Tea Party candidate taken behind the woodshed by an old man asking a simple question

[The Grand Nudger]

Why not borrow money? It's the most effective use of money if you intend to grow. If you don't - then worrying about repaying loans is a bit lower on the list than, say, maintaining municipal water.

(by choosing to subsidize your current spending with future debt, you decrease the burden of each dollar on the tax base across the entire stretch of time - there will be more of them/they will be worth more at that later date. It's a gain.)

If someone else is willing to fund our infrastructure.... we should let them reach into their wallets. We'll get more out of it than they will ever get in return.

[Ryantology]

Tea partiers advocate responsible spending(don't perpetually borrow money) and reforming how taxes are collected. They do not advocate eliminating spending or eliminating taxes.

No, they don't advocate eliminating spending... just eliminating spending for the entire social safety net. Welfare for 'job creators' and farmers and defense contractors is not to be touched. And the tax burden for this should be shifted as far towards the poor as is humanly possible.

[Crossless2.0]

Food stamps and wic are, technically, farm subsidies, btw Cross. They are also effective farm subsidies..in addition to being technically included in the bill. That's why you can have this much of that product, but not an ounce of this, etc. Basically the gov buying commodities and then distributing them amongst the populace masquerading as assistance for the poor..when it is in fact, assistance for the massively rich ag sector. Even more specifically, it is corporate assistance for those entities which posess equipment capable of breaking down raw agricultural commodities into it;s constituent parts and then reassembling them as processed "food".

-This is why chicken nuggets and french fries are so popular among the wic/fs subset. They are a great use of the machinery and raw materials for the producer, and due to stealth subsidy they are also the best mass-per-dollar wic/fs can buy. It's a beautiful little closed loop eh?
-takes a bow-

(Bolding mine)

You're absolutely right. This is what rubs my ass raw. There is no necessary connection between food stamps and the farm subsidy bills. We could easily separate the two. The reason food stamps get rolled up into the farm bills is nothing other than to co-opt legislators who might otherwise vote against handouts to the ag sector by forcing them to choose between corporate welfare for big agri-business and cutting off assistance to the poor.

[DeistPaladin]

Tea partiers advocate responsible spending(don't perpetually borrow money) and reforming how taxes are collected. They do not advocate eliminating spending or eliminating taxes.

Tea Baggers (sorry, I refuse out of respect for the actual patriots of the same name to call these posers the name they've arrogantly chosen for themselves) live in a fantasy world where there is hundreds of billions of dollars in waste that can be painlessly cut out of government spending without impacting anything.

[Bibliofagus]

Not taxing something is not a subsidy.

Correct. In many - if not most - countries 100 dollars of tax cuts is worth more than 100 dollars of subsidy.

[Minimalist]

Tea partiers advocate responsible spending(don't perpetually borrow money) and reforming how taxes are collected. They do not advocate eliminating spending or eliminating taxes.

Tea Baggers (sorry, I refuse out of respect for the actual patriots of the same name to call these posers the name they've arrogantly chosen for themselves) live in a fantasy world where there is hundreds of billions of dollars in waste that can be painlessly cut out of government spending without impacting anything.

We could cut defense spending in half without impacting our capability for DEFENSE at all. ( OFFENSE? That's a different story. )

[Jackalope]

Not taxing something is not a subsidy.

Pedantically, correct. They are not the same thing. In reality - the tax exemption is worth *more* to the recipient and costs everyone else more than. A subsidy does.

Let's do a little thought experiment to illustrate this - I'll keep it simple for purposes of illustration, which will affect the magnitude of the effects, but will retain their relative differences.

The king has three subjects, each of which is taxed equally 100 gold coins. The kingdom requires 300 gold to keep it running. The king doesn't like all if his subjects equally though, and so has a plan to continue to apportion taxes equally amongst his taxpaying subjects, while favoring those he likes.

The king likes subject A very much, and grants him an exemption from taxes. A pockets 100 gold he would otherwise pay.

The 300 gold tax burden is split between B and C, who must now pay 150 each.

But wait, the king also favors subject B, but not as much as subject A - and grants him a 100 gold subsidy, something not accounted for in the original castle budget, which now must be shifted onto C.

