2. Bush proposes and passes tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.
3. The budget goes into deficit.
4. Democrats say that tax cuts without spending cuts are bad policy and cause deficits.
5. Republicans criticize democrats for not proposing spending cuts.
Do I have that straight?
I am typing this with a clothespin over my nose.
Brussel!!! Shame on you!!!!
Insert 1.5/2.5: 4-5 months before the election, the economy suffers the bursting of the biggest stock market bubble in recent history, and the economy ends the longest growth phase in the country's history (a growth phase so powerful that it induced mass hysteria about the validity of the laws of economics).
Instead of raging against that you rail against tax cuts. It's just politics for you. It's not like you actually care about balanced budgets. I have another equation for you:
Hypothetical concern for fiscal discipline = no political political will for spending cuts.
So the real problem is that you don't think I properly focus my rage? Gosh, darnit, and I here thought I was really concerned about the deficit too. Guess I just had myself fooled until you piercing insight into my psyche came along.
Now, if you're finished playing at being my on-line therapist...
I really don't think spending can be cut that much, politically speaking. Oh, I'm sure I could work up some good frothing-at-the-mouth anger myself over any number of budgetary items if I went through the whole federal budget a line at a time. But one man's example of a complete waste of money is likely to be another man's example of suitable, or insufficient, funding.
We can, and should, fight to reduce waste and inefficiency wherever consensus can be reached to call a thing wasteful or inefficient. But you can't responsibly base tax cuts on spending cuts (cuts to be made at some unspecified time in the future, no less) that are derived from some hypothetical ideal of perfect efficiency as seen from one narrow political viewpoint. You have to plan for political reality and compromise to be responsible.
I'm sorry if the overall size of the US budget doesn't enrage me like you think it should, but (and I wish I could find some current statistics!) as far as I know, per capita taxation and spending by the US government is fairly modest among industrialized nations. Considering the extra military expenses we incur from maintaining ourselves as the supreme world superpower -- certainly a priority for most tax-cutting Republicans -- we're probably downright frugal (or stingy, depending on who you ask) in comparison to many countries.
Now, if you want to get your panties in a bunch by applying stricter standards, by comparing our current budget to some hypothetical politically-derived ideal of a proper budget (probably something that would even make a few Libertarians wince in fiscal pain), go right ahead. I'll still say you're being fiscally irresponsible if you support tax cuts before you know you?ve gotten the necessary corresponding spending cuts in place.
Unless you install a dictator to run things, any budget passed in a democracy is going to be a compromise, and the usual compromise isn't going to be "I'll settle for half of what I want if you'll settle for half of what you want. The usual compromise is going to be "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine."
If you think we're in need of a political revolution to fix that kind of thinking, fine. Lead the way. But until you can show that this will happen, not just could happen, putting tax cuts first is irresponsible.
Oh, and one more thing... even if we can get spending down quite a bit, it's also the responsible thing to do to pay down some of the national debt, rather than merely servicing the interest ad infinitum.
So the real problem is that you don't think I properly focus my rage? Gosh, darnit, and I here thought I was really concerned about the deficit too. Guess I just had myself fooled until you piercing insight into my psyche came along...
The real problem is synthetic outrage.
Quote:
I really don't think spending can be cut that much, politically speaking...
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits. Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits. Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
I guess you aren't quite finished playing online therapist.
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits.
Show me what you've got that so great a play, and I'll consider it. While you're at it, explain to me why the people who passed the tax cuts didn't pass your great spending cut plan at the same time.
Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Please do enlighten us with your "broader view" -- we might not be able to fit it into our tiny little minds, but we'll try.
PS: Did you take special courses in condescension, or is this a natural talent?
I notice you didn't ask me about what kind of spending cuts I would propose. Actions speak louder than words.
I notice that you get upset when people don't post their own ideas for fixing the problem without prompting but you refuse to post your own without prompting.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Actions speak louder than words? Yes, they do Zaphod. Yes they do.
