Talk:Tax and spend

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 November 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'd like to know if there is a more polite term for this philosophy. I'm in favor of this philosophy because a) I am tired of Corzine's budget cuts, and b) I am tired of resorting to bonds, loans, debt, etc. Signed, disgusted New Jerseyan 165.230.46.153 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it's not a philosophy. A slogan typifying ignorance and backwardness is sort of the opposite of a philosophy though the lede does now mention the "philosophies" that trade in it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why these are not buzzwords.MikeDunlavey (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title "tax and spend" is a campaign slogan devised by Republican strategists to malign Democrats. The presence of the article likely is a lobbying effort in violation of Wiki policy. I may propose deletion. The article has multiple issues, and no citations.Oldtaxguy (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an objection exists, placeholder for when it's actually made. Arkon (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good reason you've now twice reverted this article, both times adding an unsourced, parenthetical example to the lead section that doesn't represent the body? This is a poorly sourced article that will either get reduced to a stub and rewritten or redirected to a larger parent article. Your reverts haven't done anything to improve Wikipedia. If you are looking to attack liberals, might I suggest you take your campaign to Conservapedia? Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the POV flag because this is very politically biased (just read the first line). I think this is the correct flag to add, please change it if it is not. --Engineer of Stuff (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about the use of "pejorative" in the first sentence of this article. I recently made an edit to change this to laudatory, which is perhaps not precise, but there is a growing voice for use of this term not as a pejorative but as a legitimate political goal. The dominant use of the term is no longer pejorative and the language should reflect that in some way.

Curious what others' thoughts are on this.

For example, see this recent article in FT: https://www.ft.com/content/38aee220-ad44-455a-853d-add171e73c00

Edit: Perhaps something like "occasionally pejorative, occasionally laudatory epithet", with citations for examples of both, would capture the dynamic usage of the term?

--Pshmell (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An [[1]] edit submitted attempts to resolve this, which I think works: ""Tax and spend" is a term applied to politicians or policies that increase the size of government. Though commonly used in a derogatory manner[1], some have embraced[2] the label."

--Pshmell (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries (1, 2) list the expression as 'derogatory' or 'disapproving'. An attempt to claim otherwise is, in the most favourable reading, WP:OR, in the less favourable reading, a bad-faith edit aimed at getting likes and retweets on Twitter. Mazuretsky (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, my familiarity with the term stems from the original usage by New Deal administrator Harry Hopkins as cited in the article. Hopkins allegedly used the term, in its first recorded instance, as a positive goal—an aim of the New Deal programs. The journalist quoting him seems to have known that it would be perceived by some as a pejorative, leading to Hopkins distancing himself from the quote. To be fair, I did visit the page and was surprised to see the pejorative sense the only sense noted, when my familiarity with the term is largely in the laudatory sense. The recent edit that notes a largely pejorative understanding but makes room for the apparently growing laudatory sense I think is a fair synthesis edit, and it should be reinstated. Pshmell (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding yet another note. In reviewing the references on the page that existed prior to this discussion, the citation that notes the origin of the term quotes Mr Hopkins as saying "We will spend and spend, tax and tax, and elect and elect," and is referred to as "a boast". If there is reason to believe the originator of the term would be denigrating his own aims, it should be referenced. Further, a supportive profile of Mr Hopkins the the Times the same year notes: "Spend and Tax, His Motto". I think there is hardly a case to be made that a term referred to as a 'boast' and a 'motto' should be perceived entirely in a pejorative sense. That the term is used by some pejoratively and by others laudatorily supports the recent edit stating: "Though commonly used in a derogatory manner, some have embraced the label." --Pshmell (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]