this story has been running around on the web for some time, and YES, I KNOW ITS FAKE, but its just so damn funny.. Lion Mutilates 42 Midgets in Cambodian Ring-Fight... here is the page where the whole story is explained.. laugh it up..
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Wonder of Voodoo Economics
The Wonder of Voodoo Economics
Bush 43 gets it.
By Rich Lowry
Who says you can’t cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the federal budget deficit all at the same time? That’s what the Bush administration has managed to do. Two decades after then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush characterized Ronald Reagan’s idea that tax cuts would spur revenue-generating economic growth as “voodoo economics,” the witch doctor is again at work.When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, “Bush’s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don’t mix, analysts say.” “Fanciful,” “laughable” and “all spin,” said the critics. Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush’s goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009—not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.The key to the reduction is revenue growth, which has been stoked by economic growth. Government revenues are up 12.9 percent in the first eight months of this year over the same eight-month period last year—without any tax increases. When individuals, investors, and corporations have more cash in a growing economy, they send more to the federal government in tax payments.This, despite—or, more accurately, because of—a couple of rounds of Bush tax cuts that were supposed to have been fiscally ruinous. The Bush tax reductions played some role in the economic expansion and therefore are responsible, partly, for the increased revenues. This doesn’t mean that tax cuts “pay for themselves,” as their most fervent advocates say. But they certainly can offset some of their own cost. In 1999, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting 2006 total federal revenues of nearly $2.4 trillion, prior to anyone foreseeing Bush’s tax cuts. This year, revenue could go as high as nearly $2.4 trillion, even after those tax cuts. In January 2003, prior to Bush’s second round of tax cuts in that year, the CBO guessed revenues would be close to $2.4 trillion this year—again, in the ballpark of where they could be this year. According to Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, if annual spending increases in the Bush years had been limited to the rate of the Clinton years, roughly 3.3 percent, there would be a federal surplus now. Instead, spending has been growing at 8 percent a year. That demonstrates that the formula for deficit reduction from the 1990s—moderate-spending restraint coupled with higher-than-expected growth-generated revenues—would work again today, if only someone could manage the moderate-spending restraint.Another similarity from the 1990s is that the revenue surge is driven by high-end earners and corporations. Liberals always rue it when the rich get richer, but when they don’t, the federal fisc tends to be ruined because they are the ones who pay most of the taxes. The deficit climbed unexpectedly in the early Bush years and is declining unexpectedly now, not because the projections for economic growth were wildly off, but because the kind of people who pay the most taxes took a bath early in the decade and are recovering now. Almost 47 percent of income taxes are paid by those making more than $200,000 a year, and they are thriving again. A chunk of the current revenue surge is also from corporate income taxes, which are up 30 percent over last year. There are limits to voodoo. Today’s fiscal improvements will be overwhelmed by the exploding costs of entitlements just over the horizon. In light of that, we should be maintaining a high-growth, low-tax economy to reap all the benefits of growth, but dutifully restraining entitlements. That’s not sorcery, but just good sense.— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.(c) 2006 King Features Syndicate.
Bush 43 gets it.
By Rich Lowry
Who says you can’t cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce the federal budget deficit all at the same time? That’s what the Bush administration has managed to do. Two decades after then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush characterized Ronald Reagan’s idea that tax cuts would spur revenue-generating economic growth as “voodoo economics,” the witch doctor is again at work.When President Bush pledged in 2004 to cut the deficit in half by 2009, critics guffawed. The Boston Globe headlined a story, “Bush’s plan to halve federal deficit seen as unlikely; higher spending, lower taxes don’t mix, analysts say.” “Fanciful,” “laughable” and “all spin,” said the critics. Well, it turns out that 2009 might be coming early this year. The 2004 deficit had been projected to hit $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product. Bush’s goal was to cut it to 2.25 percent of GDP by 2009—not exactly as stirring a national goal as putting a man on the moon, but one that was nonetheless pronounced unattainable. This year, the deficit could go as low as $300 billion, right around the 2009 goal of 2.5 percent of GDP.The key to the reduction is revenue growth, which has been stoked by economic growth. Government revenues are up 12.9 percent in the first eight months of this year over the same eight-month period last year—without any tax increases. When individuals, investors, and corporations have more cash in a growing economy, they send more to the federal government in tax payments.This, despite—or, more accurately, because of—a couple of rounds of Bush tax cuts that were supposed to have been fiscally ruinous. The Bush tax reductions played some role in the economic expansion and therefore are responsible, partly, for the increased revenues. This doesn’t mean that tax cuts “pay for themselves,” as their most fervent advocates say. But they certainly can offset some of their own cost. In 1999, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting 2006 total federal revenues of nearly $2.4 trillion, prior to anyone foreseeing Bush’s tax cuts. This year, revenue could go as high as nearly $2.4 trillion, even after those tax cuts. In January 2003, prior to Bush’s second round of tax cuts in that year, the CBO guessed revenues would be close to $2.4 trillion this year—again, in the ballpark of where they could be this year. According to Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, if annual spending increases in the Bush years had been limited to the rate of the Clinton years, roughly 3.3 percent, there would be a federal surplus now. Instead, spending has been growing at 8 percent a year. That demonstrates that the formula for deficit reduction from the 1990s—moderate-spending restraint coupled with higher-than-expected growth-generated revenues—would work again today, if only someone could manage the moderate-spending restraint.Another similarity from the 1990s is that the revenue surge is driven by high-end earners and corporations. Liberals always rue it when the rich get richer, but when they don’t, the federal fisc tends to be ruined because they are the ones who pay most of the taxes. The deficit climbed unexpectedly in the early Bush years and is declining unexpectedly now, not because the projections for economic growth were wildly off, but because the kind of people who pay the most taxes took a bath early in the decade and are recovering now. Almost 47 percent of income taxes are paid by those making more than $200,000 a year, and they are thriving again. A chunk of the current revenue surge is also from corporate income taxes, which are up 30 percent over last year. There are limits to voodoo. Today’s fiscal improvements will be overwhelmed by the exploding costs of entitlements just over the horizon. In light of that, we should be maintaining a high-growth, low-tax economy to reap all the benefits of growth, but dutifully restraining entitlements. That’s not sorcery, but just good sense.— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.(c) 2006 King Features Syndicate.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Von Richtofen case comes to a close
Suzanne Von Richtofen got 40 years for the killing of her parents. Daniel and Christian Cravinhos got the same sentence. Two stories below.
