From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: I want Line-Item Tax Allocations for me (Was: Run conservatives, run..)
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:04:09 GMT

In article <12210@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>In article <5176@gold.gvg.tek.com>, mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. Anderson) writes:
>> In article <12158@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep3.100740@wsl.dec.com>, gnn@wsl.dec.com (George Neville-Neil) writes:
># ## |# You engage in ad hominem attacks, rather than answer the question.
># ## |# Mike has repeatedly taken the liberal position: support for the
># ## |# continued operation of the National Endowment for the Arts, more
># ## |# government spending on education, opposition to private schools,
># ## |# etc.
># 
># And you continue to distort my position. Here it is:
># 
># 	1) I think the NEA contributes to what makes our culture
># 	   civilized. However, I recognize that people like Clayton
># 	   would rather not have their tax dollars go to this 
># 	   organization. Fine. How about we have a line-item
># 	   tax allocation system? You fund your christian schools,
># 	   I'll fund the NEA. Do you have a problem with this?
>
>Not at all.  But you aren't funding Christian schools right now
>through your taxes, but I'm forced to fund your pet charity -- NEA.
>And yes, if you support line-item tax allocation, you have changed
>your tune.

Jeeeez! I'm amazed...this time I agree with Clayton! Tell you
what Clayton...keep the emotional tone down in your posts and
I'll do the same! I agree in that I DO NOT wanat to pay taxes
for something I do not believe in nor support in anyway.

As I would not fund a Fundumentalist Christian private school,
neither do I wish to fund NEA.
>
># 	2) Gov't spending on education has gone up in constant
># 	   dollars over the past couple of decades and yet, the
># 	   results are less than heartening. I don't believe that
># 	   more money is the answer, I think the distribution process
># 	   needs to change. I also believe the bureaucracy needs to 
># 	   be dismantled. However, I do not believe vouchers are the
># 	   way to do this.
>
>I agree that they aren't the best way, and I would prefer to
>simply have the option of sending my children to whatever school
>I want, without having to pay taxes to support schools they aren't
>using.  A tax credit would be fine with me also.  A transferable
>one would be best of all, because it would allow poor kids a
>chance to attend decent schools, with corporations paying for
>the tuition.

This sounds good but you're going over my head as I haven't
studied this issue.....but I will and attempt to get back on it.
>
># 	3) I don't oppose private schools. I just don't believe under
># 	   the present system that the gov't should be funding
># 	   religious education. However, I'm willing to compromise.
># 	   You give me a voucher to fund the NEA and I'll let you
># 	   have a voucher to fund your christian school. (Yeah, my
># 	   taxes already fund the NEA, but the percentage of the total
># 	   taxes I pay is a joke. Your voucher will be a much higher
># 	   ratio of your total; that's the ratio I want.)	
>
>All the rest of the crap that liberals fund far exceeds the
>programs I wish to see funded.  Line-item tax allocation would
>be a big win.

Well the labels liberal and conservative have no meaning
anymore. The Republicans (conservavtives) have been in power for
12 years and NEA is funded, more conventional armament is
funded, money to pork barrel contracts is funded, money to
foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia is senet and not payed
back, money is sent to Isreal and then Isreal vorrows more money
to pay back the last loan's interest without touching the
principal, 285 billion dollars were funded to the pentagon but
only 10 million dollars were funded to the Nationa Institute for
Disease Prevention....and I don't like it.
funded
># ## It is interesting that if the NEA were abolished we would be the only
># ## "first world country" where the federal gov't did not fund art.
># #
># #Big deal.  We are also one of the few first world countries without
># #an established religion.
># 
># Non-sequitur.
>
>Not at all.  The turkey pointed out that all other "first world"
>countries fund arts; I pointed out that nearly all other "first
>world" countries fund religion, or give it a preferred status.
>His argument is bogus; just because other countries are screwed
>up is no reason for us to join them.

That's nice...and look at the art they fund versus some of the
"art" we fund....sort of falls into a subjective catagory...but
regardless in a world were fianance is not only critical but als
difficult to obtain, I regard the arts as a perk which does not
contribute to my survival. Yes I liek Monet, Picasso, Rembrant,
contemporary photography and sculpture as well as the classics
in music...BUT....can t be afforde when thousands are suffering
from starvation in our own country? I say no.

># ## Of course we could take the money from the NEA to fund Bread and
># ## Circuses if you like.  Although we probably don't need that as we
># ## have CBS/NBC/ABC/TNT/USA and the rest of the mind pap out there.
># 
># #If you want NEA, YOU fund it.
># 
># With MY tax dollars...
># 
># 								MPA
>
>Do it out of your pocket, and take a charitable contribution if
>you wish.
>
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
>Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
>prohibition won't work.

Len 

DISCLAIMER: My opinions not my employer's

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,misc.headlines