Show me what you've got that so great a play, and I'll consider it...
Means testing of Medicare. Or where's the alarm over this prescription drug benefit that Congress is almost sure to pass? That will surely have a greater impact on the budget than will Bush's tax cuts.
Quote:
Please do enlighten us with your "broader view" -- we might not be able to fit it into our tiny little minds, but we'll try.
You're awfully slow, aren't you? A broader view doesn't just look at the revenue side of the equation.
Quote:
PS: Did you take special courses in condescension, or is this a natural talent?
Funny that you of all people should ask such a question.
I notice that you get upset when people don't post their own ideas for fixing the problem without prompting but you refuse to post your own without prompting.
Upset? This is what upset looks like to you? I didn't ask people for their ideas for fixing the problem. I simply characterized shetline's views as being focused only on taxes and therefore not really serious.
Upset? This is what upset looks like to you? I didn't ask people for their ideas for fixing the problem. I simply characterized shetline's views as being focused only on taxes and therefore not really serious.
Did you read what shetline wrote? He stated that before cutting taxes, one should have spending cuts already lined up. I don't see how that is focused ONLY on taxes. Dude, it's called fiscal responsibility.
This is your magic solution? Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?
Or is this just one example in a long list of things that would be necessary to balance the budget under the current tax cuts? If this'll work so well, how come none of this was done first before, or at the same time, the tax cuts were put into place?
Or where's the alarm over this prescription drug benefit that Congress is almost sure to pass? That will surely have a greater impact on the budget than will Bush's tax cuts.
Bush's tax cuts [if you're honest about the "sunsets" and realize that they're only there for two reasons (1) to extend cuts later without accounting for the costs now, (2) to bludgeon Democrats with if they vote against extending them] will cost roughly one trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) over the next ten years.
The Republicans have set aside $400 billion over the next decade for the prescription drug program -- 40% of the value of their tax cuts so far -- so while the impact is substantial, it's not greater than the tax cut impact.
You want me to be enraged at the drug spending, but not the tax cuts? I'll have to disappoint you. I might have a few things to say about the details of the drug plan if it isn't well thought out and if it could be made cheaper, but in general, I'd rather see seniors get help buying prescription drugs than see a lot of tax cuts the modestly help me and enormously aid the wealthy.
The irony that goes right back to the same point I've been making all along in this thread is that the same people passing the enormous tax cuts aren't blazing to spending cuts by telling us how we'll have to watch our spending. They'd rather pretend it's a free lunch where those wonderful tax cuts will so wonderfully stimulate the economy that the can keep proposing new spending programs, and few spending cuts, at the same time.
You're awfully slow, aren't you?
You're inexcusably rude, aren't you?
A broader view doesn't just look at the revenue side of the equation.
I believe I've clearly demonstrated looking at both sides. I just see different things when I look -- and I guess in your book that means I didn't look hard enough.
I probably wouldn't want to as much spending as you... but that's not the same thing as not looking at the spending side, it's a matter of values.
I don't see pre-Bush tax rates as so terrible that they needed lots of cutting. I'd rather be back into clear surplusses when the economy eventually recovers and be working on paying off the national debt again. That's not the same as only looking at the revenue side, it's merely a matter of values again.
Funny that you of all people should ask such a question.
Except when given clear cause to respond in kind, I'm usually very careful to criticize only ideas and statements, as opposed directly attacking the person I'm arguing with using insults and condescension -- as you have.
This is your magic solution? Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?
Did you really read what I wrote? Oh wait! I'm being condescending again. Oh well... I didn't say it would balance the budget. I said that "off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap."
Quote:
Bush's tax cuts [if you're honest about the "sunsets" and realize that they're only there for two reasons (1) to extend cuts later without accounting for the costs now, (2) to bludgeon Democrats with if they vote against extending them] will cost roughly one trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) over the next ten years.
The Republicans have set aside $400 billion over the next decade for the prescription drug program -- 40% of the value of their tax cuts so far -- so while the impact is substantial, it's not greater than the tax cut impact.
Excuse me but do you seriously think the prescription drug plan will last for only 10 years? And what happens when the cost of the plan exceeds $400 billion? (It won't take 10 years for it to happen.) Will the impact of the program somehow just magically disappear?
Bush, even if he's re-elected, will be out of office by 2008. If you're honest, any projections as to the cost of his tax cuts that extend beyond that date have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
Quote:
You want me to be enraged at the drug spending, but not the tax cuts?
Enraged? You mean the same way you are "enraged" over the deficit? NO!!! I'd rather you actually cared about the issue instead.
Quote:
... I'll have to disappoint you. I might have a few things to say about the details of the drug plan if it isn't well thought out and if it could be made cheaper, but in general, I'd rather see seniors get help buying prescription drugs than see a lot of tax cuts the modestly help me and enormously aid the wealthy.
Fair enough but where's your concern for the deficit? Apparently it only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
Did you really read what I wrote? Oh wait! I'm being condescending again. Oh well... I didn't say it would balance the budget. I said that "off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap."
Yes, I really did read what you wrote. And if you'd read one line past where I said "Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?" you'd also have seen where I then asked "Or is this just one example in a long list of things that would be necessary to balance the budget under the current tax cuts?"
You see? Both bases covered, no contradiction with what you'd written. The issue would have been cleared up for you if you'd simply looked forward one more line in my message, rather than emitting a knee-jerk response to the most recent stimuli you'd received.
And you still haven't answered why the tax cuts were justified before cuts like the ones you propose were made.
Excuse me but do you seriously think the prescription drug plan will last for only 10 years?
One has to compare like units, so I was comparing dollars per ten year period to dollars per ten year period. Would you consider it a more fair comparison to compare the 10-year tax cut cost to the cost of the drug program in perpetuity?
And what happens when the cost of the plan exceeds $400 billion?
What happens when (and this a great likelihood) Bush and the Republican's heap on more tax cuts? One works with the available data.
Fair enough but where's your concern for the deficit? Apparently it only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
If both taxes and spending had been cut simultaneously, I'd have no concerns about deficits. Which is not to say I'd be worry-free at that point, but my concern might be directed elsewhere.
Depending on what had been cut, it could be that I'd rather see a portion of the tax cuts eliminated and the spending restored. I wouldn't say "give me back that spending, even if runs a huge deficit!"
Let me make something clearer about my stand on deficits: I have no problem with short terms deficits that we truly intend to pay off later. My problem is with long-term structural deficits that are like having our country with a huge running balance on a credit card for which we only ever make the minimum payments. Long-term structural deficits are what the Republicans are creating right now.
I don't see any general consensus among Republicans that it's ever a good time to pay off the national debt. I won't say that's purely a Republican problem either - Clinton certainly wasn't representative of all Democrats when he wanted to use surpluses to pay down the debt.
I do have a bigger gripe with the current batch of Republicans, however, because it seems that no matter what the issue, a tax cut is the answer.
Surpluses? Well, we're obviously taking too much of your money then -- you need a tax cut!
Deficits? Well, we must be strangling the productivity of the economy with high taxes -- you need a tax cut!
It can be a perfectly valid and consistent stance to say that you favor a smaller, leaner government. I might disagree with someone over how small small should be -- but as long as that someone is consistent about both their taxation and spending policies, I won't be arguing with them over deficits or fiscal responsibility.
The apparent contradiction of always calling for tax cuts might be explained if the goal is to shrink government to some targeted size that it hasn?t yet reached. However, if that is the goal, talking about surpluses and stimulation of the economy as reasons for the cuts is dishonest rhetoric covering a different agenda.
