Posted on 06/10/2011 6:17:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- The outcome of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD hung on the matter of a diphthong. The orthodox camp defended the doctrine of homoousios; Arians preferred homoiousios. Setting aside the complexities of Trinitarian theology, it is enough to say that an iota's difference sundered Christendom. "Everywhere," St. Gregory of Nyssa later recounted, "in the public squares, at crossroads, on the streets and lanes, people would stop you and discourse at random about the Trinity. If you asked something of a moneychanger, he would begin discussing the question of the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you questioned a baker about the price of bread, he would answer that the Father is greater and the Son is subordinate to Him."
Republicans in Congress are now engaged in a theological debate of similar intensity on the nature and substance of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Forty-one Republican members of the Senate have signed a promise to oppose "any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates." Some now hope to amend that pledge by a consequential iota.
The current budget impasse in Washington is easier to summarize than resolve. A necessary increase in the debt ceiling will require a budget agreement. Any deal will consist mainly of spending reductions. "But if we are talking about trillions," says Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center, "that is an awful lot of money to move without concessions." Democrats will insist on some revenue increases. Republicans won't accept tax increases. Yet stalemate involves unacceptable economic risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
If you are decreasing spending, then there is no need to increase taxes.
Amen
Amen
This is one good reason the 10 Commandments should be posted in plain sight in every government building: “Thou shalt not steal”.
Obviously our politicians don't agree with Bastiat.
As i recall, the US has been spending 6% more each year than it takes in as taxes. The deficit was covered by increasing the national debt.
The obvious solution is to cut spending. However our esteemed leaders on both sides of the aisle seemingly can’t grasp that principle. May God have mercy on the US.
"And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind . . . ." (Mark 5:15)
That is the goal I have when I vote, to seat a Congress that will be seen to be, "sitting, and clothed, and in (their) right mind . . . "
Which as you point out, how can anyone in their right mind vote to spend more than tax revenue takes in! What's more, how can anyone vote to enact laws that from cradle to grave effectually rob us of our liberties and prosperity in the name of humanity!
Unless, they being in their right minds, intend to do such things?
Economists call these "tax expenditures" -- credits and deductions that are actually a form of hidden government spending.
Consider the example of the mortgage interest deduction for second homes. "This is a kind of upper-middle-class entitlement program run through the tax code," says Marron.
The same policy goal could be accomplished by simply sending checks to qualifying taxpayers.
Many conservative economists would regard the end of this deduction as a limit on government activism, even though it would make official revenues larger.
But the author of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge -- Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform -- does not agree.
Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.