Bite your tongue, Michael! This neocon wants nothing to do with the likes of Falwell and his ilk - they represent the extremist far right of the Republican party; kind of like the eccentric addle-brained uncle that everybody wants to hide during family reunions.....

Al,

Okay. But substitute Rick Santorum or any of the rest of them and my point still stands. I don't have an ounce of religious conservatism in me, whether it's the wing-nut or the more usual variety. If neocons feel the need to make an alliance with it, I have to pass. I am too strongly against it, and I'm fairly sure that's true of every liberal hawk in this country.

Michael, you really should read the AEI-Brookings paper on "Libertarian Paternalism: not an oxymoron". Though it prolly doesn't totally fit you, it's even closer than neocon. It helps not being fully comprehensive.

The Reps, and Libs, keep on about taxes as long as taxes are "too high". The Dems are forced to support "tax the rich more"; to support every group of victims; since victims are morally superior to non-victims, even if they visciously victimize others.
(I've followed more a bleeding heart libertarian neoconnish path, more comfy with religion than you, and especially the religious virtues it tries to instill in below average intelligent people.)

The problem with the ICC is, it will not be used as a true blind justice. Just looking at what the Europeans keep trying to do, bringing up Bush and Franks on charges.

I do not mind a loose World Government, but it can not touch any part of the Constitution. I must keep my right to Bear Arms, to speak my mind. To live my life as an individual.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Interesting essay, Michael: of course, it'll be probably be taken by the usual suspects as your official announcement that you've joined the Dark Side of the Force, but not a bad essay at all. Among other things, it helped me figure out just what is my ideological affiliation in this crazy-quilt political universe of ours... :)

One thing about this article that impressed me was that Atlas seems to have actually done some research and dealt honestly with what constitutes neoconservatism. More often than not, the 'neo' is just a device used by lazy writers who want to make 'conservative' sound scarier. This always bothered me, because it always seemed to me that neocons would have the most in common with liberals. This is why I laugh when I hear Rumsfeld or Cheney referred to as neocons.

Even my friends, who tend to be well-informed and have known me for years, were aghast when I came out of the closet with my 'neocon proclivities'. Attaching the prefix immediately conjured images of Pat Robertson and Tom DeLay. I think this is indicative of a major blindspot - I think most conservatives can tell the difference between The New Republic and The Nation. Anecdotally, very few liberals can see the difference between The Weekly Standard and The American Conservative.

It sounds like your basic problem with the (neo-) conservative agenda has to do with the religious, moral overtones. I think your view is quite common. I believe the dominant political ideology in this country in the coming years will be happy face Republicanism along the lines of Arnold Schwartznegger -- liberal and secular on social questions, "I've got mine screw everyone else" on taxes and the provision of public services, and, yes, fairly hawkish on defense. With a little bit of the idiotic Jack Kemp-stlye "bleeding heart conservativism" to sooth our guilty consciences.

And it sounds like you are basically going to be happy with this situation.

Tom Grey[I'm] more comfy with religion than you, and especially the religious virtues it tries to instill in below average intelligent people.

Holy condescending paternalism, Batman!

Are you saying that you think that religion is a useful tool to control the idiotic masses, because they can't be trusted to arrive at moral conclusions on their own? And are you implying that religious people are stupid?

Since I share the same attitudes towards religion (a large brick wall between church and state would be a good thing) and social services (taxes aren’t always bad) I still call myself an independent.

Some people define themselves as liberal hawks, but I have to wonder - do liberals who believe that war is not all bad ever define themselves as neo-cons?

Like “Freeper”, neo-con seems to be a label that the left likes to pin on people who disagree with their idea that war is the ultimate evil – worse than fascism, dictatorship or genocide. If you’re willing to accept that war is sometimes necessary, than you are no longer a member of their 'liberal' club.

Michael Lind defined neoconservatives as “‘products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history"

I don’t think many people define themselves as anti-communist liberal imperialist right-wing Trotskyites.

Atlas’ description of neo-cons is more coherent than Linds’, but he also believes that anyone who supports the Iraq war can’t be a liberal. They must be the ‘other’.

Well, I’m not a freeper, a neocon or a conservative, but I am a feminist and I know stereotyping when I see it.

The whole thing is kind of stupid and is a way of the far left wing to label the supporters of the war. Its the same kind of demonization of saying you're a "zionist".

What the hell does any of it mean?

1) I support the war
2) I do believe we didn't plan well for the aftermath
3) I support reconstruction there fully
4) I support the State of Israel and believe the reason there is not peace and a right wing government is Arab Rejectionism, fluffed up any way you want it. Arafat wants a state or quasi statehood without making any final peace or concessions, he doesn't want a final agreement that will end the conflict.
5) I don't give a shit about Leo Strauss or Pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell.

I know what I believe in and what I think. And anyone who thinks Hitchens is a Conservative in any sense of the word is delusional or that Trotskyites morphed into this. The "Trotskyites" or "Marxists" today are the most wacko fervent critics of Bush, America and Israel, I've been to their speeches. And Hitchens is a Marxist through and through except he's got some fucking common sense, on the almost Hitleresque oppression that was going on in Iraq.

Totten likes to somewhat wax poetic about Hitchens as a kind of lefty saint. Hitch is just a controversial, opinionated Marxist with some common sense, a British accent and a propensity to drink a lot of whisky.

If you want to read some reasonable Marxists, check Norman Geras's blog.

The whole labeling thing and history makes me somewhat nauseous to tell you the truth and panders to the Indmediaidiots that label the 'secret' "neo-con Jewish cabal" that planned out the making of history.

Mike

"Anecdotally, very few liberals can see the difference between The Weekly Standard and The American Conservative."

George, your survey sample must have been limited to some very stupid liberals. In fact, however, the American Conservative and the Weekly Standard are fairly identical on social/moral issues. The Weekly Standard frets about gay marriage, the scourge of moral relativism and the removal of religion from the public square just as much as Pat Buchanan does.

My problem with neocons, and the Weekly Standard, is that, unlike Scoop Jackson, they don't seem to give a damn about their compatriots nefarious plans to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and the rest of our social safety net. I jest you not.

Markus,

I am not happy with attacks on the safety net, per se. If anything, I want it strengthened, though I am open to intelligent critiques of when it doesn't work properly.

{non-sequitur}Are you familiar with Le Guin, Michael? Your comment on Salem, O gave me a fresh insight on one of her short stories, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". {/non-sequitur}

As a sorta, kinda neocon, I don't want to dismantle the safety net, I want to do something to ensure it survives. If you don't want to introduce market reforms to medicare or give people the option of investing a small portion of their social security in the market, fine, good. But give me a plan. "No" isn't a plan. And don't even mention that stupid "lockbox" argument, it's empty. Tax increases will be inevitable. However, even that will reach a saturation point where an increase in taxes will produce decreased revenues. Then what? I don't know the answer to these questions myself. I do know that we need to have an honest dialogue about these issues and we won't as long as the demonizing "They want to dismantle the safety net" defense against change is used.

