humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 22, 2:08 pm, Potroast wrote:

> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
>
> The general point being is Clinton was far far more fiscally
> responsible than Bush.

Nonsense. Reagan-Moynihan-Bush,Sr created the FICA tax increase,
which was suppose to be the first step in many steps proposed by the
Moynihan Commission NOT TAKEN later by Clinton and Congress to reform
Social Security, as that would actually cost a lot of or all of the
money raised by the tax increase. By the time Bush, Jr and Congress
got around to do what Clinton was supposed to do, the cost without
another tax increase was too much. Clinton cheated the American
people by keeping the money and not using it for which it was
intended. Clinton was a lousy President because he did not do a damn
thing about anything, and that is why "Agent Cooper" likes him and
hopes Obama could do the same nothing.

In any case, you've lost track of the thread, which is why would an
Objectivist support an "altruist" war in Iraq. I say that the Iraq
War is not an altruist war [at least, what is good for Iraq is good
for the US], and anybody wishing to disestablish altruist spending
should look to cut the trillion dollars annually from the budget that
is spent in transferring wealth from one group of people to another --
the kind of spending which is clearly immoral. One may disagree with
war, but the money thereon spent has a defined purpose and expected
conclusion. Welfare spending has no purpose and no end. The entire
6+ trillion dollar national debt would be wiped out in seven years.
The national debt did *not* go down in the Clinton years in spite of
any finagling of annual budget figures. An intellectually honest
person claiming interest in reducing the national debt (not just the
annual deficit) knows that the only effective way to do that is to
reduce government spending drastically, and why not start with getting
rid of the nonsense spending like social welfare spending, much like
any household would get rid of spending on vacations and dining out to
reduce its debt.


> If Bush Republicans were sincere that they want
> to cut social spending instead of just talking about it...


Every single budget proposed by the Bush administration reduced
domestic spending (except one huge error), even drastically in such
things as eliminating subsidies for Amtrack.

The huge error was Medicare prescriptions. That was supposed to be a
bipartisan carrot held out to the Democrats (also the "No Child Left
Behind" Education Bill) in order to finally reform Social Security and
Medicare itself, and is anyone surprosed that the Democrats reneged?