XPost: alt.california, ba.general, la.general 
 XPost: soc.culture.jewish 
 From: nowhere@now_here.com 
  
 "Merlin Dorfman"  wrote in message 
 news:bgsj0g$eik$1@blue.rahul.net... 
 > ??????? (nowhere@now_here.com) wrote: 
 > 
 > : "Merlin Dorfman"  wrote in message 
 > : news:bgk4ga$7n2$1@blue.rahul.net... 
 > : > ??????? (nowhere@now_here.com) wrote: 
 > : > 
 > : > : > Oh, I get it now...More Defense Spending = Smarter Kids! 
 > : > 
 > : > 
 > : > : how about lower taxes, lower government spending, and maybe families 
 > : could 
 > : > : afford to have one parent stay home with the kids, which is far 
 better 
 > : than 
 > : > : strangers taking care of your kids. 
 > : > 
 > : > : oh yeah, you demolib typse like it better when our kids are in 
 > : government 
 > : > : concentration camps. 
 > : > 
 > : >      If you want to lower taxes for "families," so one parent could 
 > : > stay home, ending the estate tax and the dividend tax is exactly 
 > : > the wrong approach.  So how come the "demolibs" opposed it? 
 > : >      If you want lower government spending, start with the biggest 
 > : > item in the budget: the Pentagon.  So how come the "demolibs" want 
 > : > to do it? 
 > 
 > 
 > : defense of the nation is one of the express duties for the federal 
 > : government. taking care of your children is not. Check out article 1. 
 > 
 >      No objection to doing it, just how much (and how) it's spent. 
 > Having a Congress is one of the express duties of the federal 
 > government too, would you object to paying each congresscritter 
 > $10 million a year? 
  
  
 sure. I also object to the outrageous salaries and bonuses of some corporate 
 officials, but that's a matter for the shareholders, not the government. 
 IIRC, back in the mid 90's confress rewrote some of the tax code to limit 
 the deductability of CEO compensation over a certain amount. The result? the 
 law of unintended consequences kicked in, CEO's started being compensated by 
 options, and the only incentive was to kick up the calue of those options 
 any way possible so the CEO's could benefit. 
  
 Hell, much as I hate to start preaching like a libertarian, fact is that we 
 as a nation are hurt by the mentality that government is there to do 
 everything we want and provide every service we think would be nice to have. 
  
  
 > 
 > : as for tax reduction, i.e. putting money back into the pockets of those 
 who 
 > : earn it being the wrong approach, I'm open to suggestion. just exactly 
 how 
 > : do you put money into people's pockets? These days I can afford to work 
 > : while my wife stays home, but ten years ago that was not the case. 
 > 
 >      Again, no objection to tax cuts in principle but (1) it seems a 
 > bad idea just after W had turned a $600 billion surplus into a $500 
 > billion deficit, and (2) which pockets is how much being put into? 
 > Unless you are earning $300K a year or more, you are not getting 
 > very much of it. 
  
  
 any fiscal conservative agrees. the giveaways continue. the spending is 
 higher across the board in the federal budget. military is way up, but that 
 can be justified in terms of the war on terrorism. but spending everywhere 
 else is way up also. education, energy, health and human services, housing 
 and urban development. the government ( republican controlled now, but the 
 same thing happens when the dems are in charge ) continues on it's spending 
 binge. 
  
 tell ya what - cancel the tax cuts and at the same time freeze agregate 
 spending at the 2002 level for five years. you game? 
  
  
 > 
 > : the higher taxes imposed by our demolib legislature hurt the poor who 
 can 
 > : least afford it. 
 > 
 >      Hell, I'm in favor of a more progressive tax structure, but I 
 > didn't think you would be...let's tax the poor less and the rich more. 
  
  
 I am in favor of a stable tax structure that 1) leaves people with more 
 money in their pocket 2) incents businesses at all levels to create jobs and 
 3) provides the revenue required to run the government. 
  
 > 
 > : meanwhile, the budget continues to grwo, and the government bureaucracy 
 > : continues to grow. 
 > 
 >      Are you talking about State or Federal? 
  
  
 this conversation is about the federal budget, but the stater budget, in 
 Clalifornia anyway, despite the huge deficit, is higher than it was last 
 year. does this make sense? 
  
  
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)