I think that's were the two-trillion dollar projected surplus comes in. Then you have to factor in the economic growth that would inevitably follow...

"If you know about waves and tides, you'll know that a rising wave is accompanied by a depression in the water level."

Yeah, far away from shore. Thus low tide on the opposite side of the ocean. But under any circumstances, the analogy doesn't hold that far. It's just that "A rising water level lifts all boats" doesn't quite have the same flow to it...

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Pun intentional?

"It bothers me that the entirety of American politics is currently engaged with figuring out how to spend money that, in all likelyhood, simply doesn't exist."

How do you figure? Just curious. I mean, we have the numbers. Assuming all things remain constant (meaning no democrats running congress with their pork-barrel spending, or Gore raising taxes and screwing the economy over, or other such things), the surplus should materialize as projected.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

By the way, you finance a welfare system by charging marginal rates of tax that increase per income bracket.

Part of it, yeah. If you guys down under want to be defenceless against agressors, that's your problem, but it's the duty of the federal government to defend the people of this country against external threats. Thus missile defence.

"Nowhere did I hear you say anything about increasing welfare."

Why would we? We've poured several trillion dollars into those programs since their inception, and we've still got similar poverty levels. Again, typical liberal thought. "Yeah, pour money into EVERY SINGLE well-intentioned program, and screw the fact that none of them actually work. That's because they need more money! Besides, they mean well..." Liberalism is rife with catch-22's like that. "Well, the reason socialism hasn't worked is because the right people weren't in charge," for instance, which simply results in more and more hells-on-earth being created like Cuba and the USSR, and nothing ever actually getting done.

You don't just change one minor thing hoping that it will change from no results whatsoever to a utopia. The world doesn't work like that. The reason things like public education are failing at their tasks isn't because they need more money: it's because the program is essentially flawed. Thus, change the program. This is what Bush advocates (vouchers, partial privatization, etc.), instead of Gore, who favors keeping the same failed systems, just heeping more tax burden onto the so-called "rich" to pay for it, and STILL not getting any results. So Bush wants to try something that has at least a chance of working, whereas Gore wants to keep doing things that have been proven NOT to work, and damaging the economy in the process.

So by the outdated definitions that you find everywhere, Bush is a liberal because he wants to change things, and Gore is a conservative because he wants to keep things the screwed-up way they are. Ironic.

"By the way, you finance a welfare system by charging marginal rates of tax that increase per income bracket."

This assumes that the government has the right to arbitrarily determine what a person's needs are. It has no such right, much less duty.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

I will hand the conservatives here in Ontario a tulip here. Ontario's financial picture is much better now than 5 years ago. All we had to do is do serious damage to education, health care, the environment, and kill off 50 or so people in the process (by having them drink poisoned water, dying in understaffed hospitals, or on the frigid cold nights on the street). One mess has been fixed, now we've got other messes to deal with.

While a tax cut would give some money back to the poor, the scope of the tax cut means that the money they get back is barely noticeable. You'd have to be making quite a decent wage to notice the difference on your tax bill. On top of that, cuts to certain programs have forced these programs to survive via User fees, something that has never been done before. So, instead of saving money, they are LOSING money by paying more for the programs that they depend on.

"The two trillion surplus is in the US. Not Ontario."

Obviously. I was talking about the US.

But from your description, a tax cut in Ontario was a very poorly executed idea. You don't cut by taking vital funds away from essential services. Now if you could make those services run just as well on less money, well, that's a different story.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Omega, in a nutshell....FUCK YOU.

YOU, sir, are merely & legally a CHILD. Until YOU PERSONALLY have had to be in a situation where you've needed to be on any form of government assistance, I suggest that you clam up your rhetoric-spewing NOISEHOLE for a while.

FOR THE RECORD: I am on both federal & state assistance. My benefits consist of a massive $512 a month from Social Security & $131 from CT Social Services; that's down from $243 a month from the state, because they found out that I lived with 3 other people YET SHARED NO EXPENSES & so they slashed my benefits in half--the result of "reforms" by a Republican governor, by the way. My rent is $315 a month for a single ROOM. My phone bill is routinely between the $35 for standard service & $60 if I can't pay all the $35 from the previous month. AOL costs me $22. THAT'S ALL MY EXPENDITURES. I cannot save money, though, because I live in the most expensive area in the contiguous 48 states; my food costs routinely hit $50 a week--FOR ONE PERSON.

I don't WANT to be in the system anymore. But I HAVE to be. I own no car...in an area that requires a car to survive. "Mass transit" is a joke here. Any job I take would have to be retail at the mall for minimum wage, which is like $6/hour here. BUT...the minute I GET a job, the SSA takes 50� on the dollar away from my benefits; the state services take an extra quarter. Therefore, for every dollar I make, I only REALLY have made a QUARTER. How am I supposed to get on my own that way?

