Question:

Well, Fred, let’s see. I can refute that I’m a buttface…

Let’s see if you can. What To Do When Encountering A Peace Activist Because of the war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, those who terrorize Israel regularly, those who fund such acts of terrorism and those who verbally support these terrorists.

Let’s see.  None of the above has anything to do with Iraq. Conclusion:  You are a buttface.

Response:

FBI sources have verified that "paul pouliot", in news message … 9. When you  properly stand trial in a court of law for assault and battery,

Hey, look!  You learned the lesson! Stupendous Man

Question:

Deano sez: So who has crossed the line into treason?

John Walker Lindh has for one. Others are skating on thin ice. We are talking about U.S. citizens right? There are some here on green cards that fit the bill. But then they are not citizens. Jan Eric Orme "Work like you don’t need the money, love like you have never been hurt and dance like nobody is watching!"

Response:

It’s time the Jane Fonda’s & Sean Penn’s of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them. We ALL support our troops. One of the best ways of supporting our troops is to stop our so-called leaders from putting them into uncalled for, unnecessary, unwise, and counterproductive wars.

That situation isn’t happening right now, so I will file your comment away for future reference.

Response:

This Airman’s response to the Washington Times should be printed in all newspapers across America. Especially now when the President is calling up more Reserves and National Guardsmen. Get this response out to everyone you know. It’s time the Jane Fonda’s & Sean Penn’s of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them. Military pay article On 12 Nov, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members’ way this year — citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.

Urban legend.  Check snopes before spreading this kind of stuff. — Carl A. http://pages.prodigy.net/chainnj/Journal.htm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you mean, did I protest in the streets? No I did not. That, to me is a waste of good shoe leather. But I did speak out against the bombing of Serbia. I think that war was wrong. I think this one is right. I also support people’s right to dessent as long as we can also point out where they are wrong AND they don’t go over the line and commit treason by defending the enemy. Jane Fonda should have had the cojones to denounce her US citizenship and stayed in Hanoi. She blatently put our POWs in serious danger. Dessent is fine. But traveling to an enemy shore and speaking against your own nation is something I consider to be treason. Rather Treasonous Dan can have the benifit of doubt because he is the media. Sean Penn is just a wimp ass commoner like the rest of us, giving aid to the enemy. Jan Eric Orme

So who has crossed the line into treason? Deano

Response:

That’s not what she said on her interview on FAUX news. She did protest the NATO bombing of Serbia as did many others including many repubs, did you? Were you a traitor for lending comfort to the enemy? No, of course not. That’s a ruse by the right wing to shut people up. I totally disagree with the current anti war views but completely support their right to dessent. Even if it were you. Deano

If you mean, did I protest in the streets? No I did not. That, to me is a waste of good shoe leather. But I did speak out against the bombing of Serbia. I think that war was wrong. I think this one is right. I also support people’s right to dessent as long as we can also point out where they are wrong AND they don’t go over the line and commit treason by defending the enemy. Jane Fonda should have had the cojones to denounce her US citizenship and stayed in Hanoi. She blatently put our POWs in serious danger. Dessent is fine. But traveling to an enemy shore and speaking against your own nation is something I consider to be treason. Rather Treasonous Dan can have the benifit of doubt because he is the media. Sean Penn is just a wimp ass commoner like the rest of us, giving aid to the enemy. Jan Eric Orme "Work like you don’t need the money, love like you have never been hurt and dance like nobody is watching!"

Response:

This Airman’s response to the Washington Times should be printed in all newspapers across America.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blpayraise.htm Tex Houston

Response:

Jenny said: Trendy Protesting (of Republicans) Explaining why she and other anti-war protesters didn’t organize demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan. "It wasn’t very hip" [to protest Clinton's Wars]. Source: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/23/151110

like nobody is watching!" That’s not what she said on her interview on FAUX news. She did protest the NATO bombing of Serbia as did many others including many repubs, did you? Were you a traitor for lending comfort to the enemy? No, of course not. That’s a ruse by the right wing to shut people up. I totally disagree with the current anti war views but completely support their right to dessent. Even if it were you. Deano

Response:

Jenny said: It’s time the Jane Fonda’s & Sean Penn’s of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them. We ALL support our troops. One of the best ways of supporting our troops is to stop our so-called leaders from putting them into uncalled for, unnecessary, unwise, and counterproductive wars.

Just wondering Jenny. Does this mean you feel that way all the time or do you agree with Janeane Garofalo and her comments about? Trendy Protesting (of Republicans) Explaining why she and other anti-war protesters didn’t organize demonstrations when President Clinton launched attacks on Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and the Sudan. "It wasn’t very hip" [to protest Clinton's Wars]. Source: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/23/151110 I’m not trying to set you up here Jenny, because I assume you did not support Clinton on his wars either. Clinton, BTW, holds the bloody record for wars. The point is, that these "Actors" are hypocrits in most cases. When it comes to this subject it’s all politics and what a Democtate Administration does is somehow OK. And Jenny, you are into nakedness, do you agree with Janeans on this silly nakedness? Naked Gay Burning the Flag Choke Her up With Pride From a 1998 interview in the now-folded Buzz magazine: "Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, ‘Oh my God, you’re insulting me.’ That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, ‘We’re here, we’re queer!’ — that’s what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride." Source: http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/2002/garofalo.htm For more Hollywood Nitwit Garofaloisms you can read this: http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/janeanegarofalo/index.htm And for Leftist Hollywood Nitwits in general, you can go to: http://www.hollywoodhalfwits.com/ Jan Eric Orme "Work like you don’t need the money, love like you have never been hurt and dance like nobody is watching!"

Response:

It’s time the Jane Fonda’s & Sean Penn’s of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them.

We ALL support our troops. One of the best ways of supporting our troops is to stop our so-called leaders from putting them into uncalled for, unnecessary, unwise, and counterproductive wars. Jenny Before emailing, remove Clothes

Response:

This Airman’s response to the Washington Times should be printed in all newspapers across America. Especially now when the President is calling up more Reserves and National Guardsmen. Get this response out to everyone you know. It’s time the Jane Fonda’s & Sean Penn’s of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them. Military pay article On 12 Nov, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members’ way this year — citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below.  He ought to get a bonus for this! "Ms Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused.  Frankly, I’m wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account.  Checking my latest earnings statement  I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20.  When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000-host computer network.  I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment.  A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job.  Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year.  No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum.  I’m sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.  Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military’s lowest pay brackets off of WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."  As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones.  Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they’ll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone — obviously they’ve been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.  Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you’re actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren’t enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything.  This gives some flavor.  Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won’t nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for  it.  You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece.  But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish.  On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can’t offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.  And you, Ms Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING  MEN AND WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO’S EVER  SERVED OR HAD  A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES!  THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL!

Response:

Question:

Thanks for depressing me further. db

Sorry. William R. James — No Silly Auctions – Sell your Stuff in an on-line Flea Market. http://www.kudzucountry.com   Kudzu Country Store & Flea Market

Response:

<alt.activism added Good. Then maybe those "poor" will go to work so I am not forced to fork over 43% of my income, (all taxes included) to pay for them. I wonder how much of your post is motivated by a personal desire on your part to have us pay for your upcoming elective, and un-necessary, surgery ? db

43% ???  Are you kidding?  Unless you are doing a great deal of "under the table" work, it’s closer to 65%. Perhaps you neglected to account for local or state shakedowns. Perhaps you forgot about the fact that income taxes are accumative "value added" taxes as well as income.  This is because when you buy a widget, you are also paying the income taxes of everyone involved in the financing, production, accounting, shipping, stocking, selling, advertising, and even disposing of the widget. That doesn’t include the fuel taxes, liscensing, import/export, telephone, and other taxes which have to be paid by the companies and vendors which also have any association with the widget. The price of the widget includes all those taxes.  Then you have to pay sales tax on top of that, plus the taxes on the labor you traded to make the money to buy the widget, fuel taxes to get you to work and to the widget store, and whatever liscensing is involved in your work and to own a widget.  And we haven’t even mentioned the unfunded mandates imposed upon the all the companies mentioned above, from social security to social programming, all of which are hidden taxes which are also paid by you when you buy your widget. And don’t buy the electric widget unless you want to include the taxes on the electricity, and the electrician’s income etc…  etc…. Aren’t widgets expensive?  :) William R. James — No Silly Auctions – Sell your Stuff in an on-line Flea Market. http://www.kudzucountry.com   Kudzu Country Store & Flea Market

Response:

Thanks for depressing me further. db

Response:

Question:

I would agree it is not a ‘risk free’ situation, but compared to the LLC my experience has been that the risk level is very low.

I understand that under the "check the box" regulations, an LLC can elect to file as a C-corp.  Any comments on that option? Would an LLC filing as a corporation be subject to any different rules regarding Self-employment tax, as any other corporation? Would an LLC filing as a corporation experience more scrutiny than the C-corp just because it’s legal form is an LLC? Thank you for any comments, Todd (uneasy single-owner LLC, filing on Schedule C – but still wants to know <G )

Response:

A LLC usually files as a partnership. I would think that a single member LLC filing as a sch c would be subject to self employment tax. I don’t think there is any question when it come to filing as a sch c. I have had extensive experience on this issue with the IRS and based on that the S-Corp is what I generally recommend. The tax saving for some people can be significant. I don’t think I would call the approach as "avoiding social security tax" but rather a legitimate recognition that the rewards from operating a business  consist of the "wages" you are paid (Subject to SS tax) for the services you provide, and "dividends" (Not subject to SS tax) for the non-wage elements of owning a business. But has  been said before the S-Corp is not risk fee, but then neither is live. — Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants.  Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would agree it is not a ‘risk free’ situation, but compared to the LLC my experience has been that the risk level is very low. I understand that under the "check the box" regulations, an LLC can elect to file as a C-corp.  Any comments on that option? Would an LLC filing as a corporation be subject to any different rules regarding Self-employment tax, as any other corporation? Would an LLC filing as a corporation experience more scrutiny than the C-corp just because it’s legal form is an LLC? Thank you for any comments, Todd (uneasy single-owner LLC, filing on Schedule C – but still wants to know <G )

Response:

Thanks, Ed and Joy, for this valuable info.  Seems I need to talk to my acct about filing as an S-Corp On the other hand why not just switch to a S-Corp, pay some salary, take the rest as dividends (No SS Tax).

I don’t think this issue is a "slam dunk" with S Corps either.  If the S Corp’s source of revenue is closely related to services provided by shareholders, such as consultants or accountants, it would be very hard to argue that the "dividends" were not subject to social security. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com – Washington, USA

Response:

I would agree it is not a ‘risk free’ situation, but compared to the LLC my experience has been that the risk level is very low. — Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants.  Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks, Ed and Joy, for this valuable info.  Seems I need to talk to my acct about filing as an S-Corp On the other hand why not just switch to a S-Corp, pay some salary, take the rest as dividends (No SS Tax). I don’t think this issue is a "slam dunk" with S Corps either.  If the S Corp’s source of revenue is closely related to services provided by shareholders, such as consultants or accountants, it would be very hard to argue that the "dividends" were not subject to social security. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com – Washington, USA

Response:

I would agree it is not a ‘risk free’ situation, but compared to the LLC my experience has been that the risk level is very low.

As I see it, there is no discernible difference in risk.  There are no "safe harbor" methods with either, nor does the IRS appear to be inclined to aggressively pursue either.  I don’t "encourage" clients to avoid social security tax with either, however I do disclose to them the possibility that it can be done, and I cooperate with them when they want to do it.  Some do – most don’t. Essentially, I have had no experience with the IRS with either.  I have had it questioned (with an S Corp), but never pursued. Have you had a bad experience with an LLC? — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com – Washington, USA

Response:

On the other hand why not just switch to a S-Corp, pay some salary, take the rest as dividends (No SS Tax). — Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants.  Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is my accountant correct? Nobody really knows for an LLC running as a partnership.  The problem is that back a few years ago, Congress got up in arms about what they referred to as the "stealth tax" where the IRS was producing regulations to determine when self-employment tax would or wouldn’t be due.  The issue arose because the IRS, in keeping with the "check the box" idea, was proposing regulations that would ignore the form of the business to a large extent.  However, it would also have meant that certain limited partners in limited partnerships might have faced self-employment tax, so the ruckus started. Congress prohibited the IRS from issuing the regulations for a period of time–a period that has now expired.  The theory was that our Congress-critters would revisit the issue before the ban on regulations expired–which, of course, they failed to do <grin. However, the IRS is not about to risk bringing the issue back up, so now we a total lack of guidance from either the Congress or the IRS. If you read the law literally (Section 1402 as I recall), the news would be bad for LLCs, even worse than the "stealth tax" regulations. Only limited partners are exempt from self-employment tax and, based a strict reading of the underlying state laws, LLC members are *NOT* limited partners.  While they have limited liability, they are not restricted from participating in the management of the entity, nor is there any requirement for a general partner who retains liability. Some have decided that, maybe, what we need to do is simply use the discarded proposed regulations, at least when they work in our favor. I believe your accountant is trying a variant on this idea, by setting up your wife as what "would have been" a general partner and then claiming all other income is limited partnership income.  At least, in theory, this is subject to a Radtke and Spicer Accounting style attack if the amount of guaranteed payments aren’t sufficient *AND*, I believe, also potentially subject to attack under the theory of the proposed regulations by showing that your wife could not have qualified as a limited partner under your state’s laws.  But, then again, we don’t have those regulations as valid so <grin–who knows how the courts would rule. Finally, some have gone beyond your accountant’s position to claim that all LLC members are "really" limited partners (despite the fact that the law doesn’t say that). Right now the issue remains up in the air.  However, if the IRS attacked the transaction expect them to go on a dual pronged attack–first, using the first justification (no exclusion whatsoever) and a variant on the second depending on your facts (even if we buy the proposed regulation theory, you fail on that count under local law).  Whether or not the IRS would carry that position in court is open–and whether the IRS would want to raise the issue anyway until after the 2000 election is another issue as well if they felt you’d go to Tax Court. I guess I’d put it this way–I don’t see this as a slam dunk position either way.

