POTUS 2016: Can a man that doesn't comb his hair win the US Presidency?

Ricter · Jun 17, 2015

JamesL said:
but not smart enough to understand the correlation between the rise of the Federal gov't work force and the declining middle class?

Federal government employment IS middle class employment. Ceteris paribus, if that sector was growing, so would be the middle class. However,

loyek590 · Jun 17, 2015

Ricter said:
Federal government employment IS middle class employment. Ceteris paribus, if that sector was growing, so would be the middle class. However,

those federal salaries are paid on the backs of the middle class. Easiest way to give the middle class a raise is to lower their taxes and lower their costs of government.

loyek590 · Jun 17, 2015

or, we could go whole hog communist and make everybody a middle class government employee

Frederick Foresight · Jun 17, 2015

loyek590 said:
or, we could go whole hog communist and make everybody a middle class government employee

Yeah, because it always comes down to all or nothing.

Ricter · Jun 17, 2015

loyek590 said:
or, we could go whole hog communist and make everybody a middle class government employee

Where's that post from last week, identifying "all or nothing" thinking?

Ricter · Jun 17, 2015

Frederick Foresight said:
Yeah, because it always comes down to all or nothing.

Heh, you beat me to it.

Ricter · Jun 17, 2015

loyek590 said:
those federal salaries are paid on the backs of the middle class. Easiest way to give the middle class a raise is to lower their taxes and lower their costs of government.

"On the backs" is a bit of a spin. In theory we take on that burden in exchange for the goods and services government provides, i.e. what we want them and pay them to do (yes, we disagree about what that is). In that light, cutting taxes would not necessarily improve conditions for the tax payer.

dbphoenix · Jun 17, 2015

Ricter said:
"On the backs" is a bit of a spin. In theory we take on that burden in exchange for the goods and services government provides, i.e. what we want them and pay them to do (yes, we disagree about what that is). In that light, cutting taxes would not necessarily improve conditions for the tax payer.

Though that argument will go on until people begin breaking axles in potholes and nothing comes out when they turn on the water tap.

loyek590 · Jun 17, 2015

Ricter said:
"On the backs" is a bit of a spin. In theory we take on that burden in exchange for the goods and services government provides, i.e. what we want them and pay them to do (yes, we disagree about what that is). In that light, cutting taxes would not necessarily improve conditions for the tax payer.

oh sorry, I thought we were playing the spin game
actually, we libertarians never turn our backs on anyone, we face everything head on, and I'd be willing to experiment to see if my life improves when I give less of my money to the government. Just keep lowering taxes and cutting spending until even I complain the government is just not doing enough.

Frederick Foresight · Jun 17, 2015

loyek590 said:
...Just keep lowering taxes and cutting spending until even I complain the government is just not doing enough.

Sure, because it's all about you. Anything else is reprehensible. (Have you met Trump?)

I still can't decide if you're parodying or if you're for real.