Sharron Smith:

Norb,

A really great job! My congratulations comes with a great, big

 

 

 Sharron,

Thanks for calling our attention to Norb's article.  I had overlooked it on my first, quick reading of the paper.

 

Norb,

 I want to second Sharron's comments on the article.  You have so eloquently said what I have been saying for years.  You are right on target and have proposed the right solution.  Now how do we get those responsible for tax policy to listen? 

Norb for President!

Clonnie Yearout:

 Those who are guilty of no wrongdoing have no need of a church in the first place.

That's one man's opinion, shared by many but not all.  I believe one can find spiritual healing without going to church, and one can go to church without a need for spiritual healing.  Many people attend church for fellowship or social activities and intellectual stimulation.  Some hypocrites go to church to be seen by others.  Some singles go to meet potential dates. 

Clonnie Yearout:

Both homosexuality and heterosexuality are lifestyles, and do not equate to race or gender.  Lifestyles may be practiced or not practiced -- at the will of the individual possessing them.  Some heterosexuals make the decision to live their lives without practicing their sexuality, and homosexuals should be able to do so as well if they want to be accepted into a group that considers their activity to be wrong.

You seem to think of homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle, an optional set of behaviors.  To be welcome in your church (assuming you speak for your church), a homosexual would be accepted if he (or she) was not a "practicing homosexual."  By that can I assume you mean not having sexual relations with a person of the same gender?  Are members of your church normally outspoken about their sexual activity?  How would the congregation and minister know whether a person is "practicing their sexuality?"  Would that include hugging, kissing, an arm around the shoulder, holding hands?  It seems to me that you are focusing on one part of a person, a part that is ordinarily private and essentially a matter of speculation.  Consider the possibility that there are many "closeted" homosexuals all around you--coworkers, church members, clerks in stores, patients, family members--and unless they strangely volunteer the information, you have no way of knowing their sexual practices.  That being the case, maybe you are putting too much emphasis on that aspect of humankind.

Sharron Smith:

I hope all have read Norb’s excellent, Technicolor, “on-the money,” top of the hill” piece on the Op Ed page in the morning RT. 

 

Norb,

A really great job! My congratulations comes with a great, big

 

 

 

H   U   G!

 

 

I am betting you will even get one from Joe for this one!

Sharron

 

I enjoyed Norb's Op Ed as well.  Norb, a tip of the hat to you.  I especially liked your application of "a little arithmetic."

 

Gibson Brown:

Norb for President!

Indeed, our colleague Norb wrote a superb commentary.  I'm waiting to see Nick's answer (since he's our resident defense minister for the uber-rich corporate CEOs).  Hard to argue with cold facts, so I wonder what tack he will take in an effort to sail around Commodore Norb. 

Sadly, Norb could never be elected to public office, Gip.  He tells it like it is, not the mythology people want to hear. 

Clonnie Yearout:

Deb Landgraf:

I hope you don't mind me "sharing!" Father John Dietzen said in the article "Judging and Condemning Others" that "some people have just enough faith to believe in a God who judges us, but not enough to believe in a God who loves us. So they believe their surest way of pleasing God is to judge others as well." Father Dietzen also said that "we have a direct and serious command of our Lord not to judge another." I see this as closely tied to our topic since so many presume to judge others and explain it through religious beliefs. I think your statement Sharron nails this point: Intolerance and bigotry are not rendered legitimate because they are expressed as religious beliefs.

Deb, are you trying to trap me by employing one of my own tactics against me?  If so, it worked.  I can't resist the "red meat" of your above post. LOL

You might want to read the entire passage from which Father Dietzen lifted his oft-quoted line.  It's found in Matthew 7:1-6, and the gist of the entire passage is that it is hypocritical to judge others unless we have judged ourselves first.  In fact, verse 5 directs us to judge others -- but only after we have rightly judged ourselves.  Strictly speaking, Jesus was directing his words to the Jews, but if we're going to apply them to us today (as Father Dietzen is doing), we should consider the entire passage and not lift a single sentence out of context, in my perhaps slightly less than humble opinion.  So according to what I believe is the plain reading of the passage, we are definitely permitted to judge each other, provided we have judged ourselves first.  Obviously this takes a lot of the fun out of it, and it's easier just to not judge anyone -- including ourselves.

Hey Clonnie, Even w/ the entire passage quoted, it still makes great sense.  Think any honest, sensible person can do a pretty good job of judging himself. Which makes it annoying when well-meaning absolutists suggest that one just doesn't measure up. The judgement is usually made well before the person being measured is even known to those doing the judging.  Meanwhile, ran into a City firefighter I used to run with today and we talked about YOU.  - I told him that you were one of my favorite people who I have never met. He said that he remembers you as being very quiet. I told him that that must be a different "Clonnie." 

- the fish whisperer

 

Sandy Light:

Meanwhile, ran into a City firefighter I used to run with today and we talked about YOU.  - I told him that you were one of my favorite people who I have never met. He said that he remembers you as being very quiet. I told him that that must be a different "Clonnie."