Apparently it [my concern] only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
The deficit is a concern for me no matter what. Does that mean I have to look at the drug program for seniors, which is admittedly expensive, and say ?Ah hah! That?s the problem!?? Not at all. It is perfectly consistent to voice concern over the deficit yet not target my concern at the drug program itself. I?m concerned about a lack of proper funding for the program ? that is, concerned that there?s not enough revenue to support it because of tax policies. The real hypocrisy lies in those politicians who both support the big tax cuts and the establishment of a large entitlement at the same time.
I think the drug program is a good idea, and I?m willing to pay for it through my taxes. No inconsistency at all there with my attitude towards deficits.
At least it's a more consistent point of view than presented by the so-called conservative Republicans in Congress and the White House. Still has a nasty taint of Social Darwinism, but it is more consistent.
All besides the point, however... My last long reply went unchallenged for over ten days, so I've already officially won this thread's debate by default.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It's just politics for you. It's not like you actually care about balanced budgets.
So, here's how it goes, chronologically:
1. The budget is in surplus.
2. Bush proposes and passes tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.
3. The budget goes into deficit.
4. Democrats say that tax cuts without spending cuts are bad policy and cause deficits.
5. Republicans criticize democrats for not proposing spending cuts.
Do I have that straight?
1. Budget surplus? This calls for tax cuts!
2. Deficit? This calls for tax cuts!
I am not certain just WHAT sort of economic climate would be required for W to decide tax cuts are a bad idea....
Fish
Originally posted by fishdoc
It is even simpler...just follow the W Doctrine:
1. Budget surplus? This calls for tax cuts!
2. Deficit? This calls for tax cuts!
I am not certain just WHAT sort of economic climate would be required for W to decide tax cuts are a bad idea....
Fish
Well, DUH...it's the only option you left out. A perfectly balanced budget. Of course, that will NEVER happen.
Originally posted by BRussell
So, here's how it goes, chronologically:
1. The budget is in surplus.
2. Bush proposes and passes tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts.
3. The budget goes into deficit.
4. Democrats say that tax cuts without spending cuts are bad policy and cause deficits.
5. Republicans criticize democrats for not proposing spending cuts.
Do I have that straight?
I am typing this with a clothespin over my nose.
Brussel!!! Shame on you!!!!
Insert 1.5/2.5: 4-5 months before the election, the economy suffers the bursting of the biggest stock market bubble in recent history, and the economy ends the longest growth phase in the country's history (a growth phase so powerful that it induced mass hysteria about the validity of the laws of economics).
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Instead of raging against that you rail against tax cuts. It's just politics for you. It's not like you actually care about balanced budgets. I have another equation for you:
Hypothetical concern for fiscal discipline = no political political will for spending cuts.
So the real problem is that you don't think I properly focus my rage? Gosh, darnit, and I here thought I was really concerned about the deficit too. Guess I just had myself fooled until you piercing insight into my psyche came along.
Now, if you're finished playing at being my on-line therapist...
I really don't think spending can be cut that much, politically speaking. Oh, I'm sure I could work up some good frothing-at-the-mouth anger myself over any number of budgetary items if I went through the whole federal budget a line at a time. But one man's example of a complete waste of money is likely to be another man's example of suitable, or insufficient, funding.
We can, and should, fight to reduce waste and inefficiency wherever consensus can be reached to call a thing wasteful or inefficient. But you can't responsibly base tax cuts on spending cuts (cuts to be made at some unspecified time in the future, no less) that are derived from some hypothetical ideal of perfect efficiency as seen from one narrow political viewpoint. You have to plan for political reality and compromise to be responsible.
I'm sorry if the overall size of the US budget doesn't enrage me like you think it should, but (and I wish I could find some current statistics!) as far as I know, per capita taxation and spending by the US government is fairly modest among industrialized nations. Considering the extra military expenses we incur from maintaining ourselves as the supreme world superpower -- certainly a priority for most tax-cutting Republicans -- we're probably downright frugal (or stingy, depending on who you ask) in comparison to many countries.
