|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 20, 2010 18:25:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 20, 2010 18:29:49 GMT -5
Interesting idea and hopefully it will stimulate a meaningful debate. Nonetheless, it is somewhat ironic to have a contract-breaker write it, given the term limits idea in the original that he signed.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2010 18:32:55 GMT -5
I hope the GOP will unveil a new Contract with America, a positive set of statements identifying what they will do if they resume power in the Congress, and ultimately the White House. Without such a statement of "will do's", the Dems will try to paint them as merely a party of "no". For it to be successful from a policy viewpoint, however, the new Contract must identify what steps will be taken to balance the budget and that's a whopper.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 20, 2010 22:51:30 GMT -5
For it to be successful from a policy viewpoint, however, the new Contract must identify what steps will be taken to balance the budget and that's a whopper. Indeed. Anybody can talk the fiscal conservative talk, but you've got to have major balls to walk the fiscal conservative walk. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is not fiscal conservatism. With our current mess, any party that's serious about balancing the budget has to cut spending a LOT before you can even think about cutting taxes. For what it's worth, I don't think we've had a truly fiscally conservative administration since Eisenhower. If the GOP can pull this off right, it'll be a huge boost to them. But I'm not sure they'll be able to. It's easy enough to unite to reject everything the other party does. It's a lot harder to get everybody in your party to unite behind a specific set of policies. The Dems have learned that the hard way, now that they can't just be the party of "We're Not Bush." Even drawing up a set of policies that all the Republican candidates can endorse will be tough. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2010 7:41:22 GMT -5
For it to be successful from a policy viewpoint, however, the new Contract must identify what steps will be taken to balance the budget and that's a whopper. Indeed. Anybody can talk the fiscal conservative talk, but you've got to have major balls to walk the fiscal conservative walk. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is not fiscal conservatism. With our current mess, any party that's serious about balancing the budget has to cut spending a LOT before you can even think about cutting taxes. For what it's worth, I don't think we've had a truly fiscally conservative administration since Eisenhower. If the GOP can pull this off right, it'll be a huge boost to them. But I'm not sure they'll be able to. It's easy enough to unite to reject everything the other party does. It's a lot harder to get everybody in your party to unite behind a specific set of policies. The Dems have learned that the hard way, now that they can't just be the party of "We're Not Bush." Even drawing up a set of policies that all the Republican candidates can endorse will be tough. Can the Republicans persuade America that this time with their new contract, they REALLY mean it? The US Fed. Govt. needs a serious makeover. Can either party do it? The Dems don't want to cut expenses and the Republicans don't want to raise taxes -- in fact, they want to cut taxes yet again - thereby exacerbating the problem yet again. It is quite clear to anyone who takes a realistic, objective look that the solution to a budget so badly out of whack is going to involve both cutting expenditures AND raising tax revenue. But this is a long term objective. Cutting expenses precipitously when the economy is just starting to recover from the near disaster on a global basis would not be a wise decision. TheStig, you wouldn't consider the Clinton administration to have been fiscally conservative? Cutting/reforming welfare and achieving the first budget surpluses in decades? |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 21, 2010 11:12:29 GMT -5
In my mind, fiscally conservative = Cutting spending so you can lower taxes while keeping the budget balanced. The way I see it, Clinton was cutting spending with an eye on the deficit, not for the purpose of cutting taxes. That's not to say I disagree with Clinton's priorities, I just wouldn't call him fiscally conservative because he wasn't focused on bringing down taxes.
But Clinton was certainly the closest we've had to a fiscal conservative since Eisenhower. I just find it revolting that the Republican Party tries to paint guys like Reagan as fiscal conservatives, considering what they did to the deficit.
Who was the last Republican President to leave the deficit in better shape than he found it?
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 21, 2010 11:31:09 GMT -5
zfacts.com/p/318.htmlA rough eyeball look at this suggests the answer is Nixon/Ford on the Republican side. The record of 41, 43, and Ronnie Raygun, however, is less than admirable on this issue. It is hard to discuss that record without mentioning redistributions of wealth.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,457
|
Post by TC on Apr 21, 2010 11:36:24 GMT -5
That's not to say I disagree with Clinton's priorities, I just wouldn't call him fiscally conservative because he wasn't focused on bringing down taxes. Question - given the choice between paying off the national debt with surpluses and ignoring the national debt and cutting taxes, which is the more fiscally conservative thing to do? I'd have to say dealing with the debt would be - I would not consider a household fiscally conservative if they didn't attack their credit card debt with surplus income first and foremost. Anyone claiming to want lower federal taxes is not a fiscal conservative. Also, say you have an impending revenue dropoff (ie dot-com bubble/crash)? Is it fiscally responsible to cut taxes? |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 21, 2010 12:41:21 GMT -5
zfacts.com/p/318.htmlA rough eyeball look at this suggests the answer is Nixon/Ford on the Republican side. The record of 41, 43, and Ronnie Raygun, however, is less than admirable on this issue. It is hard to discuss that record without mentioning redistributions of wealth. That's as a % of GDP, so it skews things a bit. I think in absolute terms, Nixon/Ford increased the deficit slightly, although not nearly as much as Reagan and the Bushes. TC - My personal priorities are in line with what you said, but I don't consider myself to be a fiscal conservative. I personally don't think cutting taxes should be a major priority, which in my mind disqualifies me as a fiscal conservative. I personally have no problem with spending, as long as you're paying for it. I don't think "tax and spend" should be an insult when "don't tax, still spend" is the alternative that the GOP has been pushing as of late. Basically, the way I see it is: Cutting spending and cutting taxes = Fiscal conservative (Ike) Cutting spending, but not cutting (or even increasing) taxes = Good policies (Clinton) Cutting taxes, but not cutting spending = Disaster (Reagan, Bush) The fact that we're starting from such a massive deficit skews things a bit. It would take a few years of spending cuts to get to the point where a fiscal conservative could responsibly cut taxes. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 21, 2010 14:13:35 GMT -5
The phrases I think captures your thought are:
Tax and Spend Democrats
Borrow and Spend Republicans -- and cut taxes too!
Based on your definition of a fiscal conservative, I understand and agree with your point.
My definition of a fiscal conservative would be different. Cutting taxes is not a necessary condition to be called a fiscal conservative. Balancing the Budget -- and using a surplus to pay down the debt -- those are fiscally conservative activities in my view. I am in agreement with TC on that one.
|
|
