I've met a few heavyweight jazz musicians-Dizzy Gillespie, Marcus Roberts, Sonny Rollins, McCoy Tyner, Herbie Mann, uhhh...Met B.B. KIng after a show (all these are in passing after shows) Partied with Ike Willis a couple times in different states (guitar player for Zappa for years)
Played 3 holes of golf onna photo shoot with Nolan Ryan when he pitched for the Astros.
Met a few rock stars, Met and spoke with Roger Daltrey when I was 11 years old atta Mall record shop in Dallas(1976 NA Tour, last with Kieth Moon) , my mom was standing in line to get her albums autographed, and then when it was her turn, she grabbed Daltrey by his head and hi-jacked him with a wet one, got a picture of that one...Daltrey looked overwhelmed and looked over at me and asked, "That your mum?!"

Most impressive star-saturation came Labor Day weekend, 1975 in Atoka Oklahoma atta 3-day outdoor concert event...camp out-I was 10, found a backstage pass onna chain, and wandered around backstage and on buses with a fuckload of country stars.
Waylon Jennings, Jerry Jeff Walker, can't remember em all, I was a little kid but i remember a lotta musicians tripping on me running around backstage-Some thought I was just a roadie's kid.
Met Jerry Lee Lewis backstage there....

A relative of mine owns a small business, and recognizes that an increase in purchasing power in the bottom 90% of Americans would drive more purchasing in the US, and more buying would drive more investment by him in terms of labor and non-liquid assets in his business. However a bit of cognitive dissonance leads him to "feel" that increasing taxes on large corporations and the very wealthy to lock in lower taxes on the middle class is not 'leveling the playing field', and "feels wrong".

Basically he optimistically feels that he may one day be in the top 1% of earners, and this weird selfishness that he may one day be incredibly wealthy and thus affected by a higher tax burden is leading him to vote against his own goddamn interest. This, and he "feels" that once taxes have been raised on the wealthy, there will be blood in the water and it will eventually slide down to those making $~100k. Its hard to argue with feelings about the future.


>> ^TheFreak:

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.
It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.

In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.

Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.

The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.

Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.


Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

When I say "redistribution" I mean he's going to shift the burden onto the middle class, and the wealthy will ultimately pay less. That's the irony of all that GOP's redistribution rhetoric. The real class warfare is the 1% trying to get everyone else to cover a higher proportion of the bill.>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.
It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

@KnivesOut

>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, @kniveout, but Rmoney keeps saying that the wealthy won't pay any less. And I thought it was the wealthy who are the job creators.
It just doesn't make sense. And the more they say it, the less sense it makes.

It's all about redistribution, it's the only explanation. It's a game to shift the burden around.>> ^bareboards2:

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

The argument is exactly that. Rich folk tend to invest. You put money in their pocket, and they'll typically invest it in equity or bonds. Both of these things bring down the cost of corporate borrowing either directly (through bond buying) or indirectly (through supporting the share price, and thus the equity available to borrow against). The hypothesis is that this will lead to more hiring, job retention, or capital investment.

My main issue with it is that in a global economy it doesn't provide any guarantees those jobs happen here. Further, if you don't support demand, there is no real incentive to grow the firm. That's why I think considering the supply side is backwards.

>> ^TheFreak:

Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.

Your video, Wallace Dresses Down Gillespie Over Romney's 20% Tax Cut, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by NetRunner.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Wallace-Dresses-Down-Gillespie-Over-Romneys-20-Tax-Cut

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by radx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupe sorry NR http://videosift.com/video/Wallace-Dresses-Down-Gillespie-Over-Romneys-20-Tax-Cut

I vote to rename it the Dizzy Gillespie fly

From yt:

A stalemate between owners and players that threatens the upcoming NFL season and the widening scandal that forced beloved Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel to resign in disgrace are only the most recent reminders that football has always provoked a huge amount of controversy.

In the early 20th century, football was a literal bloodsport, writes John J. Miller in his new book The Big Scrum. After a series of game-related deaths, President Teddy Roosevelt called together the presidents of the three biggest football colleges (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton - yes, a very different America) and jawboned them into cleaning up the game to stave off legislative attempts to ban it outright.

The result, says Miller, was the creation of the distinctively American game football featuring forward passes, quarterbacks, spread offenses, and more.

The author of several books including the historical novel The First Assassin, Miller writes for National Review and is the new director of the journalism program at Hillsdale College. For more information about Miller, including links to his popular podcast series, go here (http://www.heymiller.com/).

Miller sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie to talk about The Big Scrum, the scandal-ridden history of college football, and exactly what budding journalists need to learn in college (hint: it's not journalism).

About 6.31 minutes.

Shot by Jim Epstein, Meredith Bragg, and Josh Swain, who edited the piece.