I know people who know Clonnie and hear the same thing about him.  They say he's a nice guy, smart, and quiet.  I think I'd probably like him a lot better in person than I do online (LOL).

Ricky and I want to meet Clonnie.  We have a lot in common.  It's too bad he missed the picnic.  We need another Voices of the Valley get-together.

WOW, Sir Norb, you totally rocked the subject and I am giving you a standing O!!

Miss Sharron, you are beyond amazing, thank you for being here!

This is the single most wonderful blog on the internet and I am not joking. 

 

 

Sharron Smith:

I hope all have read Norb’s excellent, Technicolor, “on-the money,” top of the hill” piece on the Op Ed page in the morning RT. 

 

Norb,

A really great job! My congratulations comes with a great, big

 

 

 

H   U   G!

 

 

I am betting you will even get one from Joe for this one!

Sharron

 

 

 Thanks Sharon, and to the rest of you who have commented. There are a couple of added points that didn't fit the word count limit:

I did slip in the word "annual" when discussing the internally generated stimulus, but a lot of people will miss that. Please note, the present federal stimuli are one time shots, this stimulus recurs each and every year, so is much greater than anything the Feds are doing.

The next point is a mixed bag, and there wasn't room to discuss it. Ditto heads will complain that it's just another damn liberal proposed tax increase. But when you look at the actual effect, it is really a tax reduction. The top tax rate for 2008, was 35% for all income over $357,700. So, with an average income of $7.44 million, each of the 141,000 top 0.1% earners is now paying the Feds 35% of a little over $7 million, or about $2.45 million. If he resets his pay to $2 million, the 75% rate does not affect his taxes at all -- he only needs to pay whatever lower rate is set for earnings below $2 million. I say it's a mixed bag because the government loses out on a lot of their present tax income (which affects the deficit), but the corporations get to keep a large portion of that as a stimulus to improve their operations.

So it's a dilemma for the Feds. If they enact it they lose a lot of income from individual high income tax payers. But if the stimuli work the way they should, the corporations would grow their incomes, resulting in higher tax collections from those corporations, and more importantly, they would be hiring more people to handle their increased business -- which would lower the unemployment levels, making the voters happier, and would increase federal income from the taxes paid by these newly employed folks.

 

Dave Hanson:

I'm waiting to see Nick's answer (since he's our resident defense minister for the uber-rich corporate CEOs).  Hard to argue with cold facts, so I wonder what tack he will take in an effort to sail around Commodore Norb. 

 

OK, I'll bite. I don't know about the defense minister implication as that is on the harsh side, but I don't see that small group of people being the only root cause of our economic problems. Norb has some salient points in the article and one thing that crossed my mind while reading it was other differences between the economic state of the US in the 60's and now. You want to turn the clock back to the 60's? While we're jacking up the upper tax rates back to 70-95% on the greedmeisters, let's dial back the percentage of government spending as opposed to GDP. Currently that figure is 28%, probably double what it was in 1965. Just for reference, that number was 4% in 1900 when the progressive ball got rolling. While we're at it, we should take another look at the "War on Poverty" spawned by LBJ during that time which has been little more than a transfer of 4-6 trillion dollars from the private to the public sector while doing little to cure poverty according to government stats. The beginning of the Federal takeover of education also happened in this era. How is that working out? Adding a huge layer of bureacracy to the education system has caused the cost of education to rise significantly while very little of the money has actually made it to the classrooms. Leaving that money at the state and local level would certainly increase efficiency of tax dollars for education. Oh, let us not forget the $2.4 trillion that should still be in the Social Security "trust fund" (much more had it been left alone to accrue interest) which has been spent by Congress over the years. If that dirty little secret had been revealed back then, SS would not be on the verge of bankruptcy. I could go on, but I am late for work. Time to get a piece of the corporate pie. ;-)

The point is that if you want to go back to the economics of the Eisenhower/Kennedy era, just changing the top tax rates would not necessarily work without scaling back the bloated size of the Federal government. To quote Gip, just saying.

Nick

 

 

Referencing the recent election, did anyone else notice how the Republican ticket seemed to rule the day? I'm not saying the country made a statement, but Virginia sure did. I personally would like to see "Mo" Griffith run for Governor, as he truly is a powerhouse candidate, believes in what he speaks, and has integrity out the yang. You may not agree with all, or even any of his political positions, but I know him to be straight up and a straight shooter since he was a young "Gator" at Stonegate swim club. "Mo" for Governor in 2014! To quote Nick quoting me, "I'm just saying." Gip

Nick Prout:

I don't see that small group of people being the only root cause of our economic problems.

