SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (9017)1/1/2002 9:14:54 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) of 93284
 
zero corporate taxes,
Makes sense to me. Corporations don't pat taxes, they collect them.
I think tax laws and accounting standards might require some tightening to do a better job of preventing the shifting of private corporate officer and executive expenses to the corporation.

no federal earmarks,
I'd go further. No "revenue sharing". Period. States pay their way and the federal gov't pays its way.

no tax deductions for children,
Sounds good.

the States can take care of there own federal highways.
Um. maybe. The federal gov't does reserve the right to take control of federal highways at any time.

They have the choice, that's what's good.
Yes.

On the other hand some keep the burkas on, because the Northern alliance has a history of capturing the pretty ones and selling them. [I posted the story previously]. That's not so good.
Yuck. What a mess. This is like trying to choose between the Sicilian Mafia and the Mexican Mafia. The only good vote is "None of the above"- -and that's not an option.

But where's the proof?
The Soviets published only parts of their military budget, not the whole thing, so it becomes difficult to say just what was happening. Not that we did differently. Spook expenditures simply didn't show up in the US public budget. Remember, NSA stood for No Such Agency for many years and its cost (many, many billions) didn't show up in the public budget.

saw no comensurate spending on expanding the Soviet nuclear forces or the already existing Soviet ABM systems
They couldn't expand their ABM without violating the ABM treaty- -which was exactly what they wanted to keep in effect.

That information is now available in a declassified CIA report on the economic analysis of the Soviet Union for 1978-1979. Available through the National Archives at Greenbelt, MD. [It's not on-line, you can see it at the Archives, or order it]
Document name? And may I point out that 78-79 is not quite the right time period? Reagan took office in 1980. This is like saying there never was a French Revolution because it hadn't occurred by 1788.
And it is well known that the CIA was caught totally offguard by the collapse of the USSR. Of course their documents are going to show it! If they did, they wouldn't have been completely surprised.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext