Re: REALLY OT: News Flash
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 12:33:55AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>
>> > Reagan had good reasons for spending as much as he did.
>> >
>> > - military needed rebuilding (Vietnam had taken a heavy toll on
>> > equipment and he had to fix Carter's ridiculous parity mistake)
>>
>> OK, that's believable.
>>
>> > - he decided to outspend the Soviets to bankrupt them
>>
>> Never mind that the Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without
>> Reagan. The average Soviet citizen wasn't exactly living the dream,
>> after
>> all, and happy people don't grow suspicious. Glasnost was inevitable and
>> had far more to do with the Russia's withdrawl from the Soviet Union
>> causing it's ultimate collapse.
>>
> Good point. What Reagan was to accelerate the process. I have no doubt
> that had things like Star Wars and the nuclear build up taken place, the
> Soviets would have continued a good long while before collapsing.
I'm not really convinced that's the case. Glasnost allowed the average
Soviet to find out the full horror of their regime's history. The
collective shock, awe and outrage of the Soviet population easily and
singlehandedly caused the implosion of the Soviet Union. Star Wars was a
comical waste of resources.
>> > Of course, nobody faults FDR for spending massive amounts of money on
>> > the New Deal.
>>
>> Because nobody complains when everybody's getting a fair share of the
>> deal. It's not the amount of money involved, it's how it's used.
>>
> Sure people complain. Because there is a difference in the government
> doing its job and getting involved in things in which it has no
> business. One great example of that is public education. The money
> wasted by the government is wasted quite "fairly" but lots of people
> complain that they government is even involved in the first place.
Well, "By the people, for the people" does imply a socialist ideal to begin
with. Otherwise it's "by the people, against the people," and why would
anybody create *that* mess for a form of government?
>> > That said, I am still waiting to hear reasons from W and the rest of
>> > the republicans in congress for spending money like it is going out of
>> > style.
>>
>> The silence is utterly deafening, especially in the echos of their "tax
>> and
>> spend democrat" rants. I didn't get that wonderful tax cut Bush was
>> touting, in fact, my taxes went up. And Oregon and Idaho gets kicked in
>> the teeth when it comes to federal expenditures. Washington also largely
>> does, Puget Sound manages to get it's fair share, but only because of
>> Fort Lewis and there's rumors *that* might close...
>>
> Hmm. My tax bill this year was *way* lower than last year. Of course,
> I own a home again, which I did not for a couple of years when I was in
> grad school. If you are not a high income earner, you pay practically
> nothing in taxes (at the federal level; you have to take up state and
> local with your state/county/city government). Not just that, but
> things that are income adjustments and tax deductions and tax credits
> are numerous. You can still earn over $100,000 and if you own a home
> and take some simple steps to shelter some of your income, you can drop
> yourself below the $50,000 MAGI line easily.
I don't have an issue paying state and county tax. But when my largest tax
bill is federal and I see it squandered and none of it come back to my
state or even my region, I really start to wonder what's the point. Why
not make income tax something states pay out of their revenue instead of
taxing the people directly? The states are a little better prepared to
defend it's citizens against unfair taxation for one thing...
Reply to: