SaltyCajun.com http://www.boltonford.com//

Notices

Go Back   SaltyCajun.com > General Discussion Forums > General Discussion (Everything Else)

General Discussion (Everything Else) Discuss anything that doesn't belong in any other forums here.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #24  
Old 06-25-2015, 03:20 PM
Smalls Smalls is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Central LA
Posts: 2,822
Cash: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
This seems to me to be the result of reluctance to raise taxes.

The reality of LA politics is you need a few years of piss-poor budgets to shrink the size of government to a level that will sustain lower taxes in the long run.

The idea that one needs to "reduce the size of government" to "pay for" tax cuts is inherently liberal thinking.

Jindal has taken the approach of reducing taxes to more reasonable levels and then forcing the government to shrink to match the available funds. It's turned out to be unpopular with many, but it is in line with conservative principles.


I'm no fan of raiding dedicated funds either, and would list these actions as my least favorite things Jindal has done. But I would raid our family's dedicated new car fund if a child was sick and we needed to cover medical bills.

No candidate is perfect. I'm interested in hearing what Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Carson have to say in the next five months as the process plays out.
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.

I've never heard any liberal suggest that the government needs to be smaller. Hell, they think it needs to support everyone that can't support themselves. I work with one, I would know. I hear it all the time.

Why did he have to raid the dedicated funds in the first place? What happened to that "surplus" that existed when he came into office?

I'm just not a fan of Jindal anymore. He's a puppet. Show him the hot topic and he will jump on it. He doesn't think for himself (then again, most of this country doesn't).
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios
SaltyCajun.com logo provided by Bryce Risher

All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted
Geo Visitors Map