Question For Those Who Consider Themselves To Be On The Right

[Hubbs]

What's more important to you: Less debt, or lower taxes?

Now, I'm one of those people who, in an ideal world, would like to eliminate the deficit with nothing but spending cuts. I believe this could theoretically be easier to achieve—at least mathematically—than our esteemed leaders make it out to be, mostly because gradually bumping up the SS/Medicare age for those under, say, 45 years old would change our projected deficit numbers so drastically. (For a visual example, Larry has an interactive New York Times budget tool that he enjoys sharing. I'm sure he'll post it in this thread if he reads it.) However, given how politically unlikely it is that we'll be making cuts that add up to $1 trillion+, I have a question for those who consider themselves to be some form of right-wing: If you have to choose between maintaining at least several hundred billion in deficit spending each year, or raising taxes (we'll start with letting the Bush tax cuts expire), which would you rather do?

[SnyderShrugged]

Less Debt....by a mile

[thebluefood]

While I do consider myself a moderate-libertarian, I'd go with the debt. I can't really give you a good reason politically, but I just hate the idea of owning money. Whenever I have any kind of debt, I want it payed off as soon as possible. It's one less thing on my mind. Same goes with the Nation as a whole.

It would be nice to wipe out that trillion dollar debt once and for all.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Right now- less debt

Here is another question for those on the right- What do you consider the greater "evil" (for lack of a better word)

The welfare state, or the regulatory state?

[Burgold]

Right now- less debt

Here is another question for those on the right- What do you consider the greater "evil" (for lack of a better word)

The welfare state, or the regulatory state?

That might be a very interesting question. The two great evils.

[Kilmer17]

Reduction in spending. Taxes neutral. Debt reduced.

[Hubbs]

Reduction in spending. Taxes neutral. Debt reduced.

Thank you for not answering the question at all.

[Destructis]

I am a conservative, but not on the right or left. I am all for lowering the debt over time. What I would like to see is a flat percentage tax for everyone and every business. No more loopholes. Couple that with not spending more than you are bringing by the government for a couple of years. By that I mean try to keep it flat for now. That includes the interest. No debt going up or down and then when everything stabilizes, then lower the spending over time.

[Kilmer17]

Thank you for not answering the question at all.

I voted Pancakes and Bunnies.

[NavyDave]

Lower the debt which can only be done by reducing the spending, do not raise taxes since that would be the incentive to invest and hire.

Raising taxes will result in money going to shelters overseas so the government can't steal it and waste it on more spending programs.

---------- Post added June-17th-2011 at 01:51 PM ----------

I voted Pancakes and Bunnies.

So pancakes and bunnies was code for Cut spending?

[Hubbs]

Lower the debt which can only be done by reducing the spending, do not raise taxes since that would be the incentive to invest and hire.

Raising taxes will result in money going to shelters overseas so the government can't steal it and waste it on more spending programs.

Thank you for also not answering the question.

Another pancakes and bunnies vote, I imagine.

[Burgold]

Technically, I think both voted for B-- Don't raise taxes and keep digging the debt hole. They claim otherwise, but based on the options you set up... spending cuts with no associated tax hikes would still be B.

[GhostofSparta]

In an ideal world, I'd be ok with raising taxes for the specific purpose of paying down the debt. How likely that scenario is to play out in the real world, well.....but for the purposes of this poll, I'd say raise taxes rather than continuous mounting debt.

[adam@section118]

Not sure I qualify to be a member of either party, but IMO less debt is more important.

Then again, I also think it would be a great idea to at least explore the fair tax, but that is a topic for another day

---------- Post added June-17th-2011 at 03:01 PM ----------

In an ideal world, I'd be ok with raising taxes for the specific purpose of paying down the debt. How likely that scenario is to play out in the real world, well.....but for the purposes of this poll, I'd say raise taxes rather than continuous mounting debt.

Agreed. It would suck, especially for those of us already getting killed in taxes, but if we could have high taxes and pay off a large portion of our debt....maybe even have some to the side for a rainy day fund, that would be awesome

[NavyDave]

Thank you for also not answering the question.

Another pancakes and bunnies vote, I imagine.

