Redstate

below it:

Lincoln Chafee is a spendthrift liberal puke who basically defines the idea of 'RINO.'

But - if he manages to win the primary, conservatives who reside in RI have no choice but to turn out and vote for him, because to do otherwise would be to clear the way for Democratic control of the Senate.

Which means, of course, that conservatives then have to accept the following Red State maxim:

Any Republican, no matter how liberal, which wins the primary must be supported at all costs in the general election.

Did I state that accurately?

Have a biscuit.

with a coherent worldview.

Are there any Conservatives actually left in Rhode Island?  I'm not sure there are.  I really don't think there are many left in New York State, and in Massachusetts there are a few, salted amongst the liberals.  Actually, I'm not sure there are any left in New Hampshire, either, and the state motto of New Hampshire, after all, is "Live Free or Die" but whose state motto as of now might as well be "Live Taxed While Your Children Amscre And Moan."

This is a gratuitous slap at Rhode Island, but I drove through Providence recently and I have to say that it is the ugliest State Capitol in the country that I have seen yet.  It's like a speedbump on the way to Boston.  One of the reasons Rhode Island is becoming poorer and poorer, I think, is because they have too many liberals running the place who won't compromise on their austerity vision, but that's just me.

not Providence.

Dover, Delaware and Providence, Rhode Island.

Both are capitals of states.

is capital of Delaware.  Providence is in R.I.

And by the way, before making comments about how ugly Providence is you should go to Dover.

And isn't three trillion in debt just a hidden tax?

he's moe liberal then ben nelson and gene taylor who are democrats.  hell i'd bet he is more liberal then i am in some areas.

He's a democrat.

conservative?

You got the worst rating (33 percent) among Republicans from the National Taxpayers Union. He voted against taxpayers 67 percent of the time and he considers himself to be a fiscal conservative? There were Democrats who were more fiscally conservative.

He also proposed more than $48 billion in new federal spending with a paltry $100 million in cuts. Jack Reed is almost better than liberal Lincoln.

Now, the Debt Instruments of the Federal Reserve, the general inflationary pressure and market returns on investment are other issues entirely which rarely get brought up in the inheritance tax debate...

Trenton is a rat hole on Providence's level, only with more traffic.

because starving the beast is the only way government spending will be cut.

Given, we will have to be insolvent before that happens, but at least it will be cut.  Oh yeah, if the fed was forced to use FASB rules we are insolvent.  And most of congress and the administration involved with budgeting and spending would now be serving long terms at Club Fed.

Aside from that, the death tax is probably THE most unfair of all taxes.  People work their entire lives to build businesses and estates they pay income tax on the money used to build the estate and then their family faces more taxes simply because the builder of the estate died.  In the case of family businesses, many must be sold off to satisfy the tax man.

Bottom line here, the fruit of our labors belongs to the people.  The death tax gives the perception that the fruit belongs to the state.

between "working (one's) entire (life)" and paying to have paper shuffled between Wall Street, London, & Tokyo.

We need this guy driving the Dems to the polls.

trusts that were set up in the south pacific for the purpose of avoiding death taxes and I'll listen to arguments to keep the tax.

Until that day, I'm not interested.

No, it's not.  Why would it be?

...I'm railing, somewhat incoherently, against static fortunes (the contrast being mobile fortunes that enhance the economy by their liquidity for the general benefit)...

The downtown is pretty dreary, as are many of the surrounding areas, but there's a beautiful stretch on the east side between Providence and Pawtuckett.  And, not for nothing, it's got the highest per capita number of great restaurants of any city I've been in.

So sayeth William Niskanen @ Cato.

and think i hate him or anything...i just wonder why he is still a republican.  i mean he IS more liberal then some of the conservative democrats (miller, taylor, davis, both nelsons, and so on).  chafee has voted against the reublican party more often then not this year esspecially.  

btw...i know that some of the democrats i mentioned do vote against the democrats in congress (usually about 40 to 50% of the time depending on the issue at hand) but with the far left lean it shouldn't shock anyone.  those democrats are really needed now but i do wonder how soon it will be before the blue dog democrats are forced to leave the party...

So to you being fiscally consersative means minimizing government spending.  

Fiscally conservative used to mean caring about balanced budgets.  What do you call those people now?

