It depends on the spending. I would think the pay as you go method tends to be a better choice overall, but if urgency is called for, debt isn't out the question. We just can't let the short-term pains of pay as you go overly entice the desire to ease the pain through debt, as the potential long term effect that debt can have may have a cost that outweighs the benefits.
Spending increases restraint under Clinton and Obama have been quite notable. You may remember the budget getting as close to balanced as it ever had under Clinton. Under Obama, discretionary spending has been near stagnant. Spending increases have mainly come from non-discretionary programs and the deficits were greatly influenced by tax revenues that had plummeted due to the Global Economic implosion you may have read about in the Fall of '08.
They'll cut my taxes by $1000, they'll cut the 0.1% by a 1,000 times $1,000 (well, probably much more than that).As I see it. Republicans tax the poor and middle class and cut the tax for millionaires with the idea of the trickle down effect. Democrats tax everyone!
They'll cut my taxes by $1000, they'll cut the 0.1% by a 1,000 times $1,000 (well, probably much more than that).As I see it. Republicans tax the poor and middle class and cut the tax for millionaires with the idea of the trickle down effect. Democrats tax everyone!
Not to Republicans. A tax cut means an eventual cut in spending.
