schucks, I can get on at the Bridges. I also pay mucho taxes, give to charities, go to church with my kids, write letters to my aunt. Last year I payed Arthur Laffer a $20,000 honorarium to speak at my professional organization meeting. He recently relocated from San Diego to Nashville where his wife is a college professor.
Bax:
THIS IS WHAT I NEED FROM DEMOCRATS THIS WEEK.
I want the congressional majority to stand up and admit, one right after the other, that there needs to be a $5 copay for every medicare doctor visit, every medication, every injection, every trip to emergency. I want $5 more for every seniors' medical event. I want it passed by both houses and on the president's desk next week.
Jim:
THIS IS WHAT I NEED FROM REPUBLICANS THIS WEEK.
I want the minority party to get my money back from the banks. The money that Hank Paulson gave them and the rest. Since the investment banks obviously have no regard for the sanctity of public dollars, I expect the Republicans to use a little spine and be heavy handed about it. I want the banks taxed, fined or threatened with sanctions. Obama's plan or any other. I want it passed right now. This week; next week at the absolute latest.
FYI - Jim: Yesterday, in response to my post, you used both fascism and socialism almost interchangeably. They are very different. I'm sure about this because, among other things, I have a Bachelors Degree in Philosophy. Regardless, it is just useless slander. Divisive. Not accurate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Eric ~
I agree with all three of your basic points. I am glad that Paulson did what he did. The Dems - who have large majorities in both houses - need to pass financial reform ASAP. They need to find a way around any Filibusters, including just scrapping the anachronistic and undemocratic rule if need be.
I was also going to ask you - with your knowledge of the subject - what you think of the morality argument regarding taxation. Objectivist and Libertarian arguments say that only a minimum level of taxation is moral and only to pay for a few basic services - defense (police and military) and enforcement of contracts. I think that is rather simplistic and you'll never find a large group that agree just where to draw the line. By Jim's morality standard, tax dollars paying for public education is immoral. Huh?
I think we can make economic arguments all day long and each side will score some good points. The "moral argument" does not obtain - it fails right out of the box.
Baxter: I take the Libertarian view of taxation. The smaller the Federal government, the better. However, you don't have a functioning democracy until the voters are educated -- which unfortunately they still are not. Right now, we need the Federal government to use public dollars, as the carrot and the stick, to require local schools to meet reasonable standards. I support a required national course in Civics. I would stand up to the teacher's unions, fire poor teachers.
Eric:
I know you favor Libertarian positions - but is that because you feel it is the best economic approach or because you feel it is immoral to do otherwise?
Proper allocation of scarce resources is a moral imperative. So, they are one and the same.
Assuming that Libertarians best allocate said resources...
I think FDR and the New Deal were very moral and created our large middle class. The Libertarian approach would create a landscape similar to the first Gilded Age. All of us would be worse off - including those at the top, unless they enjoy living well in a sea of want.
I recommend that bloggers visit Asuncion, Paraguay to see a low tax, low government spending paradise.
Baxter:
You only asked about the Fed. Other goals need to be accomplished closer to home. Municipal, county, state. I'm advocating decentralization; not, no public utilities.
Eric, na...
Fascism, Socialism, a distinction without a difference. (I intended to meld Sara's reference with the current Socialism)
You talk lots about about decentralized government. Same for me, what you are really saying is freedom, which is my thing, my point. As Rich writes that once you allow a government to tax there are no limits, I am sure you grow more concerned and more Conservative.
The silly ongoing conversation about a silly letter just makes my point.
What I/we want is limited government, saying again, is difficult to execute. What the left desires is an ever expanding government. Chosing between the two there is no choice.
Rich never seems to acknowledge the Conservatives efforts to limit government, limit spending ususally denounced by the Liberals.
In fact I am getting so irritated by his sillyness, I am thinking about researching old articles to make my point. There are plenty.
So yes, last time the Conservatives FU, but at least their goal is limited government.
The left's is just the oppposite.
Good to have you on board.
Did you drive 10 at the Bridges?
I look forward to the Good Doc's substantiation. So far it has all been empty rhetoric.
I acknowledge that the Democrats have resisted cuts that they should have accepted. I agreed with the GOP v Clinton on the Medicare standoff and government shutdown (that resuscitated WJC's fortunes).
I also point out that it was the 1993 Budget Bill without one Republican vote that maintained Pay/Go and controlled the growth of spending and produced a balanced budget 4 years later.
I further point out that it has been the Republicans that championed supply side tax cuts that left us $10T in the whole. On the issue of fiscal responsibility, the Democrats are far more responsible. The GOP is fiscally reckless - as evidenced by the Good Doc's continued pleading for more tax cuts in the face of huge deficits. What will it ever take for you guys to learn? If you won't even read a book on the topic, I suppose learning something isn't really on your collective agenda.
So - prove it up, Doc. Tell us what spending you would cut and how much. The budget is online. Don't just blurt out "freedom - and cut spending!" Tell us how you would balance the budget and just how long it would take.
Jim: The Bridges. Drive 10. Yes, ungracefully. You are required to use a cart on the course, because it would take too long to walk I suppose. Once I played there on a Tuesday and there was no one else on the course. The caddy that took me out recommended that we keep playing, so we went around twice without seeing a soul. On the second round, I noticed that someone had already raked over and cleaned up my footprints in the dirt by the 5th tee box. The Bridges was so nice in the beginning, it was like walking around in a finely manicured botanical garden. Every bit as nice as Lanai, where I have played both courses. In Lanai, you're left wondering how it could possibly be better. But still feels American somehow. Not like carrying your bag in Sligo.
Post a Comment