By ‘no one,’ he means the government

Repeal a tax cut no one can afford

Murdoc loves how tax cuts are always portrayed as somehow costing the government money. Like if Murdoc doesn’t eat a double cheeseburger, he’s somehow cost McDonalds a dollar.

That’s how tax cuts are, except that when tax cuts are repealed and you have to pay for a double cheeseburger, you don’t get to eat it.

Repeal the tax cut because Americans “can’t afford” to keep so much of their money.


  1. With all due respect, Murdoc, you are not exactly a libertarian that wants government curb spending in things like “war on terror” and all the fancy toys that the war demands.

    1. I’m for government spending on the things government should spend on, which are generally things that no one else can spend on defense/military/war is one of those things, and I’m for spending responsibly to win. I’m opposed to a lot of spending that is either A) not the federal government’s responsibility or B) not any government’s responsibility.

      I’ve been posting here for seven and a half years. I invite you to find any posts that say anything different.

  2. Don’t you love politicians that just insist they can’t let us keep our money because we would just spend it on something foolish. Like they don’t!

    Now, the GWOT falls under providing for the common defense. That’s in the Constitution. Most of the entitlement programs politicians dream up to enslave American voters aren’t in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. After all, the Declaration guarantees the right to pursue happiness, not a right to have the government to provide it to you. Somehow, many Americans seem to have confused the two!

  3. Are the troops fighting out there really defending the territory of the USA or the alleged interests of the USA?

    Hence the “alleged”

    Does the debt those wars help expanding is worth? Doesn’t this debt weakens the USA much more than any beardy guy thinking ill of the USA?

    The whole situation reminds me of the fall of Rome, when useless wars were waged just so Rome could shouw it still had a big stick, while the economy was collapsing. Wars don’t generate wealth, they deplet it.

    And the moment you say to that it’s a duty of goverment,a matter of utter importance and give such a big green light to the State act, you really believe that it will “spend money responsibly”? Im sure you wouldn’t think in the case of welfare, and I assure you this same logic applies to warfare.

    1. Vitor, you’re confusing the “should the US fight this war” issue with the “is fighting wars the federal government’s responsibility” issue.

      Spending money on the military and fighting wars is unquestionably a federal responsibility, so spending tax dollars on the military and wars falls under the federal government.

      Now, if you want to argue that the war is a wrong one or not worth it, that’s fine. But it is not really part of the “how much tax should US citizens pay” debate.

      A lot of the things besides the military that the federal government spends money on is unquestionably NOT a responsibility of the federal government.

      If all the things that the federal government does not have to spend money on are cut or canceled, and then we still need to raise taxes to pay for things the federal government is responsible for, then I’ll start to listen to reasons why higher taxes are needed or that the war must be lost because we can’t afford it.

      And no, I don’t think any government will really “spend money responsibly,” which is why it’s critical to keep as much money away from government as is possible. Most of it, even when spent on departments that are actually government’s responsibility, is wasted.

      1. MO, he might be confusing whether we should be fighting or not, but would it also help eliminate this confusion had the congress followed the Constitution and issued a declaration of war? And no, I don’t consider an authorization to use force or enforce UN sanctions a declaration of war.

        You bring up a good point that no government will spend money responsibly. Which is precisely why conservatives should be against unnecessary wars as possible, for such wars necessitate the expansion of government which leads to wasteful spending.

        1. Declaration of war or not, it’s a war. I could maybe be convinced that declarations should be made against the parties involved, but even critics of the war will admit that defining those parties isn’t as simple as declaring war on the government of a sovereign nation.

          Regardless, that does not “confuse” the issue of whether or not it’s the federal government’s responsibility to fund the military or foreign wars. It doesn’t confuse the issue of claims that tax cuts “cost the government money.” And it doesn’t confuse the issue of whether or not Murdoc is inconsistent when he calls for lower taxes AND ALSO funding the military.

          1. …but even critics of the war will admit that defining those parties isn’t as simple as declaring war on the government of a sovereign nation

            What about Iraq?

        2. Also, Murdoc IS “against unnecessary wars.”

          I recognize that you see the current war as an unneccessary one. Fair enough. I happen to strongly disagree.

          1. I see the Iraq war as having been unnecessary. I see the Afghanistan war as having been justified by the events of 9/11, but whose justification and purpose have long since vanished.

  4. Victor uses the typical liberal distraction trick. The DOD is 19% of the 2010 federal budget. Quitting Afghanistan might shave it down another couple of percentage points – big deal.

    Meanwhile the federal government is borrowing and wasting money on nonsense like never before. The federal bailout of bankrupt (Democrat) states has already started. Look for a few $trillion of your tax dollars to get flushed down that toilet.

    Victor also has no idea what a Libertarian, or libertarian leaning conservative like Murdoc and myself, believes.

  5. not mentioned here so far, but those tax cuts only affected the wealthiest of americans. Reinstating them won’t raise or lower yours or mine.

    The only affect will be a reduction of ‘benefits’ of the mythical ‘trickle-down’ theory. See R. Kelly.

    1. Oh, doing something unfair is okay as long as it doesn’t affect your or me? I guess I never looked at it that way. Does that mean ANYTHING done to one group is okay as long as enough people aren’t affected and I can come up with a bit of justification? Cool. I’ve got some ideas already.

      Sarcasm aside, I love hearing people say things like “mythical trickle-down theory.”

      1. I don’t necessarily disagree with murdoch because I was always raised believing in that. However, if by the rich we mean the ruling elite, then I say tax the hell out of them and generally make their lives a living hell. They have utterly changed the character and nature of this nation, and are handing to us a nation that has worse prospects than the one they inherited. They changed a relatively homogeneous European nation into something resembling a Star Wars bar scene. They changed an independent nation into one highly dependent upon the rest of the world. They took the largest creditor nation and turned it into the largest debtor. I could go on, but the point being, if there is a way to screw the ruling elite, then I’m all for it. Thanks to them I’ve inherited a damaged nation with minimal prospects for repair.

        1. That seems a tad unfair. How about replacing them with folks who actually have the best interests of the country at heart and who are competent to do their jobs?

          I guess the problem with that is that there are enough saps out there to vote for the ruling elite no matter what. So I think the problem is really more fundamental…

      2. Murdoc,
        If one is committed to providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare via taxes, then it is wisest to tax the persons with the most money.

        Taxes are not fair; taxes are regulated banditry.
        p.s. nothing in the universe is ever ‘fair’ …it’s been mathematically proven.

          1. Ultimately tax dollars.

            The illusion of fairness is generated through some manner of consensus. Preferably a balanced and regulated consensus. Thus we have graduated tax rates.

  6. Bram, a libertarian can be either minarchist or anarcho-capitalist. You can’t have a minimal state waging wars or having the highest defense budget of the planet. It hilarious when republicans claim to be libertarian when they want to look more responsable than democrats even when they are fully aware they despise many libertarian opinions.

    Also quite interesting how Ron Paul receives such little support from his own party, eventhough the guy is the most consistent and honest politician I’ve ever seen, and one of the most educated in economics matters. Oh,I know, he lacks the “America, fuck yeah!” attitude of a Sarah Palin.

Comments are closed