Boy, Nick, you just don't get it, do you?  People don't have enough money for one reason:  Most of the available money is all locked up in the vaults of rich people. Don't try to tell me that right-wing stuff about how very few Americans are truly poor, or that the poorest American citizen is actually quite rich by most of the world's standards.  You're missing the point, Nick -- the point being that the rich have too much money.  How much is too much, you ask?  Well, it depends on who you ask, but don't try to confuse me.  The point is that it's just not right for Americans to have a whole lot of money laying around in their accounts and shoe boxes.   Freedom?  Come on, Nick!  Honestly, I'm trying to help you here, but if you're not going to be serious, this may be a lost cause. 

Here's the way it goes, Nick.  American wealth is static.  The person who has extra money is keeping some other person somewhere from having that money.  People with extra money don't invest it, they just pile it up somewhere in huge piles and it benefits nobody.  It just lays around until it's owner dies and then it gets passed on to someone else who will keep it laying around all their lives.  Occasionally it gets passed on to some liberal, conscience-assuaging group, but this doesn't happen with nearly enough frequency.  Most of it just lounges in wasteful repose and molds away in the vaults of those horrible, hideous, and vile rich people. 

It was very clever of you to slip in that dig on the government, Nick, but we're wise to your tactics.  Oh, I know you had some facts and figures to back up your argument, but we all know that the real facts and figures prove that punishing, confiscatory tax rates are the most efficient way to grow a vibrant economy.  Freedom?  Well, there you go again!  Come on, Nick -- don't make me laugh!  The concept of freedom is so last century!  Economic equality is the byword of the new millennium, and since forty years of wealth transfer didn't bring the bottom up, we're now going to bring the top down.  One way or the other, we're going to have economic equality, Nick, and the sooner you get used to it the better things will work out for you. 

I know I've been a little rough on you Nick, but it was for your own good.  The sooner you get with the program, the easier it will be for you.  I suggest you quit you job and place a nice, comfortable lawn chair out by the mailbox.  While you're sitting there waiting, you can read a good book, something like Robin Hood.  Imaging that our beloved government is the modern day Robbing Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  If you're rich you'll get robbed, but if you're poor you stand to reap a windfall.  Keep repeating to yourself, "Rich people bad -- government good." 

It's really better this way, Nick.  The government's only reason for existence is to help you, and all they want in return is your measly little vote.  I mean, your vote is one of the most valuable things you own.  Why give it away to people who expect you to "suck it up" and "stand on your own two feet."  No, Nick, use your vote wisely.  Give it to Robbing Hood.  Robbing Hood is the only one who truly cares about you.

 

Sandy Light:

Think any honest, sensible person can do a pretty good job of judging himself. Which makes it annoying when well-meaning absolutists suggest that one just doesn't measure up. The judgement is usually made well before the person being measured is even known to those doing the judging.

Sandy, your use of the adjective, "well-meaning," in your comment above gives me an indication that you are a really nice person who possesses the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.  I admire that trait very much, and I'm inspired to emulate it.  I'm not at all "mean" in the strictest sense of that word, but I'll plead guilty to being a bit mischievous from time to time.  I wish I could be nice all the time like you, but hey, I gotta' be me!  

I wonder what nest week's topic will be.  I also wonder what next week's topic will be.  I was once able to type 45 mistake-free words per minute, but my fingers seem to be developing minds of their own,  Where was I?  Oh yeah... the new topic.  I'm betting on something relative to the election:  "Does the land-slide victory by Republican candidates in Virginia signal a sea-change in state politics, or were the voters simply having a temper tantrum?"

I hope everyone has forgotten that I predicted a Deeds victory after McDonnell's thesis became news.  I still don't understand why that wasn' t sufficient to sink McDonnell's candidacy.  The media let it drop, or perhaps they broke the story too early -- I'm not sure.  It's quite mystifying to me, really.  The worst part of it all is that I was wrong in my prediction!  I hate being wrong.  It happens so infrequently that it's quite devastating to my psyche when it does occur.

Gibson Brown:

I personally would like to see "Mo" Griffith run for Governor

 

 

Hey Gip,

We quite often agree, but this time I am not sure.  I have never been in his district and haven't watched his actions too closely.  However one place where I saw his as a stumbling block to progress was his efforts (along with Ralph Smith and others) to block anti-smoking legislation.  Since this was/is something that I strongly support, I was less than pleased with their willingness to put tobacco interests ahead of public health.  I would not rule out voting for him, but would have to think about it.  You are right in saying he is a powerhouse in the state.

And oh yes, I think Virginia made a statement in this election.  I certainly hope so and I hope some people take note.

Nick Prout:

The point is that if you want to go back to the economics of the Eisenhower/Kennedy era, just changing the top tax rates would not necessarily work without scaling back the bloated size of the Federal government.

 

Nick,

I think this is one argument where you and Norb are both onto something valid.  While I am very upset by the outrageous pay packages for top executives even while they run their companies into the ground, I am even more appalled by the ever expanding government control of every aspect of our lives.  I agree....let's go back to the smaller government of the Eisenhower/Kennedy era and raise the top tax brackets.