The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people.
Heh, glad to hear you at least admit the mantra is a bunch of nonsense and is all about protecting the wealthy from paying taxes.
The wealthy aren't the only people who pay taxes. We are *all* affected by the tax burden. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll make more rational decisions about government tax policy.
First you admit that Republicans don't actually want to balance the budget, they just want to pay less in taxes.
We want everyone to pay less in taxes. Why is that bad?
Now you're admitting that Republicans cut spending on those who need it most so that the rich can pay even less in taxes?
Again: We all pay taxes in one way or another. My belief is that higher taxes reduce economic prosperity, which means fewer jobs and more people in need in the first place. Are you employed? How much does your boss pay in taxes? Now engage your brain and think about how his tax rate might affect your (or the next guy looking for a jobs) fortunes.
I also happen to believe that government not only shouldn't be in the charity business (with our money no less!), but is very bad at it to boot. And, if only we didn't have to tax so much so we could spend so much on helping the hungry and the poor, there would be more money in the hands of private citizens to help out those who are truly in need and not just those scamming the system.
And that's before even getting to the more philosophical argument that taxation is a seizure of the fruits of one's labor and is thus an infringement of some of our most basic rights and thus should be done as sparingly as possible.
I thought it was the Democrats that were the amoral heathens and the Republicans were the party of Jesus. Seems like "that which you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me" is their own recurring theme that the Republicans consistently miss.
Jesus encouraged his followers to steal money from others? I thought he encouraged charity? You do understand that charity isn't charity unless the person with wealth chooses
to help others with it, right? So if we take this analogy to its logical conclusion, we could argue that by taking the wealth from people, you are taking away their ability to help the poor and thus turning them into bad people.
It's the act of giving of your own property that counts.
Ahhh, throw the poor into a pile to prop yourself that much higher up. Stay classy, Republicans.
No one ever becomes "not poor" under the alternative though. So the only ultimate result is an entire society of people who can't support themselves without government help. How does that make the world a better place? It might be brave and new, but absolutely not better.