Aren't taxes just too high?

Matty · #1 10-14-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll come right out and say that fiscally I am a republican

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure about that?

HtotheNootch · #2 10-14-2005, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll come right out and say that fiscally I am a republican

[/ QUOTE ]Are you sure about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time the government spends a dollar we are being taxed. Now ask yourself if taxes were really cut, or did we just get interest added to our tax bill?

TomCollins · #3 10-14-2005, 06:01 PM

Not always true... local governments own utility companies that charge based on usage. They spend money to maintain equipment, build new water papers, etc... None of this is tax. Also, even the Post Office and Amtrak, only a portion of what they spend is coming from taxes or a debt (although any is too much imho).

#4 10-14-2005, 06:48 PM

EDIT: This is in response to Grey's graph post.

1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

2) As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), within the context of the national economy as a whole, the highest deficit was run during fiscal year 1943 at over 30% of GDP, whereas deficits during the 1980s reached 5-6% of GDP and the present projected deficit for 2005 is 2.9% of GDP, close to the post-World War II average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit

3) Avoiding the deficit would have been nearly impossible for Bush. The economy retracted immediately when he entered office which made tax revenue drop.

Matty · #5 10-14-2005, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]All spending must originate in the House of Representatives- so that's over 200 Republicans. It's hardly a problem confined to one man.

I'm not saying Republicans spend more than Democrats, but it also can't be said that Democrats spend more than Republicans. All that changes (slightly) between the two is what the money gets spent on.

The most important factor in cutting government spending is having the different branches controlled by different political parties. A Republican Congress with a Democratic President wouldn't spend that much. Same with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. But when the same party has both... watch out.

XxGodJrxX · #6 12-21-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the graph again. The deficit increases significantly during the Ford, Reagan and both Bush terms. The deficit decreases during Carter's and Clinton's. Fiscally Republican seems to mean that you like to run up a huge deficit, then a Democrat comes along and fixes the mess. Maybe Republicans are not as conservative as they advertise.

BCPVP · #7 12-21-2005, 03:13 AM

What's the deal with reviving old threads?

XxGodJrxX · #8 12-21-2005, 01:30 PM

That's weird, this thread was highlighted as new and on the first page when I read it. Maybe SOMEBODY wanted me to read it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

BCPVP · #9 12-21-2005, 01:33 PM

Ninja bumping in Politics? Is P.Dirty infiltrating our forum now?

CORed · #10 12-21-2005, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) He said he is fiscally Republican. He never mentioned that he subscribed to Bush's fiscal policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the graph again. The deficit increases significantly during the Ford, Reagan and both Bush terms. The deficit decreases during Carter's and Clinton's. Fiscally Republican seems to mean that you like to run up a huge deficit, then a Democrat comes along and fixes the mess. Maybe Republicans are not as conservative as they advertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's over-simplifying things. You have to consider who controls Congress. Congress is who actually passes appropriations and tax laws. During Ford's, most of Reagan's and Daddy Bush's terms, Democrats controlled Congress. During most of Clinton's term, Republicans controlled the HR, Democrats the Senate. During Dubbya's term, Republicans cotrolled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. It would seem that a Democratic president and a Republican Congress might be the best combination for promoting fical responsibility. Besides, I don't know what the Republican Party stands for any more, but fiscal responsibility doesn't seem to be something they are much concerned with. It seems they can say no to a Democratic president, but not to a Republican who can outspend any liberal Democrat.