[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Right. Don't let the facts get in the way.

Actually, the response it right on point. You want to claim that conservatives cut spending on the backs of the poor or the working class. Its senseless rhetoric, as if reductions in government spending only come at the expense of a certain group of people.

How can it be that increases in government spending only benefit the poor, and reductions in tax burden or reductions in spending only benefit the rich? How can it be that (the argument is made by some on this forum) we must tax the rich because they make the heaviest use of infrastructure, but decreasing government spending then hurts the poor the most? How can it be that unemployment benefits are stimulative (as the left would have us believe), but the idea that the government returning capital to the free market so that it can be put to productive use is not stimulative? How can it be that record levels of consumer debt is "bad", but record levels of public debt should be allowed to increase unabated? How can it be that health care for a fee managed in the private managed in the private sector is too expensive largely due to overconsumption and government interference in the marketplace, but single payer unrestricted access to medical care will be less expensive and more efficient (and free of political considerations which may impact delivery of services)?

Objection. The questions assume facts not in evidence.

Regards,

D-Ray