Re: Political Parties

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:24:42 -0700, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:32:48 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e1gq73p749i3t1rln84ga91ha574asjf92@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:44:14 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:51:29 -0700, noname <noname@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Snip)

Can't you find someone among them who suits your fancy?

What would I like to see in a candidate? A dedication to getting us
out of Iraq in an orderly fashion; a promise to reduce spending and
veto bills laden with pork; a plan to actually close the border, and
only after that was accomplished, consider amnesty; some honest and
constructive ideas concerning Social Security and Medicare; a plan to
promote nuclear energy, develop our own hydrocarbon resources, and
reduce our dependence on foreign oil; and a commitment to make the
Bush tax cuts permanent. I might add that a moderate approach to
abortion and stem cell research would be refreshing.

Who does that sound like? Not a Democrat, and not any Republican I
know.

Not bad, Jeff. I could go along with all of your ideas, with the exception of
the one on the Bush tax cuts. The reason I'd reject that idea is that there
are
times when the public has a need for services that government should and can
provide; I prefer the cost of those to be paid by taxation rather than by
borrowing which results in having my children or grandchildren end up paying
years down the road for benefits I received. Making anything permanent
imposes
a rigid inflexibility that may not serve us well, particularly since we're all
too often such poor planners and forecasters.

George Z.

The Feds have a source of income -- the current tax structure. That's
what they have to spend -- so they will just have to allocate the tax
revenues in the most efficient way possible, and leave it at that. The
problem with going to the well every time there is a seemingly worthy
project or program to spend money on is that there will ALWAYS be a
worthy project or program, and over time taxes will consequently be
raised without limit until the economy is a basket case. If you really
believe that you can promise that if we tweak this tax, or push that
one up a bit, taxes will be at the "right" level (a level which you
could never define), then I guess I could go along. Problem is, we
both know that such a promise could never be made -- or kept, because
Congress, and the Left, will always want just a "little more". Why?
Because there will always be a segment of society that has more, and
there will therefore be those who see that as fundamentally unfair. It
is that underlying principle that is behind 90% of the arguments in
this Group.

The fallacy in your proposition is that the current tax structure is not set in
concrete.....it never has been and it's not supposed to be. It's a flexible
structure that's adjusted, usually upwards, when new needs surface that have to
be satisfied and paid for. When program needs are met and disappear, the tax
revenues that sustained them are most commonly redirected to another unfunded
program deemed to be necessary or, on relatively rare occasions, to reduce the
deficit and/or the public debt.

IAC, there is no "right level", that being a function of what our needs are.
Your objection to the fact that the Congress or the "Left" (as if that's some
kind of measurable entity) always will ask for more when and if needs become
satisfied without either reducing taxes or the deficit is really more an
objection to our tax structure than to a disfunctional Congress. You object to
people who earn more being burdened with a greater proportion of the taxes to be
paid than those who earn less. Unfortunately, your concept of taxpayers having
needs satisfied only to the extent that they are able to pay for them is not
what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. The
reason the wealthier of our citizens are burdened with more taxes than the rest
of the populace is that they can bear the burden better than the rest. That's
the reason our tax structure is the way it is.

George Z.

George, my point is and was that our "needs" will always be greater
than the taxes needed to pay for them. So, when do we stop raising
taxes on the "rich"? When they are no longer rich?

Taxes haven't been lower for the for almost 100 years. They are in no
danger of "not being rich." in fact if you were honest, you would
admit that the gap between the rich and the not rich has been steadily
climbing since Ronald Reagan, The rich man's messiah.

You sound like a *** when you whine for the rich.
Thumper
.

Loading