ra wrote:
What he is implicitly saying is the DOES mind a growing government. If income grows faster than government spending, then government spending is shrinking as a % of GNP.
What he *directly* is saying is he does mind about how fast or much a government should grow.
And by saying so, he also says that he hasn't got a problem with the government growing, as long as it is at an acceptable rate. Which is contrary to his pre election statements where he preached *smaller* government.
Tax rates are a very relevant way to measure government intrusiveness.
The tax rate or intrusiveness in Denmark isn't relevant to the situation in the US. I could post from Sierra Leone or Iraq. The issue at hand is erosion in the US. Saying that things are much worse in place B and thereby justifying things getting worse in A is a fallacious argument.
We're discussing A, not B. Hence red herring. It's not relevant and it's an attempt to deflect the discussion onto a different issue than the one being discussed.
Having said that, I can pay 99% in taxes and still not be monitored by the government. I can pay 1% and be constantly monitored. I'm not only talking intrusiveness; I'm more specifically talking surveillance of citizens. Intrusiveness is such a broad term that it'd have to be narrowed down to be discussed. And we're not discussing that.
Wotan wrote:
Wrong, folks were turned for being communists by others. They were investigated, part of that investigation may or may not have been examining the literature of the suspected individual. Private citizens may have turned some in for reading a particular book, but the FBI didnt sit in the libraries taking notes on who checked out what. That wont do that now. They know it would be a waste of time.
K, I was misinformed. Thanks for the correction.
So where is the "slippery slope"?
More and more surveillance possible - with supporting judges it could turn ugly.
