Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saving Orchestras


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by yo z-boy on May 05, 2003 at 01:51:51:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Saving Orchestras posted by Frank Z. Mustafa on May 04, 2003 at 23:16:11:

No contradiction at all z-boy. State and local governments DO charge "taxes"....but the point was this: the state and local governments are better than the feds for administering local needs, with local money. Not very fair for your great aunt bessie on her fixed income to be paying for school lunches in PS 247 in Newark New Jersey, is it?The complaint is about cutting federal funding of something done in your and my backyard, while that might be a great way to get our bills paid, it is expensive (i.e. inefficient) to have bureaucrats in an office Washington administer the funds, to hand off to bureaucrats in an office in your state government to hand off to bureaucrats in an office of your county board of education to hand off to an office in the school district to hand off to bessie and viola in the cafeteria. Doesn't it make sense to cut one or more layers of people handling the money? And if there's a need in your and my backyard, why are we whining when someone thousands of miles away won't cover it??

As to the rest of your comments, pfft! Buffy?! Just because YOU boys think she's hot (maybe it's Maybelline) doesn't mean we fat middle-aged old farts would look twice at her. And do not disparage Rhodes Scholars. Wasn't it YOU who said you couldn't get into SMU? heh



Follow Ups: