And this got me going enough to start a thread about it. Not that me starting a thread is a big thing or anything.
‘Fiscal Conservatism’ by any sane measure (i.e. mine, I suppose) means nothing more nor less than ‘living within ones means’. Tax cuts are fine but should be offset with spending cuts. If the American people want a high level of services they should be prepared to pay a high level of taxes to support that level of services.
You think that would be fairly straightforward.
All the baggage that has developed around the myth of fiscal conservatism is so much crap. Supply-side, growth-oriented deficits, any what have you are all hand-waving designed to distract from the main goal of spending more than you have or can reliably expect to make in the near future (long-term planning not being a real concept for elected governments).
In short, the whole ‘fiscally conservative’ thing bugs me. I’d rather see ‘tax and spend’ rather than ‘no tax and still spend’.
In the end, I’d say I’m fiscally conservative. It’s one of my true hot button issues but I don’t think I’ve seen many governments in my lifetime live up to the ideal. Though I see a lot arguing that they do.
It’s a misdirection. People complaining about tax-and-spend Democrats, for example, are complaining about where the money goes to (social programs that weaken Character and Initiative, or public insurance schemes that Can’t Possibly Work), not so much where it comes from. We pay for things like overseas misadventures and industry subsidies, and that’s fine and dandy with them.
Yep, I’d like to see a fiscally conservative government in power. I’d argue that tax and spend dems are better than the cut taxes and spend pubs. Now that ought to make an Eisenhower or Nixon Republican turn over in their graves.
Cutting taxes increases economic activity and revenue. Did in the 80’s and did since 9/11.
There’s really no debate involved with this. The spending on social programs, which is 75% of the budget, just has to come down by about 500 billion a year.
[QUOTE=Trotsky]
Cutting taxes increases economic activity and revenue. Did in the 80’s and did since 9/11.
There’s really no debate involved with this.
[QUOTE]
Supply side economics has not been shown to result in sustained economic activity. You’re right not a lot to debate. Cutting taxes does not necessarily result in increased revenue.
And Clinton raised taxes on the rich, and the economy improved. AFAIKT, “cutting taxes” just means rich get their taxes cut, and the common people end up carrying more of the load for the rich parasites.
No, we should increase social programs; then raise taxes on the rich and the corporations, and drastically cut back the military to pay for it. See ? A debate.
I’m not rich, and my taxes were raised. My taxes got cut by Bush, and I make under $50k a year.
That old class warfare stuff should’ve died in December of 1991.
What you talk about is what we did, leading RIGHT up to 9/11! GREAT IDEA, lets do that again. Oh, and throw in a stock bubble too! Horray, we can live in 2002 forever under democrats!
No, we need much more of it. Now, it’s only one way, the rich stomping on everyone else.
Given a choice between Clinton and Bush, I’d choose Clinton in a heartbeat. We’re going to be decades recovering from Bush economically, if it’s even possible. 9/11 had nothing to do with taxes anyway.
And it happened on Bush’s watch, despite him being warned by Clinton among others. Clinton caught the terrorists who attacked the WTC during his watch; another example of his total superiority over Bush.
BTW, do you realize how kooky and out of the mainstream that ‘rich stomping on the poor’ talk sounds? Actually, that stuff was a joke when Marx wrote it.
No, Clinton, among others warned Bush. Bush went out of his way to make us vulnerable. Bush was either criminally incompetent or wanted 9-11 to happen.
I don’t care in the slightest if it’s out of the mainstream, because I despise the mainstream. And if you think it was a joke it the past you need to read some history.
Um, partly because the terrorists were still ALIVE, unlike the 9-11 hijackers who killed themselves in the process. If you meant the planner of the attack, that being Bin Ladan, yes I guess Clinton caught him, well no, someone else caught him, but Clinton refused to take him when offered, and set Bin Ladan free to attack again.