Now, if you want to get your panties in a bunch by applying stricter standards, by comparing our current budget to some hypothetical politically-derived ideal of a proper budget (probably something that would even make a few Libertarians wince in fiscal pain), go right ahead. I'll still say you're being fiscally irresponsible if you support tax cuts before you know you?ve gotten the necessary corresponding spending cuts in place.
Unless you install a dictator to run things, any budget passed in a democracy is going to be a compromise, and the usual compromise isn't going to be "I'll settle for half of what I want if you'll settle for half of what you want. The usual compromise is going to be "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine."
If you think we're in need of a political revolution to fix that kind of thinking, fine. Lead the way. But until you can show that this will happen, not just could happen, putting tax cuts first is irresponsible.
Oh, and one more thing... even if we can get spending down quite a bit, it's also the responsible thing to do to pay down some of the national debt, rather than merely servicing the interest ad infinitum.
Originally posted by shetline
So the real problem is that you don't think I properly focus my rage? Gosh, darnit, and I here thought I was really concerned about the deficit too. Guess I just had myself fooled until you piercing insight into my psyche came along...
The real problem is synthetic outrage.
I really don't think spending can be cut that much, politically speaking...
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits. Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The real problem is synthetic outrage.
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits. Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The real problem is synthetic outrage.
I guess you aren't quite finished playing online therapist.
You're against tax cuts so you are only willing to consider rescinding the tax cuts as a "solution" to budget deficits.
Show me what you've got that so great a play, and I'll consider it. While you're at it, explain to me why the people who passed the tax cuts didn't pass your great spending cut plan at the same time.
Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
Please do enlighten us with your "broader view" -- we might not be able to fit it into our tiny little minds, but we'll try.
PS: Did you take special courses in condescension, or is this a natural talent?
Originally posted by BR
Taking into account political reality requires a broader view than interests you.
I notice you didn't ask me about what kind of spending cuts I would propose. Actions speak louder than words.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I notice you didn't ask me about what kind of spending cuts I would propose. Actions speak louder than words.
I notice that you get upset when people don't post their own ideas for fixing the problem without prompting but you refuse to post your own without prompting.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
Actions speak louder than words? Yes, they do Zaphod. Yes they do.
Originally posted by shetline
Show me what you've got that so great a play, and I'll consider it...
Means testing of Medicare. Or where's the alarm over this prescription drug benefit that Congress is almost sure to pass? That will surely have a greater impact on the budget than will Bush's tax cuts.
Please do enlighten us with your "broader view" -- we might not be able to fit it into our tiny little minds, but we'll try.
You're awfully slow, aren't you? A broader view doesn't just look at the revenue side of the equation.
PS: Did you take special courses in condescension, or is this a natural talent?
Funny that you of all people should ask such a question.
Originally posted by BR
I notice that you get upset when people don't post their own ideas for fixing the problem without prompting but you refuse to post your own without prompting.
Upset? This is what upset looks like to you? I didn't ask people for their ideas for fixing the problem. I simply characterized shetline's views as being focused only on taxes and therefore not really serious.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Upset? This is what upset looks like to you? I didn't ask people for their ideas for fixing the problem. I simply characterized shetline's views as being focused only on taxes and therefore not really serious.
Did you read what shetline wrote? He stated that before cutting taxes, one should have spending cuts already lined up. I don't see how that is focused ONLY on taxes. Dude, it's called fiscal responsibility.
Dan Quayle called. He wants his IQ back.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Means testing of Medicare.
This is your magic solution? Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?
Or is this just one example in a long list of things that would be necessary to balance the budget under the current tax cuts? If this'll work so well, how come none of this was done first before, or at the same time, the tax cuts were put into place?
Or where's the alarm over this prescription drug benefit that Congress is almost sure to pass? That will surely have a greater impact on the budget than will Bush's tax cuts.
