Paul:
OT. Mostly.
Not over my head but I will admit the misinformation being bandied about is getting deeper and deeper.
No I don't mean to imply it is acceptable, under any circumstances, to use public money to subsidize a private enterprise. What I am saying is if it is going to happen, and it does all the time in most of the substantial development projects that are done, it should be done by decision makers at a local level not a federal level.
Did I imply the money was George's in the first place? I don't think so.
If he did request ( not demand) a public expenditure for money to build a local stadium, the same as Denver with Coors Field, same as Sacramento with Arco Arena, same as Cleveland with Jacobs Field, and in San Francisco the subsidy wasn't public money to build PacBell Park instead the subsidy was the city of SF provided the land, Bush, as ONE of the owners of the BB team did the same thing as many other communities had done. Nothing more.
Demanding money is what you do at a Buddhist Temple not in a public referendum for a development project.
You and I agree...I am against big government especially at the federal level and I believe the only way to limit big government is to limit the level of taxation.
Yes I am arguing against federal government subsidies in favor of local government subsidies. If subsidies are going to be in play at all. And yes I believe there is a HUGE difference.
More logical now? Makes perfect sense to me. I'm surprised, especially when I watch your quality analysis of Novell's market possibilities, that you have such a hard time understanding the value of limiting government.
Thanks Paul for finally shining some light on the actuality of a federal surplus. THERE ISN'T ONE. Unless of course you are willing, and the federal government certainly is willing, to usurp money intended for Social Security and divert it to the general government usage. Doesn't that strike you as dishonest to the people currently paying into the SS system?
Sorry about the "dumb term", lock box, I share your disdain and I couldn't believe Gore used it in the debates.
Arrogant I accept and I'm sorry. It's hard to be humble when you actually know the details. Pandering, not a chance.
Re the Reagan era, I am absolutely serious.
ps: did you have an opportunity to see the NY Times today?
Respectfully,
Don T. |