So it seems that when it comes to foreign policy, I do agree with most aspects of neoconservatism...

Then how about this description: Likudnik on foreign policy, liberal on everything else?

"The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention."

I think this statement needs more explanation. I doubt there are that many "secular intellectuals" who want to do away with separation between Church and State. Aren't many of the original "neocons" supposed to be Jewish? (No, I'm not breaking out that racist canard but many of the earliest ones I've heard of were indeed Jewish.) I doubt they'd be for making their kids pray to Jesus in school. I doubt the "secular intellectuals" would too. Something doesn't add up in this quote. I need to hear their positions on the actual issues.

Also, don't most people have a negative image of the quality of education? And I know quite a few lefty fems all up for regulating porn.

R. Birtland: Then how about this description: Likudnik on foreign policy, liberal on everything else?

What? What?

Why are you calling me a Likudnik? I am neither Jewish nor Israeli. Please don't tell me you're one of the ZOG people.

While I really enjoyed this blog's topic, I hate the fact that while we all have a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects, we are forced to vote for either the Dems or Repubs. Even if you support one party's candidate for a single reason (like national defense), but disagree on other issues (like federal judges), you will be torn to pieces by both parties and the media. I wish we could get away from the 2 party system because it is so limiting, but I do not see that happening anytime soon.

Social Security is good now until 2040. It is true the "lockbox" was a fiction, but if we were running budget surpluses today, instead of massive deficits, this would allow future general revenue funds that will now go toward debt service to instead be diverted into social security, further extending solvency. Further steps -- lifting the earnings cap on the payroll tax, raising the retirement age again in a couple of decades, encouraging LEGAL immigration -- extends solvency even further, and probably solves the problem for good.

Obviously the share of health expenses paid by seniors is going to have to increase to some degree. But introducing market reforms into Medicare (Medicare+Choice) in the form of vouchers to join private plans has so far proven to be a big disappointment. Instead of encouraging healthy people to opt out of the system, which is what the two main free market paneceas -- medical savings accounts and medicare vouchers -- do, we should be trying to spread risk as widely as possible.

R. Birtland,

Let me make myself clear. Every person who has written me email and who thinks I'm Jewish has been some kind of neo-nazi punk. Your post was innocuous, but it sent up a red flag nevertheless. If you meant "Likudnik" innocently, please excuse my "zog" comment above.

I find your comment "Traditional Christianity has no place in my life, and it never has." to be extremely amusing.

As an American you have benefited greatly from Traditional Christianity whether you agree with it or not. For example, as an American you expect people to keep their word, you expect laws to be followed.

These are aspects of a Judeo-Christian culture. Islam, as an example, clearly states that converting your fellow man to be a believer in Islam has a higher priority than being honest with them. Treaties and Laws can be discarded as soon as you have enough military strength to successfully do so.

Satanism, as an example, states that the greater the degree of betrayal, the more pleasing an offering to Satan. {And while there are not millions and millions of them, there are Satanic cult rapes and murders in the world. I do not think you would enjoy the degree of paranoia required to survive in the Satanic United States of America.}

As an American, you expect a certain belief in Equality before the law. Hinduism, as an example, still advocates a religious caste system and the attacks on Dalits, both their person and property, are greater in number in India than attacks on the homeless here in the US.

While all of this does not affect the sentiment of separation of church and state; your statement is, in my opinion, more hyperbole than truth.

Godwin's law holds true again.

I don't think that Irving Kristol accurately defined neoconservatism. Since he is one of the fathers of neoconservatism, this may seem like an unfair criticism, but I think it's defensible.

Kristol's article was written when neoconservatism was still a somewhat fashionable new term; it was as much a compliment as an insult. Neocons like Wolfowitz were media darlings and were always in the spotlight. Everyone was hanging onto the words of these new movers-and-shakers.

Kristol was just trying to cash in on the popularity of neoconservatism by claiming that the neocon "agenda" was almost identical to the political agenda of the Bush White House.

I don't know Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, or any of the others personally, but I know plenty of well-educated people who are interested in politics and foreign affairs. They occupy many of the same positions that the neocons once occupied; Ricahrd Perle, for instance, was once an aide to Scoop Jackson. None of my friends are terribly sympathetic to religious fundamentalism. None believes that supply-side economics are a viable means of stimulating economic growth.

I just find it hard to believe that if you were to sit down with Wolfowitz, he'd spend hours and hours talking about the decline of the family, the need for church attendance, and the need to regulate pornography. Nor would he wax enthusiastic about tax cuts as the key to prosperity and economic growth.

The neocons might look askance at the welfare state, but who, other than the most ideological leftist, doesn't? No one wants to see more housing projects built, and most modern liberals think welfare-to-work is a good idea so long as there are jobs available to transition to.

For this reason, I think Michael probably is a neoconservative. He believes in patriotism, was hawkish on Iraq, and isn't psychologically burdened by the anti-Americanism and defeatism of the Vietnam era. You don't need to believe in the rest of that stuff in order to be a neocon. Kristol is just blowing smoke when he says that supply-side economics and cultural conservatism are part of the agenda.

Joe Schmoe,

If I'm a neocon now, was I a neocon when I supported Clinton's Balkan intervention, too? If so, most of the Democratic Party was neoconservative four years ago and the GOP was leftist.

Political parties are defined by more things than foreign policy alone.

Also, Irving Kristol's article is only three months old. Neoconservatism is much older than that.

"Political parties are defined by more things than foreign policy alone".

Yes, thank you. Unfortunately both of the major political parties are very limiting in who they are willing to support if a candidate strays away from the party line on all issues. Just look at the Democratic candidates and how their positions over time has changed to match the party "platform" on almost all the issues.

It shows a weakness in their character that they change their opinions the way they do. However if they don't align themselves correctly, they won't get the party support. And winning without the party support is very difficult these days.

Great piece. What amuses me, Michael, is you have finally evolved in my direction (I must have been at least... six weeks?...four weeks?... okay, a few days... ahead of you) to finally acknowledging yourself fully as an INDEPENDENT. Arrivederci, Democrats. Arrivederci, Republicans. Feh, to the rest of them. Forward in the Great Tradition of Chairman Mao... er, Chairman Hitchens.

liberal and secular on social questions, "I've got mine screw everyone else" on taxes and the provision of public services, and, yes, fairly hawkish on defense.

Sounds good to me. And this is perfectly in line with pragmatic libertarianism.

Markus - the financial crisis for Social Security starts in 2013, not 2040. 2013 is when outlays exceed payroll taxes, and Social Security stops plugging the hole in the federal budget and instead becomes, in Megan McArdle's words, the "sucking chest wound" of the fisc. 2040 is the date used to fool the children who believe in lockboxes.

