Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party

Yes, your analogy differs, because we’re talking about two different things.

I’m talking about reducing the size, scope and power of the state.

You’re talking about accommodations to make living under the state as it is easier.

There’s not necessarily anything wrong with the latter goal, but it shouldn’t be confused with the former goal. They’re two different goals.

What I’ve asked for from you is some argument or evidence for the proposition that achieving the latter goal is a “stepping stone” toward achieving the former goal, which seems to be your position.

If you are Dem or GOP what the $&@%#$ are you doing here ??????????

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20091221/202/3133

from Doug Muzzio, professor at Baruch College

“David Paterson resigns; Richard Ravitch becomes governor. Ravitch appoints Eliot Spitzer lieutenant governor. Ravitch resigns; Spitzer becomes governor. Spitzer names Paterson lieutenant governor. ”

LOL!

You write:

“I’d rather people keep their money vs. the government getting it, even with strings attached.”

But tax credits don’t do that, at least on, to use a word you and Brian are devoted to, “net.” Unless a tax credit has a matching spending cut, then it’s not that “people keep their money,” it’s that some people (Group A, who are doing whatever it is you think they should be doing with their money keep more of their money “in return” for some other people (Group B, who are doing what they damn well please with their money instead of what you’d like them to do with it) keeping less of their money.

“2) Alternative institutions need to spring up to phase the State out of a range of functions, such as retirement, health care, and education.”

The key phrase here is “phase out.” An “alternative institution” which keeps the state in charge of things but just plays some of your favorite favorites isn’t “phasing out” anything, or even moving in that direction. It’s just rearranging the stuff on the state’s table without taking anything off the state’s table.

To put it a different way, it’s like sitting in the parking lot with the engine running, revving the accelerator every once in awhile but keeping it in park, and explaining that you’re doing that because you want to do something that gets you closer to Detroit.

You’re never going to get a damn inch closer to Detroit until you start driving toward Detroit, even if you put a tennis ball on top of your antenna and buy some of those fake sheepskin seat covers for your seats and crank the stereo up REAL LOUD.

LOL, no. Petitioning, as usual.

Why?

Why not? If you have nothing to contribute – and it is apparent that you don’t – it would be good if you didn’t say anything at all; or, since you keep insisting that this site is low quality and so forth, just leave entirely and don’t come back. Why do you keep coming back here? Something must be drawing your attention. Don’t you have anything better to do?

and fuck Paulie.

You don’t have what it takes, boy.

What was it you said on another thread? Oh yeah…

http://www.nolanchart.com/author638.html

If you want to critique or criticize any of my observations, do so here.

Well, here you are back here again, after you pouted and took your toys home.

Why? Did nobody follow you there? LOL.

And yet you are still here again, doing nothing but whining, and you still have nothing to offer.

Just keep in mind that you are the one commenting on my posts – not vice versa. That should tell you everything you need to know.

You make it too easy, Spence. Makes me feel like I’m whipping a retarded, malnourished child who has narcolepsy. Oh, the guilt!

I love bottoms up!! MMmmmm…lol

I may be working in Vegas pretty soon, we can maybe do something like that.

1) I’d rather people keep their money vs. the government getting it, even with strings attached.

2) Alternative institutions need to spring up to phase the State out of a range of functions, such as retirement, health care, and education.

Maybe so — but if so, I don’t sacrifice actually reducing the size, scope and power of government to my social engineering desires.

For example, my “bottom up tax cuts” proposal cuts everyone’s taxes and, at whatever point those cuts put us on the left side of the Laffer Curve, government revenues.

Is there a “social engineering side” to that? I don’t know. My hypothesis is that if taxes are cut from the bottom up and welfare from the top down, there’ll be less of a class warfare argument to be made against cutting taxes and welfare. That’s a “doability” argument, not intended to address the desirability of the approach from a social standpoint.

Recombobulating how and from whom taxes are collected in order to encourage (for example) retirement savings, the purchase of health insurance, or home construction, on the other hand, are “social engineering” policies that don’t cut the size, scope or power of government at all.

I’ve asked over and over again for anyone to explain how “target tax credits move the flow toward liberty,” and I don’t recall anyone taking a shot at it yet.

So, I’ll try again: Please explain how “the government will take $X from you unless you spend $Y on something the government wants you to spend it on (almost certainly at the rent-seeking behest of the provider of that thing), in which case the government will take $X – $Y from you and $X + $Y from someone else” “moves the flow toward liberty.”