Response:

Thanks, Ed and Joy, for this valuable info.  Seems I need to talk to my acct about filing as an S-Corp – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On the other hand why not just switch to a S-Corp, pay some salary, take the rest as dividends (No SS Tax). — Myron Joy CPA       Joy & Associates P.C.       Phoenix Az Accountants and Information Technology Consultants.  Developers of ClientLink E-Accounting Software. Visual AccountMate Business Partner. Is my accountant correct? Nobody really knows for an LLC running as a partnership.  The problem is that back a few years ago, Congress got up in arms about what they referred to as the "stealth tax" where the IRS was producing regulations to determine when self-employment tax would or wouldn’t be due.  The issue arose because the IRS, in keeping with the "check the box" idea, was proposing regulations that would ignore the form of the business to a large extent.  However, it would also have meant that certain limited partners in limited partnerships might have faced self-employment tax, so the ruckus started. Congress prohibited the IRS from issuing the regulations for a period of time–a period that has now expired.  The theory was that our Congress-critters would revisit the issue before the ban on regulations expired–which, of course, they failed to do <grin. However, the IRS is not about to risk bringing the issue back up, so now we a total lack of guidance from either the Congress or the IRS. If you read the law literally (Section 1402 as I recall), the news would be bad for LLCs, even worse than the "stealth tax" regulations. Only limited partners are exempt from self-employment tax and, based a strict reading of the underlying state laws, LLC members are *NOT* limited partners.  While they have limited liability, they are not restricted from participating in the management of the entity, nor is there any requirement for a general partner who retains liability. Some have decided that, maybe, what we need to do is simply use the discarded proposed regulations, at least when they work in our favor. I believe your accountant is trying a variant on this idea, by setting up your wife as what "would have been" a general partner and then claiming all other income is limited partnership income.  At least, in theory, this is subject to a Radtke and Spicer Accounting style attack if the amount of guaranteed payments aren’t sufficient *AND*, I believe, also potentially subject to attack under the theory of the proposed regulations by showing that your wife could not have qualified as a limited partner under your state’s laws.  But, then again, we don’t have those regulations as valid so <grin–who knows how the courts would rule. Finally, some have gone beyond your accountant’s position to claim that all LLC members are "really" limited partners (despite the fact that the law doesn’t say that). Right now the issue remains up in the air.  However, if the IRS attacked the transaction expect them to go on a dual pronged attack–first, using the first justification (no exclusion whatsoever) and a variant on the second depending on your facts (even if we buy the proposed regulation theory, you fail on that count under local law).  Whether or not the IRS would carry that position in court is open–and whether the IRS would want to raise the issue anyway until after the 2000 election is another issue as well if they felt you’d go to Tax Court. I guess I’d put it this way–I don’t see this as a slam dunk position either way.

Response:

Is my accountant correct?

Nobody really knows for an LLC running as a partnership.  The problem is that back a few years ago, Congress got up in arms about what they referred to as the "stealth tax" where the IRS was producing regulations to determine when self-employment tax would or wouldn’t be due.  The issue arose because the IRS, in keeping with the "check the box" idea, was proposing regulations that would ignore the form of the business to a large extent.  However, it would also have meant that certain limited partners in limited partnerships might have faced self-employment tax, so the ruckus started. Congress prohibited the IRS from issuing the regulations for a period of time–a period that has now expired.  The theory was that our Congress-critters would revisit the issue before the ban on regulations expired–which, of course, they failed to do <grin. However, the IRS is not about to risk bringing the issue back up, so now we a total lack of guidance from either the Congress or the IRS. If you read the law literally (Section 1402 as I recall), the news would be bad for LLCs, even worse than the "stealth tax" regulations. Only limited partners are exempt from self-employment tax and, based a strict reading of the underlying state laws, LLC members are *NOT* limited partners.  While they have limited liability, they are not restricted from participating in the management of the entity, nor is there any requirement for a general partner who retains liability. Some have decided that, maybe, what we need to do is simply use the discarded proposed regulations, at least when they work in our favor. I believe your accountant is trying a variant on this idea, by setting up your wife as what "would have been" a general partner and then claiming all other income is limited partnership income.  At least, in theory, this is subject to a Radtke and Spicer Accounting style attack if the amount of guaranteed payments aren’t sufficient *AND*, I believe, also potentially subject to attack under the theory of the proposed regulations by showing that your wife could not have qualified as a limited partner under your state’s laws.  But, then again, we don’t have those regulations as valid so <grin–who knows how the courts would rule. Finally, some have gone beyond your accountant’s position to claim that all LLC members are "really" limited partners (despite the fact that the law doesn’t say that). Right now the issue remains up in the air.  However, if the IRS attacked the transaction expect them to go on a dual pronged attack–first, using the first justification (no exclusion whatsoever) and a variant on the second depending on your facts (even if we buy the proposed regulation theory, you fail on that count under local law).  Whether or not the IRS would carry that position in court is open–and whether the IRS would want to raise the issue anyway until after the 2000 election is another issue as well if they felt you’d go to Tax Court. I guess I’d put it this way–I don’t see this as a slam dunk position either way.

Response:

My wife and I are equal partners in an LLC. I am the only partner that earns money (consulting) My accountant seems to think that she is liable for self-employment tax by virtue of being a partner, even though she earns no income. He suggests we amend the LLC partnership to grant her a guaranteed payment of some marginal sum that would minimize how much self-employment tax she would pay.  If we don’t do this, we would have to divide the gross receipts of the LLC in two and each pay self-employment tax for one-half. Others I know who are in an LLC say they don’t do this, and it doesn’t make much sense to me. Is my accountant correct? Thanks. Bill Wade

Response:

Question:

prospects.  If you can’t do that, don’t invest; or try a mutual fund where others do the research for you. If you want a guaranty, try a federally insured bank deposit.

Federally insured bank deposit?  Isn’t that a savings account?  Jesus saves, smart money invests.  ;-)  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/

Response:

<snip I haven’t read the Iridium prospectus or other materials, but I’ve never seen a start-up that didn’t make a rosy projection.  

<snip I don’t know the particulars of this case, but there is still a line between a "rosy projection" and a fraudulent misrepresentation of your financial position.  You can say what you want about your future, but if you misrepresent your current condition as support for your rosy projection… you can expect a SEC investigation or class-action suit.

Response:

Lots of folks don’t get it.   In international oil exploration, some of these devices are the ONLY way to go. Inmarsat is $15 a minute (before discounts), but you can send data at a good clip.  Mini-M is $3 a minute but slow data, and fax, and weather can bugger it.  Easy to slide through customs though as a laptop. Iridium, good for voice, sometimes, but we need to move data. Cost of running a deepwater drilling  operation offshore Angola: $200,000 per day. The phone is a minor expense. It is not to be used to impress your friends at dinner at a restaurant.  It is for those of us who need to be in communication whenever and wherever we need to work.   Check quote.yahoo.com for IRIB’s quote and see for yourself.  I guess even the super rich aren’t willing to pay $20/minute for a phone call at sea….

remove NO.SPAM from addess before replying

Response:

[sigh] Just another lawyer who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. When a company paints a nice rosey picture for their investors for months and then hits them out of of the blue with news that says they aren’t meeting the new subscribers numbers that they said they were gonna and the banks start yanking funding, that is more than enough reason for a lawsuit.

You mean they’d actually LIE TO US, just to steal our money?!! I thought it was ALL ABOUT lies!  Isn’t that why the SEC stays in business?? Larry….Bought EMC at 39.75….then it split….now it’s over $100 again….(sigh)….GO EMC!!

Response:

It’s not a good idea for a person who is inexperienced to get involved in penny-stocks or any investment plan without proper guidance or advice from someone with experience.  In any of these investment schemes, the investor should know up-front that there is a possibility of losing the entire investment.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, it’s not all about lies.  It’s about making investments in companies that have firm financial foundations and speculating on the growth of that company.  The SEC regulates stocks by requiring filings and financial statements.  If you really want to see a bunch of cut throat lying posts, go to alt.invest.penny-stocks.  The law get fuzzy when individuals post lies (AKA pump and dump), there are actually consortiums of people that will pump a worthless stock for the big dump.

Response:

If you need to wireless data computing we have been working on and have developed an operating environment that will allow wireless computing using our software as the server. If interested in this new and exciting area let me know.

Response:

No, it’s not all about lies.  It’s about making investments in companies that have firm financial foundations and speculating on the growth of that company.  The SEC regulates stocks by requiring filings and financial statements.  If you really want to see a bunch of cut throat lying posts, go to alt.invest.penny-stocks.  The law get fuzzy when individuals post lies (AKA pump and dump), there are actually consortiums of people that will pump a worthless stock for the big dump.

Watched a great drama unfold from a bogus tire rubber recycler (symbol TIRE) run by a real crook, last year or before.  Their "operation", which never processed a single tire that anyone knew about, was in Florida.  The CEO and his family stripped the investors with outlandish salaries and benefits….all into this "stock gypsie" family’s hidden coffers.  The final straw was when the stock was rolled over, useless, to some scam artists involved in gambling casino boats in the Gulf of Mexico operating out of Florida. The money gone, the investors royally screwed, they all just melted into the woodwork while SEC and the Florida bureaucrats swapped useless letters with the irate investors.  I got interested in it, at the time, when TIRE bought the defunct Performance Jet Ski (PJS) from the courts after they went under.  The jetski group was convinced they were going to start building jetskis again, as was the investors.  No, they only wanted to buy the manufacturing equipment for pennies on the dollar to sell off the assets then stole the money back to their family bank accounts.  It was ALL a scam and SEC didn’t do a thing. Larry

Response:

[sigh] Just another lawyer who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. When a company paints a nice rosey picture for their investors for months and then hits them out of of the blue with news that says they aren’t meeting the new subscribers numbers that they said they were gonna and the banks start yanking funding, that is more than enough reason for a lawsuit.

Like I said, take some personal responsibility.  Why is it reasonable to believe a company ’s projections on subscribers or customers or any other future event?  Projections are just that.  While there are those companies that play games and even commit accounting fraud, for the most part these suits arise when an overvalued stock, stoked by a bandwagon of uninformed investors falls back down to its true value.  [I can't wait to see what happens when the Internet stocks come back to earth] I haven’t read the Iridium prospectus or other materials, but I’ve never seen a start-up that didn’t make a rosy projection.  If you can’t imagine that a start-up selling an overpriced millionaire’s toy might fall flat on its face, than you don’t know your ass from your wallet.  You’re supposed to do your own research and make your own assement as to the company’s prospects.  If you can’t do that, don’t invest; or try a mutual fund where others do the research for you. If you want a guaranty, try a federally insured bank deposit.

Response:

And then there is the free Ham radio connections from anywhere in the world (as long as you don’t speak business, sex or politics)…

You can speak sex on ham radio.  You just can’t HAVE sex on ham radio. Somewhere the simulation has a bug. Politics is ok, also….well, unless you’re talking to a ham in a totalitarian state where you might get him dragged off in the night by the Gestapo. Talking business on ham radio sends the big phone monopolies into orbit.  They wrote the anti-business regulations for their company-owned politicians way back years ago. Larry KN4IM

Response:

And then there is the free Ham radio connections from anywhere in the world (as long as you don’t speak business, sex or politics)… Mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I remember being on a ship for 77 days in the 80’s.  The charge for the ship-to-shore phone was $35.00 per minute, plus the normal long distance charges from Anchorage, Alaska.  Needless to say, I didn’t make any phone calls.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ Check quote.yahoo.com for IRIB’s quote and see for yourself.  I guess even the super rich aren’t willing to pay $20/minute for a phone call at sea….

– See my Hawaiian pictures and travel info at: http://www.mindspring.com/~lavarock

Response:

Not much is done even to those who ARE prosecuted, witness Ivan Boesky & Michael Millikan.  That’s why it’s best not to invest without the guidance of someone who has considerable experience.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – they only wanted to buy the manufacturing equipment for pennies on the dollar to sell off the assets then stole the money back to their family bank accounts.  It was ALL a scam and SEC didn’t do a thing.

Response:

When the investor made the original stock purchase, he should have been advised by his registered representative that he should be prepared to lose all the money in his investment.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [sigh] Just another lawyer who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. When a company paints a nice rosey picture for their investors for months and then hits them out of of the blue with news that says they aren’t meeting the new subscribers numbers that they said they were gonna and the banks start yanking funding, that is more than enough reason for a lawsuit.

Response:

Run, don’t walk to the bank to cash that sponsorship check. It’s my understanding that Iridium is basically going under financially.  Am I right?  Great idea, but the business timing must have been off. Capt. Charlie Miller http://home.att.net/~biggrouper/

Check quote.yahoo.com for IRIB’s quote and see for yourself.  I guess even the super rich aren’t willing to pay $20/minute for a phone call at sea…. Larry

Response:

Check quote.yahoo.com for IRIB’s quote and see for yourself.

I think you mean IRID… Aloha mai Nai`a! — "Please have your Internet License             http://kapu.net/~mjwise/   and Usenet Registration handy…"

Response:

I think you mean IRID…

Seems that they have been given till June 30th to get some serious customers. "Advertise…" Aloha mai Nai`a! — "Please have your Internet License             http://kapu.net/~mjwise/   and Usenet Registration handy…"

Response:

I remember being on a ship for 77 days in the 80’s.  The charge for the ship-to-shore phone was $35.00 per minute, plus the normal long distance charges from Anchorage, Alaska.  Needless to say, I didn’t make any phone calls.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Check quote.yahoo.com for IRIB’s quote and see for yourself.  I guess even the super rich aren’t willing to pay $20/minute for a phone call at sea….

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t bet your life on it….Iridium stock was $60/share last July. Friday it was a little over $9/share.  The lenders have granted them an extension on some debt they haven’t been paying off.  WAITAMINIT! How can they sponsor these races, CarolAnn, when they can’t pay their bills?  What about the screwed stockholders’ class action suits like: CORPORATION                                       CLASS PERIOD Iridium World Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRID – news)   9/9/98 – 3/29/99 You should be aware that class action complaints involving the securities of the above companies were filed on behalf of investors by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal and state courts over the past 25 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. If you wish to discuss these cases or have any questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll free 1-800-337-4983 or via e-mail at Brody, 6 E. 45th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. – Contact:     Stull, Stull & Brody, New York     Tzivia Brody, Esq., 1-800-337-4983

[sigh]  just another example of no one in the 90’s willing to take any responsibility for their own actions.  Instead of saying, "gee, I made a bad investment" or "too bad those guys Iridium couldn’t make a go of it" or "only a schmuck puts his life savings into a start-up speculative venture," we now say "Hey, it must be those guys ripped me off" and "Its not my fault, its theirs" and find a lawyer to sue.  Actually, in most of these class action suits, its the lawyers who find the clients.  In the securities area, its not uncommon to file a suit immediately after a large decline in stock value with NO information whatsoever as to the cause or whether or not a securities violation was involved.  Its sue first, then find reason.  As a lawyer, it makes me sick.

