So what does it mean to be 'Fiscally Conservative'?

t means we have to get spending under control. The fact that our country is currently almost 16 TRILLION dollars in debt and running TRILLION + dollar deficits every year is unsustainable. Our government has to cut spending or we will go bankrupt like Greece.

 

Politically: Smaller government - lower taxes, lower spending (tea party ideals)

In Practice: cutting taxes, no matter the effect on the deficit; arguing for cutting spending, but rarely actually doing it. (Bush II era)

Logically: Balancing the budget and being fiscally responsible, however necessary (Bush I era)

 

We need to cut spending everywhere including the military. Our debt is our greatest threat to our national security. Until the economy gets going, it would be insane to raise taxes.

 

Actually, the insanity given our economic situation would be cutting spending in any kind of drastic way. You don't have to believe me, England went the austerity route and has just begun a double dip recession.

 

So what you are really saying is that we aren't really having an economic recovery. We are having an artificial recovery stimulated by government spending. You are actually 100% correct. The problem is that this ponzi (sp?) scheme is unsustainable. We are mortgaging our future to sustain things now. Yes,the economy will falter with spending cuts but is the only way we can have a viable future. We will not have a real economic recovery until the private sector gets rolling. When the private sector starts making money and hiring people, then the economy will make a real recovery. To protect our future we may have to let the economy fall some before it starts going up.

As far taxes go, I think a tax plan indexed to economic growth could possibly be a good idea. Pick a target growth rate, say 3%, if the growth rate goes above that taxes are raised. If it is below that rate, taxes are lowered. for every 0.5% we go above 3% taxes are raised by 2% and for every 0.5% we are below 3% taxes go down 2%. This gives both sides a little bit of what they want. When the economy falters, supply side lower taxes kick in and when it is soaring the liberals can get the higher tax rates they covet.

 

A lot of things in government should be done exactly like this. Spending on capital projects should be the same way - it should automatically increase in a slow economy and slow in a booming economy. Not only does it help balance out the business cycle, but government gets to spend less by doing its spending in recessions when labor costs are lower. Plus, this eliminates the politics behind lowering and raising taxes to stimulate / fix the budget.

 

In a system like this, I guess the big argument would be what should the median marginal tax rates be. If we use the 35% in place right now under this plan, based on the the current growth rate of around 1.5%, the tax rate would be 6% less (29%) which would stimulate the economy. As the economy grew and we get back to 3% growth rate the tax rate would go back to 35%. If the economy keeps growing at a high rate and say went as high as a 4.5% growth rate then the tax rate would go up 6% to 41%.

I have never really heard anyone propose a system like this, but it seems like it might work.

 

Major, I agree. I think taxing and spending plans indexed to economic growth make a lot of sense and should be able to garner bi-partisan support.

 

This makes some sense.

 

No, the "stimulus" has ended.

Not true, we can balance the budget pretty easily by raising taxes to more responsible levels and cutting some defense spending. Look at the CPC budget, it balances the budget faster than the Ryan or Obama plans.

No, we don't. We just have to stop listening to the people who believe that greed is a virtue.

The problem is that it has been proven that lowering tax rates doesn't improve economic growth. Bush's tax cuts didn't improve things at all, and ended up leading to the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression.

 

And watch leaders in both parties feed on your carcass because you backed out of an originally unrealistic campaign promise. Alternately, you can promise upfront to balance the budget, get an Italian chick as your running mate, and, literally, lose every state east and west of the Mississippi.

 

Economist Paul Krugman has been recent favorite of mine. He states America is stuck in a liquidity trap. America is printing more money (stimulus) and lending it at 0% but all that's doing is causing people to save more money, not invest/spend it. He believes that the country would require a negative lending rate of ~1.5% to actually spur new spending but can't do so.

The only way for the American government to continue funding it's obligations and providing services at it's current level is to raise taxes.

 

My view of fiscal conservatism is running a balanced budget or even paying down the deficit. No more, no less. Anything that allows the deficit to grow is not fiscally conservative. The deficit will become the country's biggest problem.

Over the last 20-30 years, reckless fiscal policy has a recurring theme. Economic depression? Let's spend our way out of it. Economic boom? let's spend while the times are good. No one wants to put the breaks on spending. That's a great way to not get re-elected.

There are two ways to raise revenues: raise taxes or cut spending. That's it. The Ryan plan spoon-feeds a bunch of horse pucky about cutting both spending and taxes. That's just stupid and self- defeating. He wanted to cut spending to levels not seen since the depression and make drastic cuts to the entitlement programs. However, it is a starting point for path to continuing solvency.

Ryan's plan absolutely destroys government spending and services but it's more fiscally responsible. That said I can't support it because the cuts to Medicaid/Medicare would devastate our country's healthcare system (I get my MD post-nomial in June).

I used to be a small government proponent. That argument was always 'private industry can do it better/cheaper'. I no longer believe that. I'm sick of seeing private industries rack up record profits, provide lower quality services, and farming lots of job outside the US. If we're going to spend the money, we may as well spend it on American jobs.

Between the two parties, I think the Republican ticket is way too right. They're almost radical evangelicals and anarchists in terms of government function. The democratic ticket is leftist but is far more moderate than the Republicans.

It's gotta to the point where for the first time ever I'm legitimately considering voting democrat.

 

The people of The United States should vote a one time surtax on net worth equivalent to the national debt.

It's our country, us, the majority, love it or leave it.
That's conservative, right?

 

At this point, calling yourself 'fiscally conservative' just means that you hate Obama.

 

After Reagan and Dubya?

Do as I tell you to save.

But not as I do.

 

It means grabbing as much as tax cut as you can while you are still alive, cut all the benefits so the gov't can pay out boomers' pensions. Screw the next generations since the boomers won't be around to see the ugly end they created.

 

Put 4 trillion buckos on a credit card, and waste it on 2 useless wars.