Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls
Say what?!?!?!? 
Did you just contradict yourself, or am I not reading this right?
In the first statement, you say reducing the size of the government pays for tax cuts, and this is a liberal concept; then you follow this with "Jindal has reduced taxes and forced the government to shrink" and called it a Conservative Idea.
I fail to see how either is different. So a liberal suggesting that the government should shrink to pay for tax cuts is different from a conservative suggesting that reducing tax cuts forces the government to shrink? I don't see the difference. It all results in the same thing: smaller government and lower taxes. |
It's the difference between reading the menu left to right (looking at the entrees first) and reading the menu right to left (looking at the prices first).
I encourage my wife to read the menu left to right (without regard for cost) when I take her to dinner, because we don't get to go out much, we earn a good living, and the money we're spending is our own.
But in government, every tax dollar that gets spent gets taken from a hard working citizen under threat of imprisonment. This FACT necessitates that those governing should read the menu right to left.
Elected officials should first consider how much in tax dollars it is reasonable to take from their citizens at the barrel of a gun.
Then they should decide how to most reasonably spend those tax dollars to provide the best government to their citizens.
Reading the menu left to right is inherently different: First liberals decide how much government they need. Then they calculate how much to take from hard working citizens (at the barrel of a gun) to pay for it. This approach inevitably leads to bigger government and higher taxes.
Money gets taken from hard working citizens at the barrel of a gun to pay for every government program. Jindal recognizes this and worked hard to cut taxes knowing that limited cash would provide more leverage for the hard work of actually shrinking government (or at least growing it more slowly). Yes, there was pain and disagreement. But without this approach, we'd have a much bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive LA state government than we have now.