SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (43367)5/24/2010 1:01:27 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Re: [And they DID NOT GO DOWN when tax rates were reduced (but borrowing remained unhindered....)] "The issue isn't if they went down, but rather if they or (I'll just say government spending to make it simplifier and use "it") it was lower than it otherwise would have been."

Well, sure... if you want to try to CHANGE THE POLITICAL CLAIM long after the fact... well, no one can stop you.

But that was *not* how the "starve the government" policy case was originally made.

That was *not* how it was sold to the American people in election after election.

It was sold as a way to "REDUCE the SIZE of GOVERNMENT".

In absolute terms (as a percent of GNP) the size of government during the Reagan/Bush years either declined ever-so-slightly... or else rose substantially (even more so during the Bush II terms).

While the ONLY SIGNIFICANT ABSOLUTE DECREASE in the size of government in the last 30 years happened during the Clinton terms....

Spin all that you want to but the EVIDENCE of HISTORY argues that: There is no 'free lunch'. Tax rate cuts seem to exert little-to-no restraint whatsoever upon government spending --- so long as the back-door' of federal borrowing remains wide open for politicians to push their spending plans through.)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext