On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:36 PM, Tom Piwowar wrote:
Tax Cuts are only spending to folks who presume that all funds which
could be potentially collected via taxation belong to the government
Bullshit! It has nothing to do with the notion of what belongs to who.
It has everything with who the primary producer of wealth is.
Good governance requires the expenditure of capital.
Agreed.
Taxes are how governments raise their capital.
Agreed.
The proper level of taxation is one that permits good governance. No
more, no less.
Disagree - the level of taxation must be balanced against the
perceived needs of good governance, lest the a majority decide that
good governance means taxing the wealth of the minority to deliver
services to the majority.
So when I make a decision on how to spend my money that is
undirected? No Tom, it is just not directed by the government. Can
you not see the difference?
You need to meet your responsibilities to civilization
Agreed - but government is not the only agent or means of civilization.
You want to be a looter and a moocher and not meet your adult
responsibilities.
How is a presumptive preference for letting labor keep the fruits of
that labor where possible equal to being a looter? A looter takes but
does not produce wealth - sort of like government now that I think
about it.
Beer producers require labor and expensive equipment which also
requires labor. If the people want to buy beer, or other food stuff,
why not let them? Who is too say how much is too much? The
government? Why not the individual who earns the money in the first
place?
The existence of civilization and government makes it possible for
that
person to earn that money. Without these things we get barbarism.
Agreed - note that civilization and government require each other, but
are not each other.
You want the benefits, but refuse to bear the costs.
No, I don't want everything you claim to be a benefit and don't want
to have to pay for roles a government should not take on.
Maybe you would be happier living in Zimbabwe? That looks like a
fine example of a neocon
paradise.
You can't be that stupid, so why make such absurd statements.
Zimbabwe is the ultimate example of government existing only to
perpetuate itself rather than serve the population.
That is why health care is such a mess. Health care is not an
economic good.
Of course it is, and it has been since the dawn of time. Or do you
think service labor is not an economic good?
There you go again. Mislabeling things so you can draw false
conclusions.
What mislabeling? The Dr. is a professional who provides a service.
The problem is that the costs are largely divorced from those who
consume the services, preventing the market from working. Right now
with employer based insurance they have every incentive to keep their
costs down, but the patients have no leverage.
Then how can the Europeans provide better health care at a much
lower cost?
Prove they do - not in the aggregate, but compared to what can be
purchased on the open market here. Consider time to deliver services
in your argument.
The problem with US health care is greedy corporations siphoning
off a large portion of the funds allocated to health.
You mean providing a service that others are willing to pay for? All
corporations are greedy on some level, if by greed you mean want to
prosper.
Name one part of the economy where the market, unfettered by
government regulation yet governed by the rule of law does not
function well?
Transportation, health care, education, law enforcement, etc. etc.
None of those meet the criteria I gave.
And how the neocons howl when law enforcement "turns a profit" by
fining red
light runners. But when government is for sale they think it is just
fine.
Example of a self-defined neocon doing either please. Remember I am
not one.
No, in large part Congress insisting that hard nose risk analysis not
govern government backed home loan programs caused the problem. That
plus Americans as a whole spending beyond their means.
Blaming the Congress makes you feel better.
Recognize the name Barney Frank? Chris Dodd? They, not Bush, blocked
serious reform of Fannie and Freddie on more than one occasion.
Possibly because it represents the people more directly than other
parts of the government.
Or because it is what happened.
You won't want to blame the executive, the neocon who was the real
source
of the misregulation.
Citations please. Remember I did not vote for Bush - I am no fan of
his, but I don't see his fingerprints on the housing mess.
Can you name any sport where the referee picks sides? Where the
referee calls the plays? That is what government does all too often.
Yes, that happens when the government is run by your rules.
No, that happens when government runs by your rules - picking winners
and losers. Set asides for "protected groups". Income redistribution
as an end to itself. Government as an agent of social engineering.
Government run as a business for personal gain. No you can't have it
both ways.
Never said I wanted that - I want a limited government of enumerated
powers.
When the government runs acording to your rules it is bad government.
Just what do you think my rules are?
Governance is not an economic good. When the neocon ideology gets
involved we get corruption.
Ever hear of Tameny Hall? The Chicago Machine? Louisiana? Democrats
all, not a one neocon.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
