paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Quote:
Obviously, cutting spending is one way of doing that, but it's simply a means to an end. The real objective is to reduce the burden of government on the citizens.
If the government spends more than it earns on.... oh I don't know....say, ill thought out wars with no definition of 'victory' let alone a chance of achieving said victory, at a predicted long term cost of 2 trillion dollars when all is taken into account, then that cost will be a direct burden on the tax-payer at some point.
Irrelevant. We can talk about how we got there all day long. I'd also suggest that the Dems stacking the last 50 years of US budgets full of long duration non-discretionary spending programs has more then a little bit to do with why we're unable to do something like maintain the US military at operating strength without running a deficit.
You're also injecting your own opinion into the likely success of the war as though I must agree with you and therefore apply that to my own "side" of the issue. Um... Wrong. I happen to think that our actions in Iraq are critically important. I happen to think that the spending on the war in Iraq will have a greater long term positive effect for the US (and the world as a whole) then the multiples more then that we spend each year on social programs that ultimately don't accomplish a darn thing (except spend money of course!).
The point that you and Smash are totally missing is that Bush's tax cuts are exactly in line with fiscal conservative policy. The important part is reducing the tax burden on the population. The belief is that this will not only increase individual liberty but if done at the correct level, will also increase economic growth over the long term, which in turn will reduce future tax burden even more (ie: same spending will consume a smaller percentage of a larger pie).
That's the conservative economic approach. Sure. We'd love to reduce spending at the same time. Newsflash. The Republicans never had a sufficient majority in Congress to actually pass the legislation needed to reduce those non-discretionary budgeted items which constitute 2/3rds of our federal budget.
I'll point out that by only doing half of what we'd have liked to do (reduce taxes and reduce spending), we still accomplished the very increase in GDP and economic growth that we predicted. Now. Had the Dems not steadfastly blocked cuts on spending, how much better off would we be? Yeah. Much much better off.
You guys are basically blaming Republicans because their plans didn't work 100% because the Dems prevented them from executing their plan completely. Um... How about blaming the Dems for this? It's amusing that you heap the "you didn't cut spending!" baggage on us, when it's the Dems who keep increasing spending. They're the ones who create huge government programs that can't be changed later (except to go higher). Military costs change each year based on the need. But the Dem programs just get more expensive without end. Period.
How about we apply the same standards to both parties and see what happens? Dems increase spending and it's all okie dokie. But republicans don't reduce spending and they're an economic disaster? How does that work logically in your head?
Quote:
The money the government is borrowing (from all over the place) to support its massive and ever increasing spending has contributed to a total national debt of 48 trillion dollars.
Er? You just make up numbers? Debt held by public is like 4.7 Trillion dollars. But hey. A factor of ten off is
close, right?
But you guys don't use wild and inaccurate rhetoric to make your arguments, right? I should believe you when you say that the economy is screwed up, cause you apparently know all the facts.
Sheesh!
Quote:
Surely someone is going to be liable for that wedge?
Maybe the mad squirrels in your brain who made it up?
How about this? We are less in debt today then we were when last the Dems held Congress and the White house. By a freaking large margin. Those are the facts. Please stop making stuff up about US debt, cause you're wrong. What's bizarre is that I just posted these numbers earlier today. Do you just not bother to read? Are you so brainwashed to your own positions that you can't even see fact when it's right in front of you?
Double Sheesh!
Quote:
I would guess that the 'citizens' that you conservatives care about so much would be expected to come up with it one day.
What? The debt that is less of a burden on them today then it was 15 years ago?
What part of the debt going from 50% of GDP to 37% of GDP is confusing to you?
The fact of the matter is that conservative fiscal policy believes that money left in the hands of the citizens instead of taken by the government will result in more positive gains over time. And we're right! Every single time we are right. The problem is that for some reason that I can't fathom a significant portion of our own population has bought into the Left wingnuts who say otherwise and continue to put the Dems in charge of our pursestrings. So everytime we actually start to make progress towards implementing conservative fiscal policies and it starts to become evident that we're right and the liberals are wrong, the massive attack machine gets mobilized, the smear campaigns gain the upper hand, and the populace votes the Dems back into power. Only to wonder why 10 years later their lives haven't gotten any better despite their taxes going up and their freedoms systematically being taken away from them.
When will people stop listening to rhetoric and start looking at the facts. Every single argument against conservative fiscal policies are trivially debunked by simply looking at the actual budget and revenue data. That's it. But so many people refuse to look. They'd rather be ignorant and believe themselves right I suppose...