...but I'll say it again. It's great to promise low taxes, but wouldn't a balanced budget be more important at this point? The "starve the beast" mentality has been tried since the Reagan days, as we've tried to maintain relatively conservative tax rates and maintain an ever more progressive government. So what do we get? Deficits. If Republicans insist that is better to have lower taxes, even with deficits as a consequence, then the true cost of government is hid from the people. Many here will say, "let's cut spending and have much less government" but the American people aren't on board with that for the most part. The greatest way to show exactly how bad our spending is would be, in my mind, to let tax rates rise to meet expenditures. Then you have a whole new generation of people interested in smaller, cheaper government. But if we make the compromise of a big government as long as we get the same old tax rates, then the problem has been shifted to future generations. Not only that, we'll be neutering a potential base of support. Who would ever pay more to get less unless they understood the real nature of our spending mess? And how they can ever understand that mess if they never pay for it up front?
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. T