Bush's tax cuts [if you're honest about the "sunsets" and realize that they're only there for two reasons (1) to extend cuts later without accounting for the costs now, (2) to bludgeon Democrats with if they vote against extending them] will cost roughly one trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) over the next ten years.
The Republicans have set aside $400 billion over the next decade for the prescription drug program -- 40% of the value of their tax cuts so far -- so while the impact is substantial, it's not greater than the tax cut impact.
You want me to be enraged at the drug spending, but not the tax cuts? I'll have to disappoint you. I might have a few things to say about the details of the drug plan if it isn't well thought out and if it could be made cheaper, but in general, I'd rather see seniors get help buying prescription drugs than see a lot of tax cuts the modestly help me and enormously aid the wealthy.
The irony that goes right back to the same point I've been making all along in this thread is that the same people passing the enormous tax cuts aren't blazing to spending cuts by telling us how we'll have to watch our spending. They'd rather pretend it's a free lunch where those wonderful tax cuts will so wonderfully stimulate the economy that the can keep proposing new spending programs, and few spending cuts, at the same time.
You're awfully slow, aren't you?
You're inexcusably rude, aren't you?
A broader view doesn't just look at the revenue side of the equation.
I believe I've clearly demonstrated looking at both sides. I just see different things when I look -- and I guess in your book that means I didn't look hard enough.
I probably wouldn't want to as much spending as you... but that's not the same thing as not looking at the spending side, it's a matter of values.
I don't see pre-Bush tax rates as so terrible that they needed lots of cutting. I'd rather be back into clear surplusses when the economy eventually recovers and be working on paying off the national debt again. That's not the same as only looking at the revenue side, it's merely a matter of values again.
Funny that you of all people should ask such a question.
Except when given clear cause to respond in kind, I'm usually very careful to criticize only ideas and statements, as opposed directly attacking the person I'm arguing with using insults and condescension -- as you have.
Originally posted by shetline
This is your magic solution? Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?
Did you really read what I wrote? Oh wait! I'm being condescending again. Oh well... I didn't say it would balance the budget. I said that "off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap."
Bush's tax cuts [if you're honest about the "sunsets" and realize that they're only there for two reasons (1) to extend cuts later without accounting for the costs now, (2) to bludgeon Democrats with if they vote against extending them] will cost roughly one trillion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000,000) over the next ten years.
The Republicans have set aside $400 billion over the next decade for the prescription drug program -- 40% of the value of their tax cuts so far -- so while the impact is substantial, it's not greater than the tax cut impact.
Excuse me but do you seriously think the prescription drug plan will last for only 10 years? And what happens when the cost of the plan exceeds $400 billion? (It won't take 10 years for it to happen.) Will the impact of the program somehow just magically disappear?
Bush, even if he's re-elected, will be out of office by 2008. If you're honest, any projections as to the cost of his tax cuts that extend beyond that date have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
You want me to be enraged at the drug spending, but not the tax cuts?
Enraged? You mean the same way you are "enraged" over the deficit? NO!!! I'd rather you actually cared about the issue instead.
... I'll have to disappoint you. I might have a few things to say about the details of the drug plan if it isn't well thought out and if it could be made cheaper, but in general, I'd rather see seniors get help buying prescription drugs than see a lot of tax cuts the modestly help me and enormously aid the wealthy.
Fair enough but where's your concern for the deficit? Apparently it only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
Dan Quayle called. He wants his IQ back.
the 80's called, it wants its joke back.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Did you really read what I wrote? Oh wait! I'm being condescending again. Oh well... I didn't say it would balance the budget. I said that "off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap."
Yes, I really did read what you wrote. And if you'd read one line past where I said "Means testing for medicare and... boom! Balanced budget?" you'd also have seen where I then asked "Or is this just one example in a long list of things that would be necessary to balance the budget under the current tax cuts?"
