Should the government cut taxes and reduce spending?
The government will always collect the same amount of taxes—as much as they can without inciting a revolution. Services from the government is the only variable in the equation. The real issue in American politics is domestic welfare (schools, etc) spending vs. purchasing arms. The guys who make the bombs pay to get their guys elected. Then they all live high on the hog. Occasionally some dreamer gets in and hires teachers for awhile, but then the rabble rousers start yelling about two guys marrying each other and there we are again.
I was trying to figure out why this ended up in the R & S section. Then it came to me. Any one that has “faith” in government doing anything right, must be religious. You can’t cut taxes to the poor, since none of us pay it. Almost 40% of us are in that category. You can take away aid, but then you have another whole mess that gets the governing into trouble because it is the minorities that are the predominate “poor” people and then it becomes an issue of “discrimination”. The phrase “Trapped between a rock and a hard place” faces these “wise” men and women who think they can find a solution.
I think they should reduce spending first, then only cut taxes once the massive bond debt we have accumulated is paid off. Doing so won’t be easy. I’d be quite happy if they reduced spending on the military (the largest item in the federal budget), but less happy if they reduced spending on education — having an uneducated and ignorant population isn’t going to produce new jobs or a vibrant economy. I’d also be a bit unhappy if they cut medicare benefits — I’ve worked 36 years, and paid money into medicare all that time. I would like to see some benefit from the tens of thousands of dollars I’ve paid into the system. Peace.