Response:

Sad to say, your comments are well said and too true.  When you buy investment securities, it is understood that the buyer must be prepared to lose some or all of the money invested.  KM — (-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all about Hawaii, Israel & more: http://home.att.net/~keith.martin/ – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [sigh]  just another example of no one in the 90’s willing to take any responsibility for their own actions.  Instead of saying, "gee, I made a bad investment" or "too bad those guys Iridium couldn’t make a go of it" or "only a schmuck puts his life savings into a start-up speculative venture," we now say "Hey, it must be those guys ripped me off" and "Its not my fault, its theirs" and find a lawyer to sue.  Actually, in most of these class action suits, its the lawyers who find the clients.  In the securities area, its not uncommon to file a suit immediately after a large decline in stock value with NO information whatsoever as to the cause or whether or not a securities violation was involved.  Its sue first, then find reason.  As a lawyer, it makes me sick.

Response:

[sigh] Just another lawyer who doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. When a company paints a nice rosey picture for their investors for months and then hits them out of of the blue with news that says they aren’t meeting the new subscribers numbers that they said they were gonna and the banks start yanking funding, that is more than enough reason for a lawsuit. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [sigh]  just another example of no one in the 90’s willing to take any responsibility for their own actions.  Instead of saying, "gee, I made a bad investment" or "too bad those guys Iridium couldn’t make a go of it" or "only a schmuck puts his life savings into a start-up speculative venture," we now say "Hey, it must be those guys ripped me off" and "Its not my fault, its theirs" and find a lawyer to sue.  Actually, in most of these class action suits, its the lawyers who find the clients.  In the securities area, its not uncommon to file a suit immediately after a large decline in stock value with NO information whatsoever as to the cause or whether or not a securities violation was involved.  Its sue first, then find reason.  As a lawyer, it makes me sick.

Response:

I would love to have one of their phones for my boat, if only the economics were a little closer to cellular. $3/minute, yes? Aloha mai Nai`a! — "Please have your Internet License             http://kapu.net/~mjwise/  and Usenet Registration handy…"

I think that’s about it, and about $2k for the phone. Russ

Response:

I would love to have one of their phones for my boat, if only the economics were a little closer to cellular.

        $3/minute, yes? Aloha mai Nai`a! — "Please have your Internet License             http://kapu.net/~mjwise/   and Usenet Registration handy…"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – MAY 28, 1999 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Iridium North America sponsors Transpac LOS ANGELES — Iridium North America, in conjunction with its parent Iridium LLC, has come aboard as primary sponsor of the 40th Transpacific Yacht Race. On Nov. 1, 1998 Iridium became the world’s first global telephone and paging company. Through a constellation of 66 low-earth-orbit satellites circling the globe, customers can make or take calls and receive pages in the most remote regions on Earth. "Over the Pacific Ocean, crew members are isolated from traditional communications," said CarolAnn Gorden, vice president of marketing for Iridium North America. "The Iridium System and equipment are designed for this type of rugged environment and will be a tremendous help with safety, security and reporting for the crew members." more on the web from Rich Roberts in a while – see: http://holoholo.org/transpac/ **NOW BOARDING: TransPac CrewList http://holoholo.org/crewlist/ aloha danno – aka Waikiki YC webguy http://holoholo.org/ Hawaii’s First Ocean Sports Ezine – On The Wire Since 2/1/95 More News…..As It Happens…..From The Source….. Stay Tuned to HoloHolo Hawai`i as we bring   Hawaii’s Major Ocean Sports Events To The ‘Net        Direct from Hawai`i – Via WebXpress: http://holoholo.org/index3.html               *The Official ‘Net Address Of Ocean Sports In Hawai`i* East Coast Mirrors: http://holoholo.com/  -|-  http://waikikiyc.com/ Extra EXTRA: Aloha Racing to launch ABRACADABRA2000 June12 WYLAND to paint hull – ceremony at Ko`olina – more news soon! starts with Outrigger procession and BIG name local entertainers! Run, don’t walk to the bank to cash that sponsorship check. It’s my understanding that Iridium is basically going under financially. Am I right?  Great idea, but the business timing must have been off. Capt. Charlie Miller http://home.att.net/~biggrouper/

They are days away from being declared technically in default on their debt. Motorola and the other backers of Iridium have some very hard choices to make as to whether it is better to throw good money after bad, or let it die.  Very sad.  No doubt in my mind that satellite technology is the future of all information and communication delivery, but something went seriously wrong here.  Final chapter yet to be written.  They say that you can easily identify the pioneers in life, they are the ones with the arrows in their backs.  This appears to be one of those cases.  Personally, I’m hoping they pull it out of the fire.  I would love to have one of their phones for my boat, if only the economics were a little closer to cellular.  I’m sure someday not too far off, that will be a reality. Russ

Response:

"Over the Pacific Ocean, crew members are isolated from traditional communications," said CarolAnn Gorden, vice president of marketing for Iridium North America. "The Iridium System and equipment are designed for this type of rugged environment and will be a tremendous help with safety, security and reporting for the crew members."

Don’t bet your life on it….Iridium stock was $60/share last July. Friday it was a little over $9/share.  The lenders have granted them an extension on some debt they haven’t been paying off.  WAITAMINIT! How can they sponsor these races, CarolAnn, when they can’t pay their bills?  What about the screwed stockholders’ class action suits like: CORPORATION                                       CLASS PERIOD Iridium World Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRID – news)   9/9/98 – 3/29/99 You should be aware that class action complaints involving the securities of the above companies were filed on behalf of investors by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal and state courts over the past 25 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. If you wish to discuss these cases or have any questions concerning your rights or interests, please contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll free 1-800-337-4983 or via e-mail at Brody, 6 E. 45th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. Contact:      Stull, Stull & Brody, New York      Tzivia Brody, Esq., 1-800-337-4983 Notice to Mariners…..Don’t spend THOUSANDS on an Iridium terminal for your yacht until you go to quote.yahoo.com, enter IRIB into the quote box and look through this company’s recent history.  I wouldn’t want even a rich boater to end up with a DEAD PHONE in an emergency if it gets any worse…….he may. Larry….Look for yourselves.  I almost bought this stock….

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -MAY 28, 1999 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Iridium North America sponsors Transpac LOS ANGELES — Iridium North America, in conjunction with its parent Iridium LLC, has come aboard as primary sponsor of the 40th Transpacific Yacht Race. On Nov. 1, 1998 Iridium became the world’s first global telephone and paging company. Through a constellation of 66 low-earth-orbit satellites circling the globe, customers can make or take calls and receive pages in the most remote regions on Earth. "Over the Pacific Ocean, crew members are isolated from traditional communications," said CarolAnn Gorden, vice president of marketing for Iridium North America. "The Iridium System and equipment are designed for this type of rugged environment and will be a tremendous help with safety, security and reporting for the crew members." more on the web from Rich Roberts in a while – see: http://holoholo.org/transpac/ **NOW BOARDING: TransPac CrewList http://holoholo.org/crewlist/ aloha danno – aka Waikiki YC webguy http://holoholo.org/ Hawaii’s First Ocean Sports Ezine – On The Wire Since 2/1/95 More News…..As It Happens…..From The Source….. Stay Tuned to HoloHolo Hawai`i as we bring   Hawaii’s Major Ocean Sports Events To The ‘Net        Direct from Hawai`i – Via WebXpress: http://holoholo.org/index3.html               *The Official ‘Net Address Of Ocean Sports In Hawai`i* East Coast Mirrors: http://holoholo.com/  -|-  http://waikikiyc.com/ Extra EXTRA: Aloha Racing to launch ABRACADABRA2000 June12 WYLAND to paint hull – ceremony at Ko`olina – more news soon! starts with Outrigger procession and BIG name local entertainers!

Run, don’t walk to the bank to cash that sponsorship check.

Response:

MAY 28, 1999                            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Iridium North America sponsors Transpac LOS ANGELES — Iridium North America, in conjunction with its parent Iridium LLC, has come aboard as primary sponsor of the 40th Transpacific Yacht Race.   On Nov. 1, 1998 Iridium became the world’s first global telephone and paging company. Through a constellation of 66 low-earth-orbit satellites circling the globe, customers can make or take calls and receive pages in the most remote regions on Earth.   "Over the Pacific Ocean, crew members are isolated from traditional communications," said CarolAnn Gorden, vice president of marketing for Iridium North America. "The Iridium System and equipment are designed for this type of rugged environment and will be a tremendous help with safety, security and reporting for the crew members." more on the web from Rich Roberts in a while – see: http://holoholo.org/transpac/ **NOW BOARDING: TransPac CrewList http://holoholo.org/crewlist/ aloha danno – aka Waikiki YC webguy http://holoholo.org/ Hawaii’s First Ocean Sports Ezine – On The Wire Since 2/1/95 More News…..As It Happens…..From The Source….. Stay Tuned to HoloHolo Hawai`i as we bring    Hawaii’s Major Ocean Sports Events To The ‘Net         Direct from Hawai`i – Via WebXpress: http://holoholo.org/index3.html                *The Official ‘Net Address Of Ocean Sports In Hawai`i* East Coast Mirrors: http://holoholo.com/  -|-  http://waikikiyc.com/ Extra EXTRA: Aloha Racing to launch ABRACADABRA2000 June12 WYLAND to paint hull – ceremony at Ko`olina – more news soon! starts with Outrigger procession and BIG name local entertainers!

Response:

Question:

alt.comp.software.financial.quicken — Gina M. Dent BookSmart St. Louis, MO – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello folks; I am wondering what the appropriate newsgroup for discussing Quicken (intuit’s personal accounting software) issues would be? This one? I am wondering if Quicken 4 is Y2000 safe / compliant… — address.

Response:

And, no.  Quicken 99 is, I believe, the only Y2K compliant version.  (Possibly 98, too)  And, Intuit will not be doling out any patches.  Their answer is the standard — "Upgrade." — Gina M. Dent BookSmart St. Louis, MO – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello folks; I am wondering what the appropriate newsgroup for discussing Quicken (intuit’s personal accounting software) issues would be? This one? I am wondering if Quicken 4 is Y2000 safe / compliant… — address.

Response:

I am wondering if Quicken 4 is Y2000 safe / compliant…

The official word is at: http://www.intuit.com/corporate/year2000/find_your_product.html Tim

Response:

Hello folks; I am wondering what the appropriate newsgroup for discussing Quicken (intuit’s personal accounting software) issues would be? This one? I am wondering if Quicken 4 is Y2000 safe / compliant… —

Response:

Hello folks; I am wondering what the appropriate newsgroup for discussing Quicken (intuit’s personal accounting software) issues would be? This one?

Sure, this one’s fine. Or you can try;  alt.comp.software.financial.quicken I can’t answer your question about whether it’s y2k compliant though. Rick

Response:

Question:

