Pretty much every "fiscal conservative" ho;ding national office acts like that. You could probably count on your hands the ones that do not. I mean, they know full well that spending cuts are not forthcoming yet they insist on cutting revenues anyway through tax cuts. That's not fiscal conservatism. It's just tax cut and spendism.
True, which is why I consistently call the politicians in both parties idiots. Because NEITHER cares about the long term future of this country fiscally. Both just want to get re-elected.
Second... you can say the EXACT same thing about the Dems... they harp and harp and harp on "tax the wealthy" "tax the wealthy" "tax the wealthy" as a solution to everything. When in reality... NO MATTER WHAT REVENUES ARE RAISED.... THEY SPEND MORE THAN THEY BRING IN. EVERY FUCKING YEAR.
And you, my friend, do the exact same thing. You know full well that your magic proposed spending cuts will never be enacted yet you insist on cutting revenues anyway. A true fiscal conservative would first cut spending and then cut taxes but no one actually proposes that. Unless you have actual spending cuts first, embracing tax cuts in any form is in no way "fiscal conservatism."
No moron, I do not. I "INSIST" on doing both. I have said time and again that the Bush tax cuts were a SHORT TERM solution as they need long term spending cuts to make them economically viable. I have stated that 1000 times. I have stated 1000 times as well that SPENDING CUTS is where we need to start. So you are being completely dishonest about what I have stated.
That said, as of right now... long term... I have no problem with reverting back to the old tax rates if no spending cuts are forthcoming. But doing so NOW is moronic. You DO NOT raise taxes in a recessionary environment. As I stated before, it retards growth and will only prolong the recessionary environment by maintaining high levels of unemployment.
Um, when Kennedy and Johnson cut the top income tax rates, those rates were a whole hell of a lot higher than they are now so the comparison there is nonsensical. Same with Reagan. Just look at 2001 to the present.
I was not saying they were the same as the situation today moron. Mott stated that there was never a time that cutting the top rates was beneficial to the country as a whole. I was pointing to TWO times when it most certainly did help.
There is obviously a level where a balance comes in. Given the insane complexity of our tax code, we don't know exactly where that level is. Which is again why I point out that we should clean it up. Because then we would have a more accurate picture on revenue each year and politicians would have a harder time justifying the continued year in year out outspending of revenues.
I also note that in 2001 when the tax cuts were proposed the main argument for them was not economic growth, but "it's your money, you should get it back."
Which again is correct. Individuals do spend their money more efficiently than the idiots in DC. The question again is at what level does it begin to have adverse effects. Clearly we are at a level where we need to cut spending in order to maintain the tax system as it stands.... or we need to cut loopholes and deductions as Reagan did.... or in the worst case scenario, we raise the tax rates.
Moreover, if tax increases would stifle economic growth as you claim, how do you explain the 1990s?
Well gee... as I stated, tax increases RETARD growth... they SLOW it... they do not STOP it all together. If you are growing at 4-5% and you raise taxes as Clinton did, growth will tend to slow from that 4-5% level. In that environment it is actually a BENEFIT to the country to slow the growth. Because if it grows too fast you end up with higher levels of inflation.
If you are growing at 1% and barely hanging on to that level, you don't want to do anything that might knock you back into negative GDP growth (aka... a recession)