I've dealed with both agencies many, many times. There is NO PROGRAM for helping people get OFF the system. There is no "3-month grace period" of not cutting benefits so that a person can save enough to become self-sufficient & therefore NOT be a burden to the populace. I found an area that I want to move to where apartments are cheap, jobs are (relatively) plentiful, where mass transit works well, where I can possibly even get an education. But there is no help, no sort of "relocation program" that I can get into that allows me to get that leg up. I'm caught in a limbo area; if I was a little bit higher, I wouldn't need to be on the system, but if I was a little lower & worse-off, I'd be eligible for more money & programs.

"Why would we [increase welfare]? We've poured several trillion dollars into those programs since their inception, and we've still got similar poverty levels. Again, typical liberal thought. 'Yeah, pour money into EVERY SINGLE well-intentioned program, and screw the fact that none of them actually work. That's because they need more money! Besides, they mean well...' Liberalism is rife with catch-22's like that."

Have you looked around at WHY there's "similar poverty levels?" A good reason is lack of education. I have no college degree. I have plenty of experience in many things, though, I'm considerably smarter than the average bear, & I learn extremely quickly. There's a college IN THE TOWN. I have asked both agencies about job training, about education programs. What I was told was that I'd be fighting for landscaping jobs with 12 guys named Raoul, or that there WAS job training available...but not anywhere I could GET TO. There USED to be said programs & classes available here...until the "Contract On America" in 1995.

"You don't just change one minor thing hoping that it will change from no results whatsoever to a utopia. The world doesn't work like that. The reason things like public education are failing at their tasks isn't because they need more money: it's because the program is essentially flawed. Thus, change the program. This is what Bush advocates (vouchers, partial privatization, etc.), instead of Gore, who favors keeping the same failed systems, just heeping [sic] more tax burden onto the so-called "rich" to pay for it, and STILL not getting any results. So Bush wants to try something that has at least a chance of working, whereas Gore wants to keep doing things that have been proven NOT to work, and damaging the economy in the process."

The REASON public education fails IS because the systems are flawed. The reason the systems are FLAWED is because no one wants to FUND them anymore. I came from a 3-town regional school district. It took forever to get a budget passed; Roxbury & Washington would run right on through approved. Then Bridgewater--my home, with its 70% elderly population--would smack it down over some piddly little bullshit thing. One year, it took TWENTY-THREE TRIES to pass the budget.

YES, things like welfare need to be changed...but draconian cuts is NOT the ANSWER, nor is privatization at any level or idiotic concepts like "vouchers" or "points." YES, there will ALWAYS be those who wish to sit on the system for eternity, being a drain. That's a given. But MOST people are like me--we WANT to better ourselves, but there are just a few too many obstacles...& it's fucking DISCOURAGING.

Oh, & I grew UP around your "so-called 'rich'"....there's nothing "so-called" ABOUT THEM. THEY ARE RICH. Would the day EVER come that I have to worry about hiding parts of my $300,000/year income from the government. Of course, given the situation I'm in right now, I probably WOULDN'T hide it.

"This assumes that the government has the right to arbitrarily determine what a person's needs are. It has no such right, much less duty."

That's how a fucking government WORKS, moron. Sampling from the all, averaging for the plan. You cannot nor SHOULD you expect "personalized political problem-solving" here or in any other country...well, maybe except in your wonderful Republic of Fantasia where the "undesirables" are kept in the Scrapyard, the homeless are swept into the sewers, the less-fortunate are stoned & told that they're there because they couldn't hack it & so have gotten what they deserved...all while the well-to-do putter around their glorious Tiphares sipping champagne, eating steak, & wondering if they should take their new $200,000 bonus & put it into a 3rd yacht or a 24th Lamborghini.

Here's a movie for you to go see...it's called "Metropolis."

"If you guys down under want to be defenceless against agressors, that's your problem, but it's the duty of the federal government to defend the people of this country against external threats. Thus missile defence."

Y'know...I love the military, too...but this is SO fucking absurd. The only ICBM threat to us anymore is CHINA...& if you knew ANYthing about Chinese philosophy, you'd know they'd NEVER first-strike. Try funnellignthat "national missile defense" money into something more productive...like, say, increasing the subsistence allowances for the families of servicemen stationed overseas.

Understand this though. Under Bush's plan, you will, as well as everyone making less than $30,000 will pay literally no taxes. Those making $30,0000-$50,000 will pay very little taxes.

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

I feel like quoting something from Frank Zappa's 1989 book:

"Politically, I consider myself to be a (don't laugh) Political Conservative. I want a smaller,less intrusive government, and lower taxes. What? You too?"

"Last tax season, I had a discussion with (the wildly amusing) Gary Iskowitz and (the utterly fascinating) Bob Kahan. Gary used to be the chief of the IRS audit division in Maryland and Washington, D.C., and Bob is one of the few decent Los Angeles attorneys."

"Gary was providing the laughs with a recitation of Reagan's description of our new tax laws: 'Equity, simplicity and fairness.' [Insert chart of how long it takes to prepare your tax return here]"

"This eventually led to a discussion of a paper Gary wrote in college, about what would happen if the U.S. income tax were removed, and replaced with a national sales tax on all goods and services. Here're a few points he made (my [Zappa's --Ed.] paraphrasing:"

"[1] We'd save a fortune on the yearly budget of the IRS itself. The sales tax could be administered with approximately five percent of the current IRS staff."

