Originally Posted by dabateman
And yet you never attack the accuracy of the argument that the plan proposed to tax wide and shallow versus the current method would provide revenue to cover expenditures. And that's the real point. You can't trust either party to cut spending and thus it makes the wide and shallow argument impossible.
You know that's not true. You've seen it. You call it the Clinton surplus, the right calls it Gingrich's contract with America. Either way, it was low taxation and spending restraint. It resulted in a surplus, which while not desireable isn't as much of a worry as these crippling deficits that not enough voters seem concerned about as long as it's not something the government tries to sustain (surpluses, that is).
You are correct in that it seems impossible to trust a party when it and only it has power though, which explains why the deficit quadrupled this year.