[ImperatorLunae]

you sure as hell don't tax people to create jobs vs military cuts ... sending a lot of people to the unemployment line.

so, you don't tax people to sustain jobs, yet you don't cut jobs to lower spending. That is paradoxical.

[darksaga]

First of all I fail to see how taxing people sustains jobs. As a business, if you're having to give more money to the government, and putting less of it back into your business, it would seem you're actually creating an incentive to lay people off as opposed to hiring more. It makes it harder to grow and hire more people if your business is taking in less money. I know it's obvious but. . .

There are a million ways to cut spending. Taking Obama's 2.5 TRILLION dollar "Obama Care" would be a great start. Take out his TRILLION dollar stimulus which was an epic failure and guess what? You just saved 3.5 TRILLION dollars without cutting any jobs.

[ImperatorLunae]

First of all I fail to see how taxing people sustains jobs. You said it, "When you make military cuts, you're not just removing tanks and guns. You're also sending a lot of people to the unemployment line." So, to fund the military, you have to either sell bonds or levy taxes. Playing World Police for 60 years has been fun, but it's getting a little expensive.

I know it's obvious but... It's not obvious. What if those tax dollars were reinvested in universal health care? A small business wouldn't have to incur the cost of insuring its full-time employees. That would help stimulate growth, as it would cost less to hire each employee.

The premise that your argument stems from--lower taxes means more jobs--has been, time and time again, false in practice. Trickle-down economics are theoretically sound, but in 30 years of attempted trickle, nothing statistically significant has come down.