home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky phl.misc:318 pa.general:404
- Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sgigate!rutgers!kb2ear!princeton!der.Princeton.EDU!fafuria
- From: fafuria@der.Princeton.EDU (Frederick Arthur Furia)
- Newsgroups: phl.misc,pa.general
- Subject: Re: "opened" minded liberals
- Message-ID: <1992Nov11.082527.3198@Princeton.EDU>
- Date: 11 Nov 92 08:25:27 GMT
- References: <1oNmTB1w164w@cellar.org> <1992Nov3.072011.1082@Princeton.EDU> <1992Nov4.181554.10763@sadtler.com>
- Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
- Organization: Princeton University
- Lines: 56
- Originator: news@nimaster
- Nntp-Posting-Host: der.princeton.edu
-
- In article <1992Nov4.181554.10763@sadtler.com> rick@sadtler.com (Rick Morris) writes:
- >
- >What we know is that wealth is not equal. There are, and will be, rich
- >and poor. What we feel is that there should be a floor below which
- >no American citizen should fall. What we argue is whether or not there
- >should be a ceiling, above which we are penalized for rising, and where
- >the floor should be built; Federal, State, Local governments, or private
- >charities or organizations.
- >
- >There is a great mix of intelligent conservatism and liberalism here.
- >Let me throw out a point which I would love to hear discussed. (If you
- >want me to shut up, just ignore this post. 8-) )
-
- Don't worry about that. One thing most people jump at the chance to talk
- about is politics. :)
-
- >1. For every dollar which the government takes in, it spends $1.80.
- > (I offer no sources, I think I heard this once!) We just had
- > that huge "read-my-lips" tax increase and the deficit got bigger.
- > Reaganism increased revenue to the government many times over.
- > The deficit mushroomed. It seems to me that to reduce the deficit,
- > the WORST thing that could be done is to increase taxes. To
- > increase taxes is to throw wood on a raging fire.
-
- The number you mentioned was quoted by Dan Quayle in his fierce debate
- with Al Gore, but I think it was around before he used it. It's probably
- pretty accurate.
-
- >Okay. I see one flaw. Reagan increased revenue to the government by
- >decreasing taxes which stimulated the economy. So we are destined to
- >larger deficits by tax cuts AND by tax increases. How about keeping
- >taxes right where they are? Might work if spending is kept at current
- >levels (no "cost of living" increases). Wow. That sounds painless!
-
- If Reagan increased revenue to the government by lowering taxes, I'm afraid
- we're in big trouble, judging from Clinton's plans. He thinks he will
- get more revenue by increasing taxes!
-
- I myself would have loved to see taxes stay right where they are. The thing
- is, most government officials (i.e. Congress) have an agenda which has
- little to do with the deficit. Their job is to increase spending on X,Y
- and Z (determined by their supporters). I think laws today require them
- to come up with funds for X, Y, and Z if they want their suggestions to be
- passed, so it's just so easy to throw in a tax to pay for it, even if the
- tax increases the deficit and hurts the economy, their plan has been passed.
-
- Maybe we need a general policy of making them find funds by suggesting cuts
- in other areas, but that could be bad, too. I'm willing to bet that for
- each dollar Congress saves cutting defense spending, they'll throw away at
- least $1.20 on some other idea, claiming the defense cut allows such spending.
-
- >(Simple ideas from a simple mind! 8-) )
-
- DITTO!
-
- Fred
-