1988 paid over 27%

Top 5% 1980 paid 36.8% and in 1988 paid  45.5%

Top 10% 1980 paid 49.3% and in 1988 paid 57.2%


The rich paid more in absolute terms and in total % of the taxes paid under Reagan. 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

Class is in session. And Doomy is about to do some schooling. 


Now that we've shown the pure intellectual dishonesty of PaulinNH's graph let's talk about what actually happened during the major tax cuts. 


Since Paul's graph started with 1965 but left out 1964 in order to avoid including the Kennedy tax cuts. So lets counter his intellectual dishonesty and take a look at why those revenues look so big in 1965 shall we?


"The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year (See Table 4).


In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate."


BOOM AKA LAKA BOOM! 

Doom Classical liberal
Doom Classical liberal

http://www.factandmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/clinton-taxes.jpg


PaulinNH,


Still engaging in more intellectual dishonesty, PaulinNH? I looked into it even more and found even more obvious flaws with your completely BS graph. 


1- First of all your own graph starts with a data point of 1965. The intellectual dishonesty is that it did that in order to avoid showing the rocketing influence of the 1964 Kennedy tax cuts. Why does your graph so dishonestly leave this out?


2- The Reagan tax cuts? Even worse intellectual dishonesty. Your graph only showed the initial Reagan tax cut of 1981, which started right as the Fed induced the 1981-82 recession. Your graph dishonestly omitted the fact that the Reagan tax cuts were only later fully implemented from 1982 through 1984. The bulk of the tax cut was not fully realized until 1983 and the last of it in 1984. Yet your graph omitted this. 


"Looking at the cumulative effects of the ERTA in terms of tax (calendar) years, the tax cut reduced tax rates by 1.25 percent through the entirety of 1981, 10 percent through 1982, 20 percent through 1983, and the full 25 percent through 1984."


3. Your graph, because it is so small, makes it look like revenues began falling via the W tax cuts in 2001. More intellectual dishonesty. If you blow up the graph and look at it you can see that revenues began falling in 2000 as a result of the dot.com bust. Govt revenues were falling before W even took office. And again. Your graph omitted the W tax cuts that weren't fully realized until 2003- the effects of which were seen mostly in 2005-2007 when treasury receipts came pouring in. Why did your graph dishonestly omit the fully realized cut? 


Your graph is a joke, as is your argument. 

lvg
lvg

Every body enjoy their god given right to the pursuit of happiness today  courtesy of our founders. For the right that means staying confined to religious principles of morality;  for th left that means keeping the government out of your bedroom. Most people do not realize that in 2003 the first step to legalizing gay marriage were set by Justice Kennedy and SCOTUS in overturning Texas and  Georgia's anti-sodomy laws. Scalia dissented saying there was no reasons left to ban gay marriage since homosexuality was no longer a criminal act. Now all the cons are trying to backtrack and say the right to pursuit of happiness is none of the government's business and that even slaves enjoyed that right regardless of their condition.( See Wingfield's blog)And  that is coming from the party of Lincoln!

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

Rainy saturday.  Hoping the sun will come out later. Here at the DDR Homestead; my bro-n-law has put together a traditional Brazilian "Barbque" and he's been cooking in the back yard before dawn this morning. We've got dozens of people showing up today and my sister is gonna try to rope me into the kitchen.  But I've outsmarted her this time -- I played tennis last night and have conveniently pretended to hurt my wrist -- wrapped it up and everything --  Top of the world Ma!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3HX2YRj3TI



DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@Orange15 -- That's impossible.  In order for the city to be culpable they'd have to be flagrant in their liability; i.e.: knowing that an act like that would happen because of their actions/inactions.  Example: Toyota recall a few years ago because of knowingly manufacturing bad electrical systems that caused the car to lock up and hence escalated the death of hundreds of their owners. 

Orange15
Orange15

@DebbieDoRight @Orange15  Blah, Blah. Blah! This guy's a 7 time loser, deported 5 times and SFPD lets him walk the city streets? Impossible? No.

ZAZ
ZAZ

@DebbieDoRight @Orange15 Wrong. After several years of claims it was found to be driver error with the exception of floor mats possible having a role in a few. But the end result was the alleged electrical problem could not be recreated by any agency and it was concluded after much damage to Toyota's brand that it was driver error.

DebbieDoRight
DebbieDoRight

@ZAZ @DebbieDoRight @Orange15 -- Once again, I have to debunk another republican fairy tale:


This new recall is to correct a situation in which the gas pedal could stick without the presence of a floor mat.

"Our investigation indicates that there is a possibility that certain accelerator pedal mechanisms may, in rare instances, mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position," Toyota USA group vice president Irv Miller said in a statement.

The situation is rare, according to Toyota, but can occur when accelerator pedal mechanisms become worn. The problem will usually develop gradually, Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said. The pedal may become harder to press and may become slower to return when released. In the worst cases, it may become stuck in a partially depressed position.

"The news that Toyota has expanded this recall, in conjunction with a statement that removes blame from the previously identified faulty floor mats, is proof that this situation is slowly spiraling out of control. As a company with a reputation for steadiness, these must be uncomfortable days for Toyota," said James Bell, executive market analyst with Kelley Blue Book.

"Toyota is working quickly to prepare a correction remedy," the automaker said in its announcement.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/21/autos/toyota_recall/

Orange15
Orange15

@DebbieDoRight @Orange15  They didn't huh?


"ICE said in a statement that Sanchez was turned over to the San Francisco Police Department this past March on an outstanding drug warrant and that the department requested that police notify ICE prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody."


SF is liable as hell.