Also, note how the Conservative argument for tax cuts has shifted from "they will wash us in so much revenue, growth will be amazing" to "they're only effective if they are accompanied by spending cuts". So by using the "keep what you earn" argument you are tacitly admitting that cutting taxes isn't sound fiscal policy, doesn't benefit the economy, and only seeks to increase fees and excise taxes for the middle and lower class.
No business ever hires someone because of taxes. They hire and fire people based on demand for the product or service they produce.
They're not keeping more of what they earned because they're paying for increased excise taxes and fees. So that's why in some states, it costs a fortune to register your vehicle and in other states it doesn't. Try and guess which states are which! All you're doing by making that argument is saying that the middle and lower classes should bear more of the burden of taxation, which leaves them with less, not more.It is your belief that other taxes have to be increased to fund the federal govt. which is the real problem not allowing people to keep more of what they earn.
So these sound like silly buzz words and catchphrases that sound nice to those looking to have their bias confirmed. Fact is that even if you cut all Federal Discretionary spending, you still are running a deficit and you've taken government demand out of the economy, which causes less spending. I think you people think that the private sector makes up for the spending the federal government doesn't, and that it's dollar-for-dollar. But that's magical thinking and not the case at all.pending cuts can start with the Dept of Education, and proceed to the social engineering of the federal govt. and then you don't need more revenue