8 responses so far ↓

• 1 Coming on the back of the LP // Jan 9, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  How about controlling LP spending? Oh wait, the (non) donors are taking care of that, LOL

• 2 Libertarian Joseph // Jan 9, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  duh

• 3 Susan Hogarth // Jan 9, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  That strikes me as a bit like asking “Which is more important to you, health or avoiding illness?”

• 4 Vindex // Jan 9, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  @Susan:

  Except those two are the same, and cutting taxes and controlling spending are not.

  The issue, in case you haven’t been reading the Web site or paying attention to the news, is that Obama wants to cut taxes but increase spending. This, of course, means that taxes will be increased in the future so it’s not even like he’s cutting taxes!

  If you had a choice, where you could only do one thing (which seems to be the mentality in reality for Congress), which would you rather have?

• 5 Prospective Advertiser // Jan 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  I think it rather droll that anyone accuse Susan Hogarth of not paying attention to current events. Good one.

  In case you haven’t noticed, Vindex, politicians lie.

  If you had a choice where you could only do one thing, you’d be confronted with a false dichotomy. The correct thing to do in that case is to tell the person limiting your choices to blow it out his ear.

• 6 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 9, 2009 at 7:21 pm

  I would have liked to see the question asked differetly. What does “control spending” mean? If it is going up in a controlled manner is that okay? Say 5% a year.

  How about if we, or maybe the LP, advocate cutting spending and if so where and how?

• 7 Melty // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:00 am

  Yeah, what Michael said. It should say “cut taxes/cut spending”.
  Wording’s everything in opinion polls.

• 8 Libertarian Joseph // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:08 am

  controlling spending is more important

Leave a Comment