--- lbo-talk-digest
<owner-lbo-talk-digest at lists.panix.com> wrote:
>
> lbo-talk-digest Friday, January 10 2003
> Volume 01 : Number 7226
>
>
>
> In this issue:
> ==============
>
> RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Helen Thomas vs. Ari Fleischer
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Helen Thomas vs. Ari Fleischer
> Re: "Empire as a Way of Life"
> Re: Popular culture
> RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: More on Hardt & Negri from Brennan
> Re: Helen Thomas vs. Ari Fleischer
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Fwd: [Upstream] Symposium on white nationalism
> the New York Press's new owners
> Re: goodnews in today's Guardian
> Re: Deleuze & Guattari, Zizek on Arendt (More
> from Brennan)
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: Popular culture
> Re: A Wall of money?
> Re: "Empire as a Way of Life"
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
> Re: Popular culture
> Market Failure
> vows
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:35:43 -0500 (EST)
> From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
> Subject: RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
>
> > Molly is wrong on two counts.
>
> I think I follow what you're saying. But if I do,
> Molly is only wrong in
> her details of how 401ks work. She still right on
> her substantial point
> that 401k owners -- the vast bulk of the 70% who are
> counted as holding
> stock -- get nothing out of this proposal. Because
> their capital
> appreciation in 401k's is already untaxed. No?
>
> I think that's all that matters for her argument
> here.
>
> Michael
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:40:09 -0500 (EST)
> From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
> Subject: RE: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> > I think I follow what you're saying. But if I do,
> Molly is only wrong in
> > her details of how 401ks work. She still right on
> her substantial point
> > that 401k owners -- the vast bulk of the 70% who
> are counted as holding
> > stock -- get nothing out of this proposal.
> Because their capital
> > appreciation in 401k's is already untaxed. No?
>
> Note re: an old discussion on using apostrophes to
> indicate the plural
> with abbreviations. In the above, 401ks looks
> weird, like a new category.
> With 401k's, on the other hand, it's immediately
> apparent that you've
> pluralized.
>
> The no-apostrophe method works fine when
> abbreviations are capitalized.
> But lots of them aren't.
>
> Michael
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:40:17 -0800
> From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> Subject: Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
>
> > She still right on her substantial point that 401k
> owners --
> > the vast bulk of the 70% who are counted as
> holding stock --
> > get nothing out of this proposal. Because their
> capital
> > appreciation in 401k's is already untaxed. No?
>
> Maybe. I know I'm probably atypical on this list
> for actively managing
> my finances (what can I say? I write programs to
> trade financial
> instruments from time to time, I'm interested in the
> general problem).
> When I come across a stock I want to own that's
> dividend-heavy, I shrug
> and put it into a tax-deferred account. So when it
> "works" and I'm
> "right" I'll see the benefit in 25 years. If this
> change goes through,
> I'm just as likely to do it in a taxable account and
> spend the winnings
> on a big screen TV or food.
>
> I bet I'm not alone in that.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:41:12 -0800
> From: "Luke Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu>
> Subject: Re: Helen Thomas vs. Ari Fleischer
>
> Yoshie wrote:
> > Justifiable if the Arab masses think it
> justifiable, unjustifiable if
> > the Arab masses don't think it justifiable. I
> leave it up to them to
> > determine.
>
> This is absurd. Was the Earth flat when the masses
> believed it to be so?
>
> - -- Luke
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:46:43 -0600
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Subject: Re: The Texas populist take on the tax cut
>
> Chip Berlet wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Woj is correct, centrist/liberal foundation
> funding outwieghs rightist
> > funding, and rightist funding is aimed far more
> strategically.
> >
>
> In other words the right is more successful in
> purifying its ranks of
> those who pretend to be conservative while
> expounding liberal policy,
> while liberals being more open take become a conduit
> for conservative
> rather than liberal viewpoints?
>
> It looks like the Right adheres to a strong version
> of Leninism: Better
> fewer but better.
>
> Carrol
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:48:59 -0800 (PST)
> From: andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Helen Thomas vs. Ari Fleischer
>
> - -- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> > Yoshie wrote:
> > > Justifiable if the Arab masses think it
> > justifiable, unjustifiable if
> > > the Arab masses don't think it justifiable. I
> > leave it up to them to
> > > determine.
> >
> > This is absurd. Was the Earth flat when the
> masses
> > believed it to be so?
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com