Why do Conservatives think lowering taxes = Fiscal responsibility?

Wait, that’s “the trouble”? You’re all for repealing the tax cuts if they reinstate them all? Because fuck yeah, I can get behind that.

Still, it’s a 41% (vs 54%) deficit reduction if they repeal only the top bracket tax cuts, and 41% is still pretty significant. I’m fine with repealing tax cuts for everyone - but if we can still get 75% of the effect while only 2-3% of the populaton feels the pain, that’s extremely cost effective in a utilitarian sense.

Incidentally, if only the top bracket tax cuts were repealed, the rich would still pay less in tax - they still benefit more than anyone else from the tax cuts in the lower brackets. I know marginal tax brackets are almost universally not understood amongst the right wing though. I can explain it if you’d like.

Of course I meant billion there both times.

I guess you really do need to be led by the hand, inch-by-inch. Did you compare the net of the two years prior to 1983-1984 with the two years prior to 2010-2011? Or, did you notice that the Clinton-era prosperity matched the Reagan-era prosperity closely, despite that the Democrat favored balancing, while the Republican favored deficits?

Economic thinkers can debate policy effects. I was just curious if you could interpret a simple graph. I got my answer.

If the OP is actually interested in an answer that isn’t all this “No Bush did it!” vs. “Zerobama is a socialist!” nonsense that belongs on the political yelling shows, the answer is really quite simple.

Conservatives philosophically believe that there are several advantages to smaller government, and the benefits of smaller government are to be brought about by different social, civil, security, economic and fiscal policies.

The fiscal conservatives’ belief that low tax rates are preferable is not simply a response to the technical question of how to balance the budget. It’s the fiscal component of the overall preference for government to be smaller.

How well has starve the beast worked in practice? They’ve been on it for 30 years. Have they been successful? Are we now a smaller government that’s fiscally responsible? Or did the government just borrow the money instead of tax it?

The republicans simultaneously promote “starve the beast” and increase spending, thereby creating huge deficits. The idea that this is fiscal conservatism or being the responsible adult on our politics is absurd.

From the cite already provided -

Regards,
Shodan

Woops, I grabbed the 41% number which was referring to 200k and below, not above. My bad. Still all for chucking the whole thing.

[QUOTE=septimus]
did you notice that the Clinton-era prosperity matched the Reagan-era prosperity closely, despite that the Democrat favored balancing, while the Republican favored deficits?
[/QUOTE]
This has already been explained to you. Clinton did not favor balancing; he was forced into it by the GOP Congress.

Regards,
Shodan

Philosophically, they may believe it. Realistically, their beliefs are fatally compromised by sacred cows like military spending (and enforcement of certain hot-button moral issues, which is not free either).

How many times must this be disproved?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/02/14881980-when-the-gop-suppresses-inconvenient-truths?lite

To add to this, when taxes are taken there is a non zero dollar amount that is lost amongst the transfer (usually the paying of some government entity to levy, run or distribute)

Your “sight” is a blog.

Yes, I already know.

Not that I have a good idea of the percentages, but I have to object to the word only. Government grants fund construction of streets and sewage treatment plants, at the very least. Yes, there is financial oversight, project management, and inspection included, but I don’t see construction as oversight, on the whole.

I’ve seen other grants for pure research, technological development, and education. The military funds a surprising amount of research. If we assume that Medicare and Social Security are paid by FICA (they should be, but I can’t guarantee that they are, or that they will continue to be), then the largest budget category is the military. Not what I think of as oversight.

This isn’t the main thrust of the thread, though, so I’m not going to look into what is and isn’t oversight. I’m just going to be pedantic about the word only and then let it drop.

A good rule of thumb is that one side should not be able to decide the meaning of phrases used by the other side, simply to accuse them of hypocrisy. Liberals don’t get to strawman conservatives of being against “smaller government” because of the size of the military; conservatives don’t get to strawman liberals for supporting the right of men to marry animals because of “marriage equality.”

It seems that every time we have these types of discussions, we fail to account for what I see as an inherit flaw to the taxing system and government expenditures.

That is to say that once a program or entitlement is created at the federal level, it is near impossible to ever end it or stop funding it. In most cases the government is even powerless to stop it from growing, whether the program or entitlement is still needed.

Our government, particularly the Senate and House are made up of individuals who almost universally care more for their constituents than the country as a whole.

Some of the best intentions with these programs eventually become unnecessary drains on our tax system because they are funded and have people who have come to expect them for life. These does not just apply to those citizens that might make benefit of them, but even the politicians and administrators of these programs who make their living from their continued support.

This is flawed by nature and why, almost across the board government and budgets are never reduced long term.

Cite.

Also it has links to the pertinent info. You can read the actual paper that the Republicans wanted to hide.

I’m not sure what you meant by, “Yes, I already know.” so my mistake if you were suggesting that you knew this.

What dollars are lost? The ones that fund the government employee? That was the crux of my original question. I don’t see where money in < money out when it comes to the government. For a private company or individual it happens all the time. They sit on piles of cash, but every penny the government takes in gets spent, either in directly purchasing products or services or in employing someone to do the job.

I’m all for much smaller government, but the notion that taxes are money lost just doesn’t seem to add up for me from a bookkeeping perspective. If money makes it somewhere such that it doesn’t make it back into the economy, that would be money lost for sure. And, of course, too high a tax burden (more people re-distributing the wealth) will disincentivize people.

Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. I started a thread on the topic two years ago, and it’s been discussed at least twice since. You never participated; no one succeeded in refuting the point. One Doper mentioned that even the Wall Street Journal gave Clinton the major credit for deficit reduction.

Wrong: the government can also provide the environment in which wealth can exist. The government prosecutes crimes, making it safe to have wealth; the government prosecutes fraud, making it possible to accrue wealth; the government protects the environment against pollution, making it worth a damn to be wealthy in the first place. The government builds roads, airports, sewers, and other basic background structures that make a wealthy country worth living in.

I’ve found vomiting to be a workable third alternative.

Shodan, do you recognize that Septimus just beat you like a drum? All up and down the thread he beat you, like a red-headed step-yard-dog.

You got beat, dude.