Fiscal conservative, but social liberal

[Art Vandelay]

When you have a major financial burden coming up (e.g. social security and medicare for the baby boomers), it is irresponsible to increase your debt(compared to national wealth) cut revenue (via tax cuts), increase current spending (too many to name) and increase your obligations for future spending.

If you increase taxes, parents will have less money to spend on their children. If you decrease productive spending, then later generations will lose out on the gain that could have been obtained. If you decrease unproductive spending, well, that's a good idea regardless of whether you have a financial burden coming up.

And it's really odd that you're saying that cutting taxes and increasing spending is "making your children and grandchildren pay for your lifestyle", while leaving SS completely unremarked upon.

 

[RandFan]

1) I never claimed to have demonstrated anything.

You stated a proposition (see quote below).

So to a first approximation, it really IS that simple. Cut taxes = lose revenue

That is a conclusion that seems to be drawn from the Al Franken bit. Are you now saying that your conclusion is a non sequitur?

2) It's not my claim, it is that of a guest on Al Franken.

The conclusion is yours, and the conclusion is a claim. How do you support it? (see above)

3) BTW, did you read that? It's a GUEST of Al Franken, not Al Franken.

Or a friend of a friend of your sister. I'm sorry that you are not getting this but absent a name we are only left with Al Franken. Why did you even use Al Franken's name if that fact doesn't give some credibility to your anecdote?

So you were oh-for-three.

Your math is off.

OTOH, it's not obvious to me why relaying the claims of an unnamed guest on the Al Franken Show is any worse than appealing to the authority of the Cato Institute.

1.) I'm not appealing to the authority of the CATO institute. If you would go to the link you would see logical argument and evidence. I'm relying on that evidence and not the CATO institute.

2.) Some authorities are better than others depending on context. Appealing to Einstein concerning physics is a good appeal.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by RandFanAgain, you are making assumptions and not addressing the point. It depends on the conditional statement that I made. If cutting taxes increases tax revenue then it is not ethically wrong. The problem is if you spend more than can be afforded. That is irresponsible no matter how much you tax.

I totally agree with your conclusion. The bolded part is exactly the point I was making.

As to the unbolded part, for some reason, you seem to want to nitpick an area where I have admitted I simplified. Revenue does not match taxes but there is a high degree of correlation. IMO, it is reasonable to substitute the two on a general topic.

From a literary and historical point of view, the phrase "cut tax and spend" is much more pithy appropriate than the phrase "cut revenue and spend" even though the latter is obviously more accurate.

I suggest you discuss the merits of peoples argument rather than nitpick exact phrasing. This type nitpicking is common and unproductive activity on this forum.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Art VandalayAnd it's really odd that you're saying that cutting taxes and increasing spending is "making your children and grandchildren pay for your lifestyle", while leaving SS completely unremarked upon.

I do not think it would be odd to leave out the obvious but when the nitpicking started I said:

Originally posted by me
When you have a major financial burden coming up (e.g. social security and medicare for the baby boomers), it is irresponsible to increase your debt(compared to national wealth) cut revenue (via tax cuts), increase current spending (too many to name) and increase your obligations for future spending.

CBL

 

[Art Vandelay]

I said that you left it unremarked upon. You mentioned it, but you didn't question it at all. And it's rather rude to dismiss someone's argument as "nitpicking".

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Art VandalayI said that you left it unremarked upon. You mentioned it, but you didn't question it at all. And it's rather rude to dismiss someone's argument as "nitpicking".

I assume you missed the irony of you remark vis a vis nitpicking.

CBL

 

[RandFan]

I totally agree with your conclusion. The bolded part is exactly the point I was making.

As to the unbolded part, for some reason, you seem to want to nitpick an area where I have admitted I simplified. Revenue does not match taxes but there is a high degree of correlation. IMO, it is reasonable to substitute the two on a general topic.

From a literary and historical point of view, the phrase "cut tax and spend" is much more pithy appropriate than the phrase "cut revenue and spend" even though the latter is obviously more accurate.

I suggest you discuss the merits of peoples argument rather than nitpick exact phrasing. This type nitpicking is common and unproductive activity on this forum.

CBL

Perhaps we just are not communicating. I'm not trying to nit pick. I'm trying to make what I believe is a valid point. It's not simply semantics. It's what you mean that is at issue. I take issue with your assertion. But that is fine. I'll let it go.