Hux

Wow. That's way off, Ram is killer - right Mikey?

Noone ever makes fun of you. Because it would be mean.

Maybe Yorke has had enough of silly love songs?

I have always used olive oil instead of sauce. Fuck the sauce.

You've been hit in the face with so many trains you're starting to not feel the collision anymore.

Good choices - for coasters for all the drinks we'll enjoy while listening to:

It appears the "Heroes" watchers contingent is yet another Booche fluffing party - PM's kids, thankyooooo.

I'm an ideas man. I solve problems. That's what I do.

I'm trying to find some pumpkins, anyone know of any stores (in Ottawa) with any leftovers??

hehe... Bobby closed out the first set with this in Burlinton VT Friday night....clearly he read my mind...Kimock FUCKING shredded the Shade of Grey, it was ridiculous. Odessa, Lost Sailor > Saint of Circumstance, Shade of Grey, Hell in a Bucket

They're not the "P"C's anymore P!!

Lesh's creative input to this setlist = .00042%

Wills, don't you find you're constantly skipping every other tune? I do...

You can borrow my back-up, lemme know...

Overblown cynicism in my view is also a cancer on public perception of and to participation in our political system, but that’s a totally different issue… It’s your right to have that opinion phorbesie, but moral outrage on a music message board is one thing – has your moral outrage manifested itself in other “deep†if you will - ways, like volunteering on a political campaign? hitting the streets handing out literature? hammering in signs? ...just curious…

This article has some great nuggets... "As my drummer pointed out awhile back and I took stock in that, what great musician ever retired? I don't number myself among them, but it's a good point." "In terms of soloing, Steve is basically a stem-winder," Weir said. "He develops a solo more slowly. Sometimes it's best to just go straight to the point, but he has a way when he does one of those long stem-winding solos so that nobody in the room misses his development. Every step of the way all the colors are filled in. It's picture-perfect; there's no ambiguosity of where he is or what he's doing. When he gets to where he's going, it's generally like Christmas." Bob Weir looks back -- at life, career By Brent Hallenbeck Bob Weir was speaking by phone from his home in Marin County, Calif., on an early October afternoon, less than two weeks before his 60th birthday. He was already becoming reflective in the days leading up to the milestone, wondering how he got there. "Looking back, I think it had to have been viewed as somewhat unlikely, but it somehow happened," said the guitarist who came of age with The Grateful Dead at the height of the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll era. "I find myself asking, 'What did I do wrong?'" He survived the '60s, outlived his famous Grateful Dead band mate Jerry Garcia, and for much of the past dozen years has been touring with his group RatDog. Weir and his jam-flavored successor to the Dead return to Burlington for a show Friday night at Memorial Auditorium. RatDog is making this tour without guitarist Mark Karan, who is recovering from throat cancer. Weir said Karan will be "chomping at the bit" to return quickly, something Weir will try to quell. "I'm the boss here, and I'm probably going to -- I hate to say it because it's not my normal way -- I'm going to have to err on the side of caution," Weir said. "There's every opportunity for him to come back at least as strong if not stronger." In the meantime, veteran guitarist Steve Kimock is filling in for Karan. "He's different; he goes different places; he's a different player than Mark is," Weir said. "When we do end up working Mark back, we're going to have to have him listen to what Steve did particularly well and see if he can cop that, and then there's stuff that Mark does that Steve doesn't do at all. "In terms of soloing, Steve is basically a stem-winder," Weir said. "He develops a solo more slowly. Sometimes it's best to just go straight to the point, but he has a way when he does one of those long stem-winding solos so that nobody in the room misses his development. Every step of the way all the colors are filled in. It's picture-perfect; there's no ambiguosity of where he is or what he's doing. When he gets to where he's going, it's generally like Christmas." It's moments like that that keep Weir going as he's evolved musically from the 1960s to his 60s. He's nowhere near thinking his performing days are over. "It's a real simple matter: It's what I'm here to do. I wouldn't know what else to do with myself," he said. "I don't play golf. I'm saving that for my golden years, and I don't think I'm there yet. "As my drummer pointed out awhile back and I took stock in that, what great musician ever retired? I don't number myself among them, but it's a good point."

