The party of no

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hmmmm...

hmmmmmmm......

Tax pledges, debt caps etc... all seem to take options off the table.

Where is it written that there should be options that you can't pay for on the table?

Certainly the Dems have their entitlements to protect, but I'd note that even my Republican voting father believes his Medicare is his and not a government handout.

How do you protect an entitlement by making it so expensive that you can't afford it? And what constitution says you are entitled? And how do you own such an entitlement? Can your father do what he wants with the Medicare he thinks he owns? Can he sell it or trade it for another model? Does he own it, or does it own him?

By what...a default? It's not possible to cut spending as fast as the Tea Party seems to want. The result of a default will likely mean higher interest rates and another recession resulting in...lower tax revenues and more deficit.

That logic is counter productive.

-spence

A default does not have to happen if some Republican rather than some Democrat, or some Tea Party "plan" is passed. The Government takes in enough money now to carry on at a slower pace with cuts being made along the way. Not promised cuts in some indefinite future, but small, sure ones that grow in time as lower tax revenues require--if revenues do indeed decline. Smaller government should require lower revenues. Why do we constantly worry about needing larger and larger government revenues unless we want larger and larger government? And if the larger revenues are siphoned, sucked, from the private sector, does not that sector shrink? Why should we favor larger government and smaller citizens?
Why are we so much more concerned with government deficits than private deficits?