Eric seems to pine for a new party. Baxter says: "we just need to tax more"
Eric, there is a party of fiscal conservativism, at least in theory, it is called the Republican party. The Tea Party movement, at its core, is about too much spending and too much government control. Yes, like in all groups there are fringe elements, but their ideas are great.
Baxter, you keep taunting about the cuts necessary to balance the budget and, without consenting to your incorrect assumption that we cannot grow out of the deficit, how about you answer this one?...we cannot get them (congress) to make the simple choices, like cutting earmarks and freezing growth, so, if your narvana of increased taxes is acheived, why, and as you are making your taunting comments, I taunt you back, should any citizen think that they will ever make spending cuts? And I might add, America agrees with me!
So freeze spending,
reform entitlements
eliminate earmarks
stop and save (great word save) the rest of the porkulus.
Now...that may not balance the budget, but it would not "hurt". I think the tea party and Conservatives are saying...spending cuts first.
The "commission" is just going to dance around, avoiding hard decisions or if they do make them, they will not pass muster in the Congress and all this will be is an exercise in "agnostic" tax hikes.
Eric, there is a party who attempts to address spending, has so for years. Remember when the Republican Congress tried to limit the growth of automatic spending increases? The Democrats of course demagogues the issue. Rich, spending restraint denier that he is, always forgets those little gems.
Final point, Rich keeps noting that we would have been out of debt if we had kept tax rates the same (not!), but we also would be out of debt IF WE HAD CONTROLLED SPENDING! Specifically, the growth of government spending and if we give the beast, a beast which has never, NEVER, controlled its appetite, more, it will just spend it and we will be right back in the same place.
Eric, you seem a reasonable sort, I know Rich has a genetic, wrong word genetic, his Mom agrees with me, inherent defect, but you see this don't you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jim:
I'm not pining for a third party. I'm calling for a third, fourth, fifth and sixth party. (I am not a fan of the Tea Party crowd, but they should definitely have their own party.)
I have not found Rich to be defective, and actually his posts are so well supported that I have encouraged him to send copies to the newspaper. I think Rich supports a branch of the Democratic Party that is very hard to find.
You, on the other hand, seem to be a garden variety contentious Republican. You only stay on track with a vision of self reliance and fiscal restraint for about two sentences before launching into an attack on the other guy.
I think your posts always suffer at the end when you whip out the personal insults.
Rich says you are a great guy, and I believe him. So, what's up with the insults?
Mr "Be Nice" be mean this Friday morning, eh?
Let me remind you, Doc, it was you & yours that put us in this fiscal hole. Thank you for your discredited opinions and approaches. I don't think a reasonable person would look to the Republicans for anything resembling fiscal responsibility.
I remind you that the 1993 Budget Bill restrained spending growth, maintained pay/go and raised taxes, which led to surpluses four years later. This was done without one Republican vote. The GOP took power, grew spending, dropped pay/go, and cut taxes. And you are surprised by massive deficits? The Republicans now think they can lead us to the promised land of fiscal rectitude? What a bunch of idiots. Please. Is there a better adjective? I don't think so.
Obama has frozen discretionary spending in the FY2011 budget - something that Bush/GOP Congress never did. His commission will be proposing entitlement reform - trust me. Eliminate earmarks? Again - this was a Republican art form and to this day Mitch McConell defends the process. I oppose earmarks. That said, they do not add to spending, they simply allocate funds in an inefficient political manner. Earmark reform will not save a dime.
Jim - I want a thank you note after you read this post. I am educating you. President Bush would have had to reduce spending to levels not seen in 50 years, as a percentage of GDP, to balance the budget after his tax cuts. So - you want 1950's spending levels with 2000's obligations such as Medicare, Social Security and two wars? How incredibly irresponsible. What apparently exceeds your level of understanding is the scope of the problem. Your "IF WE HAD CONTROLLED SPENDING" is an incredibly ignorant and uninformed comment.
We need to control spending, no question about it. We also need to raise significant revenues. Take it from one who would know how to balance the budget - a DEMOCRAT.
Eric, you obviously do know great sarcasm, Rich will live to Blog another day, feelings intact.
If, by garden variety, you mean I am supporting stopping the spending and limiting government, you bet! Self reliance IS the issue. We have promised too much.
Rich, Bull****, recession, war (a legitimate function of government) are reasons to run a deficit.
But in our current curcumstance, we need to quit digging a hole. Your party, trusted to run things, has busted the budget by putting things into hyperdrive and is getting its ass kicked.
And you keep acting like there is no adverse effect on tax recepts by government policy.
The Tea Party movement is questioning the proper function of government. How much better shape do you think we would have been in if we had questioned FM/FM involvement in home ownership or not build in COLA's for S.S.?
Conservatives have argued this for some time and lost, but now we are at a tipping point.
Eric, you may think of this as "simple" that is because it takes lots of mental gymnastics to justify otherwise.
Jim -
If your boy had left taxes alone, he'd have had surpluses rather than deficits. Why can't you just admit when you & yours are wrong? I'll help you. In times of growth, surpluses = good; deficits = bad.
Tax cuts are a far higher priority for the GOP than balanced budgets. Dick Cheney said "Deficits don't matter." Why don't you guys just admit that philosophically, fiscal rectitude is trumped by lower tax rates in your worldview?
How many countries have cut taxes heading into two wars? With the benefit of hindsight, was that smart? Was it good policy to bring back a structural deficit?
Isn't it rather galling for the party that put us into the hole to claim the ability to get us out? Their partisans can't even come up with a proposal to do so on a blog, free from re-election fears. The most galling aspect is the claim they can dig us out and simultaneously insist on "no new taxes!" Does anyone really believe that? It insults our intelligence.
Post a Comment