From: tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball)
Subject: Re: What is a fiscal conservative? (was Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: Moria Mining Guild (BBS) -- Dallas, Texas, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:17:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.021714.506@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.055700.6470@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:
>>In article <BxAHHH.2u5@beach.csulb.edu> sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes:
>>>  Reagan was a fiscal moron, not a fiscal conservative. I'm not a fiscal
>>>...
>>>theirs. He just postponed the effects of his borrow and spend approach
>>>to come home to roost on somebody elses watch. You can argue about how
>>>much fault COngress has, but that doesn't absolve Reagan from clearly
>>>unconservative economic policies. 
>>
>>Historically, people who were fiscal conservatives considered government debt 
>>as something to be avoided at all costs except during special circumstances
>>(temporary debts during war or recession were OK), and rightly so.
>
>Funny, this is the same drivel that the press tried to sell the American
>people on when George Bush rased taxes in 1990 and Pete Wilson raised taxes

Its common knowledge to anyone who can remember politics before 1981.
Back then it was the Democrats who didn't seem too concerned with the deficit,
almost the reverse of today.  To appreciate the irony, imagine that 10 years
from now the Democrats are gravely concerned that the Republicans are spending
too much money on social programs.  Guess how badly things will have gotton
out of hand at that point.


>in 1991. The result of both tax increases, and indeed all tax increases
>throughout 20th century history, was to increase the deficit.

Lets see, your theory is that an increase in government taxation results in 
an increase in the deficit.  I'm not going to refute this, because my guess
is that 99% of usenet can already spot the flaw in your logic.  What may not
be as obvious to some people, however, is that the REVERSE of this theory
is in fact true.  That is, an increase in the deficit is a guarantee that you 
will pay more taxes over the long run.  If you doubt this, check out how much of
your taxes now go towards paying interest on debts acquired in past years. [One 
quarter of the total!]


>More and more conservatives are giving up on government altogether as a vehicle
>for positive change. When you veiw the government as the problem and not
>the solution, you are not likely to be overly concerned with its fiscal health.

Many people have always had a nagging suspicion that right-wingers don't
really care about the condition of the country and are really just interested 
in looking out for #1.  This confirms that in some cases that suspicion is 
correct.


>The modern definition of a fiscal conservative is one who doesn't trust the
>government to handle his money. 

With a $4 trillion debt, I don't trust the government to handle my money
either.  And we all know who the two most powerful men in the government have
been in the last 12 years.


>There are still some people who actually
>wish the government would take more of their money but they are increasingly
>in the minority. 

The people who seem to want the government to take more of their money are
the supply-siders, since that policy insures that our total lifetime taxes
will be increased.  A Perot-like plan is the only way we can eliminate the
deficit, thereby reducing our taxes in the long run.  I don't like paying taxes
either, and that is precisely why I'm in favor of Perot's plan.


>The federal government has simply become a big money sink.

To be more specific, the 25% of government revenue that goes towards paying 
interest on the national debt is a big money sink.
-- 
Tom Kimball  			tom@europa.lerctr.org    
tom@europa.lonestar.org		tom%europa@egsner.cirr.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23494 talk.politics.misc:59622