Journal pudge's Journal: The Tax-and-Spend Party 21
It's official, the Democrats are now pushing a state income tax here in Washington. So, all you people who voted against local and state Republican candidates, or refused to vote for them, merely because of the war in Iraq or anything else that happens in DC
Not a big deal (Score:2)
It's official, the Democrats are now pushing a state income tax here in Washington.
Yea, and it will have a snowballs chance in hades of passing. (remember to do such requires amending the State Constitution, not a trivial process) I mean if the most popular Governor Washington has had in the past 40 years couldn't get it passed, nobody can.
This is really nothing new considering the number of people who've ground that particular ax over the years before giving up.
BTW how exactly is it "official"? Did it recently get adopted into the party platform?
So, all you people who voted against local and state Republican candidates, or refused to vote for them, merely because of the war in Iraq or anything else that happens in DC ...
Nope, in my case strictly state and loca
Re: (Score:2)
It's official, the Democrats are now pushing a state income tax here in Washington.
Yea, and it will have a snowballs chance in hades of passing. (remember to do such requires amending the State Constitution, not a trivial process)
Well ... yes and no. The legislature can pass it more easily now than before. But it still needs that 60 percent of voters.
BTW how exactly is it "official"? Did it recently get adopted into the party platform?
Sorry, my bad. I didn't mean "the Democrats," but "Democrats." That part remains to be seen. However, it has already been pushed to the front, and has already had a reading in committee, a week ago, which means either some important Democrats want to get it done, or want to kill it as quickly as possible. :-)
So, all you people who voted against local and state Republican candidates, or refused to vote for them, merely because of the war in Iraq or anything else that happens in DC ...
Nope, in my case strictly state and local issues affected my votes on state and local candidates.
Right, so I am not talking to you!
The flip side is also true, just because of something you don't like that is happening at the state level doesn't mean you should reject candidates at the Federal or local level who happen to share the same party.
Yep. I never implied otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my bad. I didn't mean "the Democrats," but "Democrats." That part remains to be seen. However, it has already been pushed to the front, and has already had a reading in committee, a week ago, which means either some important Democrats want to get it done, or want to kill it as quickly as possible.
Well it was tried back when Evans was Governor. It was even put to a vote of the people, went down in flames as I recall.
I don't perceive the willingness of voters to pass such a thing as being any higher now than it was back then. For that matter it might not even be able to get the super majority it needs to pass the legislature (3/4 I think).
Re: (Score:2)
And I agree with you that it wouldn't pass the voters. But that's a bit beside the point, which is that it's irresponsible, and if the Democrats do end up supporting it (the president pro tempore of the Senate sponsored it, but that's not too meaningful on its own), that it reflects very poorly on them as a party, instead of as individuals in the party.
cut-taxes and spend (Score:2)
Shouldn't we pay for our own budgets rather than making our kids pay? (plus decades of compounded interest)
Or does washington have a balanced budget already?
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying you should have elected the "cut-taxes and spend" party instead?
Huh? Are you in Washington? Because the Republicans in Washington do not act like that. Of course, they have been in the minority for years, so it remains to be seen if they would become like the federal GOP if given the chance. I doubt they would, though.
That said, yes, I greatly prefer cut-taxes-and-spend to tax-and-spend, because with the former you get two benefits not seen in the latter: first, you don't directly hurt the economy (not for a long time anyway), and second, and more importantly, you
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Washington has a balanced budget, thanks to the Republicans: Senator Dino Rossi led the fight during the lean times to balance the budget and keep the state going smoothly and not raise taxes that would hurt the economy. Now that we have a surplus, these insane Democrats -- and ces even agrees with me here -- are drastically increasing the budget (it's gone from $19B to $30B in 10 years, including maybe $2B this year), and we will most likely face more deficits soon, when the surplus disappears and we have a huge budget to fund, and then the Democrats will come back and want to raise taxes again, "for the children."
Well that isn't entirely accurate. The State Constitution makes it hard to issue debt so the legislature can't just finance shortfalls by putting it on the credit card.
Typically what happens is something like this:
1. State economy doing well, tax revenue up.
2. Legislature spends more money on a bunch of stuff and puts some aside for a "rainy day".
3. Tax revenue falls.
4. Legislature spends "rainy day" fund.
5. Legislature faces "budget crisis"
6. Legislature cuts spending and raises taxes (almost always more
Re: (Score:2)
Well that isn't entirely accurate.
