A Balanced Approach to Austerity

K

kid.fx.cross

"A balanced approach" is the democratic code word for raising taxes.

Add to that, cutting spending.

Isn't raising taxes and cutting spending nothing more than a balanced approach to austerity?

If you like austerity, I can't think of a better way to do it.
 
As with many libertarians, I am open to the idea of raising taxes if we can first cut spending to an appropriate level. Why raise taxes to cover inefficiencies and spending on things we shouldn't be?

Cut first, then see how much it takes to run a government we want.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

As with many libertarians, I am open to the idea of raising taxes if we can first cut spending to an appropriate level. Why raise taxes to cover inefficiencies and spending on things we shouldn't be?

Cut first, then see how much it takes to run a government we want.
More...
I see no difference between raising taxes and cutting spending. To me they are both one and the same. Either one is a form of austerity, and when combined are a double whammy.

Austerity is what you do when you have screwed up and no one will lend you any more money. But it shouldn't be a plan.

The "Balanced Approach" of cutting spending and raising taxes at this time when the economy isn't doing diddly and rates are near zero sounds like an austere death wish.

I wish they would just call it what it is. A "balanced approach' is just an extreme form of austerity.
 
Quote from kid.fx.cross:

I see no difference between raising taxes and cutting spending. To me they are both one and the same. Either one is a form of austerity, and when combined are a double whammy.

Austerity is what you do when you have screwed up and no one will lend you any more money. But it shouldn't be a plan.

The "Balanced Approach" of cutting spending and raising taxes at this time when the economy isn't doing diddly and rates are near zero sounds like an austere death wish.

I wish they would just call it what it is. A "balanced approach' is just an extreme form of austerity.
More...


Except that raising taxes forces us to directly pay more, and cutting spending does not. I'm not sure how you can say there is no difference.

If you bring in $5000 a month in income, yet you spend $6000, what is your first move?
 
Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse should be addressed prior to any increase in taxes. The numbers are tremendous. I guess doing so could fall under the category of "cutting spending", depending on one's point of view.
 
Quote from kid.fx.cross:

"A balanced approach" is the democratic code word for raising taxes.

Add to that, cutting spending.

Isn't raising taxes and cutting spending nothing more than a balanced approach to austerity?

If you like austerity, I can't think of a better way to do it.
More...
Not sure if you're complaining, celebrating, or just asking. The deficit has been falling as a result of the expiration of some tax cuts, spending cuts, and rising receipts.
 
let me clarify, I don't like austerity when growth is slow
so the so called balanced approach which Nancy Pelosi advocates seems to be twice as austere as the republicans idea to cut spending

it's a moot point since nobody is going to do either

I would prefer to cut taxes, not spending
 
What's weird is that the Green River Shale oil deposit is worth $60 trillion and dems and reps both locked it up, I find that odd. If you find yourself in a financial pickle sometimes you have to take grandma's silver tea set down to the pawn shop to raise cash, yet both parties locked this single asset up, which is worth $200,000 per citizen.
I agree with the libertarians, it's not about red vs blue, it's all about the gr$$n. Dems and reps aren't capable of managing our assets very well but they do seem to be protecting others financial interest, just not the American peoples financial interest.
 
Quote from bullmarket79:

What's weird is that the Green River Shale oil deposit is worth $60 trillion and dems and reps both locked it up, I find that odd. If you find yourself in a financial pickle sometimes you have to take grandma's silver tea set down to the pawn shop to raise cash, yet both parties locked this single asset up, which is worth $200,000 per citizen.
I agree with the libertarians, it's not about red vs blue, it's all about the gr$$n. Dems and reps aren't capable of managing our assets very well but they do seem to be protecting others financial interest, just not the American peoples financial interest.
More...
Development in those plays is proceeding as the prices of oil, gas(es), and liquids allow. "Unfortunately", there's a glut.
 
ok, getting back on track, democrats finally admit that the debt is a concern. When Hillary Clinton was Sec of State and asked, "What is the greatest threat to USA?" she replied, "The debt."

So Nancy Pelosi grudgingly admits the debt is a problem and spending should be cut, but attacking this problem needs to be "balanced." Code word for raising taxes.

My point is, raising taxes is the same as cutting spending.

Taxes and spending are one and the same.

So if I am king of the world, and my country is struggling along at 2% , the last thing I want to do is impose some kind of austerity plan on the people.

And there are two kinds of austerity.
1. Raising taxes
2. Cutting spending

So it just strikes me kind of funny that Nancy Pelosi, supposedly a liberal, decides, the best approach is to hit the people up with a double dose of austerity. A "balanced approach."

Not only cutting spending, but also raising taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top