Net effect, A is 100 richer, B is 50 richer, and C is 150 poorer. Even though B comes out ahead in this scenario, he comes out less favorably than if A was not exempted. Either way, C takes it sans lube.

By gum, you're right. Dollar-for-dollar, tax exemptions are *worse* than subsidies - that is, for everyone that doesn't receive them.

Only the magnitudes are exaggerated. The relative impacts are not. Everybody that pays taxes is effectively subsidizing non-taxpayers.

[Heywood]

Not taxing something is not a subsidy.

Pedantically, correct. They are not the same thing. In reality - the tax exemption is worth *more* to the recipient and costs everyone else more than. A subsidy does.

Let's do a little thought experiment to illustrate this - I'll keep it simple for purposes of illustration, which will affect the magnitude of the effects, but will retain their relative differences.

The king has three subjects, each of which is taxed equally 100 gold coins. The kingdom requires 300 gold to keep it running. The king doesn't like all if his subjects equally though, and so has a plan to continue to apportion taxes equally amongst his taxpaying subjects, while favoring those he likes.

The king likes subject A very much, and grants him an exemption from taxes. A pockets 100 gold he would otherwise pay.

The 300 gold tax burden is split between B and C, who must now pay 150 each.

But wait, the king also favors subject B, but not as much as subject A - and grants him a 100 gold subsidy, something not accounted for in the original castle budget, which now must be shifted onto C.

Net effect, A is 100 richer, B is 50 richer, and C is 150 poorer. Even though B comes out ahead in this scenario, he comes out less favorably than if A was not exempted. Either way, C takes it sans lube.

By gum, you're right. Dollar-for-dollar, tax exemptions are *worse* than subsidies.

Only the magnitudes are exaggerated. The relative impacts are not. Everybody that pays taxes is effectively subsidizing non-taxpayers.

The problem with your analogy is it is not a king granting an exemption but the people who pay the taxes granting the exemption to themselves when the engage in not-for-profit activities. Like Church's or Planned Parenthood.

[Jackalope]

Pedantically, correct. They are not the same thing. In reality - the tax exemption is worth *more* to the recipient and costs everyone else more than. A subsidy does.

Let's do a little thought experiment to illustrate this - I'll keep it simple for purposes of illustration, which will affect the magnitude of the effects, but will retain their relative differences.

The king has three subjects, each of which is taxed equally 100 gold coins. The kingdom requires 300 gold to keep it running. The king doesn't like all if his subjects equally though, and so has a plan to continue to apportion taxes equally amongst his taxpaying subjects, while favoring those he likes.

The king likes subject A very much, and grants him an exemption from taxes. A pockets 100 gold he would otherwise pay.

The 300 gold tax burden is split between B and C, who must now pay 150 each.

But wait, the king also favors subject B, but not as much as subject A - and grants him a 100 gold subsidy, something not accounted for in the original castle budget, which now must be shifted onto C.

Net effect, A is 100 richer, B is 50 richer, and C is 150 poorer. Even though B comes out ahead in this scenario, he comes out less favorably than if A was not exempted. Either way, C takes it sans lube.

By gum, you're right. Dollar-for-dollar, tax exemptions are *worse* than subsidies.

Only the magnitudes are exaggerated. The relative impacts are not. Everybody that pays taxes is effectively subsidizing non-taxpayers.

The problem with your analogy is it is not a king granting an exemption but the people who pay the taxes granting the exemption.

I didn't realize I had a vote in Congress, Heywood.

Substitute a representative government if you like. What's important is the numbers. Your statement was that exemptions are not (equal) to subsidies, not anything about the form of government. Don't try to shift the goalposts.

[Heywood]

Tea Baggers (sorry, I refuse out of respect for the actual patriots of the same name to call these posers the name they've arrogantly chosen for themselves) live in a fantasy world where there is hundreds of billions of dollars in waste that can be painlessly cut out of government spending without impacting anything.

We could cut defense spending in half without impacting our capability for DEFENSE at all. ( OFFENSE? That's a different story. )

The problem with cutting defense to the point where we have no offensive capability would likely result in the loss of seignorage we enjoy from being in control of the worlds reserve currency.