You see? Both bases covered, no contradiction with what you'd written. The issue would have been cleared up for you if you'd simply looked forward one more line in my message, rather than emitting a knee-jerk response to the most recent stimuli you'd received.
And you still haven't answered why the tax cuts were justified before cuts like the ones you propose were made.
Excuse me but do you seriously think the prescription drug plan will last for only 10 years?
One has to compare like units, so I was comparing dollars per ten year period to dollars per ten year period. Would you consider it a more fair comparison to compare the 10-year tax cut cost to the cost of the drug program in perpetuity?
And what happens when the cost of the plan exceeds $400 billion?
What happens when (and this a great likelihood) Bush and the Republican's heap on more tax cuts? One works with the available data.
Fair enough but where's your concern for the deficit? Apparently it only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
If both taxes and spending had been cut simultaneously, I'd have no concerns about deficits. Which is not to say I'd be worry-free at that point, but my concern might be directed elsewhere.
Depending on what had been cut, it could be that I'd rather see a portion of the tax cuts eliminated and the spending restored. I wouldn't say "give me back that spending, even if runs a huge deficit!"
Let me make something clearer about my stand on deficits: I have no problem with short terms deficits that we truly intend to pay off later. My problem is with long-term structural deficits that are like having our country with a huge running balance on a credit card for which we only ever make the minimum payments. Long-term structural deficits are what the Republicans are creating right now.
I don't see any general consensus among Republicans that it's ever a good time to pay off the national debt. I won't say that's purely a Republican problem either - Clinton certainly wasn't representative of all Democrats when he wanted to use surpluses to pay down the debt.
I do have a bigger gripe with the current batch of Republicans, however, because it seems that no matter what the issue, a tax cut is the answer.
Surpluses? Well, we're obviously taking too much of your money then -- you need a tax cut!
Deficits? Well, we must be strangling the productivity of the economy with high taxes -- you need a tax cut!
It can be a perfectly valid and consistent stance to say that you favor a smaller, leaner government. I might disagree with someone over how small small should be -- but as long as that someone is consistent about both their taxation and spending policies, I won't be arguing with them over deficits or fiscal responsibility.
The apparent contradiction of always calling for tax cuts might be explained if the goal is to shrink government to some targeted size that it hasn?t yet reached. However, if that is the goal, talking about surpluses and stimulation of the economy as reasons for the cuts is dishonest rhetoric covering a different agenda.
Apparently it [my concern] only kicks in when the subject is tax cuts. It's nowhere to be seen when it involves the establishment of a massive new federal entitlement.
The deficit is a concern for me no matter what. Does that mean I have to look at the drug program for seniors, which is admittedly expensive, and say ?Ah hah! That?s the problem!?? Not at all. It is perfectly consistent to voice concern over the deficit yet not target my concern at the drug program itself. I?m concerned about a lack of proper funding for the program ? that is, concerned that there?s not enough revenue to support it because of tax policies. The real hypocrisy lies in those politicians who both support the big tax cuts and the establishment of a large entitlement at the same time.
I think the drug program is a good idea, and I?m willing to pay for it through my taxes. No inconsistency at all there with my attitude towards deficits.
Originally posted by alcimedes
the 80's called, it wants its joke back.
And then he want Ahhh so I went hey but then it went ohhh and they were all nahhh.
Thank very much... make a note of it....
Conservatives (that's me) upset at spending growth under Bush
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I want this day officially noted. For while I have been quite consist and this and thus I am post... CONSERVATIVE CRITICISM.
Thank very much... make a note of it....
Conservatives (that's me) upset at spending growth under Bush
At least it's a more consistent point of view than presented by the so-called conservative Republicans in Congress and the White House. Still has a nasty taint of Social Darwinism, but it is more consistent.
All besides the point, however... My last long reply went unchallenged for over ten days, so I've already officially won this thread's debate by default.