Text 14230, 166 rader
Skriven 2007-05-08 20:43:02 av Josh Hill (600.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
On Tue, 8 May 2007 09:57:11 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>We're not talking zero taxes.   Your argument could be extended to say t=
hat=20
>it would be a wonderful thing to collect 100% of income as taxes. You ca=
n't=20
>apply either the extremes to this situation. Extremes are usually danger=
ous.
>
>No one has suggested to eliminate taxes.
>
>It is fact though that when taxes have been lowered, revenue has gone up=
.=20
>Even JFK recognized this and learned from it.  It is true now...we are a=
t=20
>record high revenues after the tax cuts.

In Kennedy's case, yes. In Bush's case, no. Economists say that Bush's
tax cuts /reduced/ revenues from what they otherwise would have been.

You just can't reduce this to a right-wing sound bite, Carl. Economics
isn't that simple.

>I find it most interesting that even with *record* revenues... the empha=
sis=20
>is on raising taxes, apparently for the sake of raising taxes and not=20
>increasing revenues.  It always seems to be about raising taxes.

When the deficit is excessive from an economic perspective, you raise
taxes or cut services.

>Personally, I don't think we spend government money as well as we should=
.  I=20
>think there is a lot of fraud and waste. I also think that there is spen=
ding=20
>on things that I don't think government should spend money on.  I know m=
y=20
>views on what we should spend on differ from others (probably most)... a=
nd=20
>it bothers me that there is nothing left to use as a basis to limit what=
 the=20
>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=
=20
>even more assests from the public, we should do a better job of spending=
 the=20
>money that's already there.  We have record revenues and it's not enough=
...=20
>and people's response is "So what? Take more from the rich!"

Not really. People's response is "reverse the tax cuts for the rich
that have given us record deficits and indirectly increased taxes for
the poor and middle class."

>I don't consider myself anywhere near rich (monetarily)...although someo=
ne=20
>that's poor would no doubt consider anyone with a home, food on the tabl=
e=20
>and a job rich.  I'm not arguing for myself.  I'm not hear screaming tha=
t I=20
>pay too much in taxes.
>
>I'm arguing for specifics... I'm arguing for an articulation of what our=
=20
>government is and what its bounds are... and I'm arguing that we should =
be=20
>able to define what "rich" and "fair" even mean before we use it as a ba=
sis=20
>to treat some people differently than others when it comes to arbitraily=
=20
>seizing their assets.
>
>"We can do anything we want" seems to me a potentially dangerous ideolog=
y to=20
>base a government on.

I haven't noticed that, frankly. For one thing, our government isn't
based on "we can do everything we want" -- it's based on the
recognition of rights, on checks and balances, on majority rule. The
Constitution is loaded with provisions that protect the public against
uncompensated seizures of land, quartering of soldiers, unequal
protection under the law, and so forth. For another, it just hasn't
happened: the rich aren't groaning under a huge tax burden, and
neither are most others, because taxation takes a smaller percentage
of real income than it ever has; the main problem we have to day is
that the middle class and the working poor, whose incomes have stopped
increasing significantly because of globalization and the faltering
labor movement, are being squeezed by regressive local taxes that go
up because the Republicans have reduced Federal taxes on the rich.
Even the countries in Europe that did have confiscatory taxation --
pre-Thatcher England, for example -- have rolled back those policies
as they were found to be economically counterproductive.

>>> 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.

The Democrats are better than today's Republicans when it comes to
pork, yes. Far from perfect, but better. Which is true of most of the
choices we have in life, no?

>>> 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=20
>disproportionate
>amounts of highway spending for instance took money from other states.  =
I'm
>sure they have opinions.

Right -- just one example. It's anecdotal, and as such, of limited
use, because as a practical matter we're concerned with which party is
better, not which party is perfect (neither).

>> 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.

That, quite simply, is not the case.

>> and that Bush didn't veto a single spending bill, as previous presiden=
ts=20
>> 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.

Not over spending.

>That's one reason I'm for a divided government.  I said that when the GO=
P=20
>had
>all three branches.
>
>Neither party should have all three.

Our nation's best years occurred when one party controlled both the
presidency and the Congress. We need two parties, but one of the
reasons for that is that one will be better than the other. In
Lincoln's day, it was the Republicans; in more recent years, it's been
the Democrats.

--=20
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it=92s going to happen, and=20
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it=92s, it=92s not relevant. So, why should I waste my=20
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)