[ale] Corporate taxes...

[F. Grant Robertson]

The welfare of our future generations is entirely dependant upon the
debt load we leave them, and the preservation of our constitution. 

And as for your argument on buying luxury cars.. I happen to own a BMW,
so, good choice.  I'm all for federal funding of education, I think it's
possibly the only thing our founding fathers overlooked, and had they
actually ventured into the issue, I think it's apparent that their
solution would have been very different than our current one. This is
precisely why I support the dissolution of the department of education,
and the institution of school choice through educational credits and
vouchers.  Only through the reinstitution of competition in our
educational system will we ever be able to compete and win on a global
scale. As it stands, the legislative branch of government are in
ultimate control of what we are taught. I think you should be able to
realize that absolute power corrupts absolutely and, to that end our
government is doing an inadequate job of eduacating our population. You
yourself said you do not have the grasp of economic science needed to
debate my points, and this is a perfect example. civics, economics, and
history are all being removed from the education of our children, who
are also our next crop of voters. Without a proper understadning of the
forces they control how are they ever to be expected to make the proper
choices as an electorate and therfore provide the guidance for our
continued success?  

-Grant

P.s., Sorry, I thought I was done but, government education is a major
hotbutton of mine..  for obvious reasons explained above.

P.p.s I really will shut up now :)


On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:51, Joseph A Knapka wrote:
> Jonathan Glass wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:36, Kilroy, Chris wrote:
> > 
> >>->More money in federal income
> >>->directly translates to less free capital in the open economy.
> >>
> >>not necessarily.  the only time i was ever in a business class in my life (1991), the government was  
> >>actually contributing roughly 33% of the GDP through employment,
> > 
> > grants, etc.  depending on the way in which revenue is shifted and
> > spending adjusted in federal budgets, does not ensure that more net GDP
> > flows into the economy.  for instance if taxes are lowered and as such
> > less federal jobs exist, that doesnt necessarily result in an
> > improvement to the economy.  
> > 
> > 
> > BUT, the Gov't gets its money from the income earners, and spends it
> > less efficiently than that income earner would.
> 
> What does that mean, exactly? Is it "more efficient" for me to buy
> a BMW, or for that $40K to be spent on improving the quality of
> education at a public school? I think it depends on your
> time horizon. Most individuals will use their money for their
> personal comfort and gain, and damn the long-term consequences.
> Ideally, the government would make investments with a longer
> horizon, though I admit we're far from that ideal at present -
> and after all, the government is made up of individuals, but
> that's why we have rules and institutions that govern matters
> at a level higher than that of the individual.
> 
> And this argument is not entirely about economics. It may be
> that Mr Robertson is 100% correct on the economic issues -
> I don't know enough about economics yet to say. But there
> are a great many intangibles, such as general quality of
> life, the welfare of our grandchildren and their descendants,
> etc, that must be considered in order to make *wise*
> decisions.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Joe
> 
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> 
> 
> 




---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.