Borrow and Spend v. Tax and Spend?

Question

Assuming the same level of govt spending we have now, would we be better off today if Bush's tax cuts had not passed?

Would the dollar be stronger or weaker?

Would Oil prices be higher or lower?

Would we the mortgage foreclosure crisis be smaller or larger?

Would we be better or worse off financially?

Best answer will be chosen even if I disagree with it.

Answer 1

Tax and spend would leave less money in the hands of citizens to repair the economy.  Consumerism is the staple of our economy, and it depends on having consumers with money.  So long as that engine is running, the economy will expand, which leads to job creation.

Borrow and spend is always preferred, to a point.  Their is a point of no return with borrowing.  Democrats borrow too though.  Their economic model, Keynesian economics, states that a government should borrow money and incur a deficit to avoid recession.  Supply-side economics is a derivative of Keynesian economics, and it borrows the same concept.

Answer 2

you cannot assume 'the same level of govt spending' because, the more they take, the more the spend

Answer 3

Better off but that isn't the issue.  What business does the government have to maintain this level of unconstitutional spending?  Check out the 10th amendment to the Constitution.  It exists precisely to prevent this sort of theft from taxpayers to fund Congressional ambitions over taxpayer interests.

However, borrow and spend is the worst in devaluing the dollar and raising prices of global commodities like oil.

Answer 4

Government spending is as inevitable as taxes.  how else do we pay for things like our superior military might?...but why do we need to borrow to spend it?  Why can't we simply elect a fiscally responsible person into the White House to make sure it is spent in a way that benefits the most people and does not lessen our ability to secure our children's futures?  Well, this election year we can do just that...that's why I'm voting Obama/Biden!