Hm, I see now I wrote that we have a balanced budget thanks to the GOP ... sorry, that's wrong. What I meant is that the GOP balanced the budget and kept it relatively low without increasing taxes, instead of what is going to happen under the Democrats if they remain in power when we have our next downturn.
I was switching gears -- going from irresponsibility to the balanced budget, which isn't really an issue in WA, but the other poster brought up -- and I burned the clutch. We would have a basically bal
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Republicans in Washington do not act like that.
My mistake. I guess it was that journalistic tendency to refer to the federal republicans as "The republicans in Washington" that led me to conflate the federal and state parties. sorry.
That said, yes, I greatly prefer cut-taxes-and-spend to tax-and-spend, because with the former you get two benefits not seen in the latter:
Your thinking here doesn't make sense to me.
I'll address your 2 points:
first, you don't directly hurt the economy (not for a long time anyway),
You seem to be aware that it will hurt the economy eventually but fail to recognise that the cost of delaying that pain is to increase the dammage that will be done. It is the power of compound interest.
second, and more importantly, you eventually reach an impasse where you are forced to raise taxes or cut spending,
How is that a desireable outcome?
When you rea
Re: (Score:2)
I'll address your 2 points:
first, you don't directly hurt the economy (not for a long time anyway),
You seem to be aware that it will hurt the economy eventually but fail to recognise that the cost of delaying that pain is to increase the dammage that will be done.
No, I do not. As I said, tax-cut-and-spend is a bad option. There is no want of reasons why it's a bad policy, and this is one of them. I just think the evidence weighs in favor of it over tax-and-spend.
second, and more importantly, you eventually reach an impasse where you are forced to raise taxes or cut spending,
How is that a desireable outcome?
Compared to tax-and-spend? Because with tax-and-spend, you never get the size of government down, which is my primary concern. Here you have, at least, at some point you will have to make the choice to either increase taxes, or cut spending, or both. With tax-and-spend, you've already made the choice
Re: (Score:2)
It is a lose-lose situation.
I'm going to go for a walk outside instead. It is a beautifull day here in Ottawa, there is a fresh layer of fluffy white snow everywhere and it is sunny and warm! (-4 celcius which is very warm! and perfect snowball weather!)
Re: (Score:2)
The Bruins are so gonna kick Senator butt tomorrow!
Also, we love Zdeno Chara.
(Dunno if you're a hockey fan, but if so, that probably stings a little!)
Taxes are good. (Score:2)
Don't say "Don't tax, don't spend" to me; that is just a pleasant fantasy.
The size of the government should gradually increase. Slowing it down is good, stopping it or reversing it is bad. Government size goes up with population size. Gradual, reasonable increases in spending are good for the citizenry. Theoretically you wont have to raise taxes much or often, if you have all your d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with tax and spend?
The fact that both taxes and government take away liberty, by definition?
I always see it used negatively. The alternative is what? Tax and horde?
Um, no. Don't-tax-and-don't-spend.
Don't say "Don't tax, don't spend" to me
Too late.
that is just a pleasant fantasy.
False.
The size of the government should gradually increase.
False.
Slowing it down is good, stopping it or reversing it is bad.
False.
Government size goes up with population size.
Not necessarily.
Gradual, reasonable increases in spending are good for the citizenry.
False.
You also neglect the fact that most of what the federal government spends money is unconstitutional, apart from liberty-destroying.
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that both taxes and government take away liberty, by definition?
Government does, taxes don't.
> False.
Not so much false as my opinion.
> You also neglect the fact that most of what the federal government spends money is unconstitutional, apart from liberty-destroying.
Yes, I am, wilfully so. The constitution doesn't prove anything about what ought to be, only what some guys once decided should be. Illegal does not mean wrong.
End of reply, begin moron
Re: (Score:2)
>> What's wrong with tax and spend?
> The fact that both taxes and government take away liberty, by definition?
Government does, taxes don't.
Um ... no? Not even remotely close? Money is property, money allows you to do and have things you otherwise could not. Not only do taxes take away your liberty in that it takes your personal property, but it takes way your potential to exercise liberty in other ways.