|                             Heads Up | |       A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia | |                   February 8, 1998   #71 | | |  Previous Editions at:  http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html | | |FRAUD AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET |       Years back, I attended an address by a |managing partner of a major accounting firm.  His topic |was the differences between accounting practices of |businesses and the federal government.  It was an |hilarious speech.  And I must admit that I took pleasure |in watching two Members of Congress cringe as the speaker |identified dozens of accounting "tricks" regularly used by |the federal government that would get a business person |swiftly prosecuted for fraud. |       And so it is today.  The administration and |Congress tell us that the Social Security "fund" is |running a surplus.  In fact, all tax money collected for |Social Security goes into the general fund.  There is no |Social Security fund – except for a pile of IOU’s. |       They tell us that the nation is $5.7-trillion |in debt.  Yet, no one in Washington mentions that none |of the money belonging in the Social Security fund is |listed as part of this national debt.  Nor do they count |the many hundreds of billions of dollars of debts owed by |the various federal departments, or the money owed by any |of the federal regulatory agencies. |       So, reading the federal budget is more akin |to reading a book of lies.  Congress voted for it, but not |one of them read it before voting.  Clinton signed it, but |he doesn’t read any of it either.  Actually, no one reads |it.  Each department’s bureaucrats do their own respective |budget, and budget for increases every year.  The |administration usually attempts to slip in new programs.   |And Congressional committees play with the numbers a |little – and add pork. |       Often, it is not clear exactly what all was |signed into law for weeks, or maybe months, afterwards.   |And, as sometimes happens, devious political types sneak |in stuff after the vote.  In fact, many budgets were |actually voted through Congress before they were even |printed, let alone studied by anyone.  Truly, that is |negligence of office by all of the elected ones. |       The fact is that our federal budget is such a |mess simply because the people we elect to watch it do |not.  Rather, they play with it, each person in government |paying only limited attention to one or two of the many |sections.  Therefore, every year it increases.  And, every |year, the bill to the taxpayer increases. |Federal taxes are now the highest they have |been since 1945, and that was a war year.  In 1997, |federal taxes alone reached 20 percent of gross domestic |product (GDP), and there is really no relief in sight.   |Closer to home, federal taxes claimed 19.9 percent of the |earnings of a middle-class family in 1957, but by 1997 |this had grown to 26.1 percent.  State and local taxes |went from 7.4 percent in 1955 to 12.9 percent in 1997.   |Add to this the hundreds of hidden taxes due to federal |and state regulations and, like sharecroppers, American |taxpayers are paying out over half of their earnings to |that master called government each year. |So, the Clinton administration proposes an |increase of $100-billion (about $875 per taxpayer) in |domestic spending.  Clinton starts out with a new baby- |sitter entitlement of $7.5-billion.  But that’s not all.   |There is another $12.72-billion in the new budget targeted |towards the incidentals of the "child care" industry.   |That’s over $20-billion in new entitlements.  Oh, and |there’s another $900-million to enroll 3 million uninsured |children in Medicaid – which, incidentally, is not nearly |enough money and they know it. |This allows the federal government a foot in |the door.  Bureaucrats will then move forward to |regulate – control – all child care in the nation.  That’s |what co-president Hillary wants, and so shall it be, |evidently. |The Clintons also want federal control of all |schools.  So, there is $7.3-billion included for more |teachers and another $5-billion for school building bonds.   |In other words, the federal government will provide a |small percentage of the necessary public school funds, |then write 90% of the school regulations.  Typical. |       Another totally silly whopper in the new |budget is a $6.3-billion package to spur development of |ultra fuel-efficient automobiles.  Why silly?  Because the |Big-Three in Detroit do not need the money.  They are |already rich.  Anyway, as Heads Up readers know, all three |corporations already have electric vehicles.  And all three |have fuel cells coming out of research shortly to power |these electric vehicles efficiently.  Therefore, all will |have cars for sale that get 60 to 90 miles per gallon |within a few years.  The $6.3-billion, then, is play |money — probably targeted to "selected" research companies |of dubious scientific expertise, and to schools so |engineering students can reinvent what the auto companies |have already done.  On top of that, Clinton proposes a |$3,000 to $4,000 tax credit for anyone purchasing one of |these "fuel-efficient" automobiles.  That, of course, |means battery-powered electric cars right now. |       Also interesting is a new entitlement for the |middle aged.  Clinton actually says, with a straight face, |that a program of selling Medicare coverage to people |aged 55-64 for $400 per month would pay for itself.   |Obviously, that is not true.  Because, were it true, these |folks would already have used that money to purchase |medical coverage on the open market.  However, commercial |insurance companies know that the $400 monthly premium |will not cover the costs. |       And, here’s a special for all you Heads Up |readers with web pages:  The administration proposes |$8-million to construct a World Wide Web site to facilitate |job searches.  Now, how hard can this be?  You receive |notices of open jobs and paste them on a web page.  Some |sort of order will be necessary, of course.  A good search |engine would also be necessary for users.  And you would |have to pay ten to twenty people about $50,000 a year.   |That leaves a bunch of profit! |       If the Department of Labor sets up the |database, they’ll probably hire 200 people and spend a |million or two on computer equipment.  Then, it will work |somewhat like the IRS computers, which is not very well. |       The Cato Institute reported that "Americans |are justifiably skeptical about promises of a balanced |budget.  Surveys show 17 percent believe it will occur, |about the same as the percentage who think space aliens |are now living on earth."  Yup.  We’re catching on. |       Waste, fraud and abuse, that’s what’s in our |federal budget.  A waste of money by government doing |things it has no authority to even think about.  Fraud |because there is no real accounting system used in the |federal government.  And abuse because we serf-citizen, |share croppers are forced to pay for this waste and fraud |year after year. |       Time for some MAJOR changes. | |THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY |       Bill Clinton has obviously been dallying |with nearly any female he can get his hands on.  And, it |seems, he has also broken the law by committing perjury |and obstruction of justice trying to cover it up. |       Note that the White House propaganda artists |are not actually coming out and denying Clinton’s actions.   |Instead, they are working a vicious campaign to bash Ken |Starr in the popular press.  That is, they do not speak of |Bill Clinton’s wrongdoing per se, but instead have launched |a campaign to attempt to point out that Starr may have also |broken the law by leaking grand jury information. |       In truth, it is the White House operatives who |are leaking grand jury information to their sycophants in |the press so as to accuse Kenneth Starr and company of |wrongdoing.  It’s an obstruction of justice game being |played by Hillary’s media control propagandists simply to |throw suspicion away from Bill Clinton and towards Starr |and his team of investigators. |       Last week we described a little about Hillary’s |attempt to "control" the press and counter accounts of |Bill Clinton’s sexcapades, perjury and obstruction of |justice.  Now comes part of the proof. |       The Landmark Legal Foundation (http://www.llf.org) |posted a copy of the talking points provided the media by |Hillary’s back-room propaganda machine.  The report also |identifies part of the White House’s enemies list. |The Landmark Legal Foundation describes the |document thusly: |"The following document was produced by |unknown authors and sources on behalf of President Clinton.   |This document was distributed widely to the media and used |to perpetuate the myth of the First Lady’s allegation that |a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ was out to get the |president.  Clearly, this information influenced the |media’s coverage of the current Clinton scandal." |       We suggest Heads Up readers study these |talking points provided to the media by the White House, |and compare the text with what was told the American |people by the press.  Much of these talking points were |used verbatim, as fact, by the national press. |       As we have reported frequently, the Washington |press corps are not really "reporters," as we commonly |think of news reporters.  Rather, most of them are little |more than "repeaters" of the information they receive.   |And, because most in the Washington media are quite |liberal, they tend to accept any material received from |Hillary and friends as factual news not needing |verification. |       Material received from Conservative sources, |of course, needs verification before it is used.  It also |requires "balance" in reporting by … read more »

Response:

|And when the 16th Amendment was adopted there was a debate over whether or |not to limit it to a maximum of 10%. The proposal was laughed off the floor |of Congress because no one believed a rate anywhere near such an |unimaginable level would ever be taken seriously. Its a real interesting story to read about the earlier attempts at a plain old law.  The senator was literally laughed off the floor.  When he came back later, and started his commie stuff again, people realized he was serious.  Another senator threw an ashtray at him.  He left again. — Are you free? Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat? Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed without limitation? Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse? There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and at the other end:  FREEDOM.

Response:

Well, the only problem I saw with your 410-line post (I had no problem just hitting ‘D’ and moving on) was the subject. IM? What’s that? I think you’ve been around AOL and its instant messages a bit too long, Mr. Ryder. The Distilled Wisdom posts begin with the letters LM, for last modified… — Greg Smith   http://www.dreamscape.com/esmith/                             -=- "We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our   exploring will be to arrive where we started.   And know the place for the first time." –T.S. Eliot

Response:

and just think… when america (the colonies) first broke from the brittish empire, it was over a measly 2% tax, and that on purchases… hmmm….

Response:

|and just think… when america (the colonies) first broke from the brittish |empire, it was over a measly 2% tax, and that on purchases… hmmm…. Well, that, and gun control.  Remember the fighting started when the King tried to confiscate the people’s assault weapons.  It is time… Time to throw all their damn tea in the harbor. Again. — Are you free? Do you own your body?  Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or medicate yourself?  Do you own your labor?  Can you work for any wage you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat? Do you own your possessions?  Can the terms of your property ownership be changed at any time, or for any reason?  Can your property be taxed without limitation? Can you travel freely?  Must you carry identification papers for you and your property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse? There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints.  One point is slavery, and at the other end:  FREEDOM.

Response:

Question:

Can someone help me undertand the MBL Life 1995 annual report?  The report states there was a large gain from the disposition of Outlet Communications ($80 million).   However the financial shows a capital loss of $64,267,000 net of tax.    Does that mean there were other losses of $154,000,000?  Why isn’t the report clear about bad news as well as good news?  Can anyone clarify to me how the rehabilitation is really coming along?  If you can help I am also interested as to where my policies rank with all other policies since I am a Colorado policyholder.  Appreciate any/all comments.                                           Charlie

Response:

Can someone help me undertand the MBL Life 1995 annual report?  The report states there was a large gain from the disposition of Outlet Communications ($80 million).   However the financial shows a capital loss of $64,267,000 net of tax.    Does that mean there were other losses of $154,000,000?  Why isn’t the report clear about bad news as well as good news?  Can anyone clarify to me how the rehabilitation is really coming along?  If you can help I am also interested as to where my policies rank with all other policies since I am a Colorado policyholder.  Appreciate any/all comments. Charlie

If they do not have an 800 number, spend a dollar calling the state bureau of insurance.  This is assuming that the company is being rehabed in your state.  If it is in California or elsewhere, call the commissioners office of the state responsible and speak with one of the deputy commissioners that has a first hand knowledge of the reorganization.  I have never heard of an accounting term called "outlet communications" but suspect that this may be the name of a company that the insurance company may have owned and thus carried its stock on the ballance sheet as an asset.  In any case, if you are a policyholder, you should ask YOUR bureau of insurance about what you might expect in the future and ask if your state guarantee fund will protect your investment.  By the way, what happened to the agent who sold you the policy?  He has an obligation to you in this matter.  Kindest regards, Rob

Response:

Although I have not followed the story recently, i assume you are referring to Mutual Benefit Life.  I had some vague memory of the reorg. being completed, the state ins. dept. is a good idea, also check past issues of the Wall Street Journal which followed the story well. There was some hint of an agent suit to prevent the reorg. plan. If none of this works, email me and there is an ex-MBL agent in town I can track down.

Response:

Question:

Sporting a New Name, Voodoo Economics Rises from the Dead

it is indeed … boo! Richard W. Stevenson of The New York Times, May 27, 1996

Some facts about taxes, the 1980s, and the 1981 tax rate cut Fact #1:  Tax revenues increased during the Reagan years Revenues received by the Federal Treasury increased every year from 1983 to 1990. Between 1980 and 1989, overall taxes paid moved from 19.3% of GNP to 19.1% of GNP.  Hardly significant.  What is significant is that, thanks to economic growth, the amount collected rose significantly during the 1980s (from $599 billion to $976 billion in nominal terms). The economy grew by one-third from 1983 to 1990.  In 1983, the German economy was one third the size of the U.S.  In effect, from 1983 to 1990, we created another Germany. This robust growth enabled tax revenue to increase in real terms, and the increased tax revenue paid for much of the increased spending. Fact #2: The Reagan tax rate cuts did not cost a lot in terms of Federal revenue The net cost of the Reagan tax cuts to tax revenues was about $33 billion dollars in 1985, only a fraction of the actual deficit, and much less of a revenue loss than the critics had contended.   The benefit was economic activity that was hundreds of billions higher than it otherwise would have been. [Source: Lawrence Lindsay " The Growth Experiment".] Fact #3: The idea that the rich got massive tax breaks in the Reagan years is unsubstantiated. As a matter of fact the total tax revenue did rise, and rise sharply it did. The rich folks (top 10% of earners) who carried 36.4% of the tax load in 1980 carried 42.9% of the load in 1990. However, they had the dollar amount they paid increased by 17.9%. The richest 5% of the population paid 36.4% of the income taxes collected in 1980. By 1990 they were paying 42.9% of the taxes. The myth that the rich got a big break under the Republicans is simply snake oil. The increase in the taxes paid despite the tax rate cuts came from the elimination of tax shelters and loopholes. -Wall Street Journal 8/5/92 Ronald Reagan cut income taxes *more* on the poorest Americans, by raising the standard and personal exemptions, than he did on the wealthy, when he cut the top rate of taxation from 70% to 50%. Income taxes were eliminated for households with an income of less than $10,000. Income taxes for people making between $20,000 and $50,000 were cut. Income tax RATES for "the wealthy" were cut, but actual receipts show them paying more taxes. Fact #4: Changing tax rates will CHANGE the level of taxable income. When faced with evidence that the rich paid more in taxes, it is argued, the rich had their incomes go up by more. Everyone seems to be failing to grasp the obvious and unstated connection here between taxable incomes and tax rates. Let me state it – changing tax rates will CHANGE the level of taxable income; the higher the tax rate, the greater the tax avoidance, and hence the lower the taxable revenue. In fact, at a certain point, you can raise tax rates and *lose* revenue, because the reduction in taxable revenue will more than offset the expected increase from the higher tax rate. The facts: – The tax rates were reduced on certain incomes in ‘81 – Their taxable incomes increased – Even at the lower rates, they paid more in taxes in absolute terms Yes, their incomes went up, but WHY did their incomes go up? When the tax rates were reduced, they were WILLING to subject more of their incomes to taxation, by reducing sheltered income, in the form of perqs, tax shelters, etc., and taking straight, taxable gains. By reducing the relative burden of each dollar of income – through reduced tax rates – people *willingly* carried a greater absolute revenue load.  Cuting tax rates was therefore a win/win situation both for taxpayers and for the Govt coffers. Now, some people live in a fantasyland where they see the increases in taxable income among the wealthy with moistened chops, wishing they could grab a larger piece of it, without it going away. It isn’t going to happen. Fact #5: Because of the Reagan 1981 tax cut, the top bracket taxpayers paid more taxes in absolute terms. Reagan’s 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. The Government made more in revenues from the top-income taxpayers at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in 1981. The actual revenues collected from income bracket above $200,000, in billions: 1981 – $22.6 1982 – $26.6   1983 – $31.7 1984 – $40.4 1985 – $47.6 [ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ] Fact #6: Raising and lowering taxes by itself does nothing to change the distribution in the economy of how much money goes to the rich and how much goes to the poor. Tax changes have two effects: They change how the economy (and the people in it) behaves and they change how much money goes to the IRS. Fact #7: The 1981 tax bill got several million people off the tax rolls. Indexing the personal exemption and tax brackets has ended the hidden tax increase that was due to inflation. The bracket creep, of which the Democrats were quite fond, was like an unvoted tax increase every year, bringing in more revenue while leaving less and less after-tax income to the taxpayer. It took the Reagan tax cut to end the nonsense, indexing tax rates to inflation as well as lowering tax rates. Fact #8:  There is nothing fair about tax rates that are so punitive that they raise less moeny than lower rates. "Fairness" is a vague and fuzzy notion that masks a redistributive agenda in the tax code.  It is clear that at least some leftists think fairness to the poor requires punitive taxation on the rich, even if it means (viz. the Laffer curve) getting less than maximal revenue. But "where the money is" in the U.S. economy is invariably the middle class. Changing tax rates on millionaires won’t affect Government revenues that much. So, when considering the fairness question, it is best to ask: How do we raise money to feed the Government, in a way that does the least damage to ordinary Americans?  The answer is that a tax system that has low rates will have the least ill effects, and such a system would be both good for the economy and fairest for Americans. Fact #9: You can destroy jobs with higher taxes, if you try hard enough. In 1990 a luxury tax was placed on boats and airplanes. It dried up demand for such things and had the unintended effect of destroying many jobs. Both the boating industry and Aircraft Industry tried desperately to convince Congress to repeal this tax. Sales slumped, and most manufacturers or retailers are ending up eating the tax in order to make sales. The U.S. boating industry and private aircraft industry were almost destroyed. Many companies had to lay off workers, and some went bankrupt. The net effect of this was to destroy up to 10,000 jobs, while the taxes actually raise were miniscule. Finally, after a few years of seeing this mistake in action, Congress repealed the surtax. Fact #10: The Reagan administration never suggested that the Reagan tax cuts would increase tax revenue.   In fact, the Reagan administration underestimated the Government revenue that would come to the treasury after the tax cuts were implemented. Fact #11: The Laffer curve is real: revenues are not maximized at 100% taxation. The argument for the existence of the curve is simple: If tax rates in a country were say 100%, there would no incentive to work, and so, nobody would (officially at least). They’d be better off working outside the official money economy; rather than work for someone else, they would engage in pursuits that had some benefit to themselves. Now suppose this socialist paradise decides to reduce the tax rate (pick a number less than 100%). What happens? Taxable economic activity begins to occur. And as taxable economic activity increases, tax revenues are created. Now, since any revenue generated is going to be more than was collected under the 100% tax rate, it follows that, in this instance, a reduction in tax rates has generated an increase in tax revenues. The debate about whether there is a curve is over; it is acknowledged that there is a curve and that you don’t maximize tax revenues at 100% rate.  The real debate then is: Where is the Laffer peak? That is, what tax rate will maximize revenue over the long run? Certainly, history has shown that there is a beneficial effect from lower tax rates.  When we reduced the top tax rates in 1964 from 75-90% down to 62-70%, revenues increased. For taxpayers earning over $500,000 in income, it leaped 30%. The evidence from the 1981 tax cuts is that the Laffer curve peak is well below 70% and probably below 50%.  In just a few years, the Federal Government took in more revenue from the top income bracket taxpayers at a 50% rate than at a 70% rate. "In addition, taxpayers in the $75,000 to $200,000 range, whose rate were cut from a range of 54-69 percent to a range of 38-50 percent, paid about 92 percent of what they would have paid under the old law." So cutting the rate from the 50% range to the 40% range lost very little revenue, even over the short term of a few years. Over the long run, it probably would be a net plus. Lower tax rates will ALWAYS generate greater economic activity even beyond the point where the increase in economic activity is insufficient to offset the loss of tax revenue due to the lower rate. The experience of the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 and 1993 tax increases show that tax rates above 30% yield small revenue gains relative to the expected direct-effect revenue. To put it in simple terms, tax rates above 30% are probably unwise, and tax rates above 50% are most certainly stupid.  [Source: Lawrence Lindsay's "The Growth Experiment"] " [in ... read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Reagan's 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. The Government made more in revenues from the top-income taxpayers at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in 1981. The actual revenues collected from income bracket above $200,000, in billions: 1981 - $22.6 1982 - $26.6 1983 - $31.7 1984 - $40.4 1985 - $47.6 [ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ] As a result of the 1981 tax rate cut, the rich ended up paying more, while the poor ended up paying less. But that’s because rich incomes exploded while poor incomes stumbled.

