Replies

Republicans have cut income taxes. Democrats have opposed such income tax cuts

Let me give you an economic theorem: deficits = deferred taxes. If we are going to spend, I would prefer to pay the bill myself rather than pass it on to my kids and grandkids. If I had it any other way I would be no better than the greedy-geezers I rail against.

You've just endorsed most of what Bush has been doing,

The most important thing to me is smaller, less intrusive govt. I don't see that as an endorsement of anything Bush has done. Can you tell me, beside ABM treaty and PBA, what I support that Bush is doing?

"Can you tell me, beside ABM treaty [withdrawal] and PBA [ban], what I support that Bush is doing?"

Bush is working on Privatizing 2% of Social Security as an "experiment." Should that experiment succeed, then we will Privatize more and more of SS until finally it is no longer a government pension plan. You seemed to have indicated above that you supported such an incremental plan. One would likewise presume that you support tax cuts (preferably with spending cuts, too). Ditto for your stance on limited legal immigration.

Same again for your support of a standing, professional (naval) military.

Let me tell you, if you walked in to any Libertarian Party official meeting with those views above, you'd be subjected to vicious rhetoric to the contrary.

"The most important thing to me is smaller, less intrusive govt. I don't see that as an endorsement of anything Bush has done."

Would you like to see such things? Seriously?

Bush ended the federal regulations that required Environmental Impact Statements from logging prior to building new logging roads as firebreaks. That's a less intrusive government.

Bush cut the red tape for introducing new Genetically modified food and seeds. Again, that's a less intrusive, smaller government.

Bush cut the CO2 regulations that were choking off the electricity surplus to California.

Bush stopped the new "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement that would have shuttered every home-based business in America.

But cut the double-tax on dividends. That's less paperwork and a less intrusive government. Ditto for Bush cutting our federal income taxes (e.g. initial refunds got mailed out without citizens even filing forms).

Bush has put some 700,000 federal jobs up for bid by private citizens/companies, too.

"Let me give you an economic theorem: deficits = deferred taxes."

That's a fine theorem, and there is much truth to it, but there is not so much truth to it that it is an economic Law.

For instance, you don't have to raise taxes to pay off deficits.

Technically, you could sell governmental assets to pay such debts (the U.S. federal government owns 1/3 of all land in the U.S., for instance).

Technically, you could lease governmental assets to pay such deficits.

Technically, you could reduce or constrain future spending in order to allow for such deficits to be paid.

Technically, you could run up the printing presses to pay such debts.

Technically, you could even default on such debts. Russia did in 1998.

Now granted, there are concerns with all of the above "solutions." I don't deny that fact. But nonetheless, those are valid *alternatives* to raising taxes to pay such debts.

And since there are alternatives to raising taxes in order to pay such debts, it does not follow that increased debts always equal increased taxes.