Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
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.
|
You can understand my confusion in your first post, though, correct? This is much clearer than what you originally said. I mean, the fact of the matter is, no liberal will ever utter "reduce" and "government" in the same sentence, unless its "the government reduced my welfare benefits".
That's not to say all liberals are on welfare, but you get my point.
I understand that Jindal had to reduce the government by means of reducing taxes, but why do you keep ignoring my other comments about Jindal being a "Yes Man" and bowing to public opinion at every chance he gets? Hell, even Obama doesn't do that; I can at least respect him for that, if nothing else.
You've made it a point to state all the things you think Jindal has done well, but have failed to address anything that I've stated against him. How anyone can believe that his actions as of late are in anyone's interest but his own is beyond me. Look no further than his moves to veto the vote on his security spending and the cost of living raise for Louisiana government retirees. I think its bull that our state is footing the bill for his security detail when he is not even doing work for the state, and as far as I'm concerned, most trips out of the state by the Governor are not state-related, and should not be paid for by the state. I understand that the State Police is tasked with protecting the Governor, but if it isn't for State business, it should not come out of the State Police's budget.
So how is that "reducing the size of the government" when you're spending more of the state's money on your own damn travel?