"the financial crisis for Social Security starts in 2013, not 2040...2013 is when outlays exceed payroll taxes."

I'll have to double check this assertion, R C, but if so -- so what? The huge surpluses raised by payroll taxes have been funding discretionary appropriations since 1983. In reality, the Federal Government has one bank, and one checking account, and all revenues go into it.

I respect the enthusiasm that you and other libertarians have for all things laissez-faire, and I think it would be a good idea to try them out somewhere, in order to put theory into practice and see just how free people would really be, and just how salutary the increased inequality and social divisions generated under such a system would be. How about Switzerland?

We can’t cut taxes down to zero, and at some point Republicans are going to have to acknowledge that taxes have been cut as much as they can be cut and find something else to do.

This goes both ways, does it not? You imply that it does, but reserve the direct complaint for the GOP alone. Not to mention that it's hardly a one-way street. The fact is, the GOP wouldn't have to keep lowering taxes if the Dems didn't keep raising them, undoing the last decrease.

Further, the parties aren't exactly all one way or another. Ronald Reagan, The Man Himself as far as tax cuts go, raised some taxes after he cut them, and then the two largest tax increases in history followed, the first of which was signed by Bush I. Having rammed the second one through Congress before the first effects of the first were even finsihed manifesting themsleves, Clinton admitted he'd 'raised our taxes too much' and agreed to some reductions.

There's a good argument to be made that everyone in the private economy would be better off if we set a simple, consistent rate and didn't play around with it too often. It's almost assuredly better that the rate be 1% higher (or lower) than some Platonic "ideal" than to be constantly changing it, roiling markets and forcing everyone to readjust their activities. We get the circumstance we have instead because the Dems are just as guilty on tax rates as the GOP (insert caveat about broad generalizations not applying in all cases here).

The resulting push-pull is what democracy is all about, of course. As the People collectively adjust the balance of their desire for services with their willingness to pay for them, taxes go up and down. It's messy, but Churchill's observation about democracy applies as well to this issue as anything.

This goes both ways, does it not? You imply that it does, but reserve the direct complaint for the GOP alone.

Yes, but taxes have been trending down not up since the end of World War II. The highest marginal tax rate was 91 percent in the 1950s. No one even remotely electable wants that again.

This goes both ways, does it not? You imply that it does, but reserve the direct complaint for the GOP alone. Yes, but taxes have been trending down not up since the end of World War II. The highest marginal tax rate was 91 percent in the 1950s. No one even remotely electable wants that again.
Michael J. Totten at October 22, 2003

How stupid is 91% top marginal tax rates? That's communism, you work for the government basically, the government says, "Thank you very much that's ours not yours...... we just took over ownership of your company or business and life and we will let you keep some crumbs for running it...... This is what the PLO and Saddam does by the point of a gun"

And to say tax rates have trended down since then..... because they've never gone that high again is pretty misleading, lol!!

They were lower in the 80's and raised again in the 90's and now slightly lowered again. Russia has a flat 20% or so rate and the ecnomic growth there is surging as a result......

You can't overtax people and expect growth in my opinion. However, the government is a snowball rolling down hill growing and as influence as well as social programs continue they have to grow, there is no way to prevent it. Plus, the more social programs grow the more dependence on them grow, and you can't reasonably micro manage them, its virtually impossible! THERE'S not enough hours in 1 day or enough reasonable and smart people to do so.

So what happens is a blunting effect both ways.... massive growth, some corruption, some abuse/stealing (medicare/medicaid fraud) and massive dependence without any motivation to not overuse...... and then eventually you end up with bankrupcy and a need for massive scaleback........ Caleeeeefornia.

THIS IS HOW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS RUN...... and I'm no Ditto Head but those are the facts........

PS Totten you like that blockquoting or what? By the way are you secular/atheist or Presbyterian?

By the way 1 more thing.....
I think I read this from a link from Instapundit?

The Nazis were Socialists/Communists and not only in name. They stood for nationalizing everything in the country and were for gun control, as they confiscated everyone's firearms.... anyone who resisted was deemed unpatriotic and an enemy of the country.

Further, the intellects and socialites of the society were all highly into the movement as it was the "in thing" to be..........

I'm not melodramatizing possible similarities to today's far left..... however, I'm just saying its interesting how the fascists were actually Communists.......

The reason for this is simple..... Its easier to control everything if the government owns it.... That's why Communist Dictatorship is the ultimate form of control..... The Nazis were kind of quasi Communists/Socialists/Capitalists.....

Mike

Smokey, please read what I really say. Religions try to instill virtue. I like that, I like being virtuous and prefer others to, as well (thanks Adriana for fine note). I especially like that for below average intelligent people (50%, though let's say the lower 40%)--for themselves. People being virtuous seldom make huge mistakes with their lives. The problem with stupid people, is that they often make mistakes; and even the same mistake over. (Yes, LOTs of smart folks make huge mistakes too).

I truly feel that social laws and customs have an impact on behavior; and that there is a freedom - security balance. I love & support freedom, but don't want to suffer/ pay for the mistakes that others make when they can't pay for their own mistakes.

I believe that the optimum social custom-freedom balance for the most intelligent 40% is different than that for the least intelligent 40%. Do you believe one set of customs is optimal across all intelligences?

The whole issue of 91% tax rates in the fifties is a canard. Real taxation at 91% would indeed be socialistic or communistic, and the US under Dwight Eisenhower was neither. There were a much wider range of dedcutions and loopholes that everyone in the top brackets took advantage of.

By the way are you secular/atheist or Presbyterian?

Secular/atheist, raised as a non-denominational Protestant by a mother who was raised Catholic.

If I were to go back to religion I would narrow my choices down to Taoism, Catholicism, Judaism, and Unitarianism. But I like none-of-the-above best.

So it’s not that I’m against cutting taxes, per se. But how long are we going to keep banging away at this? No one likes paying taxes. I hate it. But we need to be realistic. Sometimes taxes should be increased, and sometimes taxes should be decreased. I don’t like writing or arguing about this, but suffice it to say that I can only be convinced cutting taxes is wise 50 percent of the time.
(1) The system is biased strongly towards raising taxes (public choice theory is quite right here). Left to drift, our system of governance will slowly drive tax rates up to the point of diminishing returns, and then some more. If you fight for lowering taxes 50% of your time, and for raising them the other 50% of your time, the net result will be (too) high taxes. The sorry (in my view) fact is that we have to continuously fight taxes down just to counter-act the systemic upward drift (driven from both the left and right).
(2) On a more fundamental level (and here you'll part company with me, I expect), taxation exposes a basic disagreement between (small-l) libertarians on one hand, and both socialist-liberals and conservative-republicans on the other. Libertarians want taxes to raise funds for government operation in as neutral a way as practical. (That's neutral as in "not skewing economic decision making by private actors.") Both liberals and conservatives want to use the tax system to directly achieve social goals by shifting money from some groups to others. Speaking as a libertarian, that makes taxes per se harmful, because they are used (by both conventional sides) as a primary tool of wealth redistribution. So while some taxation is necessary for the functioning of our society, I for one have a bias against the thing - not because taxation is objectively bad, but because it is routinely used as a partisan tool - and I'm on neither side.
Cheers
-- perry

Perry,

Do you think a strong safety net counts as wealth redistribution? I don't, even though it may act as such at times. The net will catch anyone who falls, regardless from how high they fell.

