Why the right wing is wrong on taxes

The "starve the beast strategy" employed by conservatives has been a failure if the goal was a smaller federal government.All the tax cuts over the last 30+ years have not slowed the growth of government.
Bush lowered taxes and gov. got bigger, ditto Reagan and Obama.
If you believe that what is subsidized grows and what is taxed shrinks, it makes sense that if the goal is a smaller federal government having it subsidized with deficits is counter intuitive. Why not insist that the growth of government be paid for in full. Raise taxes by 30%.
If people pay the real cost of programs maybe they wont want to pay for entitlements and being the world police.Then maybe smaller government could be a reality but as long as all that happens is tax cuts, the gravy train continues. Raise taxes and peg increases to the growth of the fed. gov.
If people want the programs and military the way it is now they should pay for it.
Don't give me a balanced budget amendment as a solution,it is a gimmick that will not work.

Makes sense to me.

jmc wrote: The "starve the beast strategy" employed by conservatives has been a failure if the goal was a smaller federal government.All the tax cuts over the last 30+ years have not slowed the growth of government.
Bush lowered taxes and gov. got bigger, ditto Reagan and Obama.
If you believe that what is subsidized grows and what is taxed shrinks, it makes sense that if the goal is a smaller federal government having it subsidized with deficits is counter intuitive. Why not insist that the growth of government be paid for in full. Raise taxes by 30%.
If people pay the real cost of programs maybe they wont want to pay for entitlements and being the world police.Then maybe smaller government could be a reality but as long as all that happens is tax cuts, the gravy train continues. Raise taxes and peg increases to the growth of the fed. gov.
If people want the programs and military the way it is now they should pay for it.
Don't give me a balanced budget amendment as a solution,it is a gimmick that will not work.

How about some links/proof/articles to back your opinions?

Opinions don't require proof. It's my frickin opinion. Do you need proof that lowering taxes have not made government smaller? DUH!

jmc wrote: Opinions don't require proof. It's my frickin opinion. Do you need proof that lowering taxes have not made government smaller? DUH!

Ha... and of course you would rather it be bigger and bigger? Cradle to grave hand holding. Entitlement paradise at the expense of people who actually work hard for their money. Bull crap. I guess opinions don't require any truth either?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

jmc wrote: Opinions don't require proof. It's my frickin opinion. Do you need proof that lowering taxes have not made government smaller? DUH!

Ha... and of course you would rather it be bigger and bigger? Cradle to grave hand holding. Entitlement paradise at the expense of people who actually work hard for their money. Bull crap. I guess opinions don't require any truth either?

As usual you miss the obvious, You are currently subsidizing a growing gov. hence you get more. If people paid the real cost of the government they want maybe they would want a smaller government. Lowering taxes while growing government is just a subsidy. Whew! you really are dense. I'm giving a better strategy for a smaller government since yours has failed so miserably.

jmc wrote: As usual you miss the obvious, You are currently subsidizing a growing gov. hence you get more. If people paid the real cost of the government they want maybe they would want a smaller government. Lowering taxes while growing government is just a subsidy. Whew! you really are dense. I'm giving a better strategy for a smaller government since yours has failed so miserably.

You noticed it too?

The real problem is that our government, and in truth every major government that I can think of throughout the history of time, has never voted itself less power.

Until we get enough people in Congress and the Senate that believe in the good of The People over the good of The Government, we'll keep seeing the same. Shrinking revenue just means more loans, and more clamoring that some wealthy individuals aren't paying their fair share. The truth of the matter, though, lies at the heart of why we're spending so much as you pointed out. The government really does need to decrease in size, eventually you run out of credit, and you can't draw blood from the stone (the People) anymore.

RCCL wrote: The real problem is that our government, and in truth every major government that I can think of throughout the history of time, has never voted itself less power.

Until we get enough people in Congress and the Senate that believe in the good of The People over the good of The Government, we'll keep seeing the same. Shrinking revenue just means more loans, and more clamoring that some wealthy individuals aren't paying their fair share. The truth of the matter, though, lies at the heart of why we're spending so much as you pointed out. The government really does need to decrease in size, eventually you run out of credit, and you can't draw blood from the stone (the People) anymore.

Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now.

Our founding ancestors would have been shooting by now." Quote"

What proof,links or articles do you have to support that opinion? LOL