Quote:
Originally Posted by Alawen
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
ITT: A couple of subsidized red staters hate a black guy in the White House so much that they're willing to pay higher taxes so a guy wearing magic underwear can cut taxes even further on the obscenely rich. Who need highways, education, or a fire department anyway?
|
Why did you pick those three examples? The federal government doesn't pay for fire departments, and only pays a small fraction of the total spent on highways and education. In fact, federal spending on education is a relatively recent development (1979), strangely coinciding with the begin of the decline of education in America.
You should have said "Who needs hundreds of military bases abroad in places such as Germany, social security, and medicare anyway?"
These are the things that would need to be cut to have any chance of balancing the budget.
Also, the tax rate doesn't really matter much. It's the spending that matters. If they increase spending while keeping taxes the same, the extra deficit must be financed either by borrowing or money printing. Both of these have a much more damaging impact to the lower classes than direct taxation. That said, I don't think Romney has mentioned a single dollar of spending he'd cut outside of PBS. It's a toss up as to who would spend more money. This is our "choice" for president.
We do actually have a guy on the ballot in all 50 states who offers a 42% reduction in government spending immediately, but he's kept from the debates because he'd expose this system for what it is: Two suits with the same opinions squabbling over their minor differences, while agreeing upon 95% of what is important. The last time they let a 3rd person into the debates (Perot), he did exactly that and nearly destroyed the 2 party system. They learned their lesson.