But when you cut taxes it's money that is no longer in the Government's pockets to spend, ie. the $ for taxcuts has to come from somewhere, each percent you shave off the GST takes approx $6 billion out of Gov't purse each year - where do you think the $$ for those programs you speak of comes from? Same place. They cut a bunch of programs to free up cash to then cut taxes. (there are other revenue sources, but cutting programs has been one way in which this Gov't has had record surpluses)

It depends on what economist you listen to, obviously. Agreed. The GST cut: a triumph of politics over economics Jeffrey Simpson From Saturday's Globe and Mail Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a master's degree in economics. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty attended Princeton University, an elite U.S. Ivy League school. They are both well-educated, intelligent men. How then to explain their support for a idea so demonstrably stupid that, had they defended the idea in an undergraduate term paper, they would have flunked the course. The idea is to cut the goods and services tax from 7 per cent to 6, and then to 5 per cent. The first one-point drop, at a cost of about $5-billion, came in the Harper government's initial budget. The Speech from the Throne proclaims that the second point drop will be forthcoming, likely in the next budget. Just how stupid is this idea? This week, The Globe and Mail's Report on Business asked 20 economists across Canada, and from across the political spectrum, about the wisdom of cutting the GST. Sixteen of 20 said it was a bad idea, two said it was irrelevant and two thought it sensible. Eighty per cent, therefore, denounced the idea; 10 per cent supported it. They read the Harper-Flaherty GST tax cut term paper and gave it an F. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recently rendered the same general verdict on tax policy. Said the OECD: Consumption taxes are the way to go, offset by lower personal and corporate taxes. Why? Personal and corporate income tax cuts, as every economist knows, tend to stimulate savings and investment, which is what an economy needs to become more productive and competitive, thereby raising overall living standards. Lower consumption taxes stimulate more – wait for it – consumption, some of which leaks out of the economy in the form of purchasing imports and taking trips abroad. If such a widespread consensus exists among economists across Canada and in the OECD, why are Messrs. Harper and Flaherty persisting with an idea they must know as economists to be stupid? Answer? Politics, pure and simple. The GST cut is the triumph of base politics over sensible economics. When the Harperites sat down to craft their last campaign document, they observed that the Liberals had in fact cut personal income taxes, but the public had not seen or appreciated those cuts. In fact, polls demonstrated that Canadians didn't even know their taxes had been reduced. So the Harperites decided to give Canadians a tax cut they could see, feel and therefore appreciate at voting time; namely a reduction in the GST, whose creation by the Mulroney government had been attended with much political controversy. A sensible government – or sensible opposition parties – would not only scrap the forthcoming reduction but reinstitute the previously cut point, and then add another. The result would be about $15-billion additional dollars for the federal government. Then, the government should follow the lead of Canada's best finance minister, Carole Taylor of British Columbia, who intends to levy a carbon tax to slow down the increase of greenhouse gas emissions and then reverse them. A carbon tax on emissions, coupled with a “cap-in-trade†emissions market, lower mandatory vehicle emissions standards and renewable energy portfolios are among the most important policies for getting a grip on reducing emissions. (“Intensity†emissions improvements, of the kind favoured by oil and gas executives, the Alberta government and the Harperites merely slow down the increase in emissions and are therefore useless as serious policy.) With the new revenues from an 8 per cent GST and a carbon tax, whose size would rise over time, the federal government could then dramatically slash both personal and corporate income taxes. The net result of such a shift should be to leave the government with the same amount of money as before; that is, be revenue-neutral. But the positive effects would be twofold. First, personal and corporate income tax reduction would stimulate savings, profits and investments. (Low-income Canadians should be at the top of the list for help, and some of the money could be used for competition-enhancing investments in infrastructure.) Second, the country would over time become greener. Thus far, the Harper government's tax and spending policies have been deeply disappointing for the country's competitive position. First, the government handed over billions to the provinces to solve the mythical “fiscal imbalance,†which did nothing for productivity and competitiveness, but solved a political problem in Quebec. Second, the government will have drilled a $10-billion hole in federal revenues through the two-point GST cut that will do nothing for productivity and competitiveness when compared with every other available tax cut, as the economists interviewed by the ROB illustrated this week. Both policies represented the triumph of politics over economics, and short-term political considerations over long-term economic thinking. Instead of this nonsense, tax policy should involve raising the GST, introducing carbon taxes, and then offsetting these new revenues by reductions in personal and corporate taxes to make Canada more efficient, competitive, fair and green.

Close enough for rock'n'roll bro!! (oops...back to the Ratdog folder)

I knew I shouldn't have broken the promise I made to myself not to talk politics with the wooks...back to the Ratdog folder! Have you seen his Elvis costume - hilarious!

I agree you don't lack depth, you don't have depth in this case.

I don't think anyone is saying they are "above this" or want higher taxes, are you at all capable of looking at this with a little bit more depth? If we're all idiots, at least listen to what the economists are saying.

*cough* income trusts *cough*

Additionally, these current Not-So-Progressive-Conservatives actually RAISED the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket to 15.5% from 15% in their first Budget and have just now bumped it back down. A lot of idiots like to harp about Trudeau starting the deficit and running up the debt, but Michael Wilson (Mulroney's Finance Minister - and now Harper's Ambassador in Washington) accumulated more public debt from 1984-1991 then every post-war Finance Minister COMBINED.