Michael,

I liked the fisking and wanted to bring up the critical issue of taxes and taxation.

An issue that liberal hawks and neoconservatives may be able to find common ground would be an examination of the tax code followed by a debate about the utility and effect of the various taxes we pay and the appropriate rate of each tax. In short, on the overall efficiency of the tax code.

The tax code is a powerful tool for government to effect the behavior of both business and the citizenry using both carrots and sticks. The behaviors influenced by taxation can have a profound impact on our enviroment, our health, our national savings and our willingness to cheritable giving as well as community and national service.

Too many liberals fall into the class warefare trap propegated by the left leaning elements of the democratic party who view taxes as a punative measure against the rich or against corporations.

A great recent example of a the left missunderstanding a tax cut was the recent flap over the reduction of tax rates on corporate dividends which many democrats called a "gift fot the rich".

One doesn't have to be a mathimatical genius to realize that 15% of something is better than 33% (the top federal income tax rate) of nothing. Since the passage of the cut over 1600 companies have initiated or increased the payment of dividends to their shareholders. Instead of a hit to the treasury the result looks like it will be a net gain.

Are we taxing consumption enough? Are we taxing savings too much? is it more efficient to tax businesses directly or through the returns given to shareholders. Is it better to have multinational corporations repatriate dollars at a lower tax rate so the treasury gets something vs. have them invest these same dollars abroad in effect exporting jobs? We rail against job loss overseas, is our tax code making the situation worse?

These are big questions and are ones that are not discussed nearly enough.

Matthew King

Thanks Matt for a more intelligent look at the effects of tax code. What I might conclude is that with the internationalism of trade and labor that tax codes will have to be lowered everywhere otherwise corps will just move factories and investments elsewhere?

By the way in response to the earlier post. I don't care what the loopholes were. A 91% top marginal rate is like me blackmailing you at gunpoint to pay my debt. And with such a exorbitant top rate one would only expect, as statistics do prove, people will do anything to avoid showing income, and deductions and fantom income both legal and "illegal" are going to increase. Who the hell wants to be robbed?

Just think about how insane it is to pay 91% of what you earn to the government? You get 9cents and the government gets 91 cents.......... LMAO!!
And that was during the time of Communist phobia?

I stand by the cylce of government waste and reaction too.......

Mike,

We all agree that a top tax rate of 91 percent was outrageous. Still, it wasn't communist. The economy was very much a capitalist one, and it was also the richest and most powerful of any economy ever in the history of man. Almost no one paid 91 percent, incidentally.

Parry,

Wealth distribution, redistribution or confiscation for that matter are not the only goal(s) achievable by using the tax code.

A good example would be consumption taxes. Tom Friedman has lately, been calling for an increase in the gas tax to pay for the war and Iraqi reconstruction. He points out the benefits in reduced consumption, reduced emissions and a shared social commitment to pay for the war.

Does this take more away from GDP than the inevitable increases in interest rates we will get from the higher defecits, and for a longer period? Do we unfairly tax the poor at a higher percentage of income as consumption taxes are not progressive? Do we tax rural drivers at higher rates than urban commuters? Interesting questions

What are the benefits? Who knows, Michael's New Urbanisim would certainly benefit as incentives would favor more efficient planning. A lesser reliance on oil from the middle east and a reductiion in our forward deployment could certainly result.

We can increase savings rates through the code by increasing contribution limits on retirement plans. We can discourage consumption of Junk food through the code. If you think redistribution is expensive wait till we have 30% of adults (and kids) with diabetes.

What do you think.

Matthew King

Wealth distribution, redistribution or confiscation for that matter are not the only goal(s) achievable by using the tax code.

No the government needs money that we all as citizens of the country need to share in collectively. Defense, public works, sewage, schools?, etc....

A good example would be consumption taxes. Tom Friedman has lately, been calling for an increase in the gas tax to pay for the war and Iraqi reconstruction. He points out the benefits in reduced consumption, reduced emissions and a shared social commitment to pay for the war.

This is piepedream simplisme coming from someone whose got about as much economic theory knowledge as I do. Sorry, but the guy waxes on about topics he supposedly knows about, the Middle East, and makes stuff up, so utilizing his windbag waxing on tax codes is like asking a Saudi women to drive your car in New York City.

>blockquote>Does this take more away from GDP than the inevitable increases in interest rates we will get from the higher defecits, and for a longer period? Do we unfairly tax the poor at a higher percentage of income as consumption taxes are not progressive? Do we tax rural drivers at higher rates than urban commuters? Interesting questions.

NOPE WON'T HAPPEN..... another pipedream. Overall world and US consumption is increasing every year and will continue to do so. Its estimated we'll use twice as many barrels a day in 20 years than we do now. Maybe you can pray Einstein's genes are passed down and someone masters cold fusion? Hybrids sold now get 50mpg combined, but of course are small and light cars? They also cost about 20k.

We can increase savings rates through the code by increasing contribution limits on retirement plans.

They've already done that. And this has nothing to do with generating tax revenue for the government or curbing pork spending or punative tax brackets. Plus, money in a 401k stabilizes the markets but its also not being spent at the movies, on cars or houses, though 401ks do allow for borrowing in certain circumstances.

We can discourage consumption of Junk food through the code. If you think redistribution is expensive wait till we have 30% of adults (and kids) with diabetes.

Do you know how seriously idiotic that statement sounds?

Wait, taxes are a good thing because the Nanny State is doing us a favor by teaching us "its not good to eat junk food."
So they are going to steal exorbitant amounts of money from me for eating it? BOGGLES THE MIND?

People like you and Friedman make me want to join far right groups like Citizens for Tax Reform.

Here's a clue. DON'T EAT JUNK FOOD OR ICE CREAM. THEY AIN'T GOOD FOR YOU. OK? Now you can send me 1/2 of the hundreds of dollars you would have sent to Uncle Nanny, and keep the rest?

Michael-

I just want to make a point about the fact that almost noone paid the 91% marginal rate. When tax rates are that confiscatory, people have HUGE incentives to either take income under the table, or to structure their compensation in ways that won't trigger the high tax rates.

