As opposed to running up a tremendous deficit that the people will have to pay down with interest? Or the government will have to repudiate? Which is worse?Originally posted by Aristotle
Well I can imagine a few ways.
1) Raising taxes
2) Being less aggressive in fighting terrorism.
Remember, Kerry is on record saying that terrorism is a "law enforcement action" and not a "war."
Honestly, there is nothing worse than raising taxes. Stealing from the people is unacceptable.
Calling taxes 'stealing' is empty rhetoric unless you argue that the government has no right to collect taxes at all. If you concede that our elected representatives have the right to tax us, then you can only argue about what level of taxation is most effective. This doesn't mean that I don't agree with you that taxes are too high. But calling it stealing is erroneous, particularly if you only consider *raising* taxes to be stealing.
I don't think Kerry would be likely to raise taxes, especially considering he'll most likely still have to contend with a republican congress.
As for being less agressive in fighting terrorism, he may end up inheriting an untenable situation from Bush: a reorganized, decentralized Al-Qeada, combined with a morass in Iraq that requires continual presence of the best and brightest of western experts in the middle east, drawing them away from the *actual* war on terrorism.


Reply With Quote