You conclusively proved that the mere existence of these arguments is offensive to you No. I realise it may seem this way to someone in the part of the politic

You conclusively proved that the mere existence of these arguments is offensive to you No. I realise it may seem this way to someone in the part of the political spectrum you inhabit, where offence is so central to so much, but I never argued or even implied that these views are offensive to me. I do say they're extreme, but extreme views are not inherently offensive. You've picked a fight with a straw man there. And I'm afraid arguments about austerity are about tax levels. The alternative is tax is borrowing, which is no alternative at all, as eventually that money must be paid back via even higher taxes (to pay the borrowed amount + the interest). You can also do money printing, but that's simply a tax on cash savings by another name. All arguments about austerity are ultimately arguments about tax incidence. You also consistently proved that you see yourself as eminently rational I didn't discuss my own rationality either. Again, you're setting up a straw man and then attacking it. I said I don't share the same axioms as these people without commenting on the rationality of that position (it's possible for two people to disagree on basic axioms without either being irrational). You keep trying to drag me into an argument about austerity. I have no interest in such an argument. It's much more relevant that Americans realise that the list of 'dangerous topics' that can get people branded evil/kiddie killer/etc is not restricted to race, sex or religion. Tax policy can certainly be included if the Republicans ever actually reach the point of trying to cut government spending.