The 1950's and early 60's were the era of massive corporate perks for even mid-level managers in large companies. Instead of getting paid more, they'd take more in side perks.

I know that executive compensation is outrageous today in many cases, but it's better for the economy and for investors when people don't distort their behaviors in order to avoid onerous taxes, unless there is some massive social benefit that outweighs that impediment to economic growth.

I'll have to double check this assertion, R C, but if so -- so what? The huge surpluses raised by payroll taxes have been funding discretionary appropriations since 1983. In reality, the Federal Government has one bank, and one checking account, and all revenues go into it.

The "so what" is that, when payroll taxes become insufficient to pay benefits AND cover the (hidden) shortfall in general tax revenues, the only way to pay current benefits will be to either raise payroll taxes, divert general tax revenues, or borrow. Indeed, general taxes will have to be raised just to maintain current levels of spending, once general tax revenues begin to be diverted to cover Social Security.

I would have no problem whatsoever with deep cuts in "discretionary" spending, or deep cuts in all manner of wealth transfer programs. The "safety net" in the US is no longer about keeping body and soul together. We could accomplish that goal with a far smaller safety net than we now have. Much so-called safety net spending is for lifestyle support. Somehow, Markus, I doubt your "so what" is a signal that you will cover payroll tax shortfalls with drastic spending cuts elsewhere.

Raising payroll taxes will hammer working Americans with even higher tax burdens. Diverting general tax revenue will require either program cuts, or raising general tax rates.

If you think taxes are too low now, you are always free to donate more of your money to the government. No one ever does, so I don't think anyone ever really thinks they are undertaxed. When you or Michael starts writing voluntary donations to the government, you will have credibility in my eyes to argue that taxes aren't too high, but not before.

We can always borrow, of course, but that is a way of saddling future generations with the bill for current consumption. Retiree benefits are consumption, not investment, so it is not appropriate to borrow for them.

I think "sucking chest wound" summarizes it nicely. The current arrangement becomes fiscally untenable in 2013, not 2040.

"When you or Michael starts writing voluntary donations to the government, you will have credibility in my eyes to argue that taxes aren't too high, but not before."

Voluntary taxation makes no sense for the same reason private companies don't accept voluntary donations in exchange for their products: because of the incentive for freeloading inherent in such a scheme. Everyone who chooses NOT to pay the tax but still use or benefit from the services provided is at a financial advantage over those who did pay the tax.

It seems the real objection most libertarians have to taxes is the philosophical idea of being required to pay for services they do not personally use or appear to benefit from at first glance. Such an attitude is short-sighted and anti-social, similar in my mind from the inclination to dodge military service in wartime, not out of conscience, but in order to preserve ones own hide. No concept of civic duty. Take what you can, screw the rest.

"The 'safety net' in the US is no longer about keeping body and soul together. We could accomplish that goal with a far smaller safety net than we now have. Much so-called safety net spending is for lifestyle support."

If you are referring to corporate welfare to agribusiness, and the like, you are correct. If you are referring to Social Security and Medicare, you also have a point, but extending coverage to the middle class is thought, probably correctly, to be necessary to retain their political support. If you are referring to the earned income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, child care subsidies, unemployment insurance...you are simply ignorant of reality.

I'm hoping you're not a neocon.

First, it would be tragic if everyone who favors a sane foreign policy was marching under the same banner. Is the number of people with some foreign-policy sophistication that small??

Second, it would be tragic if I perceived that the only people who favor a sane foreign policy were marching under the same banner. Am I that narrow-minded??

The problem is this: Most nations have a realism vs idealism debate. America does have this (fitfully), but more important is our isolationism vs engagement debate. There's almost always been a party (or at least a major faction) saying that we should, effectively, have no foreign policy at all. That the world is someone else's problem.

In the run-up to WWII, people forget that the Republicans were the ones to totally abdicate America's foreign policy interests. WWII scarred conservatives, because we were so completely, obviously wrong. To have stayed out of the war was morally wrong, AND against our national interest wrong.

At some point during the sixties, probably because of Vietnam and the protest movement, that strain of isolation reappeared in the far Left. The modern Left seems preposterous because it has embraced the classic foreign policy of the 30's conservatives. Except, instead of the world being the League of Nations's problem, or Europe's problem, it is now the UN's problem. They favor abandoning the world to its fate until crises are fully-ripened and right at our doorstep. So now you have two reasons to miss the 30's liberals.

Right now I'm reading Henry Kissinger's memoirs. So far so good (I'm reading the part about his rivalry with Donald Rumsfeld. Kissinger mentions that in retrospect, Rumsfeld would have made a great President, and regrets that Rumsfeld left politics. All pre-Bush 43, of course.) Also a critique of the neoconservatives. Definitely worth a read, and I'm not far in yet.

Kissinger argues that neoconservative idealism is tempered by realism in there here and now, but blinded to the realism of the past. In other words, a neoconservative who converted in the 70's didn't acknowledge the importance and utility of detente. Similarly, I find many more recent converts to foreign policy hawkishness willing to associate with all kind of unsavory regimes to fight radical, militant Islamism, but can't understand why we helped the Taliban (or numerous dictators in Latin America) during the Cold War. I guess you had to be there.

The problem with the state of the American foreign policy debate right now is that there isn't one. The debate over the war (and its aftermath) is so driven by American domestic political maneuvering that it's practically non-existent. What is there, is drowned out by this "isolationism vs engagement" debate.

It isn't like there aren't several major strategic issues that require our attention. First and foremost: the nature of the war on terror. Is this a religious war? The side that started it certainly thinks it is. What's our strategy vis a vis the other Great Powers (China, Europe, Russia)? How much should we care about their internal arrangements (especially China's)? What should trade look like? I don't feel like anyone is really asking any questions beyond the immediately tactical.

That's why I hope you're not a neoconservative. As a mainstream Republican, I pretty much agree with the tactical decisions that are being made, but I would love it if these decisions were enriched by some debate. You "30's liberals" need to really sit down and work out what our national interest is, how we pursue it, and what we do about those who oppose it.

The word "neoconservative" keeps being bandied around because so far, the only alternative to a neoconservative foreign policy has been no foreign policy at all.

it would be tragic if everyone who favors a sane foreign policy was marching under the same banner.

That is a very good point.

Mike,

I know that Rush's going into re-hab has been hard on you. As you drive your Hummer to the compound in Idaho you might want to think of a few things about the current tax code.

A quick spin through this years Farm bill will quickly demonstrate that your good conservative red state Senators have rigged the tax code with huge subsidies, tax breaks and outright givaways for agrabusiness. So in effect you are already paying taxes both for the givaways as well as your percentage of the taxes these interests should owe but don't thanks to their many friends on K st.