Brazilian trio get 40 years for slayings
By STAN LEHMAN, Associated Press WriterSat Jul 22, 8:05 AM ET
A wealthy young woman, her lover and his brother were convicted Saturday in the deaths her parents, a crime that riveted Brazil with a tale of love across rigid class lines. Each was sentenced to about 40 years in prison.
Manfred and Marisa von Richtofen were beaten to death at their home in a wealthy district of Sao Paulo on Oct. 30, 2002.
Manfred von Richtofen, the great nephew of the World War I German ace known as the Red Baron, and his wife disapproved of their daughter's relationship with Daniel Cravinhos, who is from a lower-middle-class family.
Prosecutors said Suzanne von Richtofen, Cravinhos, and his brother Christian plotted the murder because they wanted the couple's estate, valued at $920,000.
"The three, acting in cold-blooded fashion, plotted and carried out the murder of the von Richtofen couple out of greed," Chief Prosecutor Roberto Tardelli told the jury on Friday.
Prosecutors said Richtofen, 22, let the brothers into the house late at night and checked to make sure her parents were sleeping. Then the brothers sneaked into the bedroom and bludgeoned them to death with iron bars.
The house's library was ransacked to make it look like a break-in and Daniel Cravinhos and Richtofen went to a motel to fabricate an alibi, police said.
The brothers, who confessed to the crime, took some $7,000 from the house. Investigators were led to Christian Cravinhos when he purchased a motorcycle the day after the murder, paying for it with 36 $100 bills.
Richtofen was driven by a desire to "get her hands on the money and assets her parents had worked so hard to obtain," Tardelli said. She "wanted her freedom and her independence without having to work for it."
Defense attorneys were expected to appeal. Richtofen's lawyer, Mauro Octavio Nacif, tried to convince jurors that she did not orchestrate the killings.
"If Suzanne had not met Daniel, would her parents still be alive today?" he asked. "Of course they would. This crime was committed only because Daniel wanted to. He was the only one with a motive — money."
The lawyer for the Cravinhos brothers blamed Richtofen. "The only person responsible for all this is that young lady," Geraldo Jabur said, pointing to her.
More than 200 people packed the courtroom for the final session, which ended early Saturday.
During the five-day trial, Daniel Cravinhos, 25, and Christian, 30, claimed Richtofen persuaded them to kill the couple because she said her parents often mistreated her. Daniel Cravinhos said her father tried to sexually molest her, but Richtofen denied it.
Richtofen accused her estranged boyfriend of threatening to leave her if she did not help kill the couple.
"I couldn't resist his spell. He was like a God for me," said Richtofen, adding Daniel was her first lover.
"He once told me to imagine how wonderful it would be to live with him without the presence of my parents," she said. "A few months later, he told me the time had come to get rid of my parents, and if I didn't follow him, he would abandon me."
Brazil sentences woman for killing parents
Sat Jul 22, 11:10 AM ET
A former law student from a wealthy family has been sentenced to 39 years in prison for killing her parents in Brazil's most publicized murder trial in recent years.
The jury in a Sao Paulo court found Suzane von Richthofen, her boyfriend Daniel Cravinhos and his brother Cristian guilty of murdering her parents in October 2002.
All three have confessed to the crime.
In a city with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, this drama in a well-to-do family repeatedly grabbed media headlines for nearly four years.
Suzane, a 19 year-old law student at the time of the crime, let Daniel, 21, and Cristian, 27, into her parents' home in a middle-class neighborhood of Sao Paulo, prosecutors said.
The two brothers beat the parents, Marisia and Manfred von Richthofen, with an iron rod while they slept, they said. In addition, they were convicted of smothering the mother with wet towels and trash bags.
