Text 14206, 103 rader
Skriven 2007-05-08 09:57:11 av Carl (576.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:53:13 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:36:55 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And the Repubs answer is taking less, and never spending less.
>>>>> Which leads to some rather obvious difficulties.
>>>>
>>>> Taking less leads to collecting more (even JFK acknowledged this).
>>>
>>> Ah, spin! That oft-repeated shibboleth is easily debunked: if it
>>> were true, then as taxes approached zero revenue would rise. It
>>> doesn't.
>>
>> Crap.  I've shown you the figures in the past.
>
> Carl, zero tax means zero revenue. That's self-apparent. If revenues
> rise at all, then, the curve must have a point of inflection.

We're not talking zero taxes.   Your argument could be extended to say that 
it would be a wonderful thing to collect 100% of income as taxes. You can't 
apply either the extremes to this situation. Extremes are usually dangerous.

No one has suggested to eliminate taxes.

It is fact though that when taxes have been lowered, revenue has gone up. 
Even JFK recognized this and learned from it.  It is true now...we are at 
record high revenues after the tax cuts.

I find it most interesting that even with *record* revenues... the emphasis 
is on raising taxes, apparently for the sake of raising taxes and not 
increasing revenues.  It always seems to be about raising taxes.

Personally, I don't think we spend government money as well as we should.  I 
think there is a lot of fraud and waste. I also think that there is spending 
on things that I don't think government should spend money on.  I know my 
views on what we should spend on differ from others (probably most)... and 
it bothers me that there is nothing left to use as a basis to limit what the 
government pokes its nose into.  Anything goes.

I'm not fond of such an open ended arrangement.

I think that before we have the right to seize under the threat of force 
even more assests from the public, we should do a better job of spending the 
money that's already there.  We have record revenues and it's not enough... 
and people's response is "So what? Take more from the rich!"

I don't consider myself anywhere near rich (monetarily)...although someone 
that's poor would no doubt consider anyone with a home, food on the table 
and a job rich.  I'm not arguing for myself.  I'm not hear screaming that I 
pay too much in taxes.

I'm arguing for specifics... I'm arguing for an articulation of what our 
government is and what its bounds are... and I'm arguing that we should be 
able to define what "rich" and "fair" even mean before we use it as a basis 
to treat some people differently than others when it comes to arbitraily 
seizing their assets.

"We can do anything we want" seems to me a potentially dangerous ideology to 
base a government on.

>
>> Then again, the Dems already started to pack extra earmarks
>> on the military spending bill.  Not a good start.
>
> No different than what the Republicans did.

Exactly!  No different...except for the fact that i their hypocracy they
campaigned that they were against such earmarks.

>> For pork spending I suggest you go over the record of Senator Byrd.
>
> I'm sure that's of great concern to the residents of his state.

That was just one example...although his redirecting of hugely 
disproportionate
amounts of highway spending for instance took money from other states.  I'm
sure they have opinions.

> It  has, however, no bearing on the fact that the Republican Congress was
> more pork-riddled than the Democrats have ever been,

I don't believe that.  The Dems have been every bit as pork-riddled.

> and that Bush didn't veto a single spending bill, as previous presidents 
> of both
> parties have done in an attempt to enforce fiscal discipline.

As to Bush, I absolutely wish that he had used his veto on spending.
He has now...it's easier when the other party wants to do the spending.

That's one reason I'm for a divided government.  I said that when the GOP 
had
all three branches.

Neither party should have all three.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)