As to the question of Nanny taxes let's get this straight. You WILL wind up paying for our epidemic of obesity through increased medicare cost. You WILL wind up paying through increased health care cost, higher deductables, higher co-pays and other cost shifting mechanisims. You WILL pay through lower productivity in the american work force as Diabetes, Heart Disease and other weight related maladies take their toll.

You already pay more for an airline ticket because they need more fuel per passenger to lift all the folks who hit the McDonalds drive through on the way to the plane. And just think of the joy of sitting on a plane next to the 350 pound passenger taking up his/her seat and 1/2 of yours.

If we want to eliminate all "nanny taxes" than tobacco should have the same tax as broccoli. What the hell they are both agicultural products. According to that reasoning vodka should be taxed at the same rate as potatoes. But wait, these things have social costs that someone has to pay for. Shouldn't the majority of the costs be paid for by the user?

I am all for freedom and tax justice Mike. I just think if people want to turn their asses into a crispy creme they should wind up picking up part of the tab for the costs down the road.

Matthew King

Perry,
Do you think a strong safety net counts as wealth redistribution? I don't, even though it may act as such at times. The net will catch anyone who falls, regardless from how high they fell.

Michael,
Like all good questions, this one doesn't have an easy answer. The "safety net" is a combo deal.
(1) Catastrophic insurance against events not reasonably caused by human action. This is "insurance" in the sense of all of society sharing the burden and risk for something that randomly happens to some of its members. That's not wealth redistribution; it's burden sharing (the random, unpredictable, no-fault burdens of life, as it is).
(2) "Trampoline" support for people caught in zero-sum binds. This is the "can't get a job because I don't have child care" kind of trap. This is social investment, in that it should be based on the objective expectation that the money spent on it is, on average, repaid to society at large. Think student loans for the homeless, sort of. This is "in between" and needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
(3) Baseline support transfers. This is permanent transfer payments to deserving people to "top off" their income to some desirable minimum level. This includes time-unlimited welfare payments, food stamps, minimum wages, etc. This is redistribution.

In my (libertarian) mind, we need more of (1), less of (3), and much more realistic criteria on when and how to do (2).

If you want a sound bite (not my favorite thing), then ideally the "safety net" should be a "safety trampoline." The next best version would be a "slow let-down" version (that's what a high wire artist's safety net does - it breaks the fall, then lets you safely onto the floor; you still end up at ground level :-). If it turns out to be a "safety hammock," you have a bad problem.
Cheers
-- perry

OK THIS IS TOO PRICELESS TOO PASS UP -

Matthew King Mike,
I know that Rush's going into re-hab has been hard on you. As you drive your Hummer to the compound in Idaho you might want to think of a few things about the current tax code.

Oh my that is tooooooooo funnnnnny! LMAO!!! that about sums up the mentality of the left and anyone that disagrees with anything they say..... lol!!

A quick spin through this years Farm bill will quickly demonstrate that your good conservative red state Senators have rigged the tax code with huge subsidies, tax breaks and outright givaways for agrabusiness. So in effect you are already paying taxes both for the givaways as well as your percentage of the taxes these interests should owe but don't thanks to their many friends on K st.

Bolds are mine for emphasis.... I agree farm subsidies are insane.... I think Rush is against them as well..... and I'm a registered Democrat whose never voted otherwise, yet......

As to the question of Nanny taxes let's get this straight. You WILL wind up paying for our epidemic of obesity through increased medicare cost. You WILL wind up paying through increased health care cost, higher deductables, higher co-pays and other cost shifting mechanisims. You WILL pay through lower productivity in the american work force as Diabetes, Heart Disease and other weight related maladies take their toll.

Actually there have been mortality studies that showed if people die earlier than there is a relieving of overcrowding, medicare and social security.... if you really want to get nitty gritty details about it... The reason why people get diabetes (Type II) is due to lack of exercise, not eating properly and enough balanced meals, and junk food does add to that.... but guess what,,,,,,, THAT'S MY FING CHOICE!
How about you pay me 30k/year to train you and if you don't show up for training sessions you pay a $200 fine! You don't like that? well after me training and making your diet for 6 months you'll be a healthy mo fo...... be more productive at work and likely in the sack.......... :-) so what could be wrong with that?

You already pay more for an airline ticket because they need more fuel per passenger to lift all the folks who hit the McDonalds drive through on the way to the plane. And just think of the joy of sitting on a plane next to the 350 pound passenger taking up his/her seat and 1/2 of yours.

ROGER MICHAEL..... are you reading this???I mean this is priceless I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried! We waste fuel because of heavier overweight passengers on 747's!!
Let's pass an eating tax man, we need it!!! LMAO!!

If we want to eliminate all "nanny taxes" than tobacco should have the same tax as broccoli. What the hell they are both agicultural products. According to that reasoning vodka should be taxed at the same rate as potatoes.

That's fine with me! If you want to smoke and kill yourself! its your life kid! Just don't blow it in my face and wey're cool! unless you're gina gershon and we just had really quality sex.....
By the way don't you think its unfair to heavily tax cigarettes since most people that smoke and drink heavily are middle class to poor!! I MEAN THAT'S EXTORTING THE POOR?? and aren't the Dems against that?? hmmmmmmmmm puzzling? Maybe you should have to show a W2 when you buy them?

But wait, these things have social costs that someone has to pay for. Shouldn't the majority of the costs be paid for by the user?

They do have social costs, true. The bottom line is if someone doesn't want to take care of themselves eventually society will be forced to, unless they live in Africa and then they're more worried about where their next meals coming from, and not getting obese or getting a DVD player.
Taxing someone may discourage use of something but as usual the government gets out of control and is just a gigantic spending pork machine.

I am all for freedom and tax justice Mike. I just think if people want to turn their asses into a crispy creme they should wind up picking up part of the tab for the costs down the road.

ME TOO........ so I want to see you tell someone dying of cancer tough shit, because they smoked for 30 years? Thinking that the government taxing an inelastic item (Look up the meaning) to death is going to stop all people is nonsense...... its just another tax for daddy!! WHOSE YO DADDY!!!

Mike,

First, I am glad at the end of your diatribe you admit that behaviors have social costs. By the way I am an avoud capitalist who is a little to the right of Milton Freman. I just want to ask you who, in the world you long for, will decide the people that get medical treatment, the people that won't get treatment, and the reasons why. Good luck getting re-elected by the way. The 'every man is his own island" philosiphy works very well, until your the one who needs help.

Sooner or later we all need help Mike. I just hope the people around you are compassionate when you need it. I have spent a great deal of time lately with a 46 year old friend who is dying of uterine cancer and no, she did not do anything to deserve it. One of life's greatest gifts is being able to give to others unconditionally and to love others unconditionally. By the way, I know the meaning of inelastic.

Secondly, if you insist on getting bitch slapped about your inane comment about diabetes, I am sure The New England Journal of Medicine will be happy to report your insight that type 2 onset is strictly due to lack of output (excercise) and not at all due to excessive imput of caloric intake. Your plane tickets to Sweden are waiting at the gate Mike.

