So
we started with coug talking about spending priorities- he was saying, essentially, that he wanted money spent on bombs and not books.
You said, essentially, he was engaging in hyperbole.
I said he wasn't, and that we make value judgments about what we spend our money on.
You posted something to the effect that federal spending wasn't the issue.
I posted that it WAS part of the issue and posted an article to you about how federal policy makers are trying to choke off the states.
You then posted an article which essentially said the same things as my article, but of course was written from the perspective that choking off the states is good- so that they will "reduce spending and live within their tax budgets"
So, it would seem that Coug was right after all, and you simply don't want the states spending money, but don't mind military expenditures, since you say nothing about military expenditures, and the billions flowing from US taxpayers to Iraq. How do you feel about the federal government spending billions in Iraq? Do you think they should reduce spending ? Do you think that perhaps spending billions on a war that turns out to be based on the false twin premises of an Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda and the presence of WMDs that might endanger Americans, is just a tad irresponsible? I've seen local governments spend money- and compared to the Iraqi adventure their expenditures are models of restraint and sensibility. IMO, of course. Those with different goals for society, and completely different underlying values, will inevitably disagree on how money should be spent, and on whom. |
