Spending Other's Money ...
Well ... I'm not sure where to begin. You are off on a number of points. But let's begin with the big issue. From time to time, while we were together at Wheaton, you and your fellow "conservatives" in French House would argue with me that we ought not have a graduated tax that climbs as the individuals income climbs. To be honest, I see both sides of the tax rate argument, but for the sake of this discussion, I can actually say that I agree with you. It's not necessarily "fair" to ask more of certain people because they have been successful at earning money. So we are in agreement. We all disagree that the rich ought to pay more; and we all do what we can to protect that which we make because we believe that we have the capacity to spend it in better ways than the government has demonstrated (at least in terms of charity, local education, etc...). So we agree on that.
My problem with your post is that you and the other French House's "conservatives" would also make arguments for how the government should spend the money that it does tax. And as I recall, you were all in agreement that one of the few ways that ought to be considered legitimate was spending on national defense. So ... you did not want the government to take your money, but you did want a say in determining how the money that was collected would be spent. And you exercised your relativley anonymous voice by voting in the ways that you did.
No difference with "Saint Bono"; he just has a louder voice. He wants to protect his income, but still wants a say in how taxed monies are spent. The difference here is that you disagree on the execution of priorities. You believe that national defence is key. So does he. He just happens to believe that the best defence is defusing the anger of one's enemies by extending ideas like fair trade, debt elimination, etc... Now, you may disagree on whether he is right or wrong, but you are both acting in the same fashion: protecting what is rightfully yours while still wanting a voice in how collected monies are spent.
As for his wanting to raise your taxes, you are off on that. He has never once publicly argued for raising the taxes of the American people (or any other people for that matter). He has asked nations to consider how they are allocating what they have taxed; and he is asking them to commit a certain portion to fighting poverty in Africa.
Finally, as for your apparent admiration for Angelina's willingness to stay out of public policy, you may want to check again. Both she and her "significant other" are actively involved in the ONE Campaign, which is a grassroots movement in America that is arguing for the exact same policy that Bono is advocating through his DATA organization.
But again, these are details. My point is that you can't condemn a man as a hypocrit who acts in the same fashion that you do unless you are ready to brand yourself in the same fashion.
Well ... I'm not sure where to begin. You are off on a number of points. But let's begin with the big issue. From time to time, while we were together at Wheaton, you and your fellow "conservatives" in French House would argue with me that we ought not have a graduated tax that climbs as the individuals income climbs. To be honest, I see both sides of the tax rate argument, but for the sake of this discussion, I can actually say that I agree with you. It's not necessarily "fair" to ask more of certain people because they have been successful at earning money. So we are in agreement. We all disagree that the rich ought to pay more; and we all do what we can to protect that which we make because we believe that we have the capacity to spend it in better ways than the government has demonstrated (at least in terms of charity, local education, etc...). So we agree on that.
My problem with your post is that you and the other French House's "conservatives" would also make arguments for how the government should spend the money that it does tax. And as I recall, you were all in agreement that one of the few ways that ought to be considered legitimate was spending on national defense. So ... you did not want the government to take your money, but you did want a say in determining how the money that was collected would be spent. And you exercised your relativley anonymous voice by voting in the ways that you did.
No difference with "Saint Bono"; he just has a louder voice. He wants to protect his income, but still wants a say in how taxed monies are spent. The difference here is that you disagree on the execution of priorities. You believe that national defence is key. So does he. He just happens to believe that the best defence is defusing the anger of one's enemies by extending ideas like fair trade, debt elimination, etc... Now, you may disagree on whether he is right or wrong, but you are both acting in the same fashion: protecting what is rightfully yours while still wanting a voice in how collected monies are spent.
As for his wanting to raise your taxes, you are off on that. He has never once publicly argued for raising the taxes of the American people (or any other people for that matter). He has asked nations to consider how they are allocating what they have taxed; and he is asking them to commit a certain portion to fighting poverty in Africa.
Finally, as for your apparent admiration for Angelina's willingness to stay out of public policy, you may want to check again. Both she and her "significant other" are actively involved in the ONE Campaign, which is a grassroots movement in America that is arguing for the exact same policy that Bono is advocating through his DATA organization.
But again, these are details. My point is that you can't condemn a man as a hypocrit who acts in the same fashion that you do unless you are ready to brand yourself in the same fashion.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home