BrianKagy: No. Such an amount is only going to make a difference if it's applied across the board. One such donation is irrelevant... several million... well, that's going to have an effect. A democrat believes that societal infrastructure should be improved through greater contributions at large. Individual commitments are not as relevant. The logic is simple: a liberal realizes that if we all contribute more, more improvement can be realized. But short of it being applied broadscale, it causes him to sacrifice without societal gain. I know I'm phrasing this awkwardly. Don't know what's wrong with me this morning. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st. [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 26, 2001).]
Actually, no. Not limiting spending to the growth of the federal receipts causes deficits. Tax cuts themselves do not as economic growth spurred by tax cuts will usually offset the cost. This is what happened in the '80s, the government chose to spend faster than the receipts were growing, though (I'm not a Keynesian, by the way). But even if his motives are wrong, the answer is correct. Just because he supports something for the wrong reasons doesn't make it the wrong answer. If this policy would normally be the right answer, why oppose it because the President is supporting it for (what you would deem) the wrong reasons? I wouldn't take that bet because you're probably right. The thing is, though, that Bush isn't a Keynesian, so we shouldn't expect him to support Keynesian economic policies. But when his policies happen to coincide with what many Democrats have led us to believe they support, it seems odd that they would now oppose him and the Keynesian economic policy they once espoused. We're criticizing Bush for making the right decision despite doing so for the wrong reasons, yet we're not supposed to criticize the Democrats for doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason? ------------------
shanna: how do you know what anybody did with their money? or how much they've already given to charity? Based on your original post, I know they didn't give that money to education. In the best case, they might later. In the worst case, they won't. Regardless, that is worse than it definitely going to education (or another useful service). This little activity was a prank not a litmus test, but it demonstrates something that Republicans think is underlying the argument. It demonstrates that people won't give unless required, which is exactly the point the Democrats make. Anyone who really thinks the government is that bad off could return the money to the system in some way. No one has take this very high profile opportunity to do that. Don't you find that curous? Not at all -- that's exactly what you would expect. That's why we have taxes and don't rely on donations to fund our government. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
