nobel prize winner milton friedman is on my side as well, and believes tax cuts are far more important than worrying about the deficit. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002933
:dis: I've explained the fallacy of this argument before. When you borrow to buy a house, you have the asset of the house as a balance against the debt. You can always sell the house and get out from under the debt. But when you borrow money to pay off interest payments on your debt, you gain no asset. It is wasted income and still leaves you in debt.
Or spending cut. It doesn't matter which, but a proper balance must be made. The government should largely be spend-as-we-go. There is no reason for a rich country like the US to be wasting half a trillion dollar on interest payments every year. That's about $3,050 per taxpayer that could be cut without without elimating a single program or reducing any benefits.
The problems are directly related, don't you see? Responsibly, we can either reduce our spending to match our income or we can increase our income to match our spending. Either is acceptable. But to reduce income while increasing spending is inherently irresponsible.
well, at least we can all agree on one thing. runaway spending is terrible. i think the primary reason it is terrible is that it freaks niggaz out and they want to raise taxes. i guess we dont agree exactly on that point. bush and congress spend way, way too much, and not on the right things. i am not going to blame that entirely on bush, and i am also perfectly happy to go wildly into debt for military and security spending.
Hell, Vice president hillary clinton did that in the white house while they were in office and no one on the left cared and everyone knew it!
BS. Ken Star, an independent prosecutor, spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to prove your allegations and came up with nothing. What everyone (right and left) knew was that a political witch hunt was going on.
