Borrow and spend means taxing later generations. Or just declaring bankruptcy and refusing to pay the debt.
So, either one is tax and spend. The only issue is whether the people being taxed are the ones getting the benefits now, or whether the later generations are the ones being taxed.
2007-03-31 16:34:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
One of the big reasons that income was catching up with expenses during the Clinton years was because the Republican Congress shut down the government before they would approve Clintons outrageous spending and budgets.
Also, under Clinton the way in which the federal government did its accounting changed. Social Security taxes became a measure of income when it had not been previously calculated in (I have to look that one up, but I am pretty sure it was not calculated that way previously).
Don't forget too that Clinton had the treasury default on a number of long-term bonds and roll them over into higher yielding 7-year bonds with a higher interest rate. Since the money was not repaid, there were no expenses on the old accounting ledger.
Bush is an idiot about spending. I always vote for gridlock. I want a "do nothing" congress and I want a lot of vetos. Lets face it, all of our important laws are now set by case law (judicial branch) and our executive branch exists only to tax you and try to buy your vote back from you with your own money.
2007-03-31 23:43:59
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pooky Bear the Sensitive 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Borrow and spend is really just tax and spend extended into the future; taxes will eventually pay it back. So the question is if deficit spending makes sense in our current situation. Sometimes it's necessary and makes sense, but the Bush administration has produced the largest debt in history with the combination of tax cuts and war spending. Sure, congress has contributed to the deficit spending with some pork, but it's not much in comparison.
2007-03-31 23:45:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by dhcasti 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Republicans immoral? How very un-American of you. lol at least that's what they would say. Most of them have no concept of not having enough money so they can't stop spending. And taxes are for people who work because they don't have the means to get out of paying them. But don't worry about paying down the debt because our children are going to grow up to be good tax payers and they'll take care of the debt. After all they need to spend it right now. Bush still has other countries to invade after all. I wish I could say lol but there isn't anything funny about it.
2007-03-31 23:51:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by V-Man the Tinknocker 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
What gets me is how can one expect to have a record tax cut and then spend more. Whats funny is when they cut taxes it was touted as the largest tax cut in history. If the cuts are not renewed they are saying that the dems are creating the highest tax raise in history, forgetting the fact that things are just going back how they were, with a surplus i might add.
2007-03-31 23:37:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by bradnick2000 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Exactly, I agree. I think it boils down to 2 types of people; the type of people that don't care who's problem it is and would rather not pay taxes and the type of people who have a conscious. To the people who want it to be someone else's problem, do they ever borrow money from a friend with no intentions of paying it back? It's the same thing but on a societal scale.
2007-03-31 23:38:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Eisbär 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both are dead wrong. The more money (through taxes or indebtedness) a government has, the more ways they find to spend it.
A balanced budget admendment with teeth is what we need.
We also need to dump the current tax laws and the IRS.
2007-03-31 23:46:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by in-the-biz 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Borrow and Spend.
2007-03-31 23:35:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Edward Carson 3
·
0⤊
2⤋