I voted pancakes and bunnies since I disagree with the liberal mindset that raising taxes while not addressing the spending issues will take care of the debt.

[stevenaa]

Why can't raising taxes and lowering spending be an option? It's too leading a question as stated. I'm not willing to pay more taxes until we are willing to drastically cut spending. There is no other option to get us out of this hole. I'd just as soon shoulder as much of the burden as I can to help reduce the pain to my children, but without cutting spending, the deficit won't shrink, so there's no reason to suffer the loss of dollars.

[Hubbs]

I voted pancakes and bunnies since I disagree with the liberal mindset that raising taxes while not addressing the spending issues will take care of the debt.

Why can't raising taxes and lowering spending be an option? It's too leading a question as stated. I'm not willing to pay more taxes until we are willing to drastically cut spending. There is no other option to get us out of this hole. I'd just as soon shoulder as much of the burden as I can to help reduce the pain to my children, but without cutting spending, the deficit won't shrink, so there's no reason to suffer the loss of dollars.

Seeing as I specifically said that I'm talking about being able to cut the deficit down to several hundred billion with spending cuts, then deciding whether or not to close the rest of the gap with raised taxes, I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

[GhostofSparta]

Seeing as I specifically said that I'm talking about being able to cut the deficit down to several hundred billion with spending cuts, then deciding whether or not to close the rest of the gap with raised taxes, I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

[Hubbs]

Yeah, that's my guess.

[oisn1]

Seeing as I specifically said that I'm talking about being able to cut the deficit down to several hundred billion with spending cuts, then deciding whether or not to close the rest of the gap with raised taxes, I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

Typical liberal speak. See, you need to cut down the amount of words you write before you increase the content of each post. One paragraph is too much and only shows liberal elitism; once you get each post down to one sentence, then we can talk about increasing content.

[Wrong Direction]

It's a false choice, but given that choice, I'd choose more debt over more taxes.

We have a real problem with taxes in this country, but I don't think our issue relates closely to the % of GDP received in taxes. However, I'd support major tax reform to broaden the tax base and remove so much of the game-playing in our tax code, for sure. This could result in greater tax receipts.

Spending, though, is terrible and I don't believe it is sustainable at any tax rate. I'd rather have a debt which forces us to change our spending than continue to excuse terrible spending through higher taxes.

The truth is, we spend stupidly. We don't save our own money for retirement. By giving it to the government, we get a terrible rate of return. The consumer is not involved in enough healthcare decisionmaking, resulting in higher pricing and higher utilization of expensive services. We over pay for every project because of prevailing wages, onerous permitting, a litigious society and other special interest boondoggles.

It's really simple...we give trillions of dollars to other people and tell them to spend it. They don't have to worry about spending it well because they don't have huge incentive to spend it well. Nobody gets bonuses for returning money to treasury. Until we build our laws to favor self sufficiency and skin in the game, we'll be incredibly wasteful. I'd rather not have a government raising my taxes to support that.

[stevenaa]

Or maybe it's simple stupidity, since I have no idea what that means. The question is not as intended, I think. If we maintain several hundred billion in Deficit Spending each year, the deficit will be in the trillions in no time. Now, if the intended question was more about maintaining a deficit of a couple hundred billion, that's a huge difference. Which is it?

[Darth Tater]

Question is not logical.

[Hubbs]

Or maybe it's simple stupidity, since I have no idea what that means. The question is not as intended, I think. If we maintain several hundred billion in Deficit Spending each year, the deficit will be in the trillions in no time. Now, if the intended question was more about maintaining a deficit of a couple hundred billion, that's a huge difference. Which is it?

The deficit is going to be something like $1.6 trillion this year. Let's say it will be similar for the next few years. (The CBO projects that it won't be, but the CBO relies on rose-colored glasses on top of rose-colored glasses.)

If it was politically possible to, say, remove that 1 from the number with spending cuts, but absolutely no deal could be reached to eliminate the last $600 billion with spending cuts, and you had to vote to either raise taxes to cover the $600 billion or vote to keep going $600 billion further into debt every year for the foreseeable future, which would you choose?

[The Evil Genius]

...there is a difference between "debt" and "deficit".