Thursday, January 29, 2004
OH SO TYPICAL. Below is a Cut & Paste from a typical exchange between me (AB) and one of my conservies. Some things may seem a little out of context since they were pulled from an email string but you will get the drift. We were discussing the Bush administration's record deficit when....
AB: The debate over how to measure the deficit is still an ongoing one. Suffice to say that ANY administration is likely to agree with economists whose manipulation of data puts the administration's fiscal mismanagement in the best light -- in this case that the deficit should be seen as a percentage of GDP. Bottom line is that Bush has so far increased total federal spending by 20.4 percent and has yet to veto a single spending bill. The Cato Institute went so far as to accuse Bush of "governing like a Frenchman." Actually this isn't true. At least the French would be smart enough to collect sufficient taxes to offset the expense of their generous social programs.
Conservie: Too bad for you Bush is doing a relatively good job considering the events of this day and age. Your use of the French as a financial beacon is touching, but you again show how far your ignorance can go. French generous social programs? The French have stolen more from poor countries than any other nation on earth. The French were the last to give up their colonies but never surrendered their colonialist economy and colonialist principles. France has funded their social programs on the backs of poor Iraqis and others. Guess in their view equality and liberty don't apply to those long suffering people. At least we are trying to bring the Iraqis democracy and some freedom. In my recollection the government of France has not taken a truly principled and objectively moral stand for over a century. The French are "Jimmy Swaggerts" of Western Europe; always posing and posturing about their moral superiority and lofty goals; and then doing exactly the opposite. Anyway, tax collecting is not what makes social programs or any other spending programs affordable. How can a nation drive in revenue other than taxing people to death? Take a few days to look that up before you answer. . . it's a loaded question.
AB: And you wonder why I make comments about your perhaps having a crack problem... Bush's 'relatively good job' translates to this: Reckless spending combined with deep tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich do not for long-term sustainability make. Add to that international debt to the tune of 30 percent of America's GDP, a huge number of baby boomers notorious for not squirreling away enough savings and poised to start knocking at the door of government services very soon, free-market-hostile federal subsidies to dead-end industries (oil, gas, and coal) and you've got the 'Perfect Storm' brewing. Or New Age Feudalism... And don't even get me started on Bush's unilateral foreign policy that has alienated much of the world.
As to the French having stolen more from poor countries than any other nation, is stealing 'more' worse than stealing 'less'? Stealing is stealing isn't it? There are plenty of immoral ways to enrich yourself off the backs of others. Black slavery comes to mind... And I would argue that America's record on environmental destruction of other countries for the sake of profits will one day be looked at as no less reprehensible than colonialism was. What's your point other than to mix apples with oranges? My point was clear and based on fact: France spends a lot of money on comprehensive social benefits to its citizenry for which the French are taxed handsomely.
As to France's moralistic posturing, you are simply wrong on that. Historically, the French have never particularly tried to play that card. That's one of their more appealing attributes. They are much more realistic when it comes to human nature. Bush, on the other hand, embraces issues in terms of ethical absolutes i.e. good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. Unfortunately this makes for 'wishful and parochial thinking' at the expense of thorough analysis and good policy.
You say that tax collecting is not what makes social programs or any other spending programs affordable. That's nice. I never said tax collecting makes social programs affordable. I said it helps offset the costs.
Finally, you ask how a nation can drive in revenue other than taxing people to death. Contrary to your wishes, I am not going to take ‘a few days’ to chase down answers to your loaded condescending questions. I have better things to do with my time. Off the cuff, my answers are below:
1) Levy taxes on pollution, non-reusable resources, and obesity so as to discourage what we don't want in order to promote activities we do want. This would in turn help prevent people from being 'taxed to death' since they would now have a shot at living longer -- taxes or no.
2) Other ideas floating out there include revamping the existing estate tax, a means test for entitlements, closing tax loopholes, cutting corporate welfare, and spectrum user fees.
3) Imperialism.
AB: The debate over how to measure the deficit is still an ongoing one. Suffice to say that ANY administration is likely to agree with economists whose manipulation of data puts the administration's fiscal mismanagement in the best light -- in this case that the deficit should be seen as a percentage of GDP. Bottom line is that Bush has so far increased total federal spending by 20.4 percent and has yet to veto a single spending bill. The Cato Institute went so far as to accuse Bush of "governing like a Frenchman." Actually this isn't true. At least the French would be smart enough to collect sufficient taxes to offset the expense of their generous social programs.
Conservie: Too bad for you Bush is doing a relatively good job considering the events of this day and age. Your use of the French as a financial beacon is touching, but you again show how far your ignorance can go. French generous social programs? The French have stolen more from poor countries than any other nation on earth. The French were the last to give up their colonies but never surrendered their colonialist economy and colonialist principles. France has funded their social programs on the backs of poor Iraqis and others. Guess in their view equality and liberty don't apply to those long suffering people. At least we are trying to bring the Iraqis democracy and some freedom. In my recollection the government of France has not taken a truly principled and objectively moral stand for over a century. The French are "Jimmy Swaggerts" of Western Europe; always posing and posturing about their moral superiority and lofty goals; and then doing exactly the opposite. Anyway, tax collecting is not what makes social programs or any other spending programs affordable. How can a nation drive in revenue other than taxing people to death? Take a few days to look that up before you answer. . . it's a loaded question.
AB: And you wonder why I make comments about your perhaps having a crack problem... Bush's 'relatively good job' translates to this: Reckless spending combined with deep tax cuts that disproportionately favor the rich do not for long-term sustainability make. Add to that international debt to the tune of 30 percent of America's GDP, a huge number of baby boomers notorious for not squirreling away enough savings and poised to start knocking at the door of government services very soon, free-market-hostile federal subsidies to dead-end industries (oil, gas, and coal) and you've got the 'Perfect Storm' brewing. Or New Age Feudalism... And don't even get me started on Bush's unilateral foreign policy that has alienated much of the world.
As to the French having stolen more from poor countries than any other nation, is stealing 'more' worse than stealing 'less'? Stealing is stealing isn't it? There are plenty of immoral ways to enrich yourself off the backs of others. Black slavery comes to mind... And I would argue that America's record on environmental destruction of other countries for the sake of profits will one day be looked at as no less reprehensible than colonialism was. What's your point other than to mix apples with oranges? My point was clear and based on fact: France spends a lot of money on comprehensive social benefits to its citizenry for which the French are taxed handsomely.
As to France's moralistic posturing, you are simply wrong on that. Historically, the French have never particularly tried to play that card. That's one of their more appealing attributes. They are much more realistic when it comes to human nature. Bush, on the other hand, embraces issues in terms of ethical absolutes i.e. good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. Unfortunately this makes for 'wishful and parochial thinking' at the expense of thorough analysis and good policy.
You say that tax collecting is not what makes social programs or any other spending programs affordable. That's nice. I never said tax collecting makes social programs affordable. I said it helps offset the costs.
Finally, you ask how a nation can drive in revenue other than taxing people to death. Contrary to your wishes, I am not going to take ‘a few days’ to chase down answers to your loaded condescending questions. I have better things to do with my time. Off the cuff, my answers are below:
1) Levy taxes on pollution, non-reusable resources, and obesity so as to discourage what we don't want in order to promote activities we do want. This would in turn help prevent people from being 'taxed to death' since they would now have a shot at living longer -- taxes or no.
2) Other ideas floating out there include revamping the existing estate tax, a means test for entitlements, closing tax loopholes, cutting corporate welfare, and spectrum user fees.
3) Imperialism.
Comments:
Post a Comment