Please explain the macro-economic event that occured between 1981 and 1983 that caused the income taxes paid by the rich to go from $22.6 billion to $31 billion. I would *really* like to hear you explanation as to *why* this happened. rates. As a result, the top 1 percent collectively earned more and paid more taxes, even though individual tax bills within those brackets went down.

True, but what event caused the increase in taxable income? The bottom line: the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased because their incomes increased; the poor paid less because they made less.

I’ve dispensed with this canard elsewhere, the poor made more, but paid less in income taxes. Pat Budget fact:         Medicare spending, under the GOP Congressional plan that Clinton         vetoed for NOT SPENDING ENOUGH, had Medicare spending rising about 60%         over 7 years, from $175 billion in 1995 to $290 billion in 2002.         On a per-person basis, Medicare spending would rise in the plan         from $4700 to over $7000.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reagan’s 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. The Government made more in revenues from the top-income taxpayers at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in 1981. The actual revenues collected from income bracket above $200,000, in billions: 1981 – $22.6 1982 – $26.6 1983 – $31.7 1984 – $40.4 1985 – $47.6 [ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ] As a result of the 1981 tax rate cut, the rich ended up paying more, while the poor ended up paying less.

But that’s because rich incomes exploded while poor incomes stumbled. Individuals with incomes over $1 million saw their tax bills fall 35 percent from 1971 to 1991, from $960,430 to $628,973. But in 1971, only 883 people filed returns on more than $1 million in annual income. By 1991, that number had mushroomed to 51,555, a phenomenal increase, even after accounting for inflation. Even so, that 51,555 accounted for only one-twentieth of one percent of all income tax returns for that year. So who filled out the rest of the top 1 percent? Those in the income brackets of $500,000 to $1 million, and $200,000 to $500,000. From 1971 to 1991, the number of people in these income groups grew at similar phenomenal rates. As a result, the top 1 percent collectively earned more and paid more taxes, even though individual tax bills within those brackets went down. During the 80s, the top 1 percent increased their share of the national income from about 8 to 12-13 percent, an increase of more than 50 percent. Accordingly, the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent grew from 18 to 27 percent over the decade, also an increase of 50 percent. Actually, this should have been dramatically higher than 50 percent, because traditionally the rich have paid the highest tax rates… but the tax cuts of the Reagan years significantly reduced the increase. The bottom line: the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased because their incomes increased; the poor paid less because they made less. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm

Response:

Yes NJ benifited greatly from Reaganomics ….. but now it is time to pay the credit card! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Under Ronald Reagan, government revenue ROSE (much faster than in inflation), This is true. taxes also ROSE as a percentage of output. Um, don’t think so. As a percentage of GNP, taxes staayed about level between 1980 and 1988. Around, 19% of GNP. As for the much talked of "tax cuts for the rich" – tax revenue from the wealthy rose FASTER than other tax revenue. True.  For example: Reagan’s 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. The Government made more in revenues from the top-income taxpayers at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in 1981. The actual revenues collected from income bracket above $200,000, in billions: 1981 – $22.6 1982 – $26.6 1983 – $31.7 1984 – $40.4 1985 – $47.6 [ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ] As a result of the 1981 tax rate cut, the rich ended up paying more, while the poor ended up paying less. The problem of the United States is not low taxes (the federal government is taking a peacetime high percentage of output – over 30%) the problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING – the "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs (all of which started out TINY) have EXPLODED over recent decades. True!

– "Imagination is more important than knowledge!"                                         Einstein http://mars.superlink.net/einstein               netscape 2.0 or better http://mars.superlink.net/einstein/einstein.html others

Response:

Under Ronald Reagan, government revenue ROSE (much faster than in inflation),

This is true. taxes also ROSE as a percentage of output.

Um, don’t think so. As a percentage of GNP, taxes staayed about level between 1980 and 1988. Around, 19% of GNP. As for the much talked of "tax cuts for the rich" – tax revenue from the wealthy rose FASTER than other tax revenue.

True.  For example: Reagan’s 1981 tax cut included a provision to cut the top rate from 70% to 50%. The Government made more in revenues from the top-income taxpayers at the 50% rate in 1983 than they made at the 70% rate in 1981. The actual revenues collected from income bracket above $200,000, in billions: 1981 – $22.6 1982 – $26.6 1983 – $31.7 1984 – $40.4 1985 – $47.6 [ source - Lawrence Lindsay "The Growth Experiment" ] As a result of the 1981 tax rate cut, the rich ended up paying more, while the poor ended up paying less. The problem of the United States is not low taxes (the federal government is taking a peacetime high percentage of output – over 30%) the problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING – the "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs (all of which started out TINY) have EXPLODED over recent decades.

True!

Response:

Under Ronald Reagan, government revenue ROSE (much faster than in inflation), taxes also ROSE as a percentage of output. As for the much talked of "tax cuts for the rich" – tax revenue from the wealthy rose FASTER than other tax revenue. The problem of the United States is not low taxes (the federal government is taking a peacetime high percentage of output – over 30%) the problem is GOVERNMENT SPENDING – the "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs (all of which started out TINY) have EXPLODED over recent decades. Paul Marks.

Response:

[Follow-ups trimmed]

PM Sporting a New Name, Voodoo Economics Rises from the Dead PM it is indeed … boo! PM PM PM Richard W. Stevenson of The New York Times, May 27, 1996 PM PM PM Some facts about taxes, the 1980s, and the 1981 tax rate cut PM PM Fact #1:  Tax revenues increased during the Reagan years PM PM Revenues received by the Federal Treasury increased every year from 1983 to PM 1990. 1) The old "Ronnie did better in some years than others," ploy.  Reagan was inaugurated in 1981.  That was Carter’s last budget.  That is Reagan’s basis.      What he is saying is that AFTER the tax cut, revenues increased. 2) Combined Personal and Corporate Income taxes were BELOW 1981 levels for most of Reagan’s term.  Indeed, the AVERAGE of these collections were below 1981. (Real doolar amounts.) 3) Social Security and Medicare taxes, however grew. 4) The consequences were:      A) a huge shift in tax burden.      B) a huge increase in the debt (helped along by Reagan’s bloat-the-Pentagon policy) since the tax increases on workers came LATER than the tax cuts for speculators. PM Between 1980 and 1989, overall taxes paid moved from 19.3% of GNP to PM 19.1% of GNP.  Hardly significant.  What is significant is that, thanks PM to economic growth, the amount collected rose significantly during the PM 1980s (from $599 billion to $976 billion in nominal terms). This NOMINAL growth was mainly because of INFLATION.  What real growth there was, was 65% in Social Security and Medicare taxes. PM The economy grew by one-third from 1983 to 1990.  In 1983, the German PM economy was one third the size of the U.S.  In effect, from 1983 to 1990, PM we created another Germany. This robust growth enabled tax revenue to increase PM in real terms, and the increased tax revenue paid for much of the PM increased spending. PM Again, Reagan’s first TWO years are only practice swings and Bush is not his chosen successor inheriting his team, but some alien from another galaxy.   (Except for Bush’s FIRST year.)      Leaving that aside, The growth from 1983 to 1990 (The seven FAT years of the Reagan-Bush 12) had a growth of 3.5% (I’m using Fiscal Years.)  That is just the normal rate for the economy 1950-1981. — Frank Palmer

Response:

Sporting a New Name, Voodoo Economics Rises from the Dead Richard W. Stevenson of The New York Times, May 27, 1996 WASHINGTON–After years in the political wilderness, while official Washington focused on deficit reduction, Republican proponents of deep tax cuts are once again getting a serious hearing within their party. They no longer call themselves supply siders, preferring the designation "pro-growth," because of the perceived failure of their policies in the Reagan presidency. And they have updated their 1980s approach for the political realities of the 1990s, seeing their best opportunity since 1980 to make their ideology central to the Republican agenda. They are arguing that both the condition of the economy today and the political fight faced by Sen. Bob Dole in his presidential campaign now make the time right to commit to the sweeping tax cuts they advocate. And Dole, long one of their strongest foes in the party, is listening this time. He appears to be moving toward a tax cut, perhaps a 15 percent across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rate, the percentage paid on the on last dollar earned. Trailing President Clinton in the polls and still trying to define his economic message, Dole displayed his willingness to refocus his policies when he met last week with Steve Forbes, whose unsuccessful presidential campaign was built on a flat tax. Advisers to Dole say that if he is elected he is expected to embrace a long-term, fundamental overhaul of the tax system to bring rates down. But more immediately he appears to be settling on a tax cut within the existing system as a "down payment" on long-term change, one adviser said. Some Republicans, feeling they were burned once when supply-side tax cuts contributed to soaring budget deficits, remain wary. And Democrats have promised to attack any large-scale tax-cut proposals by asking which popular programs Republicans would trim to pay for them. Economists continue to cast doubts on some of the central tenets of the supply siders’ philosophy, like the argument that tax cuts will lead to higher savings rates. Wall Street would almost certainly punish any tax-cutting program that threatened to undo the progress made on the deficit by pushing up interest rates. Still, Dole is leaning heavily for economic advice on a group of Republican senators, including Connie Mack of Florida, Robert F. Bennett of Utah and Spencer Abraham of Michigan, who favor a much stronger emphasis on tax cutting. Strong support for the 15-percent cut has come from Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan and Bush administration official. Bartlett’s tax- cut strategy could also win the support of some Dole staff members, several of whom are former aides to Jack F. Kemp, the former housing secretary who is the current Republican standard bearer for the "growth" wing of the party. To some degree, the supply siders have been chastened by their experience in the Reagan years, when tax cuts and continued increases in spending led to budget deficits that have yet to be controlled. For the most part, the supply siders have dropped their argument that tax cuts can fully pay for themselves by generating greater economic growth. Most economists believe that that position, labeled "voodoo economics" by George Bush in the 1980 primary campaign, was ultimately disproved in the 1980s. And few of them still adhere to the hard-line supply-side position that budget deficits do not matter. But supply siders point to what they consider the success of Gov. Christie Whitman of New Jersey in slashing both spending and taxes as a model for what can be achieved in today’s political environment. "There was a period when Republicans were embarrassed by the deficits, and through a conspiracy of silence allowed the Democrats to blame Reagan," Bennett said. "Then the realization that the Clinton tax increases had slowed growth has caused a lot of Republicans to come out and say that maybe on the growth side Reagan had it right, and that we just needed more restraint on the spending side," Bennett said. "Dole has now figured out that you can have growth and still focus on the deficit." There is a general consensus among economists that the U.S. economy is currently not capable of growing any faster in the long run than 2 percent to 2.5 percent a year, a rate that is sluggish by historical standards. The supply side case is built on the argument that the economy is not growing at its full potential in large part because of a high tax burden. Clinton, of course, has a different argument, that the slow but steady growth rates, low inflation and low unemployment rates of the last few years show that the economy is as sound as it has been in decades. While there is no clear economic consensus about the precise benefits of tax cuts, the supply siders are throwing out an election-year barrage of statistics to make their case. Bartlett calculated that federal taxes as a percentage of total economic output last year were just slightly less than the record 20.8 percent they reached before Ronald Reagan won the White House in 1980. Supply-side adherents say the economy needed the kind of boost a "pro-growth" policy can provide now more than ever before. Unless the economy can sustain higher growth rates, they contend, not only will people have trouble improving their living standards, but longer-range problems like paying the Social Security bill for today’s working baby boomers will be close to insoluble. Moreover, they say, a "pro-growth" strategy makes good political sense by providing a powerful way for Republicans to capitalize on the economic anxiety felt by so many Americans. In particular, a tax reduction proposal would provide the Republicans a way to sharpen their criticism of Clinton for supporting a tax increase in 1993. "What we should be saying is that the anxiety is coming about because of the high tax burden on the economy," Mack said. "We are for lower marginal tax rates. Lower marginal tax rates allow the worker to keep more of his paycheck and businesses to keep more of their profits and to put that money back into investment that creates more jobs and opportunity." None of the Republicans have dared to begin listing where they would look for additional budget cuts to pay for any rate reductions. Indeed, supply siders acknowledge that they face a big job in convincing doubters that a big tax cut will not lead to rising budget deficits. But with both Democrats and Republicans committed to balancing the budget by 2002 they said they could make a credible case that tax reduction and controlling the deficit could go hand in hand. "Now, unlike in the 1980s, we have done a reasonable job of beginning to restrain the growth of spending," said Abraham, who advocates the 15-percent across-the-board cut. "A tax cut that’s growth oriented and dynamic in impact, against a backdrop of spending restraint, is not going to explode the deficit." "I’m here, I’m in your face, and I’m Republican. Get used to it, I’m a freshman!"  Steve Stockman (R-Texas) to Environmental Protesters

