The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Decreased spending vs increased taxes...the oldest argument

(See in situ)

Decreased spending vs increased taxes...the oldest argument

This argument is being repackaged as something new, but it's one of the oldest arguments of all.

However, calling it 'Fiscal Cliff' is just to sensationalize the argument.

But let's be honest, the government hasn't tried to cut spending since Carter tried in his administration. When he tried this, BOTH parties set out to destroy him...that's how committed both parties are to increasing spending.

So if the numbers are as they say they are, they'll have to increase taxes and/or borrow more.

But why do we believe the numbers are as they say they are? After all the lies we've seen, they just can't be trusted to tell us the truth...especially about something like this. In any accounting class, one of the first things they'll tell you is that there are two sets of numbers: a fake one for those outside management, and a real one for management. The fake one is used primarily to control perception. Want people to buy your stock, make the numbers look good. Want to bust a union, make the numbers look like bankruptcy is on the horizon.

The government does this too inconjuction with companies. Over the decades, they made it seem like the banks, automakers, etc. were going to "fail"...then swooped in and "bailed" them out. What the government was really doing was getting into partnerships with select companies...driving out their competition in exchange for paying back a loan (with interest) that they didn't really need (like paying a mafia for protection).

The economy may not actually be that bad.

But why believe the "news". We KNOW the pundits are part of a media union that purposely lies to people, primarily painting grim pictures of everything. We KNOW the two party system is an why believe the illusion's explanation about the economy?

The boy has not just cried wolf, it has named the wolf Osama Bin Laden, claimed the wolf was killed by friends, conveniently claimed the friends were killed by an accident, and eaten half the sheep.

The boy, draped in a sheepskin suit, now walks up to you and claims to have seen another wolf. WHY THE HELL BELIEVE HIM?