Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
To make the blanket statement that the recent upsurge in Federal spending has been 1)Soleley at the direction of people from small states 2) has been for the purpose of expanding government and getting money to the rural states is absurd. Over long periods of time rural states have created smaller bureacracies. To say that this is all nullified by the fact that in the past four years a party which has a large representation from rural states has increased federal spending nullifies this trend that has occurred over the past one hundred years is just ridiculous.
|
We agree, then, that the Republicans now running the federal government (at least the executive and legislative branches) have abandoned a century of conservative principles to spend money like drunken sailors, notwithstanding whatever lip service they may pay to the idea of limited government.
What eludes me is why you think that what small states were doing at the start of the twentieth century is particularly significant today. For most of the last hundred years, North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. Now it does. Suggesting that North Korea's recent possession of nukes is an exception to the historical rule may be accurate enough, but it still bothers me that they have nukes.
Quote:
|
You make the statement , that if I am so into "limited government" I should move to Somalia. Considering that Somalia has no government, and I have never advocated anarchy or anything close to it, makes your statement, not only absurd, but petty. And now some how the fact that I believe our economic success is related to our greatness some how justifies your statement I should move to Somalia. Are you smoking crack?
|
When I previously invited you to kiss my ass, I didn't really want you to kiss my ass. I'm not that kinda guy, NTTAWWT.
Quote:
|
You know this is wrong. I have seen consistent polls that show most Californians think the state government needs to be reduced. That was the theme of Arnolds campaign and he won by huge margines. He is dropping in the popularity polls because of a massive, and highly dishonest advertising campaign, that Arnold is trying to screw teachers and firefighters.
|
Maybe people answer the poll questions that way, but then when you ask them whether they want to spend money on education/roads/prisons/etc., it turns out that they do. They like the idea of shrinking the size of state government, so long as it doesn't mean that state government stops giving them fewer services. Arnold, like other prominent Republicans nationally, has figured this out and runs on a nebulous package of "reform" and "reducing the size of government" while not actually proposing to do anything of the sort, since that would piss people off. So we get Grey Davis budgets.
Quote:
You can't really believe what you are saying. This is just absurd. 1) you are talking about a recent development 2) It is also possible that these "clowns" are not doing exactly what they wanbt 3) Over the past one hundred years this trend has occurred.
Do you really not understand statistics. As I have said over and over again, they spend a smaller proportion of their money on the government. Following that trend, even if they had the money we have, they would not spend it. So your statement that, if they would spend the money if they had it is just absurd. And again, I use Nevada and Alaska as an example. They are gettting the revenue but they choose not to spend it. Maybe you missed this part I added later.
California is lucky enough to have the most productive are in the world. The Silicon Valley. And with it they get a huge amount of tax dollars. So does that mean I pay less taxes in California, because California has this huge source of revenue. No - I pay more.
Nevada gets a lot of revenue from Gambling. As a result they don't have a state income tax, and no sales tax. Their property taxes are significantly lower. Yet they have better schools, higher paid law enforcement etc.
Alasksa, with all its extra revenue from Oil taxes, actually give each of its residents a rebate every year. But California, with the biggest tax generator in the world, the Silicon Valley, charges me more state income taxes, higher sales taxes, and higher property taxes than most other states. I don't think you should be using California as an example of a well run state government.
|
At this point, it's clear that you are not bothering to figure out what I am saying, let alone to respond to it, so I'm not going to bother either. But I'm not going to bother in fewer words.
