Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't mean that thought is even remotely right, or even sane, just because of its length. That doesn't even make sense itself.
I can read through Gene Ray's Time Cube site of god knows how many pages, but nothing about it is even coherent enough to say more then it's batcrap insane.
So why do "conservatives" tend to ignore the income aspect when looking at debt and deficits?
Because no matter what add'l revenue come in, it and more is spent, with the inevitable result that the deficit grows even more!!
Happens every time.
The only answer is to reduce the gluttony on the part of the Congressional big spenders, which overwhelmingly are Democrats (based on the bills the sponsor, co-sponsor and vote in favor of).
It isn't hard to understand - the concepts are simple.
Spend less, much less, lower tax rates to spur economic growth, and use the add'l revenue from the increased economic activity to pay off debt.
I wasn't asking for a page count. I was looking for "analysis" you care about before placing your bets. Just provide the page number(s) that represents your idea of analysis.
There are a few perspectives on that. One is that they have a different idea from the left of how to produce revenue. The second goes back to the points I made earlier about the relative benefit of different strategies - they don't necessarily yield the same results when treated the same way and though some things may sound good, they really don't have sufficient impact.
Personally, I have no faith that the federal government would use any additional income that I sent to decrease the deficit or pay down debt. Historically, increased revenue is met with even further increases in spending. Currently, we are in a situation where the government doesn't even have a budget nor do they see a need to put one in place. They passed a paygo bill that was ignored as soon as it was passed. What reason is there to think that they would do anything responsible with my money? I'm happy to pay taxes to fund the things we need to fund, but if I'm going to flush it down the toilet, I would prefer to do it my house so I can have the pleasure of watching it swirl around the bowl first.
There are a few perspectives on that. One is that they have a different idea from the left of how to produce revenue. The second goes back to the points I made earlier about the relative benefit of different strategies - they don't necessarily yield the same results when treated the same way and though some things may sound good, they really don't have sufficient impact.
How to generate revenue is not the issue. I've seen "conservatives" downplay and ignore the idea of revenue itself, and stick with "spending" only. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lahaina Lopaka
Because no matter what add'l revenue come in, it and more is spent, with the inevitable result that the deficit grows even more!!
Let me refer you to the post where I already addressed that argument.
So do Congressional liberals have a plan? Because at least conservatives/libertarians have one. You seem to like criticizing it. I wish liberals had a plan I could criticize. You want to run the country with no plan. I think we've figured out that a bad plan (George Bush) is better than no plan (Obama) already.
There are hardly any congressional liberals, plenty of Democrats however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan
Because at least conservatives/libertarians have one.
There are hardly any congressional libertarians, plenty of Republicans however.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.