From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: 2%: We're undertaxed/Poll
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 39

kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:

>In article <1993Apr16.190829.17141@cunews.carleton.ca> akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous) writes:
>>In article <VEAL.729.734979393@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>       No, what you said was that we had spent money on "guns" rather than
>>>"people," as Canada does.  Which is ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>Once again I have over estimated the general level of intellegence of
>>the average reader of rush-limbaugh.  Canada PER CAPITA spend more
>>money on people where the US spend more money PER CAPITA on guns.

>What exactly do you mean when you say the U.S. spends more per capita on
>guns than Canada does?  Are you talking about the U.S. government or are you
>talking about the purchase of guns by private citizens or both?  If you are
>referring to private citizens then your point is irrevelant because what
>individuals do with their money is essentially *their* business.

>If, on the other hand, you meant that the U.S government spends more per
>capita on guns than Canada does then your point *is* relevant.  So, if this
>is true then the U.S. needs to get its priorities straight.  People are more
>important than guns.  That is not to say that guns aren't important.  I'm
>just saying that if the U.S government *does* spend more per capita on guns
>than they do on people then something is awry.


    He meant the US spends more per capita on guns than Canada which isn't
really surprising because we were so busy protecting the western world from
the USSR that all other countries could slack off on their defense spending.

    I would like to see if the US spends more per capita on people than 
Canada does.  This is a true apples - apples comparison where the previous
post was apples - oranges.




