Replying to Dan Minette: I'm not ashamed to admit this but I cringed when I
saw that you had replied to this topic. I read some other posts to clean up
my inbox and saved yours for later, then actually laid awake thinking what
I'd have to respond to, knowing I had made some mistakes. Not because you'd
say wrong things or really cut me and my ideas down, just that I'd have to
think a lot harder and I never like to do that after a weekend.
First thanks about the numbers. Right off I see Gore was wrong again because
the 1998 numbers are the same as the 1966 numbers which would have been the
Johnson, not the Kennedy, administration. (hehe) But yes the numbers are
down and the population has grown, the government works harder not smarter
or whatever the catch phrase is. I hope that whoever becomes President will
continue.
All right about the health care issue, mostly. 3% isn't that much of
overhead considering the number of true non-profit organizations that can't
get below 10%. I'd only worry that 3% is a low number because of the huge
size of the SS. But again, good point. My only real worry is that once the
government has control, any control (saying private/public hybrid doesn't
inspire that much confidence) they won't ever let go. They will want more
control, oh it's just a little bit more don't worry, oh our program is
failing? Well we need some more control, isn't that obvious? If you're
against our plan you must want people to die....
What would I eliminate? Hmm. Understand that these are off the cuff answers,
without in-depth study of the roles. I'm a mechanic not a politician Jim,
err Dan.
First is Education. It should be a state issue. Yes there should be some
national standards but the states should meet between themselves and hammer
out these standards. Student loans could be handled by the treasury
department.
Veterans Affairs? Unless we have a major shooting war in the next 30 years
this will be folded anyway. Not that veterans aren't important and are due a
lot, but can't their needs be met as a special subset of SS?
HUD? I think a department should at least impact all states. Has this agency
done anything in Cheyenne or Laramie? (I like picking on Wyoming.) Okay I do
see from the website they do things everywhere. There are places in the east
that would be considered primitive, in states with booming cities. I can see
the value of an agency holding states' feet to the fire, in both this area
and education but I just don't think you should help everyone, there is just
a limit to what you can do. We all know about traveling the speed of light,
you get to a point where you are putting in infinite amounts of energy and
not getting any more speed. (I really hope that's correct.) I just see that
with government programs. The first 10 million helps 50%. The next 10
million gets you to 65%. The next 10 million gets you to 72.5% and so on.
That's where I see my money going.
Different subject, well two different ones. No about the estate tax history.
It was started in 1797 to help fund the navy. And repealed in 1802. It was
started again during the Civil War. And stopped at the end of the war.
Started again for the Spanish-American war. And stopped soon after. It
became permanent in 1916 (another war?). I might respond more later but I'll
just say I'm fed up with the carrot and stick method of taxation. Build your
company here and you won't have any local taxes for five years. Pollute the
air but buy green tax credits from another company and we will look the
other way. Make this much money and we'll tax your estate unless you build
some libraries.
You, quoted: "And, I believe that of those that have been given much, much
should be expected. I write that as someone who has been given a great
deal." Sounds like this: "Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles.
Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and
his fine home, says: "No man should have so much." The capitalist, seeing
the same thing, says: "All men should have as much." (Phelps Adams)" I was
actually looking for a different quote but that one suffices. Again maybe
more later, running out of time.
The SS isn't opt out, it's taking part of my money and knowing that it will
be mine when I retire or expire. If the system is going to collapse because
we are taking 2% of the 2.5% I put in (or even the higher figure I heard
which is 18% of the whole thing) then something is wrong.
The last part was what I was worried about. I was more making the point that
the first poster was charging that Clinton's cabinet did and Gore's cabinet
would 'look like America' while for Bush it would be full of old white men,
maybe 'looking for America'. Yes I can see that the cabinet should have 50%
women and 11% black and all the rest, but I can't help it if there aren't,
yet, experienced people for the job who fit the profiles that others would
like.
I know there are inequities all around. In fact I would have a challenge to
Clinton's 'looks like America' cabinet. How many were single parents? How
many were the 'working poor'? How many had no health insurance? How many
were fearful that they could lose their job and all benefits that day?
Sorry about the mix up. Kevin
