Excess is excess. Any REAL libertarians out there?
2007-09-28 17:33:41 · 11 answers · asked by Arby 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Noah, you are right, it is a false choice, but I appreciate the seriousness of your answer in spite of it. I was a bit miffed when I wrote the question. I should restrain myself.
2007-09-29 15:06:24 · update #1
Sky and poet, it boggles the mind, doesn't it.
Gene, you have seen enough of my posts to know that we are reading from the same book.
2007-09-29 15:10:37 · update #2
bkc - Cap and Save - I like the sound, but will it play in Peoria?
All - the consensus seems to be that borrowing for questionable goals is bad for the nation. We went into debt for WWII, and it was followed by a period of growth and prosperity, so it isn't the debt itself that is bad. Does anyone know if we borrowed for the interstate system? That cleared the way for huge growth.
All these are pretty good answers.
2007-10-01 01:07:43 · update #3
It depends on what the tax money was spent for. Building up a country's physical and social infastructure and maintaining the tax increment to provide for maintenance is what seperates a first world, transparent, democracy from some third world hell hole. Borrowing in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but again it all depends on what the money is spent for and spent on. Borrowing billions a day to pay for the occupation of Iraq is a perfect example of useless borrow and spend. Maintaining a bloated military designed to to stop the Russans from invading western Europe is another example of useless spending. Our debt will either have to be monetized, as in issuing massive amounts of inflated dollars, or repudiated....that's refusing to pay off either the principal or the interest. I doubt that any amount of taxation will burn us out of this hole that the Bush Junta got us into....so I have to go along with 'tax and spend' if that's the only two distractors, though actually it's a false choice question!
2007-09-28 17:50:04 · answer #1 · answered by Noah H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Borrow and spend is definitely worse. Start living on debt, and you will find out. Only spend the money you can bring in. By the way, repubs always raise taxes, they just do it in a sneaky underhanded way, like by increasing the fees to unrealistic amounts for services that the repubs in government decide you must pay in order to exercise your rights.
If a 12 ounce candy bar costs a dollar, and then the candy maker starts only selling 10 ounce candy bars for a dollar, then the candy bar maker has raised the price of candy bars. This is how repubs raise our taxes. On top of that, repubs make more laws forcing us to pay for things that we did not have to pay for previously.
2007-09-29 00:52:25 · answer #2 · answered by poet1b 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would rather be taxed for something and have the money immediately spent on something than the have it borrowed, spent and then have it accumulate interest to be paid later. Borrow and spend cost more in the long run then paying up front.
2007-09-29 08:49:23 · answer #3 · answered by xg6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are both the same. Eliminate the unconstitutional federal programs and waste and you wouldnt even need an income tax. The income tax is slavery. Stop sending our troops all over the world and we wouldnt have to borrow money. Both parties are guilty.
2007-09-29 00:44:39 · answer #4 · answered by Goldwater Conservative 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't care how much they spend as long as they spend MY MONEY at home. I don't care if the new scoundrels are Republicans or Democrats as long as they are experts at minding their own business. I pray they don't need to boost their egos by proving they can invade backward countries and stay there until everyone there hates Coca-Cola, McDonald's and all Americans. I want the new scoundrels to be good communicators, good negotiators, smart, and fairly honest. If they choose to lie about their golf scores I don't care (I lie about mine).
2007-09-29 00:54:26 · answer #5 · answered by GENE 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What we need is a cap and save politician. I don't know where they make those anymore. Like always, it seems to take lots of benefits from one side or the other to grease the wheels of the political machines.
2007-09-29 00:38:43 · answer #6 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I heard that Bush's debt legacy is going to be on the magnitude of $11.2T dollars by the time he leaves office.
Clinton's was a $286B surplus and a smaller deficit.
Mmm...
2007-09-29 00:51:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither is good, but the debt is out of control. The U.S. paid a half a trillion dollars last year in interest alone on out debt. Reagan tripled the national debt and GWB has doubled it. This has got to stop, now...................
2007-09-29 00:39:50 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
About he same, there gonna have to tax eventually to pay it back. But if they borrow they have to pay interest, so borrow and spend would be worse.
2007-09-29 00:44:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Opposites attract--it seems to work out for the longevity of the relationship.
2007-09-29 00:42:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