| Final-Fan said: Republicans haven't been true fiscal conservatives since before I've been alive. Whatever complaints you have about "tax and spend", surely you agree it's better than "don't tax but spend anyway"? That shit just comes back to bite you in the ass -- look at the percentage of federal spending devoted purely to paying off interest on the debt. |
It does seem to ebb and flow doesn't it? Goldwater kicked off the conservative resurgence in the 60's, but I don't think it got any real traction in the Republican party until the 80's under Reagan. There were some truly strong and principled voices against government growth. But it's one thing to do it as an opposition party, and entirely another thing do it as the majority party. Again, the Republicans did well in the 90's on this front, but they got comfortable and fat and threw away that fiscal restraint in the oughties. If the party ever wants to regain the mantle of "fiscal conservatives" again, it will need to work hard to prove it. I hope they give it all they got, otherwise I see very little difference between the parties on this issue.
As far as "tax and spend" verus "don't tax but spend anyway"? I choose neither. Eliminate the spending and the other half of the equation is moot. But If you had to choose the lesser of two evils, being in a debtor position could be some impediment to government growth. For your little scenario, I'm guessing you want to assume that spending will always be the same regardless of whether we tax too little or too much. I don't buy it.