Prosecutors said the three committed the crime to take control of the Richthofen's belongings. Police said Suzane planned the murder because her parents had prohibited her relationship with Daniel.
Suzane's lawyers said Daniel persuaded her to participate.
Judge Alberto Anderson Filho sentenced Suzane and Daniel to 39 years in prison. Cristian was sentenced to 38 years, a spokesperson of the Sao Paulo court said.
The rulings are subject to appeal.
According to local press reports, Manfred von Richthofen, a naturalized Brazilian and an engineer, was the grandson of a brother of "Red" Baron Manfred von Richthofen of Germany, who shot down 80 enemy aircraft in World War I before being killed in action in 1918.
Brazilian trio get 40 years for slayings
By STAN LEHMAN, Associated Press WriterSat Jul 22, 8:05 AM ET
A wealthy young woman, her lover and his brother were convicted Saturday in the deaths her parents, a crime that riveted Brazil with a tale of love across rigid class lines. Each was sentenced to about 40 years in prison.
Manfred and Marisa von Richtofen were beaten to death at their home in a wealthy district of Sao Paulo on Oct. 30, 2002.
Manfred von Richtofen, the great nephew of the World War I German ace known as the Red Baron, and his wife disapproved of their daughter's relationship with Daniel Cravinhos, who is from a lower-middle-class family.
Prosecutors said Suzanne von Richtofen, Cravinhos, and his brother Christian plotted the murder because they wanted the couple's estate, valued at $920,000.
"The three, acting in cold-blooded fashion, plotted and carried out the murder of the von Richtofen couple out of greed," Chief Prosecutor Roberto Tardelli told the jury on Friday.
Prosecutors said Richtofen, 22, let the brothers into the house late at night and checked to make sure her parents were sleeping. Then the brothers sneaked into the bedroom and bludgeoned them to death with iron bars.
The house's library was ransacked to make it look like a break-in and Daniel Cravinhos and Richtofen went to a motel to fabricate an alibi, police said.
The brothers, who confessed to the crime, took some $7,000 from the house. Investigators were led to Christian Cravinhos when he purchased a motorcycle the day after the murder, paying for it with 36 $100 bills.
Richtofen was driven by a desire to "get her hands on the money and assets her parents had worked so hard to obtain," Tardelli said. She "wanted her freedom and her independence without having to work for it."
Defense attorneys were expected to appeal. Richtofen's lawyer, Mauro Octavio Nacif, tried to convince jurors that she did not orchestrate the killings.
"If Suzanne had not met Daniel, would her parents still be alive today?" he asked. "Of course they would. This crime was committed only because Daniel wanted to. He was the only one with a motive — money."
The lawyer for the Cravinhos brothers blamed Richtofen. "The only person responsible for all this is that young lady," Geraldo Jabur said, pointing to her.
More than 200 people packed the courtroom for the final session, which ended early Saturday.
During the five-day trial, Daniel Cravinhos, 25, and Christian, 30, claimed Richtofen persuaded them to kill the couple because she said her parents often mistreated her. Daniel Cravinhos said her father tried to sexually molest her, but Richtofen denied it.
Richtofen accused her estranged boyfriend of threatening to leave her if she did not help kill the couple.
"I couldn't resist his spell. He was like a God for me," said Richtofen, adding Daniel was her first lover.
"He once told me to imagine how wonderful it would be to live with him without the presence of my parents," she said. "A few months later, he told me the time had come to get rid of my parents, and if I didn't follow him, he would abandon me."
Brazil sentences woman for killing parents
Sat Jul 22, 11:10 AM ET
A former law student from a wealthy family has been sentenced to 39 years in prison for killing her parents in Brazil's most publicized murder trial in recent years.
The jury in a Sao Paulo court found Suzane von Richthofen, her boyfriend Daniel Cravinhos and his brother Cristian guilty of murdering her parents in October 2002.
All three have confessed to the crime.
In a city with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, this drama in a well-to-do family repeatedly grabbed media headlines for nearly four years.
Suzane, a 19 year-old law student at the time of the crime, let Daniel, 21, and Cristian, 27, into her parents' home in a middle-class neighborhood of Sao Paulo, prosecutors said.
The two brothers beat the parents, Marisia and Manfred von Richthofen, with an iron rod while they slept, they said. In addition, they were convicted of smothering the mother with wet towels and trash bags.
Prosecutors said the three committed the crime to take control of the Richthofen's belongings. Police said Suzane planned the murder because her parents had prohibited her relationship with Daniel.
Suzane's lawyers said Daniel persuaded her to participate.
Judge Alberto Anderson Filho sentenced Suzane and Daniel to 39 years in prison. Cristian was sentenced to 38 years, a spokesperson of the Sao Paulo court said.
The rulings are subject to appeal.
According to local press reports, Manfred von Richthofen, a naturalized Brazilian and an engineer, was the grandson of a brother of "Red" Baron Manfred von Richthofen of Germany, who shot down 80 enemy aircraft in World War I before being killed in action in 1918.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
