--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Tarr, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not ashamed to admit this but I cringed when I saw that you had
>replied to this topic
Well, I know I like to make strong arguments, but its too bad that someone
will cringe concerning replying to me. If it makes you feel better, I post
relatively little because I like to be careful in what I write.
>
>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)
>
Well, I appreciate your joke, and I think that, since my numbers are 1998
and his numbers are probably 2000, that he's probably not exaggerating here.
:-)
>
>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....
The problem is that people are dying now due to the lack of very simple
health care. And, a good part of the reason people don't stay off welfare
is that entry level jobs usually do not have health insurance and the only
way to have a sick kid taken care of is to lose that job and go back on
welfare.
>
>
>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.
The problem I have with that is that it sorta sets up an "Articles of
Confederacy� type structure with the overhead of the Feds and none of the
power. Having meetings that require a 50-0 vote for anything to be
implemented? They could involve tremendous bureaucracies parallel to the
Federal government, without the ability of the Federal government to say
"alright already, we have 80% agreement, we'll do it.
>
>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?
That's probably not unreasonable.
>
>I just don't think you should help everyone, there is just
>a limit to what you can do.
As far as helping people in need, the government actually spends fairly
little on helping people in demonstrated need. About 7% of the budget goes
to Medicaid, and another 7% goes to people who meet various need criteria.
60% goes to the big 3: Social Security, interest on the debt, and defense.
Another 11% goes to Medicare, while about 4% or so goes to Federal pensions.
Putting those together, you get 3/4 of the budget. That doesn't leave
much for the rest.
>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.)
Well, its close enough for me to accept: but if Gore said that, Bush would
attack his character over it. :-) I won't get into a long discussion of
relativistic physics unless there is a demand for a sub thread. Be warned,
though, I did my dissertation in elementary particle physics. :-)
>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.
But there are obvious places to put money which should have tremendous
impact. Health insurance and daycare subsidies for single mothers working
jobs that pay < $10/hour. That is an obvious thing to help the transition
off of welfare. Yes, the government can be inefficient, but we are not
anywhere near the point where we are at diminishing returns overall. In
specific areas, sure, but there is a lot we can do that would have good
return on investment.
>�the estate tax .. 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?).
OK, I stand corrected on the history of estate taxes.
>
>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.
Actually, I was quoting Jesus.
>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.
My point comes from my understanding of stewardship and ownership. Its
biblically based: we do not own our possessions, they belong to God. We are
stewards of them, and an accounting will be held on our stewardship.
>
>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.
Something is wrong. The older people are getting far more than what they
put in. But they don't belive that. Diverting money from the SS fund now
makes it run out of money in 18 instead of 35, IIRC. We do need to fix it,
but that would require, IMHO, raising the maximum income on the SS tax by
quite a bit. As it stands, with an upper income limit on taxation and
capital gains and interest exempt from taxation, its a _very_ regressive
tax.
>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 understand what you are saying. It was very hard for Reagan find a
conservative black judge that met the absolute minimum requirements for the
Supreme Court. But if you look at their convention, you see the same thing.
The Democratic party tends to be the party of the have-nots and the
Republicans the haves. With our nation's minorities increasing in number,
you will see the Republicans stand out as having white men as their
convention goers as well as their key administration players, while the
Democrats will have a mix that better represents the nation.
>
>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?
Probably very few. That shows the problem of leadership tending to be
isolated from the day to day concerns of the general public. But, the
Democrats are more likely to have a mix of people in high positions who
most of the people in the nation can point to one or two and say "that
person is a lot like me." I would guess they are a lot more likely to have
people who were once in that position,
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
