"Rgn rsd pyrll txs. Hw ds tht ft yr nrrtv?" H rsd FC bcs Scl Scrt ws gng bnkrpt. tk t y wld nt'v hd prblm hd th Gppr dcdd t lt Scl Scrt g bnkrpt, rght? "W ll p n t th systm n rdr t rp th bnfts." Nt qt. W r frcd t p nt th systm, wtht n prms tht w wld gt bck nythng f vl. "Thr's rl f lw bcs f th gvrnmnt, whch mns tht cntrcts cn b nfrcd. Ths llws cmmrc t hppn." S hw xctl ds tht ddrss m rgnl pnt tht th ntn tht tx cts "cst" th gvrnmnt mpls tht ll th mn vryn rns s th gvrnmnt's t strt wth, s lttng th wg rnrs kp mr f wht th rn smhw cms t f th gvrnmnt's pckt? Y cnnt dfnd tht rgmnt, s y'r jst tryng t rg smthng ls. "Ths sn't fr, s ths tpn ntn f yrs tht y wn % f wht y'v "rnd" s jst s prpstrs s syng th gvrnmnt wns % f t." Bt hw xctl wld tx ct "cst" th gvrnmnt, f th mn wsn't th gvrnmnt's t strt wth? "Y wldn't b bl t rn nythng wtht gvrnmnt ntrvntn." Shcks, 'm tryng t fgr t wht th gvrnmnt hs dn n rdr t mk t pssbl fr m t rn lvng, nd 'm hvng sm dffclt fgrng t t. Th gvrnmnt hs bn mr f hndrnc, thn n hlp. "Y cn p fr tht ntrvntn nw, r frc yr kds t p fr t," T lt. r kds wll lrd b pyng fr th mn tht Brck Hssn bm, Nnc Pls, nd Hrr Rd r spndng td.

"Reaganomics (aka supply side economics) was based on the theory that lower tax rates would enlarge the tax base to where net revenues more than offset lost taxes due to the rate cuts.

It didn't work."

I hate to confuse you with facts, but federal revenues were 517 billion in 1980, and 991 billion in 1988, after the Reagan tax cuts took effect. The Reagan tax cuts nearly doubled the revenue to the government.

"Deficits soared in the 80s."

Again, I must apologize for confusing you with facts, but the deficit went up, then went down, as the revenues came in. The deficit reached the peak of 208 billion in 1983, and dropped to 152 billion in 1989.

And that also, under Reagan, the revenue to the government skyrocketed. But your amnesia made you forget that part, didn't it?

But, you're changing the subject, because you are incapable of defending the notion that tax cuts "cost" the government something. Or, perhaps, you would like to explain what yammering something about Reagan has to do with the notion that everything anyone ever earns belongs to the government automatically, that the government has the first claim on everyone's wages, so that if people end up keeping a bigger chunk of their paycheck, when all is said and done, that's somehow "costly".

If I buy a cup of coffee, for a buck, that cup costed me that buck. Therefore, if reduced tax rates are considered a "cost" for the government, it must mean that the government had that money first, but no longer has it and that's where that "cost" came from.

I mean, why make things so complicated. Let's just make it so that the government receives 100% of what everyone makes, up front, and then turns around and doles out a stipend, according to some notiong of what "fair" means, for everyone. That's definitely going to minimize are "costs", right?

"Republicans have been starving the beast for 30 years"

Gee, I didn't know that the Republicans have been running the House Of Representatives, where all tax bills should originate (at least according to the Constitution, but who cares about that) for so long.

If that was actually a viable option offered to me, I would gladly take it, without hesitation.

I will gladly pay my costs of any service that the government would otherwise subsidize. Of course, in exchange for keeping every last cent I earn, you understand.

You got yourself a deal.

We, as the nation, will remain perpetually screwed as long as the mindless sheep accept the concept that there's a "cost" to letting taxpayers keep a bigger portion of their earnings, instead of having it confiscated by the government.

Gee, isn't it terrible? The government will have to do with $858 billion less. How awful. Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo.

On the other hand, whenever the Marxist-Leninist branch of the government seeks to raise taxes, you never hear how much of that is going to "cost" the taxpayers. No, that's not the language that gets used, in that case. Then it's merely the patriotic duty of "spreading the wealth", or "making the rich pay their fair share", or any one of many other terms carefully picked, using focus groups and polling, to maximize the emotions of the sheep; and fuel the flames of class envy, class hatred, and class exploitation.

So remember that, boys and girls. Keeping a bigger portion of you earn, "costs" the government. And we don't want that to happen, do we? That's going to be your lesson for the day.

Riiiight. Because when you get a price quote on Expedia, you always, always, go to the airline's web site in another window, and attempt to figure out where they hid their add-on price list.

False comparison. You would know exactly how much upfront you'd get charged for such and such channel.

On the other hand, you have no friggin' clue how much your flight will actually cost you, until after you buy the ticket, show up at the airport, and open your wallet.

The proper comparison would be with a price list being presented to you, listing all the fees -- baggage check, onboard food, pay toilet, etc... before you buy the ticket, giving you the opportunity to comparison shop.

Here's something that I still don't understand. It seemed to me, from the first moments of this brouhaha, that there was a blatantly obvious way that Cablevision could've smacked down Fox and make them walk with egg all over their face.

What Cablevision should've simply done is come back with this: ok, Fox, name your price. Set whatever you want to charge for your stations. We will accept any price you want to charge. Crazy? Nope. It makes perfect sense. There's just one catch:

Only those customers who want Fox channels will be required to pay for them, and receive them. Cablevision should've simply told Fox: name your price, whatever price you want to charge, we'll just add 10% for our overhead, expenses, and a modest profit. That's it.

If our customers want your channels, then they'll pay your price to receive them. If our customers feel that your price is too expensive, they'll just not pay for your channels, and not get them. And you can change your price anytime you wish, we're just taking our margin off the top, and that's it. You get to figure out how much you can try to make money off your channel.

This shifts this whole mess on Fox's hands. They can't refuse to accept this offer without really bad PR. They would be backed into a corner, and if they refuse that's a de-facto admission that they want people who don't care for their stations to subsidize the ones that do.

I just cannot, for the life of me, understand why Cablevision, doesn't take this very obvious way to really shift the entire blame over on Fox, and why we have to go through this mess, EVERY FRACKING YEAR, when there's such a simple, permanent solution.

Now, I am not a Cablevision subscriber. I fired them a couple of years ago, and put up a Dish. Now, I'm in the same boat with MSG. MSG is still off Dish, and from the sounds of it, Dish is sticking to their guns. I miss not watching Rangers and Devils hockey, but I'll deal with it. I really hope that this is a wake-up call to both cable and satellite providers: BUNDLING DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!

Not a single cable or satellite provider seems to have any problems selling premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc...) only to those subscriber who agree to pay for them. Not a single provider gives the premium channels to everyone, and charges everyone for them.

Both cable and satellite providers need to wake up, and start unbundling channels, and giving their customers the ability to pay only for those channels they want to watch.

The classical argument against this is that it would make less popular channels economically unfeasible. Bullcrap. Right now, if I wanted to I could order foreign language channels from Dish. If I still had cable, I could've done the same thing with Cablevision. I'd be shocked if more than 1% of their customer base are paying for the foreign-language channels. But they exist, they've existed for a long long time, and somehow they manage to survive despite being as unpopular as they possibly could be.

So there.

Duh, the older you get, the less often do the appropriate opportunities arise...