In article , (Nate Perkins) wrote:

Everyone will agree that the rich pay a lot more taxes than do the
poor.

So stipulated.

Therefore, a tax cut for the rich has a greater impact on the
overall deficit than does a tax cut for the middle class and poor.

If you assume that economics is a zero-sum game, yes. But that assumption is
incorrect.

Now the subjective part comes in when you suggest that everyone could
have lower taxes if we just cut government so that the "evil 'gubmint
doesn't get any more of my money."

Should be obvious that government would be smaller, cheaper, and less
intrusive, if it restricted itself to performing the functions authorized it
by the Constitution.

Most people agree that a leaner,
more efficient government would be a good thing. The main problem is
that the same leader that the conservatives look to (Bush) has just
expanded entitlements more than any president in the last 40 years.

Not to mention signing the blatantly unConstitutional McCain-Feingold bill.
I hear you.

As a moderate, this makes me think he's just irresponsible and lacks
credibility. So if you talk about smaller government and "getting
government off the people's backs" at the same time you are growing it
by leaps and bounds, do you really have credibility? Is Bush your
true conservative?

Certainly not. Nor do I believe that he is the best possible man for the job.
I *do* believe, however, that he is a considerably better choice than the
available alternatives, either now or four years ago. The voters tend to favor
those candidates who promise them the most (whether that be security,
prosperity, freedom, tax cuts, handouts, or whatever), and often ignore those
who speak realistically.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.