I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.
Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.
i'm bashing no one. both dems and reps voted against this.Well, I guess that this proves that Republicans love deficits. After all, that's what this was about, wasn't it? A pro-deficit versus anti-deficit vote? Because it's all about politics... and voting in favor of deficits is great politics :roll:
As has already been mentioned, votes correlated more closely with time in office than with party. There's more to this than the surface, as is almost always the case. But don't let that stop you from bashing the Republicans as the pro-deficit party....
I believe I stated earlier that there IS a point of "too low" taxes. We're just not anywhere near that.
When in control: Reagan's non-military spending cuts the largest in history; surplus of the 90s.
When not in control: Voted near-unanimously against stimulus, health care bill, etc.
Also, a slim majority voted against this particular method of reducing the deficit.
I'm not saying Republicans are always fiscally responsible. But to say that they are entirely fiscally un-responsible is just as untrue.
I don't think that the average conservative on DP is a good reflection of the average Republican in the Senate.
Completely true, though I don't think that necessarily proves they would be opposed to it now.
As a side note, if you look at the annual growth in "discretionary" spending under Bush, it's not particularly large once you exclude Homeland Security/Defense/Veterans - just 3.1%.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf (page 5)
Which would horrify the people who came up with SS in the first place. SS was designed as a safety net form of insurance for the destitute, not as a sole or critical source of income. Unless we fix the way people treat the program, we're screwed.
You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.
You both make the same mistake. Reagan and Bush where good, if you only look at the numbers that are good and don't look at the numbers where spending actually grew. That's a stupid way of doing it though. You have to look at the whole package, and both grew the deficit at rapid paces.
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.
Except that looking at the whole package without actually looking at its contents is completely misleading. Reagan's deficits were entirely the result of increased military spending, and fiscal policy plays almost no role in determining military policy. Once the Cold War ended, military spending went down, but non-military spending, which had been drastically cut under Reagan, pretty much stayed put, resulting in the eventual balancing of the budget. That stayed until 9/11 came around, at which point military spending went way up again.
Do you really think that the budget under Clinton would have been balanced if he didn't happen to preside over one of the most peaceful decades in the last seventy years?
Except the point you are both missing is that if you increase spending in one area, you have to cut in another to be able to claim fiscal responsibility. Continuing spending in some areas, while increasing it in others, is not fiscal responsibility without a corresponding increase in revenue.
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.
I agree, which is why George W. Bush was hardly the fiscal conservative. However, Reagan cut domestic spending more than any other president, so your point there is moot.
No it is not moot. His cuts where far outstripped by his spending.
Yes, his military spending, which, as I already said, is not ever influenced by fiscal concerns. I feel like I'm going in circles here.
You were talking about fiscal conservatism as a general policy. I think we can all agree that at a minimum, the increased spending due to 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan is not the "fault" of the president.
But why the tax cuts? An even better question is why the tax cuts on those who are less than likely to "spend"? A tax cut for the middle class would have been optimal, as consumption makes up nearly 70% of the economy.
I think his point is that neither extreme works, so we have to reach a middleground that balances individual interests with the need for revenue and economic growth.
Neither a 99% tax nor a 1% tax would raise much money.
Then how is Sweden able to afford such an expansive social safety net, whereas we are not? It's not through higher levels of deficit spending (Sweden's debt-to-GDP ratio is about the same as ours) and it's certainly not through lower taxes.
I've always wondered why conservatives are so adamantly opposed to social programs if they truly believe that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than they cost. If this something-for-nothing mentality was actually true, Republicans could just cut taxes to pay for all of the new spending that the Democrats want. Everyone would be happy.
Spending is a fiscal concern, no matter what it is for.
10% of the population pays 50% of the taxes. Your cry for the "middle class" would carry some weight if our tax system wasn't so screwed up.
Look, I know you're not stupid, and you don't usually have partisan blinders on, so I don't know what's stopping you from getting this. Look at it this way - you can't question a president's fiscal conservatism based on his military spending because his military spending is not optional, in the sense that fiscal concerns cannot overrule it.
Look, I know you're not stupid, and you don't usually have partisan blinders on, so I don't know what's stopping you from getting this. Look at it this way - you can't question a president's fiscal conservatism based on his military spending because his military spending is not optional, in the sense that fiscal concerns cannot overrule it.
The amount to a degree is optional, and if you have to increase spending in one area, you need to lower spending other areas by an equal amount to balance it out, or you are not being fiscally responsible. Just cuz Reagan did it does not make it right, or fiscally appropriate.
So did you miss the part about Reagan cutting domestic spending more than any other president? We're going in circles here.
And yes, it is to a degree optional, but fiscal concerns never ever play in to which option is taken, and they never have; that is why it's pointless to say that someone is not a fiscal conservative because they spent a lot on the military.
He did not cut domestic spending to the degree he raised military spending. He has no claim as a fiscal conservative, since he did not act fiscally conservative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?