Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't that the beauty of tax revenue shortfalls? There is no money to fund bloated spending. Doesn't this argue for spending cuts rather than tax increases as the method to reduce the deficit? Raising taxes will just pay for bloated spending. Parkinson's second law--expenditures always rise to meet income.

I think this is true to a point, but am not sure the problem of the national debt can be solved with spending cuts alone over the next decade. This certainly seemed to be the opinion of the debt commission who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do (one would hope).

That being said, I do see wisdom in the Conservative idea that if the money is there it will get spent. This is as true as extra cash in your pocket or that tub of ice cream in the freezer (i.e. human nature). The key is restraint, and why I think most people don't trust either party, they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

And Spence, look up WHICH PARTY has controlled the purse strings (meaning, which party controlled the legislature, not the White House) since January 2006.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think this is true to a point, but am not sure the problem of the national debt can be solved with spending cuts alone over the next decade. This certainly seemed to be the opinion of the debt commission who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do (one would hope).

When I spoke of no money to fund bloated spending and not raising taxes to create that condition, I specifically referred to it as an argument for cutting spending rather than raising taxes as the best way to reduce the DEFICIT. As you said, most people interchange or confuse DEBT and DEFICIT. However, since you mention it, the debt certainly won't be reduced, not only over the next ten years, but ever, if the budget is constantly in deficit. The problem with raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, even if it is only an added measure in tandem with reduced spending, is, as we both agree, the incoming revenue will be spent. What's more, if not even worse, the "economy" is not a static universe. It is dynamic and reacts to taxation, usually in a negative way as taxes rise. So you may well have less income with higher taxes as the "economy" shrinks. And, by trying to "stimulate" the "economy" with an influx of government deficit spending and borrowing weakens the dollar and deflates the value of people's savings and property, which in turn, can lead to a decrease in government revenue while increasing the debt. It's a dog not only chasing its tail but eating it. The only way to stop the beast is to starve it. Put it on a crash diet of no goodies--only what is essential. The Federal Government must relinquish the mass of programs that it has, unconstitutionally IMHO, stolen from the people. Let us be more and more responsible, and let the Federales do only what the Constitution allows. Of course, that cat is out of the bag, and it may never be put back.

That being said, I do see wisdom in the Conservative idea that if the money is there it will get spent. This is as true as extra cash in your pocket or that tub of ice cream in the freezer (i.e. human nature). The key is restraint, and why I think most people don't trust either party, they're looking for responsibility which has been in short supply regardless of who's in charge of the pocket book.

-spence

Let's keep voting them out till they get the message.