Tom

Give me a free hand and I will not only balance the budget, I would further reduce taxes.  And it would only take about a month.

Unfortunately, the constitutional vision of what the federal government should do combined with the will and courage to do it does not exist in Washington.

Note that I said the only thing that will eventually stop the growth of the beast is insolvency.  I would never argue that deficit spending is anything other than an addiction that makes crystal meth look like Easter candy.

are fantastic.  As long as you can get a seat in the no shooting section.

for years.  It won't stop anytime soon.

I haven't been there for years, but I still drool thinking about the place on Federal Hill with the stuffed pizza.  

Oh, and did someone say "hot weiners"?  

I think that NCJim is trying to get at the David Ricardo's equivalence proposition, which, as an incident of its theory that government deficits do not affect aggregate demand, assumes that taxes and deficit spending are roughly equivalent.  It should be noted that Ricardo eventually discarded the proposition, although others (most famously Barro) picked it up -- with somewhat bizarre results.  (Barro's theory of intergenerational transfers is hard to swallow.)

Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

In simple terms, the theory can be described as follows. Governments may either finance their spending by taxing current taxpayers, or they may borrow money. However, they must eventually repay this borrowing by raising taxes above what they would otherwise have been in future. The choice is therefore between "tax now" and "tax later".

Suppose that the government finances some extra spending through deficits - i.e. tax later. Ricardo argued that although taxpayers would have more money now, they would realise that they would have to pay higher tax in future and therefore save the extra money in order to pay the future tax. The extra saving by consumers would exactly offset the extra spending by government, so overall demand would remain unchanged.

More recently, economists such as Harvard Professor Robert Barro have developed more sophisticated variations on the same idea, particularly using the theory of rational expectations.

Ricardian Equivalence suggests that government attempts to influence demand using fiscal policy will prove fruitless. It can be contrasted with alternative theories in Keynesian economics. In Keynesian models, a multiplier effect means that fiscal policy, far from being impotent, has a geared effect on demand, with a one pound increase in deficit spending increasing demand by more than one pound.

(This isn't exactly right, but it's close enough.)

"Fiscal conservative" means taking in only what you need to pay for only what you require.  It implies both tax cuts and balanced budgets.

Rather than repeal the estate tax, I'd much rather means-test and privatize social security.  It's not that I'm a fan of the estate tax; it's that its effect is small, and usually bourne by those who can absorb it.  

That theory could be true for all the wrong reasons. That governments "must eventually repay this borrowing" is bunk. But most people don't know that, so they may well change their behavior in the expectation of having to pay the money back. (I personally doubt that very many people do this -- perhaps 8 in the entire United States -- but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.)

I report, you decide.  

That governments "must eventually repay this borrowing" is bunk.

It's partial bunk, in the sense that governments are immortal -- at least when viewed in the short term.  (How's that for self-contradiction?) It is not total bunk because governments must keep their debt loads within manageable levels.  In general, this requires some degree of repayment.  

I personally doubt that very many people do this -- perhaps 8 in the entire United States -- but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

Well, add in the assumption that folks not only save but save enough to pass on to their kids (so the kids can pay the deferred tax), and you end up with Barro.

In any event, Ricardo is one of the greats, and Barro ain't too shabby neither.  Best to think of Barro-Ricardian equivalence as an interesting theory, rather than something that can be directly applied to the real world. (IMHO.)  

How do you define what we require?  If the American people get to determine it, I expect that what we require will continue to be well in excess of what we are currently collecting in taxes.  

The original post viewed a major tax cut, today, without any prospect of serious spending cuts, as being fiscally conserative.  Do you agree with that?

Tom

that your views have no chance of coming to power anytime soon, how is it fiscally conserative to continue to cut taxes?

Tom

an interesting theory, rather than something that can be directly applied to the real world.

I have one of those, involving the negative correlation between long-term interest rates and fertility. "Everything is retirement planning."

And totally unrelated to that theory:  I would like to know what brand of coffee you suggest.  I like the Dunkin' Donuts Arabica house blend for home use, personally, but I have a nagging suspicion that it isn't "fair trade."

Any advice?

This is yummy. So is the Nazareth Dias Pereira from Brazil, if you can find any.