On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 5:24 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe > $.50, > > Ah, I see. Taking people's money to give to others is okay if you don't > take too much. > I'm not sure what your perspective is, here - are you against all forms of taxes? Because essentially this is what ANY sort of tax does, no? I dislike paying taxes, but I think government performs necessary functions that cost money, and an ala carte government is infeasible. So yes, I think taxes are unfortunately necessary and thus okay if they don't take too much. Do you have a better alternative? Is the current Bush/McCain taxation schedule also unacceptable to you, or are you only against Obama's tax plan? You anecdote, perfectly suited for something linked with a "Heh" on Instapundit, made me think the latter. But maybe you are a no-taxer or a flat taxer? > > is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage points. > > Right, a few trillion here, a few trillion there, not much difference. > If it's a few trillions "here or there" in extra taxes collected, it's gotta be on hundred(s) of trillions in income, ie: it's still just a few percentage points - for the people reaping the pinnacle of benefit from our society. So I think they can spare it - the economy did quite fine with the same rates in the Clinton era, and I don't see a strong argument that Bush's cuts have somehow made things better. > > But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and those > > calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible > > Wow, just because you make a straw-man attack and call Obama > a socialist does not mean that I consider discussion with you impossible. > I didn't make any straw man attacks or call Obama a socialist, so I'm not sure why you use the "you" above. As for making reasoned debate impossible, I meant in terms of broad public debate rather than personal discussion, but in any case, "very difficult" would probably be fairer to say than "impossible". > > it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a > > legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead. > > Don't worry, I don't think you are afraid or have no legitimate argument. Again, I haven't made any straw man attacks or called Obama a socialist, so I don't understand why you're turning this on me. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