Response:

Question:

   This flamewar has long since lost its relevance to alt.pagan, not to    mention alt.feminism.  And why did you leave over 100 lines of empty    space?                                                                 Doug

Response:

semi-literate passionless droid who has spent too much time reading Ayn Rand, and not enough time considering what it means to be human. (semi) cordially, Rich Gibson

[... about 100 lines deleted...] : — :    Michael :    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Two questions: Why are there 100 blank lines on the end of every one of this little $#&%’s posts? and Why is it appearing on the bottom of every other post in alt.pagan as if the poster had put it there? Is there some site out there that is doing this to ALL posts that pass through his site??? Note the little $#&% I refer to is not Rich Gibson, but rather Michael who seems to be the source of this little prank! Donal, SysAdmin of The Brewers’ Witch BBS — +1 713 272 7350  3 lines! (CIS) 76460,1443  (Anon UUCP) login: nuucp (SCA) Ld. Donal Dubh, IC of Dun Bruadair, B of The Stargate, K of Ansteorra (Snail) 8880 Bellaire B-2 #139, Houston, TX  77036 ***Public Access Unix–Multichat, Internet mail, Usenet news, Games & more***

Response:

: The questions of how much of "cyberspace" should be public versus private : sector is a subtle one.  Sloganistic level approaches are unlikely to yield : much assistance. : Again, there are complex issues.  Should the internet be patterned on a model : similar to bookstores+public libraries?  Or just public libraries, or just : bookstores?  Something not very similar to either?  I find this a fascinating : question. I find these two thoughts to be very powerful.  How ’should’ we view the internet?  I have a friend on the net who partially understands my passion for the access and free speech issues, but doesn’t understand why I care so much.  To him the internet is an entertainment resource, not a basic forum of ideas. : This applies to more than just religion, as it turns out.  We are beset with : an economic and social structure fundamentalism, which is so certain that it : KNOWS the truth that it no longer cares much about facts. :         Zhahai I know that this is going to open me up, but there are some debates in which ‘facts’ are not particulary useful.  I want more people on the internet because I value the chance for human interaction, and differing views.  Some things just ‘feel’ right (again, I know this is vaque and imprecise), and external objective ‘facts’, while they can never be ignored, are not really part of the debate.  I think this may be true of most of the major ‘holy.wars’-they come down to individual human values, emotions, and feelings. Rich Gibson (I have removed alt.pagan and alt.feminism from the followup line-put them back in if you think its appropriate)

Response:

:  Can you name me (major) library :  which grants access to _all_ its holdings to the strangers ? Libraries are not the same as the Internet…

 Well, that’s what I call the profound statement. Librarians have an accepted ethic that promotes access to the information under their care.  Net professionals don’t yet have such a general principal of universal access.  I would like one.

  This is good point. Note, that librarians’ ethic also includes   protection of valuable materials. So, do we let every   delphinoid to post stupid questions to unrelated newsgroups ?   Or do we let Argic to vandalise bandwidth ? —    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

          WHAT IS CYBERSPACE AND HOW CAN WE FREE IT?

I want to point out some inaccuracies. access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out of the New World.  

 This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher  with privatisation and competetion among access providers.     Isn’t it time we realize that money, the power base of the powerholds, has become an electronic abstraction, one which should be deleted from the Global Brain for being an unworkable, cruel, and oppressive idea?  

 Excuse me, "unworkable" ?  Ideas of socialism were demonstrated to be  unworkable indeed. The very fact that you enjoy freedom of speech rather  than being taught by friendly Party Committee what to say and think  is due to exictance of market economy. natural resources. Cyberspace is one of our natural resources.

 Cyberspace is not natural; it was created by men. It is not resource,  because it is limited only by amount of labour that people redirected  for expanding the net. must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full access, skill, and time to be able to use it.

  Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right   to be compensated for it. —    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

            WHAT IS CYBERSPACE AND HOW CAN WE FREE IT?  I want to point out some inaccuracies.

   Gee, I thought this stuff was too ridiculous for serious criticism.    Excuse me, "unworkable" ?  Ideas of socialism were demonstrated to be   unworkable indeed. The very fact that you enjoy freedom of speech rather   than being taught by friendly Party Committee what to say and think   is due to exictance of market economy.

   Um, many western European nations as we speak are prospering with    economies that are to some degree socialist.  That includes France and    the Scandinavian nations.  And in none of those countries is freedom of    speech seriously curtailed.      Don’t make the mistake of equating socialism with    communism, much less totalitarianism.  And theoretically speaking,    there’s no inherent contradiction between a socialized economy and    freedom of speech.  Except, that is, in the minds of Red-Blooded    Americans (TM), who think that the American way is the only way.    –      Michael

                                                        Doug "Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."

Response:

: :           WHAT IS CYBERSPACE AND HOW CAN WE FREE IT? : I want to point out some inaccuracies. : access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise : by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out : of the New World.   :  This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher :  with privatisation and competetion among access providers. Michael, I think that the Doctress’s statement is true, and yours is wrong, within the context that she operated within.  Internet access prices are clearly much higher than they used to be to the typical user.  They used to be ‘free’, or at least buried within the general costs of government taxation and school tuition. (points on which I have no comment deleted) : natural resources. Cyberspace is one of our natural resources. :  Cyberspace is not natural; it was created by men. It is not resource, :  because it is limited only by amount of labour that people redirected :  for expanding the net. I lost you here!  Certainly Cyberspace is not a ‘natural’ resource, but it is certainly a resource! : must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can : afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full : access, skill, and time to be able to use it. :   Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to :   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that :   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right :   to be compensated for it. I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’ The Internet was created largely due to government actions-both in direct form, and in that it is the results of technological evolutions from government, primarily military, spending.  In my mind that makes the future of the Internet the object of legitimate debate.  I agree with her (and also with every other authority on the subject whom I respect!) that it is important to work to avoid creating a world of information haves and have nots. Again, I consider the Doctress to be a bit extreme in her positions (to elevate something to a ‘right’ does seem to require a corresponding obligation on the part of someone else to satisfy that right…), but I have a lot of respect for her because of her efforts in trying to find a more humane way for people to live. Rich Gibson

Response:

Doctress N: I’d like to suggest a book for your consideration:   "Technologies of Freedom" by Ithiel de Sola Pool. Harvard University Press, 1983.  It was in print last I checked, tho I had to special order it. Pool is a very good thinker, and has a good grasp of facts.  I would like to see what you might produce as a hybrid of your current perspective, and what you might learn in that book.  I think you may find some of Pool’s views challenging, but in a productive way.  And it’s greatly more intelligent, informed, and insightful than some of the criticism you may have seen here on these newsgroups. Ok, sometimes its a bit dry.  Think of it as grounding (as us Pagans would put it, adding some North to the mixture).  Honest, it’s not terribly dry. If it lacks some lyricism, well that leaves more room for your own synthesis.    respectfully, Z

Response:

: :  Getting patronising, aren’t we ? : You are correct.  I reacted to the words that I read, rather than to the : ideas you tried to communicate. : :  Can you name me (major) library : :  which grants access to _all_ its holdings to the strangers ? : Libraries are not the same as the Internet… : So the question is how we should consider the question of internet : access.  I do not consider it a basic human right, but it is not a : privilege either.   : Librarians have an accepted ethic that promotes access to the information : under their care.  Net professionals don’t yet have such a general : principal of universal access.  I would like one. : Do you have any thoughts on this? Actually, there is a basic difference between libraries and the internet that makes this an interesting debate:  The Internet resource is not limited to one-use-per-item since all the digital information can be copied and sent to everyone who wants it.  In practice this means that it doesn’t matter who has access, the material won’t be materially less available to anybody else (although there are some problems with the total system’s capacity to handly information). : : — : :    Michael : :    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out of the New World.   This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher with privatisation and competetion among access providers.

Quite true, and healthy, in 1994.  If prices do rise, it will likely be 4-5 years down the line.  The initial effect of this type of opening a market is almost always a drop in prices, until the "market shakes out". Sometimes prices rise again then, sometimes not.  Kinda early to tell.     Isn’t it time we realize that money, the power base of the powerholds, has become an electronic abstraction, one which should be deleted from the Global Brain for being an unworkable, cruel, and oppressive idea?   Excuse me, "unworkable" ?  Ideas of socialism were demonstrated to be unworkable indeed.

Oh?  I missed that.  Seems that we’ve seen that (1) unfettered free enterprise was found unworkable and globally abandoned (except a few backwaters) decades ago, replaced with a vigorous hybrid which all capitalist states have adopted, and (2) the totalitarian vanguard party Leninist model (wherein a Party which supposedly is wiser than the populace takes complete control of the State, skips from Feudalism to a Scientific Socialism, so called, bypassing the Caplitalist stage which Marx held neccessary, and rules "benevolently" on behalf of the masses), proved unable to compete with this capitalist hybrid. The latter global change took longer; free enterprise succumbed earlier.  We can all be glad that the Soviet style totalitarian perversion finally died. But was it Socialism?  Well, one form of it, yes – a form characterised by extreme centralization and domination by an elite.  That’s but one formulation of socialist ideas.  Was it Marxism?  Hardly; it differed on so many fundamental points that it could at best be considered conceptually derived (or distorted) from Marxism. The current world winner (acknowledging that only a few systems have yet had a serious chance to compete) is a hybrid of capitalist and socialist memes, which has proven more competitive than than any non-hybrid formulation to date. Head down to your socialist public library if you have any problems with this. <grin The very fact that you enjoy freedom of speech rather than being taught by friendly Party Committee what to say and think is due to exictance of market economy.

As if those were the only two alternatives in the world.  Sigh.  The correlation of market economies and free speech is not very clear, when you *seriously* study the world.  I’m still pondering Pool’s viewpoint, and I may yet believe that there is some positive correlation.  Do you care to offer some?  Please don’t waste time repeating the standard one dimensional propoganda from the mass media; insightful analysis with a broader perspective would be welcome, tho. Some clues: few of those who have been brainwashed by the Media are aware that socialist ideas come in many varieties, that the Soviet Union and it’s satelites were not Marxist, or that some of the more virulent totalitarian states of this century have been capitalist (alongside the Leninist ones). If this "complication" to the standard brainwashing seems to complex to grasp, one is unlikely to have much insight into the real dynamics behind the collapse of the USSR and subsequent events. The questions of how much of "cyberspace" should be public versus private sector is a subtle one.  Sloganistic level approaches are unlikely to yield much assistance. must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full access, skill, and time to be able to use it.  Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to  it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that  those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right  to be compensated for it.

Yah, sure, and the same could be said about slavery, let along literacy or medical care or legal due process.  Sorry, that’s BS.  Medical workers the world over are compensated, even where adequate medical care is considered a human right.  (Americans are *supposed* to think that every socialized medical system in the world is crummy and resented by the residents who wish they were Americans and could partake of our relatively more free market medical system.  This would be funny if not so tragic.) Again, there are complex issues.  Should the internet be patterned on a model similar to bookstores+public libraries?  Or just public libraries, or just bookstores?  Something not very similar to either?  I find this a fascinating question. Except to discuss with those who already know the Truth.   Surround me with truth seekers,   Protect me from those who already KNOW it. This applies to more than just religion, as it turns out.  We are beset with an economic and social structure fundamentalism, which is so certain that it KNOWS the truth that it no longer cares much about facts.         Zhahai

Response:

Access does not become free because it’s cost is hidden.

First, I think the average cost of providing internet access is currently moving down as the market enters a (temporary) hypercompetitive space, just as US airline prices initially plumetted after deregulation.  I have some hope that they may permanently stay reasonable (this may be one of the good sides of a market, of which there are many). BUT – her point was the cost to a user for access, in particular as regards how close to universally affordable it is.  In that regard, she may have some point (I don’t truly have statistics).  Yes, if the costs to the average user were lower, it was because of subsidization, not because the technology or economics were cheaper. Both are legitimate concerns: what it costs a user to get on the Internet (or related derivative), and what it costs in total to provide that service.  There are failure modes in either direction.  You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include  Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted  by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ;

Um, methinks you are confusing "civil rights" with "human rights".  Have you ever actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN and many nations?  Or other transnational formulations of human rights? Your statement would make it appear not.  Please inform yourself better before you opine on what is usually denoted by "human rights"; you have erred. This does not mean that the Doctress is correct that access to Cyberspace should be human right; that’s still up for discussion.  But at least let us be intelligent enough to see that she didn’t say "civil right", but "human right", and respond appropriately. You are not the first one to be mislead by rhetoric of her likes. It is not humanism which is behind the pleas to get something for free – it is jealousy and laziness.

