Quote:
Originally Posted by doucanoe
I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.
|
I was under the impression that the term "Teabagger" was adopted by the movement itself. Perhaps it has fallen out of favor since its alternative meaning has come to their attention. We "Libs", being the degenerates we are, knew the other meaning. We had a big laugh over the choice of names.
It seems your priority is more tax breaks for business. Is that true? Do you not think that middle class families and individuals - you know, Teabaggers - are more deserving?
Now, since spending cuts are a given in your plan, where would you cut and why? Since Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid account for about 75% of all spending you'd really have to cut there, right?
Maybe not. Maybe you'd just basically wipe out the 25% that isn't mentioned above.
Or maybe you'd just do away with all new "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"? In future when key industries are about to implode we just let them? I suppose that would be okay. There are plenty of foreign corporations to fill the void.
Also, as we simultaneously cut spending and taxes, do we cut tax revenue more than, less than or the same as spending? Do we cut revenue more than we cut spending, thereby increasing the amount we must borrow from the Middle East and China? Do we reduce revenue less than we cut spending and borrow less or do we cut revenue and spending equally and continue borrowing at the same rate?
John