In response to:

Tax Hikes Are Economically Destructive, Politically Poisonous, and Completely Ineffective at Reducing Red Ink

Arley2 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 1:33 PM
It boggles my mind that our Duly Elected Inside the Beltway Dolts refuse to deal with the nation's finances in the same way they and the rest of us deal with our own. When spending is 200% of revenue year after year...................well any family would take measures to reduce spending..............but Congress refuses to do that. So, we have to keep firing these twits and hiring others until we get people WHO ARE WILLING AND ABLE to be responsible.
anne433 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 10:19 PM
anybody who equates a national economy with a family's budget is a moron.
Anonymous908 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 5:16 PM
Why would DC cut spending when their best friend hiding in secrecy the Federal Reserve will just print the money for them when they run out?

No matter who is in office, if we don't address the problem of the Federal Reserve we will continue to have deficit spending and high inflation. And high inflation is the worst enemy of those who try and save money. Our financial system discourages savings and incourages us to take up more debt. Its no wonder our economy is in such poor shape.
Kibitzer Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 2:05 PM
Unfortunately, too many people are willing to buy the entitlement enticement into economic slavery that the Liberal/progressive/democrats pedal to buy votes. The debt financing scheme that the congress is using to run up the debt will ultimately result in a debt bubble that will burst with catastrophic consequences unless the deficit is eliminated and the debt put on a downward trend. Just "balancing' the "budget" isn't enough!
Kibitzer Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 2:09 PM
The longer we wait before we take the necessary "medicine" the harder it will be to take, and the longer it will take to recover from the "illness".
Anonymous908 Wrote: Jul 05, 2012 5:18 PM
YES. This is true. And the ONLY one I see running for pres that truely understands this is Ron Paul. . . . and maybe Gary Johnson (but those 3rd party guys never get the same mainstream attention as the 2 main parties do).

Back in April, I explained that I would accept a tax increase if “the net long-run effect is more freedom, liberty, and prosperity.”

I even outlined several specific scenarios where that might occur, including giving the politicians more money in exchange for a flat tax or giving them additional revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

But I then pointed out that all of those options are unrealistic. And I’ve expanded on that thesis in a new article. Here’s some of what