Which camera for nude photography?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter"

> Fletis,
> Well there are degrees of liberalism and conservatism. You wouldn't just say, let the New Orleans people take care of themselves
> it's not our problem, would you? I find that extremes in almost any position don't usually work. Something a more moderate
> approach work more consistently.
> Paul


I don't agree with the premise of part of your question. Conservatism
doesn't necessarily mean 'let the poor bastards die'.


> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>> I guess I'm in that camp too. I hate paying for other people's
>> stupidity. If you think it should be your neighbor's burden, you're
>> a liberal.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
>>
>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>
> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
> revenue.

Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
found.

> You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
> higher or
> lower without the tax cuts.

Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
say that this is another win in the "for"column.

> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
> discredited,

False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
not.

>so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
> revenue.

So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
Remarkable.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

i already did elsewhere in this thread. ...ok, enough of him.

far better to contemplate the portfolio of some guy named marsel van
oosten (whom i don't know) that i came across tonight. the sheer
quality and variety of his work is astonishing (be sure to check out
the "his royal highness" pic -- reminds me a certain japanese
politician)

here's the link:

http/www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?ppuser=4302&cat=500&password=

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
> Remarkable.

And they also increased after tax increases. You try to make
corellations that fit your far-right agenda, but they are untrue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax
>> cut? Remarkable.
>
> And they also increased after tax increases.

Show that. Show a significant increase out of porportion to the increase
of the GDP immediately after a tax increase. I would be interested.

But assuming you can ... there is certainly more than one reason that
revenues may increase (as any HS economics class will teach you), but the
presence of other variables does not negate the primary variable. When there
is money available for reinvestment, wise business practice is to reinvest.
That creates more income, resulting in more income taxes. When the mechanism
can be shown, the correlation is most likely to be true.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt wrote:

> Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real, immediate and
> negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not vaguely discuss
> dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief funding. Explain how
> increased revenues make the deficit worse.

Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue. Revenue
also went up after tax increases by Bush Sr and Clinton. You've got to
stop listening to Rush, and do some reading!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SMS mentioned in passing :
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
>> Waitwaitwait WAIT a minute! The challenge is, Name a real,
>> immediate and negative effect that tax cuts has on the deficit. Not
>> vaguely discuss dependence on foreign banks or disaster relief
>> funding. Explain how increased revenues make the deficit worse.
>
> Once again, there is no evidence that tax cuts increase revenue.

So you say (against all logic), but nonetheless, they did go up. How is
that bad for deficits?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:15:23 -0400, "Bill DeWitt"
<Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:

>SMS mentioned in passing :
>>
>>>
>>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>>
>> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
>> revenue.
>
> Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased. The mechanics
>are obvious and well described. When the results meet the predictions of the
>hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
>found.
>
>> You simply do not know whether the revenue would have been
>> higher or
>> lower without the tax cuts.
>
> Well, since those who believe differently predicted that revenues
>would -not- rise, and those for the cut predicted that it would, I have to
>say that this is another win in the "for"column.
>
>> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
>> discredited,
>
> False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
>by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
>not.

Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
real science to political ideology.

Democrats provided numbers on the welfare issue. Instead of,
as science would demand, refuting numbers with numbers, Bush simply
(well-chosen word) replied, "Fuzzy math. Fuzzy math" and the wackos
still voted for him. Hell of a scientist, that Bu(ll)sh(it).

>
>>so the evidence would be that tax cuts do NOT increase
>> revenue.
>
> So -that's- why the revenues increased after every income tax cut?
>Remarkable.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <u93si1lmqqb4mqbbj1sur95s0j83g8fcgv@4ax.com>, kashe@sonic.net wrote:

> > False. "Supply side economics" has been thoroughly propagandized against
> >by the left, but, like any science, it works whether you believe in it or
> >not.
>
> Bullshit. The propaganda is with the right for prosituting
> real science to political ideology.


Don't Bill's arguements sound suspiciously like those used by the guy who
promotes Sigma cameras?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill DeWitt <Bill.DeWitt@adelphia.net> wrote:
>SMS mentioned in passing :

>>> Since the tax cut has increased revenue, what is the "real,
>>> immediate and negative effect of the tax cuts on the deficit"?
>>
>> There is no evidence at all that the tax cuts have produced any
>> revenue.
>
> Every time taxes have been cut, the revenue has increased.

That explains why federal revenues have fallen in response to Bush's
tax cuts.

> The mechanics
>are obvious and well described.

If one ignores reality.

> When the results meet the predictions of the
>hypothesis, one generally concludes that the best explanation has been
>found.

And when the results contradict the claims, then the right-wing spins
the facts and lies.

>> Supply-side economics have been thoroughly
>> discredited,
>
> False.

It has. It doesn't work. It's a scam.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net