Ron Paul For President in 2008

[N-Syte]

@Final-Fan

You can presume nothing! Actually, I apologize. I lost track of the multiple threads. Glad to hear you enjoy the exchange though.

I do not believe tax increases are fiscally responsible if underlying spending is not. How can you justify taking money from others to fund what should not be spent in the first place and call it responsible? If one of us must pay for it, let it be you, not me.

It is inherently irresponsible to raise taxes, as Clinton did when he promised not to (and he did not get the “read my lips” treatment), if spending can be cut. You would not manage your own finances that way yet you applaud it when done by the government.

Generally tax reductions are followed by increased tax revenue. It happened under both Reagan and Bush. (I would not be surprised if that is NOT included in text books!) The ’93 tax increase is a good reason why Clinton rightfully got his clock cleaned in ‘94. And what a mandate it was! From welfare reform to budget battles, Clinton was wise to get out of the way of that freight train. Even the notorious government shutdowns were a nice touch (I secretly wish they would happen on a more regular basis). The Republicans were so successful in achieving their initiatives, they had little to run on later (Dick Morris' triangulation strategy, etc). I really don’t want to look at the last 7 years. What a great opportunity lost. Somehow the Reagan torch was extinguished with the advent of “compassionate conservativeism”. I believe that was the primary reason for the party's meltdown. Oh well.

As far as a correlation between spending and tax revenues is concerned, I should have been clearer. Yes, spending always increases. Many programs have built in escalators. Inflation alone would ensure spending rises in absolute dollars. My poorly worded point was to say that politicians often assume tax increases translate into greater revenues (hopefully I don’t need to explain why this is a dubious assumption). Because of anticipated revenue gains, there is little incentive to reduce the rate of spending growth. Au contraire, some might feel it is opportunity to increase spending for their pet projects. If cutting spending is impossible, then better to be in a debtor position to create the incentive to slow the growth in government. It is under those conditions when you hear Democrats complain about Republican attempts to reduce the rate of growth in a program (it usually sounds something like this: “it was supposed to grow by 10%, but they want to cap the growth at 7%. that’s a spending cut, damn you!!!”)

I hate debt as much as you do, but what I hate even more is government involvement in society. I wonder if you have any real sense for how bad US debt levels are on a relative basis. Have you looked at Europe lately? And they have already happily taken your advice on increasing taxes!

If you want to reduce debt, then we are on the same page. Support politicians who would cut spending (alas, they are a dying breed). However, my suspicion is that people who claim tax increases are fiscally responsible in the name of managing debt are the same people who are sympathetic to the government's spending tendencies. They focus on the tax side of the equation to hide their support for big government, lest they be called “tax and spenders”. You apparently don’t fall in this category given your rebuke of out of control spending. If that is really the case, you should devote more of your time to attacking big government types (dems and reps alike, there are plenty to go around) and less time defending tax increases.