"[2] Because people would be taxed only when they spent money, the entire economy would get a boost as people received more of an incentive to earn money."

"[3] Certain folks who always seem to avoid paying taxes (defense contractors and church-owned businesses, for example) would be allowed to make a glowing debut as Major Stars of the U.S. tax base."

"[4] Drug dealers don't file tax returns, but they do spend money. As long as drugs are illegal, this is the only way to derive tax revenue from them."

"[5] All of the cash in the 'subterraneasn economy' would now be part of the tax base."

"I believe that we are entitled to the benefits of large-scale services which only a Federal Government can provide--national defense, Social Security, high-ticket research, help for the homeless, etc.--only so long as we are willing and able to pay for them; however, if such services are requested and rendered, it should be the goal and the responsibility of the government to make the deal work at a bargain price, with the least amount of fuss--not with the largest amount of paperwork, the highest payroll, and endless, insufferable layers of bureaucracy."

"Efficient Federal Government should present social policy choices to the electorate in clear language:"

"'If you want these services, it will cost this much. Are you sure you want them now? Here is a list of ways they can be paid for--choose one. If you say you want these services, we'll take care of it for you. If you say no--next case.'"

"That's right, folks: Utopia."

*gets lumbar pillow*

This may take a while. Well, I guess I'll start at the top of the rant...

The first thing that comes to mind: why exactly are you paying for internet access when you're so strapped for cash? Not exactly a necessity, and if you absolutely need it, there are computers in libraries. Just a suggestion.

"they slashed my benefits in half--the result of "reforms" by a Republican governor"

Republican and conservative are not synonymous. Don Sunquist tried to shove an income tax down our throats in TN recently, so he's hardly a conservative, but he is technically a Republican. But under any circumstances, any "reform" that makes the system more complex and harder to manage is generally a bad idea, and it seems like this guy really screwed up.

"BUT...the minute I GET a job, the SSA takes 50� on the dollar away from my benefits; the state services take an extra quarter."

I feel compelled to point out that, IINM, the Republicans want to repeal that, at least on the national level. CT state politics are more the department of Frank's mom. And you may be interested to know that Clinton/Gore raised the taxes on your social security. If it wasn't for them, you'd be getting a (relatively) large chunk more of your own money back.

"Have you looked around at WHY there's "similar poverty levels?" A good reason is lack of education."

Point being? Pouring more money into the welfare program won't help them, regardless of the cause. Now reforming education, that might help.

"The REASON public education fails IS because the systems are flawed. The reason the systems are FLAWED is because no one wants to FUND them anymore."

Again, catch-22 reasoning. And without basis, to boot. If no one wants to fund the schools, why are some getting $6,000 per student, per year and STILL failing? Can't be for lack of money. The privatized competition does far better with far less. Thus there's something wrong with what is DONE with the money. Flawed system.

"YES, things like welfare need to be changed...but draconian cuts is NOT the ANSWER"

No one suggested that it was. But you need to realize that increased funding on the back of the economy isn't the answer, either. Since the problem is in how the system is run, then the answer is in changing that.

"nor is privatization at any level or idiotic concepts like "vouchers" or "points.""

Funny, how you provide no evidence of this. Tell me: what exactly do YOU suggest we do? I mean, so far you're acting just like Al: you say, "All these ideas are stupid, risky schemes," and yet you propose no alternative. Social security WILL DIE if something is not done. Our children are NOT GETTING AN EDUCATION. This CAN NOT be overemphasized. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

"Oh, & I grew UP around your "so-called 'rich'"....there's nothing "so-called" ABOUT THEM."

Like heck. According to Algore, anyone who makes over $50 grand is "rich", and "powerful". Yeah, right. Try supporting a family of four on less in most parts of the country.

"That's how a fucking government WORKS, moron. Sampling from the all, averaging for the plan."

No, it's how the government TRIES to work. If you haven't noticed, it's been failing miserably. And if you think about it, you may see that this averaging is exactly what sticks you in your "limbo".

"You cannot nor SHOULD you expect "personalized political problem-solving" here or in any other country..."

Nor do I. They're MY problems, and _I_ can solve them ON MY FREAKIN' OWN. There is exactly one person qualified to run my life, and he don't live in DC.

"The only ICBM threat to us anymore is CHINA"

Russia holds a sizable portion of their nuclear arsenal. NK is developing this technology. There are the rogue missiles that no one could account for after the breakup of the USSR, and God only knows where they'll end up. And whether China would use them or not (debatable), they have no problem with selling the tech to other countries. Which would explain why they and Bill get along so well. Any country with the cash can get the technology to hit us where we live (literally). Thus missile defence.

Consider this argument shredded.

Jeff:

"...he *is* just a kid..."

This may be, but the scarry part is that I'm better informed than most adults.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw