RE: Some provocative comments about ID and neoconservatives

From: Donald Perrett (E-mail) <>
Date: Tue Aug 09 2005 - 02:07:44 EDT

Ted wrote:

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote
supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have
such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves
- has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps
boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the
accounting deficiencies of government."

The important thing to remember is that like supply-side


Don P:

To clarify, I take it that you believe high taxation helps the economy? One
of the issues our founding fathers fought for was high taxation, and without
representation. Today we may have "so-called" representation, but the tax
rates are far higher today than those that were worth fighting for back
then. And if tax cuts do not help the economy then please explain the
growth of the 80s and the fact that even under the extreme economic
pressures today, there is at least marginal growth. If we had the tax rates
we had in the 70s we would be in a depression right now just based on the
oil costs let alone any other economic pressures. Then again, tax rates
that are too low can create instability within the economy. My only hope is
that those who volunteer for higher taxes will pay mine. Aside from the
military what does the government provide to me in return? Does anyone give
money to any other agency, organization, group, etc that they do not get
something in return? Even when giving to charity one receives a sense of
doing what is right for those in need. You may even get a thank you letter
from the organization. When's the last time you got one from the
government. What exactly does the government do? Social security? I don't
need it, I'm retired Army. Medicare? I don't need it, I'm retired Army.
It presumes to help the needy. Only 47cents of every dollar, given to
agencies that provide such services, actually go to help anyone. Compare
that to nearly 90cents on average given to local and private charities go to
actually help someone. The government is a spendaholic with an open credit
card, no limits at all. Why give them more ability to spend. Government is
grossly ineffective at doing nearly everything. Find one agency that is not
continually involved in fraud, waste and abuse, including the military, and
you'll have won the grand prize. And for those of you that "hate" the
influence lobbyist have over our government spending, how does it help to
send more money to the government? This only empowers the lobbyists. If
the people of this country feel that all of us should give to help others,
as it is in most religions even, then pass a law stating that x% must be
given to a charitable organization, directly from your check. Thereby,
bypassing the lobbyists, special interests and the spendaholics in
Washington. We say that many companies are getting rich while the workers
don't get paid enough. How is that any different than the government? The
government pays itself and offers little to nothing in return. Companies at
least bring us new products to "improve" our lives, like the computers we
are using right now. Example: environmentalists want new clean
technologies. Then if they had less taxes, they could then invest that
money into companies that are developing such technologies. Sending it to
Washington is a sure way of getting the money to somewhere other than where
you want.

Sorry for going somewhat off topic. Big government is a "PET" peeve. Not a
republican but conservative. Help others through charity, time, and love,
not taxes.

Don P
Received on Tue Aug 9 02:10:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 09 2005 - 02:10:27 EDT