Thirdly, while Rush may disaprove of some farm sudsidies, he never went so far as to recommend a single democrat to replace a spendthrift republican, ever.

By the way Mike. While I am a 43 year old geezer I am a volunteer track and cross counytry coach and I can still spin a bunch of miles at way less than 6:00 pace (My seventeen year old runners are less than sympathetic with whining from coaches) so I will probably have to turn down your offer of personal training. I will just have to manage on my own.

Temper your zealotry with humanity. Life is too good, and far too short.

Matthew King

Perry,
Wealth distribution, redistribution or confiscation for that matter are not the only goal(s) achievable by using the tax code.
Matthew,
Indeed. The tax code can be used in a myriad of ways to change the way people behave. The political disagreement is whether we think this is a good idea.
Speaking as a libertarian, I believe that the tax code should be neutral, and the societal costs of individual or collective behavior should be separately charged as costs and fees. In other words, cleanly separate the act of raising funds from the act of charging for behavior. Don't conflate the two.
Why? Because if you mix them, you tend to get perverse incentives. Legislators learn quickly that "sin taxes" are profitable money cows. You may start by taxing cigarettes to pay for hospital beds, but soon you'll be taxing them for the general fund - once you've got the basic political cover, it's easy to raise the rates.
Much worse, consumers/tax payers tend to react to tax disincentives by moving "sideways" - they don't just do less of the taxed behavior, they substitute in ways that are often against their interest, and very often against society's. Tax alcohol more and you'll see prescription drug abuse go up. Tax gasoline more highly and watch cars get less crashworthy. And so on.
Take the Tom Friedman proposal you quote. Raising gas taxes may be good or bad for a number of reasons (probably mixed), but what's any of that got to do with Iraq? If you strip off the layers of obfuscation, you end up with something like "we need money, and we can sort of justify taking it here because we claim it's good in other ways." If it's good in other ways, do it for its own sake; then take the money from the general fund. Don't construct a tenuous moral connection between driving and war action. This is the kind of flaccid reasoning that tinkering with the tax code encourages.
As a libertarian, I am often baffled by detailed arguments for or against certain government-enforced tinkering and tweaking of this or that tax provision. People seems to agree automatically that it's fine to tinker; they just argue over exactly where and how much. Me, I'm opposed to the tinkering in principle. If there is some societal cost imposed by some behavior, charge a fee or fine. If you want to encourage behavior, pay for it out of the general fund. If the behavior is just a particularly convenient place to raise revenue, then don't - it's unjust.
Cheers
-- perry

This is the last one, its gettng boring -

I just want to ask you who, in the world you long for, will decide the people that get medical treatment, the people that won't get treatment, and the reasons why.

You're the one crying about social costs, and not wanting to pay for someone whose making frequent stops to Crispy Creme, not me. So, I sarcastically gave you the option, get a grip.

Sooner or later we all need help Mike.

Some sooner and more than others......... lol.

I just hope the people around you are compassionate when you need it. I have spent a great deal of time lately with a 46 year old friend who is dying of uterine cancer and no, she did not do anything to deserve it. One of life's greatest gifts is being able to give to others unconditionally and to love others unconditionally. By the way, I know the meaning of inelastic.

That's beautiful man....... wait I'm getting my Kleenexes........ and has what? to do with anything we were talking about?

Secondly, if you insist on getting bitch slapped about your inane comment about diabetes, I am sure The New England Journal of Medicine will be happy to report your insight that type 2 onset is strictly due to lack of output (excercise) and not at all due to excessive imput of caloric intake.

Seriously, bro, you need to get a grip. I said that lack of exercise is a major reason, and you were the one carping that we should tax junk food due to its "social costs" of Type II diabetes. DO YOU JUST LIKE HEARING YOURSELF WAX ON IN CIRCLES?

Your plane ticket to Sweden are waiting at the gate Mike.

I know that's an insult somehow, so let me just congratulate you myself. GOOD ONE!

Thirdly, while Rush may disaprove of some farm sudsidies, he never went so far as to recommend a single democrat to replace a spendthrift republican, ever.

Yes, RUSH BAD....... VEWWWWWY bad......

By the way Mike. While I am a 43 year old geezer I am a volunteer track and cross counytry coach and I can still spin a bunch of miles at way less than 6:00 pace (My seventeen year old runners are less than sympathetic with whining from coaches) so I will probably have to turn down your offer of personal training. I will just have to manage on my own.

Go get em man!

Temper your zealotry with humanity. Life is too good, and far too short.

I'm a zealot now, lol!!
Thanks man you're beautiful.... seriously!

I just want to ask you who, in the world you long for, will decide the people that get medical treatment, the people that won't get treatment, and the reasons why.

You're the one crying about social costs, and not wanting to pay for someone whose making frequent stops to Crispy Creme, not me. So, I sarcastically gave you the option, get a grip.

Sooner or later we all need help Mike.

Some sooner and more than others......... lol.

I just hope the people around you are compassionate when you need it. I have spent a great deal of time lately with a 46 year old friend who is dying of uterine cancer and no, she did not do anything to deserve it. One of life's greatest gifts is being able to give to others unconditionally and to love others unconditionally. By the way, I know the meaning of inelastic.

That's beautiful man....... wait I'm getting my Kleenexes........ and has what? to do with anything we were talking about?

Secondly, if you insist on getting bitch slapped about your inane comment about diabetes, I am sure The New England Journal of Medicine will be happy to report your insight that type 2 onset is strictly due to lack of output (excercise) and not at all due to excessive imput of caloric intake.

Seriously, bro, you need to get a grip. I said that lack of exercise is a major reason, and you were the one carping that we should tax junk food due to its "social costs" of Type II diabetes. DO YOU JUST LIKE HEARING YOURSELF WAX ON IN CIRCLES?

Your plane ticket to Sweden are waiting at the gate Mike.

I know that's an insult somehow, so let me just congratulate you myself. GOOD ONE!

Thirdly, while Rush may disaprove of some farm sudsidies, he never went so far as to recommend a single democrat to replace a spendthrift republican, ever.

Yes, RUSH BAD....... VEWWWWWY bad......

By the way Mike. While I am a 43 year old geezer I am a volunteer track and cross counytry coach and I can still spin a bunch of miles at way less than 6:00 pace (My seventeen year old runners are less than sympathetic with whining from coaches) so I will probably have to turn down your offer of personal training. I will just have to manage on my own.

Go get em man!

Temper your zealotry with humanity. Life is too good, and far too short.

I'm a zealot now, lol!!
Thanks man you're beautiful.... seriously!

I find your comment "Traditional Christianity has no place in my life, and it never has." to be extremely amusing.

I find this poster's view that "Traditional Christianity" is the reason that human beings have morals to be extremely amusing.

As an American you have benefited greatly from Traditional Christianity whether you agree with it or not. For example, as an American you expect people to keep their word, you expect laws to be followed.

Uhhh... Hammurabi? The Romans? The Chinese? There were no societies based on laws, no interactions between human being based on the expectations of people keeping their word that didn't benefit from "Traditional Christianity" or Judaism? What kind of history courses did you have in school?

These are aspects of a Judeo-Christian culture. Islam, as an example, clearly states that converting your fellow man to be a believer in Islam has a higher priority than being honest with them. Treaties and Laws can be discarded as soon as you have enough military strength to successfully do so.

ROFLMAO! You mean like the ABM Treaty, when it no longer suits your purpose?

The rule of law is an aspect of civilized culture, and "Judeo-Christian" has nothing to do with it. Japan, as a whole, is a far more law-abiding nation that the US, and its cultural imperative of loyalty and being true to ones word is far more ingrained in society than it is in ours. Yet it is not grounded in Judeo-Christian culture, nor is it a particularly religious society in Western terms, although it is arguably more spiritual (an argument for another day).

Islam clearly states that? Where? Did you read that in the Qu'ran, or did someone tell you that? And what do you think that Christianity "clearly states"? Do you think that the Roman Catholic cardinals in Africa who tell their followers that condoms cause AIDS are saying that for truthful scientific reasons?

James Atlas lied about the beliefs of Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell. See these letters from both of them at

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/opinion/L26NEOS.html

Yes, he lied. Anyone who spent 10 years researching a biography of Bellow, who is an important part of their circle, knows enough not to be "merely mistaken" about their opposition to Vietnam.

All right, let's give him the benefit of a doubt, Atlas is merely incompetent.

In either case, Atlas should not be taken seriously unless you care to fact check everything he writes. I don't.

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.

Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are `It might have been.

Schaut Euch mal diese interessante Seite The ACLU said Thursday that the brief argues that peer-to-peer networks are speech-promoting technologies that have many noninfringing uses. Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 0 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 1 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 2 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 3 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 4 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 5 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 6 - Lyrics to the Latest Songs by the Latest Artists 7

Perceptions do not limit reality.

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

Cheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com.

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Do you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com

Online Skelaxin, skelaxin, 800 mg skelaxin, 800mg skelaxin,400mg skelaxin is used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. Cheap Xenical should not be used if you have ever had an allergic reaction to carisoprodol, meprobramate or tybamate. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.

Online Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com!

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Online Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com!

Online Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com!

Ultram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com !

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine ! http://www.x-phentermine.com/

Adipex is used as an appetite suppressant. It is used in conjunction with an overall diet plan to reduce weight. online adipex buy adipex cheap adipex Visit this site: http://www.top-adipex.com

This artice is very interesting!!!
But I didn't understand something. So, I have no my own idea about it...

Viagra, Are you looking for cheap Viagra online? Then you are on the right place. We provide one of the largest databases of online pharmacies on Web to help you buy only the cheap drugs for your problems. online Viagra buy viagra generic viagraVisit this site: http://www.x-viagra.com !

Reality is not affected by our apprehension of it.

Often the test of courage is not to die, but to live.

If you're going through hell, keep going.Everybody is a star with the potentiality to shine in the infinite sky of eternity.

The other day I was looking for some
texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker, poker

The other day I was looking for some
online casino , casino, online gambling, gambling, online casinos, casinos , internet casino, bet on sports, online betting, betting, sports betting, sportsbook , sportsbooks, casino bonus, blackjack, video poker, craps , slots, slot machine, slot, roulette , baccarat, bingo, slot machines, poker, online poker , online poker room, online poker rooms, poker room, poker rooms, texas hold em poker, texas holdem poker , texas hold em, texas holdem, holdem poker, holdem, online roulette , online blackjack, internet gambling, online casino gambling.

Grannies N Fatties - Gay Ultra - Fat Fantasies - Fantastic Facials - Extreme Sexxx - Expecting Sex - Erotic Outdoors - Exquisite Asians - Elder Erotica - Ebony On Ivory - Dark Damsels - EU Amateurs - Daily Xxx Stories - Asian Heat - Asian Pleasures - Teen Steam - Classic Mature - Captain Stabbin - Mikes Apartment - Big Naturals - Cum Fiesta - MILF Hunter - MILF Search - Totally Teens - Club Cock - Absolutely Male - Fetish Hotel - Kara's Amateurs - Tranny Trick - The Bait Bus - Bang Bus - King Chile - Real Butts

Free Reality Sex Reviewed - All Reality Pass - Mr Chews Asian Beaver - Pump that Ass - Texas Dildo Massacre - Tinys Black Adventures - The Big Swallow - Barefoot Confidential - Vanilla Teens Black Cream - Horny Spanish Files - Lesbian Adult Movie Matrix - Teen Adult Movie Matrix - Interracial Adult Movie Matrix - Anal Adult Movie Matrix - Hardcore Adult Movie Matrix - Oral Adult Movie Matrix - Amateur Adult Movie Matrix - Mautre Adult Movie Matrix - Ebony Adult Movie Matrix - Please Bang My Wife - Big Tit Patrol - Pink Candy Shavers - Teeny Bopper Club - Milfs Exposed - Jizz On My Glasses - Anal Destruction - The Dirty Old Man - Milf Whore - JP 18 - Mike in Brazil - First Time Auditions

Believing in God does not require believing in religion.

Look at these sites and have fun
online casino , casino, online gambling, gambling, online casinos, casinos , internet casino, gambling online, blackjack, video poker, casino online, craps , slots, slot machine, slot, roulette, baccarat , slot machines, poker online, poker, online poker , online poker room, online poker rooms, poker room, poker rooms, texas hold em poker , texas holdem poker, texas hold em, hold em, hold em poker, texas holdem, strip poker , holdem poker, holdem, online roulette, online blackjack, internet gambling , online casino gambling, online internet casino, online casino games, best online casinos , best online casino, casino gambling, offshore online gambling, free casino games, casino games , free online casinos, casinos online, free poker, poker games, free online poker, party poker , free online blackjack, free online gambling, online gambling casino, gambling casino online, free casino gambling , free online casino, free online casino games, casino bets online, casino games online , free poker games, online poker games, free slots, gambling, klingeltöne , handylogos, gambling, blackjack, free casino games, casino games, carisoprodol butalbital , soma fioricet, weight loss pills, diet pills, online pharmacy, pharmacy , phentermine, online casinos, online casino, poker, phentermine , phentermine online, cheap phentermine, buy phentermine, adipex, diet pills , meridia, weight loss, weight loss pills, quick weight loss, fast weight loss, didrex , viagra, viagra online, buy viagra, generic viagra, cheap viagra , buy viagra online, order viagra, phentermine cheap,