Comments on: Iowa http://www.roguelazer.com/politics/2008/01/iowa/ Musings on computers, tech, politics, music, and more Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:00:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Diana http://www.roguelazer.com/politics/2008/01/iowa/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Diana Mon, 28 Jan 2008 04:52:00 +0000 http://www.roguelazer.com/uncategorized/2008/01/iowa/#comment-2 Yay! I can comment without signing up. That's what stopped me before.<br/>Now, if you want to, tell me how Barack Obama is the best person for the job?<br/>Does Huckabee really want to remove of taxes entirely? I thought the point was to lower taxes in order to limit the control of the federal government and put it into the states' hands? Why is this scenario bad? Mind you, I say limit, not abolish. Boo Civil War.<br/>I know the mess of that a State without taxes runs into. But wouldn't a country be able to run with less federal aid and less federal taxes? Lessening the income of the gov. just means they should also lessen their spending.<br/>Everyone agrees with that bit of math but then its bickering about what’s an important expense that draws political lines. <br/>I know if one thinks the war is useless then it’s clearly an unnecessary expense. But what if the war (or at least "winning") is important. Then it becomes something to spend money on instead of something else.<br/>What should we spend our money on? What should the fed government? Are they the same items?<br/><br/>(Personally I'm not a fan of Huckabee either. Just trying to put ideas out) Yay! I can comment without signing up. That’s what stopped me before.
Now, if you want to, tell me how Barack Obama is the best person for the job?
Does Huckabee really want to remove of taxes entirely? I thought the point was to lower taxes in order to limit the control of the federal government and put it into the states’ hands? Why is this scenario bad? Mind you, I say limit, not abolish. Boo Civil War.
I know the mess of that a State without taxes runs into. But wouldn’t a country be able to run with less federal aid and less federal taxes? Lessening the income of the gov. just means they should also lessen their spending.
Everyone agrees with that bit of math but then its bickering about what’s an important expense that draws political lines.
I know if one thinks the war is useless then it’s clearly an unnecessary expense. But what if the war (or at least “winning”) is important. Then it becomes something to spend money on instead of something else.
What should we spend our money on? What should the fed government? Are they the same items?

(Personally I’m not a fan of Huckabee either. Just trying to put ideas out)

]]>