"tax cuts weren't the problem, the lack of spending cuts was"

[acroyear]

Someone replied to me on that in a thread about Krugman's rebuf of Greenspan's sudden "I never supported the tax cuts" book.

Excuse me while I say "bull shit" yet again.  I wrote in reply:

Depends on your perspective and whether or not you think what the government is spending money on is worth spending.

Clinton made it a public campaign in 1993 to spend money on infrastructure support and repair, money that was cut off in the budget wars with the '94 elected Gingrich Congress. Would that have changed things this last summer had that spending support continued?

A balanced budget is a balanced budget, and responsible fiscal planning. Whether its budgeted by spending cuts or increased revenue is irrelevant unless you're the one seeing your money go to something you don't want it to go to.

Like, say, "Faith Based Initiatives", or "an unjustified war". Such spending is to many just as reckless as the socialist-driven handouts (Social Security, etc) that others see as the remnants of the New Deal.

If you know you can't cut spending because there would be an uproar among those who benefit from that spending, then DON'T CUT THE REVENUE. You can't have it both ways and call it "responsible".

I await the reply...[crickets]