> You also neglect the fact that most of what the federal government spends money is unconstitutional, apart from liberty-destroying.
Yes, I am, wilfully so. The constitution doesn't prove anything about what ought to be, only what some guys once decided should be. Illegal does not mean wrong.
Again, completely false. A Constitution is more than just what some guys decided, it is a contract between a people and its government. It's a promise. It is how the rights of the people are protected, and to ignore it is to be immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can believe that if you like. Just 'cause it is so written does not make it true. I see plenty of evidence for the reality being that the government owns everything and the people have no rights. At the moment it is only the tradition of public outcry that keeps the public in the loop.
>>I think it's better for the government (which must exist) to tax in proportion with population an
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, what's yours is yours, and our new government recognizes that fact, and protects your right to that end.
You can believe that if you like. Just 'cause it is so written does not make it true.
And neither does your mere disagreement make it NOT true.
I see plenty of evidence for the reality being that the government owns everything and the people have no rights.
Well no, you really don't. What you see are our laws which assert rights and our courts which more often than not defend those rights.
There is no such thing as having too much.
If you earn money and do not spend it you are bad for the economy. 'Too much money' is more money then you will spend.
False. Again, asserting it doesn't make it true. There is high value to society for people to save money.
there is no need for government to spend money on almost anything at all (relative to the current size of government).
There is always a need. Governing more people is more expensive, even if the government does almost nothing. THe budget required to manage the beaurocracy which governs one hundred will be smaller than the one for one hundred thousand.
Um, the problem is that you are assuming that the federal government has to do anything to or for those people. It doesn't. And indeed, it's illegal in most cases for it to do so. Throw out the 16th Amendment and the number of things the federal government is allowed to do to or for the people is very tiny.
If you throw in a bit of socialism then the population/expense curve gets steeper.
Right, if you violate the Constitution.
Probably at least 95 cents of every dollar the government spends is completely unnecessary (and does more harm than good).
Probably that's true; the american government is not good at spending money wisely. However, I expect that we'd disagree about which 95% was unnecessary.
No. It's not about being unwise, it's about being things that the federal government is explicitly forbidden from doing in the first place.
Of course, some laws are purely bad for liberty, like the ones which imprison or kill people.
Well, no. Imprisoning a sex offender is, by far, a net gain for the cause of liberty.
Taxing high earners is a net gain for liberty, because money is power and power is abused.
Um, sorry, but that's pure, unadulterated, bullshit. By that exact same logic, I can take away ANY liberty you have. By definition, liberty -- the right to walk the streets whenever you wish, for example -- is power, and since power is abused, hey! Taking away your rights is a net gain for liberty!
You cannot have a net gain for liberty by taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens. That's Orwellian doublespeak.
Sadly, the american debt problem will soon require an increase in taxation even if 90% of the present budget were to go toward debt reduction.
That is not remotely true. Your figure there is completely invented in your own head. Well, unless by this you mean that we would keep spending that 90 percent. But if you mean we were to cut spending by 90 percent and spend that on the debt, no, not even close. Ninety percent of the budget is about $2.5 trillion dollars, almost 10 times more than the interest on the debt.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Again, asserting it doesn't make it true. There is high value to society for people to save money.
From the perspective of the government what is the advantage of saving money? If it does have a value to society, how does this value benefit the government? The government is a large, evil bugaboo. It will try to help itself first at all times. I am asserting that the government will con
Re: (Score:2)
From the perspective of the government what is the advantage of saving money?
What the hell do I care?
If it does have a value to society, how does this value benefit the government?
What the hell do I care?
The government is a large, evil bugaboo. It will try to help itself first at all times.
Right, so why are you pretending what is good for the government is good for society?
I am asserting that the government will consider spending money better than saving money because this will help the ecnomy more, or at least sooner.
No. You were asserting that spending money IS better for the economy, not that the government thinks so.
Would you be kind enough to explain or link to information on what allegedly unconstitutional things the government does with regards to spending money and why those things are unconstitutional?
Article I, Section 8. Also cf. Amendment X. If a power is not either explicitly enumerated by the Constitution, or implied as necessary and proper in order to exercise one of the enumerated powers, then the government is not allowed to do it. Social Security is clea