[log in to unmask] wrote:
> Spoken like a true believer in voodoo economics -- or a drunk in a winery.

Really?  It seems that whenever we increase taxes on alcohol (or
cigarettes), they never seem to raise as much money as projected.  I guess
the drunks are "laffing" all the way to bank...

> The national debt is a real quality. At the moment, approximately 1/4 of
> every dollar you pay in taxes goes to service just the interest on that
debt. In
> this situation, no products are bought, no services rendered, and not a
penny
> of the debt is retired by that money.

Sure, the national debt is a real quality - never said it wasn't.  I lament
the USA's poor spending over the recent decades.  When times are bad, we
need to spend.  But when times are good...we need to spend - more.  What's
worse is that our deficits, and even our brief surplus, are even worse than
reported because of accounting trickery that uses Social Security deposits
to offset the true number.

> Each percentage increase in the national debt is an equal percentage
increase
> in that portion of your taxes that services the interest on that debt --
and
> these dramatic increases in deficits are the equivalent of a tax increase,
> regardless of what anyone is telling you, all the while sticking the
primary part
> of the bill to your children.

Now you're starting to sound like that registered Republican!  ;-)

As a Republican, you now have to explain away your mean-spiritness for not
wanting to go into debt for spending on healthcare for the elderly, poor and
disabled, education, the arts, basic research, urban renewal, farms, job
creation, extending unemployment benefits, protecting our environment, ...
I wish more Americans thought like you.  But after the government shutdown
in the 90s, it's clear that the people want more spending, not less.

> [1],[2] The quotations Mark cites are from the Heritage Foundation, a
> right-wing, conservative think-tank, praised for the quality
> of its thought by such respected commentators as Rush Limbaugh.

They quote the source of their numbers.  Do you have a issue with the
numbers or just those who "praise their quality?"  Poison the well if you
must, but if there's any factual errors, I am all ears.  BTW, this
"right-wing, conservative" think-tank quotes and agrees with none other than
John Maynard Keynes in the third article I referenced.

> They write: "We want an America that is safe and secure; where choices (in
> education, health care and retirement) abound; where taxes are fair, flat,
and
> comprehensible; where everybody has the opportunity to go as far as their
> talents will take them; where government concentrates on its core
functions,
> recognizes its limits and shows favor to none. And the policies we propose
would
> accomplish these things."

Sounds dreadful.  Who on earth would want a safe and secure country where
choices abound, a fair tax system, and a place where everyone has
opportunity to go far as she can?  Lordy, we sure don't want any of that
around here...

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *