[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually, I'd think many economists would argue that conservative intolerance on tax policy is a gigantic threat to our greatness.

"Intolerance"? How about disagreement? Is to disagree the same as to not tolerate? Are "conservatives" supposed to tolerate tax policies they think are wrong? It's apparent that so-called conservatives and whatever is the so-called monicker of their opponents have a gigantic difference in view of what is our greatness.


Under Reagan our debt had never been 3 trillion before, under Bush 41 it had never been 4 trillion before, under Clinton it had never been 5 trillion before and under Bush 43 it had never been 10 trillion before.

I'm not sure I see the influence of democrat vs republican ideology in this picture.


So what ideology do you see the influence of in this picture? Is there the influence of "conservative intolerance to tax policy" in this picture? Or do the administrations all have in common that they spent more than they took in--REGARDLESS of whether they raised or lowered taxes? There seems, to me, to be a SPENDING problem in common to all administrations, not a taxing problem.


It's interesting that the Reagan generation of Republicans is just as responsible as Democrats for our fiscal issues, yet conservatism is still as pure as a spring flower in your eye. The Right uses class warfare just as much as the Left. The facts neither bolster or admonish either position.


So you got all the monickers in play here--"conservatism," "Republicans," "Democrats," "Right," "Left." And they're ALL equally responsible for our fiscal "issues."

No #@&<#@&<#@&< Sherlock (as you responded to Jim in CT).

But are they responsible in the same way? Are there no differences? And if not, what is our vote for? How does the "Right use class warfare just as much as the left"? Do ALL the facts neither bolster nor admonish either position? And what is "pure" Conservatism, and will there be no stopping the growth of the Federal debt regardless if Conservatives/Republicans/Rightists or Liberals/Democrats/leftists are elected to solid majorities? And if that's true, could there be another monicker that might be applied to both sides that is a problem--Progressive? The Central government has grown in a progressive manner regardless of which other monicker has been in power. "Pure" Conservatism, if that is original Constitutionalism, might be the antithesis to this growth.



But I agree that all need to sacrifice. Social programs will need to be cut and the wealthy will need to pay a bit more than the historic low taxes they pay today.

-spence

And when"all," excluding, of course, the 50% who don't pay Fed income tax sacrifice and the wealthy pay a bit more taxes, and the debt is paid and the budget is balanced, will we then not have to sacrifice and will the wealthy's "bit more" taxes be reduced?