Re: OT: oil profits


"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:prbk14plfnr6d6cerla5k9i5jgf760s0j8@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:53:38 -0400, "Fred Burton" <fburton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dvai14tr8o8kr4u17avq1cp9nqn8qu1avi@xxxxxxxxxx


First, just because the Fed Gov't is running deficits, does NOT mean that
you
have to raise taxes. That's the liberal mantra. There IS another
solution.

CUT SPENDING!!!!


Of course, one COULD cut spending to balance the budget. Bush and the
Conservatives chose not to do that, preferring an expensive war and a
wasteful farm program that is promoting poverty around the world. But
I agree, and any rational person would agree, that cutting spending is
certainly one possible way to balance the budget. Nothing to do with
Liberal or Conservative.

The decision to fight a war should not be based on whether you have to
increase spending or not. You do it because it's necessary, not because
you can afford to do it.

If you're going to bash bush about spending, it should be on that bogus
prescription drug benefit. Just another pile of money pissed down a
rathole.



As far as the "wasteful farm program", I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
If you're refering to promoting ethanol, I agree with you. And I predicted
that pushing Ethanol would produce this result a decade ago. It was obvious
for anyone who would look at the secondary effects of a decision.

Transferring farm acreage from producing food to non-food crops would only
decrease the supply of whatever was being grown, which in turn would
increase
the cost of whatever was left of those food crops.

Using renewable crops as part of an alternative fuel source sounds good in
theory, but these "geniuses" down in DC should have been able to figure
out that it would only serve to reduce food supplies and increase food
costs.

And it doesn't help that matters that Iowa is the first caucus. I support
NH
being the first primary and I suppose that it works out pretty well that NH
doesn't have any particular stranglehold on something like ethanol that
causes
prez candidates to hold bad positions just to keep NH happy. But I think
that
Iowa is hurting the country in this regard because the politicians care more
about their OWN political futures and only the politically suicidal
prez candidates come out against ethanol in Iowa.






But cutting spending was not the issue you raised and I responded to.
You claimed that redistribution was not the function of taxation ---
that raising revenue was the function. In fact, both are the function.
Currently, the tax system is not raising the revenue needed to run the
government. My point is that if we are going to have the tax system do
its job --- raising the money needed to fund the level of government
we have chosen, we still need to decide who pays. If we decide to
rescind the Bush tax cuts for the rich to balance the budget, we have
a redistributive tax, even as the tax is raising the revenue needed to
fund government.


Second ... no, the FAIR answer is to make EVERY person share the load
equally be paying the same percentage of their income. Affordability when
it comes to taxation is utterly and completely irrelevent.

You are entitled to your view, not widely shared.


Forcing the rich to pay a disproportionate share of taxes is nothing more
and nothing less than thievery by government fiat, and outright economic
descrimination. Simply the fulfillment of the Robin Hood fantasies of
all you fucking liberals.


Do you know what theft is? I ask, because, by definition, a lawful tax
cannot be theft. And a tax in this county, whether progressive or
regressive, is not by "fiat" --- it is through representative
government --- the form of taxation that the Revolutionary War was
fought to ensure.

Let me translate for you...

Taxation ... Theft by Legislation ... aka taking something that is not yours
by force (i.e. the force of law and the threat of imprisonment).... and when
that taxation treats one class of people differently than another class
based
on economic status, it amounts to nothing more than economic descrimination.





My fantasies were about Maid Marion. ...

Cute. ;)

I wasn't talking about your sexual fantasies, but your political ones. :)




.

Quantcast