This arrogance, of "knowing" what is behind the Doctress’ rhetoric, of claiming to know her heart and mind, is no different in quality than are the Christians who say that all Pagans are really Satanists whether they realize it or not. Because their binary model of the universe says so.  Your own binary conceptualization is showing, along with a sad lack of empathy or balance. Not only is the Doctress, in your universe, motivated by jealousy and laziness, those who even partially agree with her in a qualified way have been "misled"; we others, who have read the same words as you did, are too naive to figure this out for ourselves.  You probably don’t even realize what you are saying (to give you the benefit of the doubt). Recently, this was conceptualized as "everybody who disagrees with the right wing is either (1) a conscious agent of Soviet disinformation, or (2) a dupe, or useful idiot, misled by #1".  I’ve seen this many times. If you are a free thinker, rather than a "useful idiot" regurgitating a party line (and I hope you are; I don’t want to insult you and will apologize if I have misunderstood you), then please surprise me by responding with OTHER than the canned responses that I hear from conservative party hacks, again and again.  Show that you understand what I’ve said, and if you disagree, it is with knowledge and deep understanding.  Something a bit more intelligent than trying to decide whether I’m a disinformation agent or a dupe, for example.     Z – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —   Michael   Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

  Um, many western European nations as we speak are prospering with   economies that are to some degree socialist.  That includes France and   the Scandinavian nations.  And in none of those countries is freedom of   speech seriously curtailed.   Note "to some degree". Snake poison is being used as medicine, too; will you argue that it’s not poison because of such use ?

Um, the US is to some degree socialist too.  It’s also to some degree a democracy, and to some degree a plutocracy.  It’s a hybrid.  Do you have any reason to sift out the hybrid conceptual ancestry and declare which portions of it are "poison" and which are "good healthy tissue", other than ideology? Freedom of speech is also curtailed in the US.  Not nearly as much as it was in various European and Latin American Fascist countries (non-socialist by a long shot).  Not as much as in free-enterprise Singapore (try being critical of the powers that be there).  Not as much as in the former Soviet Bloc.  In some ways more and in some ways less than in Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (all being more socialistic).  To look at all these examples and believe that the degree of market economy, or of socialism, is the correlate is rather untenable.  Totalitarians, left or right, infringe free speech. Civil libertarians, left or right, enhance it.  The market economy has at most a small correlation, and I’m not sure if it’s positive or negative, considered globally. As for freedom of speech not being "seriously curtailed", I take it as the acknowledgement that it is curtailed, albeit not seriously (perhaps it’s curtailed to the same small degree, to which their economies are socialist ?)

OK, take that as a hypothesis.  Try to find a single fact which would support it.  So far, you have presented only prejudices, speculations based on how you think the world ought to work.  If you can get more serious, I’m always open to rational discussion.  You do not appear to be well informed about these matters, but that could be a mistaken impression, and I’d be glad to see that my tentative impressions are wrong.   Don’t make the mistake of equating socialism with   communism, I don’t. I know very well which one is which. For ex., Soviet Union was socialistic, the land or "red khmers" was communistic.

Whew.  Where did you read THAT?  Thanks for setting us straight about the depth and accuracy of your understanding (even tho you obviously don’t realize what you have really demonstrated). Socialism is inherently anti – individualist and therefore totalitarian.

Do you mean "any socialist influence" or "pure unadulterated extremist socialism"?  (Too much salt will kill you; doesn’t mean salt is poison). Has the interesting American institution of free public libraries (Ben’s trip) made the use "a touch more totalitarian – just proportionate to the influence of said libraries"?  Or vice versa? Just to give you a hint: centralized control without effective democratic feedback tends to lead to totalitarianism, whether or not there is a market economy underneath this overburden.  Effective democratic control tends to lead to freer systems, whether the economy is mixed private/government or not.  There *is* an axis which correlates well; market versus socialist influences isn’t it. Nor does American political group-think impress many people with it’s great individualism.  It’s like the old Dr. Pepper ads: Independent free thinkers agree, 10:1, that our product is sexy and shows your individualism, so you should think so too".  <grin   Brainwashed is as brainwashed does. Markets sometimes enhance freedom, sometimes inhibit it (except for those with the $$$).  There is a legitimate question of where cyberspace should be best positioned to achieve maximum freedom, communication, and service to the funny monkeys who inhabit it.  Simple "markets are always best" proposals need more than dogmatic certainty as evidence.     Z

Response:

:  Getting patronising, aren’t we ? You are correct.  I reacted to the words that I read, rather than to the ideas you tried to communicate. :  Can you name me (major) library :  which grants access to _all_ its holdings to the strangers ? Libraries are not the same as the Internet… So the question is how we should consider the question of internet access.  I do not consider it a basic human right, but it is not a privilege either.   Librarians have an accepted ethic that promotes access to the information under their care.  Net professionals don’t yet have such a general principal of universal access.  I would like one. Do you have any thoughts on this? : — :    Michael :    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

Yes, I do think long-distance phone calls should be free.  Have you ever had a lover on the other side of the world and you couldn’t afford to call her/him?  You will soon find out that money and the people who control the phone companies have created a tyranny.  Communication technologies should be free because we need to send more love letters if we want to have peace. This is downright silly.  NOTHING is free.  If you don’t pay directly, you’ll pay some other way.  How do you propose to make long-distance calling free, and still maintain any kind of quality?  What do you think drove the development of communications in the first place?  It wasn’t some altruistic vision of lovers chatting on the phone.

        "Free" is silly, true. But some (notably Arthur C. Clarke) have argued for years that the phone companies should and could move to a flat-rate structure, where you pay a standard monthly fee for phone service, and can use the phone as much as you like, to call whomever you like, for no additional charge. The long distance rates have been used for decades to subsidize the costs of local calling, and the rates are thus inflated. I’m no expert, but I wouldn’t be surprised if such a rate structure could offer consumers attractively priced phone service at a rate that still makes profits for the companies.                                                 Kayembee

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise : : by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out : : of the New World.   : : :  This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher : :  with privatisation and competetion among access providers. : : I think that the Doctress’s statement is true, and yours is wrong, within : the context that she operated within.  Internet access prices are clearly : much higher than they used to be to the typical user.  They used to be : ‘free’, or at least buried within the general costs of government : taxation and school tuition. :  Access does not become free because it’s cost is hidden. What does this quote about access not being free mean?  Did I argue that access was ‘free’?  You deleted my point that addressed your concern about actual costs.  

 Well, I was talking about price, in fact. :  Second, university did not stop give free accounts to :  the students and stuff. Third, "typical user" begin to include those who :  can afford paying for an account- to call this "rise of cost for typical :  user" is outright misleading. Please avoid cheating in your arguments. Oh come on Michael.  This is bullshit.  At least when I disagree with the Doctress she gives me the pleasure of eloquence.  

"Pleasure of eloquence" ? You’re going to outdo me, as I find my pleasures  elsewhere. There was no mention made of cost in the original post(s).  The PRICE of access for the TYPICAL user has increased.  Of course it has.  Don’t accuse me of ‘cheating’ in my arguments.

 Yes, the average price one pays directly for access increased. No, it was  not due to closing original, free channels for obtaining access; it  was due to emergence of not free channels. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -: : must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can : : afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full : : access, skill, and time to be able to use it. : : :   Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to : :   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that : :   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right : :   to be compensated for it. : : I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very : minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier : Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The : Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort : into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’ :   You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include :   Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted :   by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ; :   it is access to results of somebody’s labour. Next step will be :   declaration that making long-distance phone calls is "human right" :   and should be given everybody for free. What about shopping ? :   Isn’t it "human right", which should not be restricted by ability to :   pay, too ? Oh grow up Michael.  

 Getting patronising, aren’t we ? Address the issue, not a bs straw man.  How do you feel about public access to libraries?  

 Can you name me (major) library  which grants access to _all_ its holdings to the strangers ? You don’t have to like it, on libertarian or other grounds, but that is the level of access that we are debating.

–    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

<snip   Don’t make the mistake of equating socialism with   communism, I don’t. I know very well which one is which. For ex., Soviet Union was socialistic, the land or "red khmers" was communistic. much less totalitarianism. Socialism is inherently anti – individualist and therefore totalitarian.

<snip BZZZTT! Thank you for playing. What do we have here, another libertarian apologist for exploitation and greedheads? (And to any other folks here who actually care, I take the above to indicate another "mind made up, don’t confuse me with facts".)         mark

Response:

   Note "to some degree". Snake poison is being used as medicine, too;   will you argue that it’s not poison because of such use ?   As for freedom of speech not being "seriously curtailed", I take it   as the acknowledgement that it is curtailed, albeit not seriously (perhaps   it’s curtailed to the same small degree, to which their economies are   socialist ?)

   No, in fact I don’t see a direct correlation.  I’m not an expert on    European politics, so excuse me for pulling names out of the air.    But if you say that Norway is "more socialist" than Sweden, say,    it’d be a pretty big stretch to say that Norway is also more free-    speech curtailed.  It would also probably be wrong to say that either    of those countries limits free speech more than the USA.  Both    liberals and conservatives, BTW, can make quite valid claims that    their free speech is being curtailed in this country even as we speak.    Socialism is inherently anti – individualist and therefore totalitarian.

   I can (and have, for a piece of fiction I wrote) easily imagine a    society that operates with a socialist economy precisely because    they value every individual and want to give each individual the full    opportunity to express their unique qualities and contribute to society    the best way they can.  This is pretty idealistic, but possible, I    think.  Freedom from the need to "make money" to support oneself,    freedom from restrictions on achievement caused not by personal    shortcomings but imposed by the social and economic class in which    you find yourself.  That’s socialist, but hardly anti-individualist. <    I am not red-blooded (or some-other-colour-blooded) American.   What’s you point ?

   My apologies for implying you’re American, if you’re not.  My point    was that many people here see the system under which this country    operates right now as the only possible way to do things, and are    categorically opposed to changes or evolution.                                                                 Doug "Cela est bien dit, repondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin."    –       Michael       Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

   Note "to some degree". Snake poison is being used as medicine, too;   will you argue that it’s not poison because of such use ?   As for freedom of speech not being "seriously curtailed", I take it   as the acknowledgement that it is curtailed, albeit not seriously (perhaps   it’s curtailed to the same small degree, to which their economies are   socialist ?)   No, in fact I don’t see a direct correlation.  I’m not an expert on   European politics, so excuse me for pulling names out of the air.   But if you say that Norway is "more socialist" than Sweden, say,

 I have heard precisely opposite: Norway is the most liberal Europian  nation. (I am not the expert in politics, either)   it’d be a pretty big stretch to say that Norway is also more free-   speech curtailed.  It would also probably be wrong to say that either   of those countries limits free speech more than the USA.

 Does France have constitutional protection of free speech ? (rhetorical  question)    Socialism is inherently anti – individualist and therefore totalitarian.   I can (and have, for a piece of fiction I wrote) easily imagine a   society that operates with a socialist economy precisely because   they value every individual and want to give each individual the full   opportunity to express their unique qualities and contribute to society   the best way they can.  This is pretty idealistic, but possible, I   think.  

 That’s pointless, unless you suggest way to implement this. All  that were suggested before, From Fourier and Campanella to Lenin  and Trotsky were totalitarian (check it, if you don’t believe me; read  the stuff) Freedom from the need to "make money" to support oneself,

 Freedom not to help other people and expect them to give you results  of their labour ?   freedom from restrictions on achievement caused not by personal   shortcomings but imposed by the social and economic class in which   you find yourself.  That’s socialist, but hardly anti-individualist.

 The last bit is something i agree with <    I am not red-blooded (or some-other-colour-blooded) American.   What’s you point ?   My apologies for implying you’re American, if you’re not.

 Be careful going around offending people My point   was that many people here see the system under which this country   operates right now as the only possible way to do things, and are   categorically opposed to changes or evolution.

 That’s nonsense, of course. —    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

: : : access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise : : by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out : : of the New World.   : : :  This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher : :  with privatisation and competetion among access providers. : : I think that the Doctress’s statement is true, and yours is wrong, within : the context that she operated within.  Internet access prices are clearly : much higher than they used to be to the typical user.  They used to be : ‘free’, or at least buried within the general costs of government : taxation and school tuition. :  Access does not become free because it’s cost is hidden. Michael, I’m not sure if you are attempting to be unpleasent or not-much of your language seems overtly confrontational for no other reason than to be confrontational.  If that is the case, then piss off.  On the other hand, if you are interested in reasoned discussion than hail fellow well met. What does this quote about access not being free mean?  Did I argue that access was ‘free’?  You deleted my point that addressed your concern about actual costs.    :  Second, university did not stop give free accounts to :  the students and stuff. Third, "typical user" begin to include those who :  can afford paying for an account- to call this "rise of cost for typical :  user" is outright misleading. Please avoid cheating in your arguments. Oh come on Michael.  This is bullshit.  At least when I disagree with the Doctress she gives me the pleasure of eloquence.  There was no mention made of cost in the original post(s).  The PRICE of access for the TYPICAL user has increased.  Of course it has.  Don’t accuse me of ‘cheating’ in my arguments. : : must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can : : afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full : : access, skill, and time to be able to use it. : : :   Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to : :   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that : :   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right : :   to be compensated for it. : : I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very : minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier : Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The : Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort : into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’ :   You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include :   Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted :   by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ; :   it is access to results of somebody’s labour. Next step will be :   declaration that making long-distance phone calls is "human right" :   and should be given everybody for free. What about shopping ? :   Isn’t it "human right", which should not be restricted by ability to :   pay, too ? Oh grow up Michael.  Address the issue, not a bs straw man.  How do you feel about public access to libraries?  You don’t have to like it, on libertarian or other grounds, but that is the level of access that we are debating. : Again, I consider the Doctress to be a bit extreme in her positions (to : elevate something to a ‘right’ does seem to require a corresponding : obligation on the part of someone else to satisfy that right…) :   Precisely. Legitimate "human rights" merely require luck of intervention :   while person is exercising it. :   : , but I : have a lot of respect for her because of her efforts in trying to find a : more humane way for people to live. :  You are not the first one to be mislead by rhetoric of her likes. It :  is not humanism which is behind the pleas to get something for free – :  it is jealousy and laziness. Oh gosh great god Michael, tell me about being mislead.  Oh I wish I was as smart as you are, then I would not waste time trying to understand and relate to another human being. The irony is that I probably come much closer to agreeing with you on most basic issues than I do with the Doctress, but you come across as a semi-literate passionless droid who has spent too much time reading Ayn Rand, and not enough time considering what it means to be human. (semi) cordially, Rich Gibson : — :    Michael :    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

