Published: Friday, March 22, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Should we raise taxes or cut government spending to reduce the federal debt, fix the economy and put people back to work?
The socialistic spending and taxing policies of the liberals work — as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said — “until governments run out of other people's money.” In fact, raising tax rates too much actually reduces government revenues because higher taxes slow the economy and cut the revenue the government takes in.
The data are very clear that free-enterprise economies of countries like the United States have consistently produced the world's highest standard of living for their citizens. Everyone — rich and poor, taxpayers and government dependents, Democrats and Republicans — all get bigger pieces of the growing economic pie. All have greater opportunities to work, grow and choose their future.
It's true both the free-enterprise approach of the conservatives and the socialistic approach of the current administration are vulnerable to waste and greed; the conservatives by corporations, the liberals by politicians and bureaucrats. Appropriate, effective laws and regulations are necessary to control this.
We need to quit thinking “Republican” or “Democrat.” We need to vote for and support policies that cut government spending and not raise taxes.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Chained’ sellout
- Thanks to our veterans
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Privatization disastrous
- Obits interesting
- Keating’s case flawed
- Not another prison
- Unconstitutional funding
- Leave ‘God’ out
- Still get paid?
- CNG fueling sustainability