1/8 Question for "conservative" sodans: If government is supposed to
be run like a business, which implies fiscal responsibility and
trying to make some kind of profit, why do republicans always run
up a deficit when in power and leave it to democrats to clean up
afterwards? Wasn't there a budget surplus before G.W. took
office? Censor away, conservatives.
\_ Why do you put conservative in quotes? I don't put "liberal" in
quotes. Doesn't it look weird to see "liberal" in quotes? I
think it does. --conservative before it was cool to be conservative
\_ You're begging the question, troll boy. The market was already in
a freefall and the economy already sliding bigtime down hill before
Bush took office.
\_ That's no reason to make it worse, dumbass.
\_ Make it worse by what, troll boy? Maybe he should've raised
taxes in a recession. No cookie, kiddo.
\_ Hadn't the economy started to go down before Clinton left office?
\_ Hadn't the economy started to go down before Clinton
entered office? Daddy Bush?
It's all politics. Conservatives are for personal freedom
and responsibility, yet they want to legislate abortion and
gays and whatnot. The preach "hands-off" free-market on one
hand and then govt legislating morality and flag-jesus worship
onthe other hand.
\_ don't forget grants to corporations disguised
as programs to keep them more competitive!
\_ four quadrants:
fiscal conservative, social conservative -> Republican
fiscal conservative, social liberal, -> Libertarian
fiscal liberal, social conservative,
fiscal liberal, social conservative -> Reaganite
fiscal liberal, social liberal -> Democrat
\_ misleading.Both parties are fiscal liberals, they
both like to spend. One spends on the rich, other
spends on the poor.
\_ wanting a tax cut is not spending
\_ Building a huge military is spending.
\_ two issues: tax cut and how you
divide spending. conservatives
want tax cuts. How they spend
is another matter.
\_ Clinton decreased government spending
as a percentage of GNP. Reagan did not.
As far as I know, no Republican actually
has, in spite of all the hot air:
http://perspicuity.net/civics/gov-acct.html
\_ Whoa! I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal but
I am certainly *not* a libertarian!
\_ then what is your affiliation?
\_ I see myself as a real conservative which means small
government. Small government means the government
basically stays out of people's lives but not in the
insane and extremist way the Libertarians want. I'm
not insane. I just don't want a bloated government
stealing my very hard earned money and giving it to
people who have done *nothing* to earn it except
bitch and cry and whine how oppressed they are and
how I *owe* them something for some strange reason.
\_ I should have also asked for your definition
of a Libertarian
\_ I read their website. I honestly don't recall
the details, just that I found a lot of it
unrealistic, extremist, and idealistic to the
point of fantasy.
\_ Nobody really wants strict fiscal responsibility during a recession.
but all of that hot air appeals to voters.
\_ Tax cuts imply deficits
\_ No. In the long term tax cuts cause the economy to grow. Taxes
are funds stripped from the economy that are no longer able to
produce or create real jobs or wealth. It's a drag on the
economy not a growth measure (raising taxes).
\_ So taxes are kept in Fort Knox never to be spent? Go go
Goldfinger!
\_ Taxes don't grow an economy. Well run businesses do. The
government is a source of waste and corruption, not any
sort of productivity, innovation, or new invention. The
only things the government has created in this century are
poverty through dependence, and weapons.
\_ Well, we are only two years into the century. I'm sure
we can go for something much more sinister by 2101. USA!
\_ Given a budget surplus, would it be better to:
1. Fix the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure
2. Invest in education, from pre-school to universities
3. Give 90% of it to the upper 0.2% of wealthy people
\_ that is kind of weird. most of the tax cut will
go to really old rich people who derive a significant
portion of their income from stock dividends.
I don't know ANYONE who gripes about the government
taxing their dividend income. i would be more convinced
if the administration press machine would try to show
that lots of jobs are created by this elite class
of stock dividend collectors.... but they haven't at all.
maybe they're busy with iraq and are trusting the GOP
majority in all 3 branches of the government will
allow them to pass anything they want and dissenting
views are beneath their notice. pretty depressing.
\_ Don't you know what dividends even are? They are the
payback to the investors from the company turning a
profit. Without those investors there wouldn't be enough
money to run the business and a *shitload* of people
would be jobless. Possibly to the point of the economy
simply ceasing to function. Hey I know, let's punish
everyone who creates jobs by investing in the economy.
This whole thread is fucking ridiculous and shows the
\_ There is an article in the WSJ that argues that
instead of cutting divident tax, they should
give tax rebates to companies that pay dividends.
This will solve the double taxation problem,
give more money to corporations to invest, and
help the huge number of middle-income people
who hold stocks in their 401Ks, IRAs, etc. (all
of which essentially still have to pay tax on
dividends), rather than to the rich old people.
The other thing I hate is the child-tax credit.
I don't mind sharing some burden with poorer
people who need help caring for their kids, but
why should rich people who breed like pigs take
my money just because they have lots of kids?
amazing and incredible ignorance and sheer blind
stupidity of many of you regarding how the world works.
\_ Don't you know what personal income is? They are
the payback to people who work. Without workers,
there wouldn't be any business, and no company
will survive. Possibly to the point of the economy
ceasing to function. Hey I know, let's punish
everyone who work at jobs and make the economy
turn. Nobody is asking for the elimination of
dividends, just whether and how it should be taxed,
just like nobody is asking for the elimination
of personal income, just how it should be taxed.
\_ Oh yeah? I think income tax is bullshit. Want
to tax something? Tax people on how much use they
get out of the infrastructure. Road tolls, gas,
cigarette, utility and other usage taxes are just
fine. A euroweenie style VAT is fine too.
\_ Sure, now that you have understood dividend
and personal income, we can proceed to talk
about dividend tax and income tax, and whether
they are needed.
\_ I already understood divs and PI. I believe
neither are needed and in fact are harmful.
\_ isn't it reasonable to say that no tax on dividends
encourages "buy-and-hold" behavior?
\_ ok that's reasonable. why doesn't the admin.
say this? all i read in the newspapers
is "giant tax cut on dividends. suck it up
assholes!"
\_ GWB said that? Cool! What a stud!
\_ Clinton is a stud. Bob Dole is a stud (even
though he needs viagra). GWB ain't no stud.
\_ There is an article in the WSJ that argues that instead
of cutting divident tax, they should give tax rebates to
companies that pay dividends. This will solve the double
taxation problem, give more money to corporations to
invest, and help the huge number of middle-income people
who hold stocks in their 401Ks, IRAs, etc. (all of which
essentially still have to pay tax on dividends), rather
than to the rich old people. The other thing I hate is
the child-tax credit. I don't mind sharing some burden
with poorer people who need help caring for their kids,
but why should rich people who breed like pigs take my
money just because they have lots of kids?
\_ Why should *anyone* get money for having kids?
\_ That would be even better. I can always
give money myself to my neighbour who
needs help.
\_ Maybe your neighbor should've used a condom.
\_ If the country is to cut taxes, it should first
cut income taxes, next capital gains, next
divident taxes, and only finally, inheritance
tax. This is because we should award ability,
not rich people with no abilities. If you
keep rewarding rich people with no abilities,
you will create classes in the society.
\_ Bush.
\_ some folks here are actually having a real
discussion. take your crap to slashdot/kero5hin.
\_ What's wrong with classes? Has there *ever* been a
society without classes? Is it even possible?
\_ big middle class, class mobility.
\_ I believe this is the best that can be done,
but you've still got classes.
\_ Using your POV you should put inhereitance tax first.
\_ Why should there be one at all? What gives the
government the right to interfere in a parent's
transfer of family properly to other family? Why
are they taxing death?
\_ The same reason why we don't have succession
monarchy and aristocracy in this country.
"Damnit! I earned this country fair and
square by leading the country to defeat
its enemies and ruling it well. Why can't
I pass it to my son?!"
\_ 4. Pay off the National Debt so we no longer have to pay
interest to our creditors.
\_ These creditors being exactly who? Bond holders, also
known as the American public for the most part. The debt
is the government reinvesting in the country.
\_ Yes, it's good to go into debt to buy a house, but
what is the right balance? do we need buy 2,3,4 houses
\_ Depends. If you can afford to buy 50 houses, that's
a great long term investment in many locations in
this country. I can't afford 50. I can almost
afford 2 in the bay area. I'd get a second and rent
it out if I thought I could swing it.
\_ I'm not a conservative, but the usual items to blame are social
services which are not part of the Constitution(tm). If you go
full "states' right," feds should only provide for national defense,
trade relations between states, and maintaining law as strictly
described by the Bill of Rights (and maybe some of the amendments).
All social services should be done by the states themselves or
privately (church, foundations, etc.). The deficit is because
federal social services exist.
\_ You sure sound like a conservative. It's ok to be a closet
conservative as long as you keep making conservative arguments.
\_ Even with all of these federal services, there was a surplus
when G.W. took office. It was clear the economy was going
downhill, yet he gave that surplus away to the extremely
wealthy and put us into deficit spending this country hasn't
seen since Reagon was in charge. At least Reagan had a
real reason (a strong Soviet Union) to forget about long-term
strategy.
\_ Exactly what surplus did GWB give to the wealthy? There has
been pretty much nothing returned to anyone yet at any level.
To say that there's been some big giveaway is either pure
ignorance or a flat out malicious lie. Oh yeah, there was
that big huge gigantic $300 bucks which was enough to totally
crush the budget. Whatever.
\_ Also, the tax relief check is the same amount for most
taxpayers having between low 5-figure and many-figure
income. Hence, in terms of percentage of income, the
low-income taxpayers already benefited more than the
high-income taxpayers even though the tax rates for
low-income taxpayers were lower than those for high-income
taxpayers.
\_ Dropping the top tax rate for the most wealthy.
\_ Child, it hasn't happened yet. When you have clue, you
may return to the conversation. Please stop drinking
your own poison. No one has had their tax rate dropped.
I know because I'm paying that top rate and it hasn't
changed a bit. I'll let you know when it has and it
won't be soon enough for me.
\_ Yes it has. You have been paying based on the (lower)
2002 tax rate all year, you just didn't notice it.
\_ Do farm and business subsidies count as federal social services?
\_ Not in the same sense, but to a degree, yes. On the other
hand, there is an important need for the country to be able
to produce enough food and certain goods self sufficiently.
We definitely do not want to be dependent on some foreign
power for our food or other basic needs. I consider some of
these subsidies to be necessary for the country's long term
safety, stability, and survival. Others are pure pork and
should be completely ended.
\_ A bogus argument for subsidies. The US massively
overproduces "staple" farm goods, thus dropping prices,
and therefore subsidies. This argument assumes that
without subsidies there would be no farming. Wrong.
\_ So if there were no subsidies you think they'd just
grow less food and charge more and it would all be ok?
And who gets hurt the most by this? The poor? Yup.
I'm deeply conservative and I find this very *not* ok.
\_ The only reason the poor will get hurt is because
this distorted agricultural economy has been
around too long. It is like people getting
addicted to drugs. I say gradual reduction of
subsities. Short-term pain, long-term gain.
\_ And the free-market will take care of this anyways.
No more republican subsidies! If anything, we need
to get more oil, a basic need, that's more
important to long-term national economic
health than cheese or eggs!
\_ Troll. There are just as many democrat farm states
as republican. That POS who switched over in the
Senate only did so because the dems promised him his
state would still get farm subsidies/pork and he'd
keep his position on a pork committee. As far as oil
goes, we have plenty. It's in Alaska. It's off the
coast of California and Florida and probably other
places. Drill for it. It's there. |
http://csua.com/feed/