:  Access does not become free because it’s cost is hidden. :  Second, university did not stop give free accounts to :  the students and stuff. Third, "typical user" begin to include those who :  can afford paying for an account- to call this "rise of cost for typical :  user" is outright misleading. Please avoid cheating in your arguments. The point is that what we need is a major change in our social behaviour.  Everyone should be able to develop a skill and talent regardless of their intelligence.  In the Neutopian Ecocity, the computer is the center of life.  If we want to evolved beyond war, everyone needs to become computer literate.  Human rights are necessary for all survival.  We must end war on this planet and in order to do it we must allow everyone access.  The arcologies will be run by solar energy which is the way we will have the resources to build a new leisure based global community. : : must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can : : afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full : : access, skill, and time to be able to use it. : : :   Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to : :   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that : :   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right : :   to be compensated for it. : : I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very : minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier : Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The : Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort : into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’ My function in this world is to be a poetess. Most of the time, poetess do not make money.  The money system is unfair to poetess because it doesn’t acknowledge their worth. :   You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include :   Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted :   by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ; :   it is access to results of somebody’s labour. Next step will be :   declaration that making long-distance phone calls is "human right" :   and should be given everybody for free. What about shopping ? :   Isn’t it "human right", which should not be restricted by ability to :   pay, too ? Yes, I do think long-distance phone calls should be free.  Have you ever had a lover on the other side of the world and you couldn’t afford to call her/him?  You will soon find out that money and the people who control the phone companies have created a tyranny.  Communication technologies should be free because we need to send more love letters if we want to have peace. : Again, I consider the Doctress to be a bit extreme in her positions (to : elevate something to a ‘right’ does seem to require a corresponding : obligation on the part of someone else to satisfy that right…) :   Precisely. Legitimate "human rights" merely require luck of intervention :   while person is exercising it. :   : , but I : have a lot of respect for her because of her efforts in trying to find a : more humane way for people to live. As a Neutopia thinker that is my task, "to find a more humane way for people to live." :  You are not the first one to be mislead by rhetoric of her likes. It :  is not humanism which is behind the pleas to get something for free – :  it is jealousy and laziness. This system is unfair.  There are not even creative and meaningful jobs to go around.  And the Establishment is getting rich on you communications with each other.  Every day I contemplate a way out of the mess….every day as long as we are trapped in dystopia I will be seeking a cure.                                          Sincerely yours,                                          Doctress Neutopia : — :    Michael :    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

: access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise : by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out : of the New World.   :  This is not true. Prices to connect become lower, not higher :  with privatisation and competetion among access providers. I think that the Doctress’s statement is true, and yours is wrong, within the context that she operated within.  Internet access prices are clearly much higher than they used to be to the typical user.  They used to be ‘free’, or at least buried within the general costs of government taxation and school tuition.

 Access does not become free because it’s cost is hidden.  Second, university did not stop give free accounts to  the students and stuff. Third, "typical user" begin to include those who  can afford paying for an account- to call this "rise of cost for typical  user" is outright misleading. Please avoid cheating in your arguments. : must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can : afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full : access, skill, and time to be able to use it. :   Inet is maintained by many workers. When you claim that access to :   it is everybody ’s human right, you essentially declare that :   those who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right :   to be compensated for it. I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’

  You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include   Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted   by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ;   it is access to results of somebody’s labour. Next step will be   declaration that making long-distance phone calls is "human right"   and should be given everybody for free. What about shopping ?   Isn’t it "human right", which should not be restricted by ability to   pay, too ? Again, I consider the Doctress to be a bit extreme in her positions (to elevate something to a ‘right’ does seem to require a corresponding obligation on the part of someone else to satisfy that right…)

  Precisely. Legitimate "human rights" merely require luck of intervention   while person is exercising it. , but I have a lot of respect for her because of her efforts in trying to find a more humane way for people to live.

 You are not the first one to be mislead by rhetoric of her likes. It  is not humanism which is behind the pleas to get something for free –  it is jealousy and laziness. —    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

  Um, many western European nations as we speak are prospering with   economies that are to some degree socialist.  That includes France and   the Scandinavian nations.  And in none of those countries is freedom of   speech seriously curtailed.   Note "to some degree". Snake poison is being used as medicine, too; will you argue that it’s not poison because of such use ? As for freedom of speech not being "seriously curtailed", I take it as the acknowledgement that it is curtailed, albeit not seriously (perhaps it’s curtailed to the same small degree, to which their economies are socialist ?)

But we live in a free market economy and free speech is curtailed here. The idea that free speech is something that exists in one and not in the other, and in varying degrees in all other countries, and that all countries have either type A, B or C systems is all poppycock. Laura

Response:

[other attributions were lost] [...] : : I think that the Doctress is extreme on this point, but with minor (very : minor) modifications her position is identical to the Electronic Frontier : Foundation-the idea of universal access is a very real issue.  The : Doctress has not argued that the ‘people who invest their time and effort : into Inet have no right to be compensated for it.’ My function in this world is to be a poetess. Most of the time, poetess do not make money.  The money system is unfair to poetess because it doesn’t acknowledge their worth.

Why "poetess"?  Is "poet" gender-specific? I think you make a fundamental error in this argument.  The "money system" *does* acknowledge the monetary worth of poetry; the reality is that it’s low.  The mistake you make is to equate monetary worth with intrinsic worth.  If you want to make money, you generally have to learn a skill that society will recompense.  If you want to write poetry, you have to accept that not many people will want to pay you for it. Railing against society for not liking poetry enough to pay for it won’t get you very far. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:   You just don’t get it. DN tries to expand "human rights" to include :   Inet connection. But, unlike political freedoms usually denoted :   by "human rights", connection is not luck of certain restriction ; :   it is access to results of somebody’s labour. Next step will be :   declaration that making long-distance phone calls is "human right" :   and should be given everybody for free. What about shopping ? :   Isn’t it "human right", which should not be restricted by ability to :   pay, too ? Yes, I do think long-distance phone calls should be free.  Have you ever had a lover on the other side of the world and you couldn’t afford to call her/him?  You will soon find out that money and the people who control the phone companies have created a tyranny.  Communication technologies should be free because we need to send more love letters if we want to have peace.

This is downright silly.  NOTHING is free.  If you don’t pay directly, you’ll pay some other way.  How do you propose to make long-distance calling free, and still maintain any kind of quality?  What do you think drove the development of communications in the first place?  It wasn’t some altruistic vision of lovers chatting on the phone. [...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -:  You are not the first one to be mislead by rhetoric of her likes. It :  is not humanism which is behind the pleas to get something for free – :  it is jealousy and laziness. This system is unfair.  There are not even creative and meaningful jobs to go around.  And the Establishment is getting rich on you communications with each other.  Every day I contemplate a way out of the mess….every day as long as we are trapped in dystopia I will be seeking a cure.                                         Sincerely yours,                                         Doctress Neutopia : — :    Michael

Do you think you’ll be able to design a system that *is* fair?  So what if someone is getting rich off your communications?  Will it be better when poets get rich off our need for poetry?  It seems that you want all the perks of high technology and none of the costs. Susan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –             WHAT IS CYBERSPACE AND HOW CAN WE FREE IT?  I want to point out some inaccuracies.   Gee, I thought this stuff was too ridiculous for serious criticism.    Excuse me, "unworkable" ?  Ideas of socialism were demonstrated to be   unworkable indeed. The very fact that you enjoy freedom of speech rather   than being taught by friendly Party Committee what to say and think   is due to exictance of market economy.   Um, many western European nations as we speak are prospering with   economies that are to some degree socialist.  That includes France and   the Scandinavian nations.  And in none of those countries is freedom of   speech seriously curtailed.  

 Note "to some degree". Snake poison is being used as medicine, too;  will you argue that it’s not poison because of such use ?  As for freedom of speech not being "seriously curtailed", I take it  as the acknowledgement that it is curtailed, albeit not seriously (perhaps  it’s curtailed to the same small degree, to which their economies are  socialist ?)   Don’t make the mistake of equating socialism with   communism,

 I don’t. I know very well which one is which. For ex., Soviet Union  was socialistic, the land or "red khmers" was communistic. much less totalitarianism.

 Socialism is inherently anti – individualist and therefore totalitarian.   And theoretically speaking,   there’s no inherent contradiction between a socialized economy and   freedom of speech.  Except, that is, in the minds of Red-Blooded   Americans (TM), who think that the American way is the only way.

 I am not red-blooded (or some-other-colour-blooded) American.  What’s you point ? —    Michael    Squicking – because mind is terrible thing to waste

Response:

           WHAT IS CYBERSPACE AND HOW CAN WE FREE IT?      At first glance, entering into Cyberspace is like entering into a new frontier.  The blank screen is like the vacuum of Outerspace or in the beginning there was nothingness and then came the Word.  The best way I can describe this space is to say that it is our collective unconsciousness becoming consciousness as we search for meaning, striving to understand the reason for our existence and the Cosmic Order of life.  I have heard it called the Underworld and the Afterlife. Cyberspace is the place of the All- Knowing I/Eye, a place which records our written thoughts and actions.        There is something dead about the word.  After it is written, like a photograph, it is there as a reflection of a past thought, there to remind us of a moment in time when the inspiration possessed the writer.  Nevertheless, like the Goddesses and Gods of the Underworld and the Afterlife, the word is alive in Cyberspace being shot instantaneous through communication satellites around the world, the bytes ending up after their planetary travel back in my mbox.      The basic principles about Cyberspace are that there are no national borders, no money, or mothers tying one down to social customs. Instead, there is vast internal mystery to Cyberspace, a place where the unfolding of the innerspace of the soul is visually seen.  In Cyberspace, the world is an idea.  For Idealist, it is the place where Ecocites can finally be built on Earth and the garden of love cultivated.  With the use of email, we have awoke to an age of the global gene pool.        There is a flow to Cyberspace.  It is the Ocean, the Great Universal Sea which makes Planet Earth into a blue orb of life in Outerspace. Writer Howard Rheingold in his book _Virtual Communities_ has called Cyberspace the agar medium in a petri dish. He says that no one planned the colonies of microorganisms now growing in the agar medium, nevertheless, it is happening.  But maybe it is not just a matter of chance that virtual communities began to grow. Couldn’t Cyberspace be far more intelligent that we think?  Could it is the medium of life itself, a divine idea, the evolutionary water inside our brain?  Could Cyberspace be Gaia, the microbial Superorganism which recycles all of our wastes and regulates life on Earth?      In Cyberspace, we are the ones who give each other meaning. Nothing else but our interconnectiveness and our re-affirmation of who we are creates the support systems that we need in order to inspire us to even greater efforts.  We are here to uplift each others spirits, to bind us into a world community of lovers of life who have the wisdom to live in peace with each other and with the universe.      But like the Great Seas of the Earth, the ocean of Cyberspace has been polluted with the garbage of civilization.  The war against life dominates most of the channels of communication.  The old networks of Western Thought have seeped into all the virginal streams of hope, so that now the visionaries have been marginalized, hanging on by mere charity to maintain their limited access.  As the prices to connect to Cyberspace continues to rise by the privatization of the Net, more and more souls are pushed out of the New World.  The Old World is corrupting the New World which has the potential to liberated the dreams of the water inside the Global Brain.        Again, the New World has been colonized by the manufacturers who push greed, private interest, the profit motive, pornography, and war.  Rheingold asked, "Which scenario seems more conductive to democracy, which to totalitarian rule:  a world in which a few people control communications technology that can be used to manipulate the beliefs of billions, or a world in which every citizen can broadcast to every other citizen? (14)."      Isn’t it time we realize that money, the power base of the powerholds, has become an electronic abstraction, one which should be deleted from the Global Brain for being an unworkable, cruel, and oppressive idea?  Isn’t it time to start a new accounting system, one in which what counts is one’s personal integrity and their contribution to the human species?  Isn’t it time we rearrange the accounting system so that everyone’s basic needs are met and their dreams of a just world actualized?      Capitalists have said to me that there is no free lunch in America.  If I want freedom of speech then I will have to buy it. In other words, if I don’t have the capital to buy Net time, then I don’t deserve freedom of speech.  However, this is the double- speak which George Orwell in _1984_ was talking about:  freedom equal slavery.  All those with money are free while the people who can’t afford to broadcast there ideas over the communication technologies are their slaves.  Those with the big money rule which is what the plutocrats have been doing for centuries while they wallow in the luxury produced by the exploited labor of their economic slaves.      Now with the miracle of Cyberspace, we can see our problems of consciousness.  We still see people who are sick with the thought of self-interested, censorship, and the private ownership of the natural resources. Cyberspace is one of our natural resources. We must understand that Cyberspace is not a privilege of those who can afford it, but it is a human right of everyone to have the full access, skill, and time to be able to use it.  Rheingold writes, "We need a clear citizens’ vision of the way of the Net ought to grow, a firm idea of the kind of media environment we would like to see in the future.  If we do not develop such a vision for ourselves, the future will be shaped for us by large commercial and political powerholders (6)."        There can not be a world democracy without a global open forum which gives decentralized empowerment to all people to express their ideas and enter into the important dialogues of the times. Thanks to the computer wizards who developed this magnificent technology, we now have the means to carried out the vision of creating a spiritual democracy, a worldwide information lovolution. I use the word lovolution here instead of revolution because as some wise person pointed out me in an email, the next revolution is being fought in Cyberspace not with guns and bombs, but with words and ideas.  The liberating idea is that everyone has a right to enter into the New World.  This my friends, is a vision of universal love.  For the vision to be manifested means that we need to create a leisure based economy where everyone has the free time and education necessary to become informed about the issues being discussed in the Gaia Forums.      The idea of creating a global democracy has been called a new religion.  In my dissertation GAIA, THE PLANETARY RELIGION, THE SACRED MARRIAGE OF ART AND SCIENCE, I have articulated a way in which the social architecture of a world democracy might work. We now have an ideology of true love to save us, if only the world will listen.  Only if feminist thought and Neutopia would be taken seriously with the highest spiritual respect will we have a chance to emancipate Cyberspace. Then we will finally understand the way true leadership works to use our advanced technologies to create paradise for all on Spaceship Earth.                                            Doctress Neutopia a public copy of the dissertation can be gotten at ftp site: bertha.pyramid.com /pub/leri/Neutopia

Response: