GOP Finally Admits That Tax Cuts Add To The Deficit

[Mr. Shaman]

Well yeah, tax cuts without the accompanying spending cuts WILL lead to deficits. Who doesn't know that?

Talk to Republicans. They keep saying that the Bush tax cuts didn't add to the deficit.

It doesn't... just as if you work on commission and you earn less in a month, it does not add to your personal spending deficit... your continued spending or increased spending adds to the deficit... most any intelligent person would know to cut back on what you spend... but not our government

Yeah......Everybody knows how much you "conservatives" complained....for THOSE EIGHT YEARS!!

July 23, 2011​

"With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what anti-government conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole."

Republicans; Lying, As Usual​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Talk to Republicans. They keep saying that the Bush tax cuts didn't add to the deficit.

It doesn't... just as if you work on commission and you earn less in a month, it does not add to your personal spending deficit... your continued spending or increased spending adds to the deficit... most any intelligent person would know to cut back on what you spend... but not our government

Yeah......Everybody knows how much you "conservatives" complained....for THOSE EIGHT YEARS!!

July 23, 2011​

"With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what anti-government conservatives say, non-defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole."

Republicans; Lying, As Usual​

What Conservative didn't complain? I must remind you scrub that all Republicans are not conservatives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The whole "tax cuts need to be paid for" meme is contradictory.

Since a tax cut doesn't cost the taxpayers anything why do you think the government needs money to "Pay for" allowing people to keep more of their own money?

It is government spending and only government spending that costs the tax payers money.

So from now on at least be accurate in your ranting and and preface this argument with the true statement that government spending needs to be paid for rather than the inaccurate tax cuts need to be paid for.

 

[Truthmatters]

they belong to your party.

Its what your party does every time they are allowed office.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Well yeah, tax cuts without the accompanying spending cuts WILL lead to deficits. Who doesn't know that?

You mean......besides Lil' Dumbya???????

Evidently Dick Cheney.

In George W. Bush's first cabinet meeting Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That!"

It does matter. Reagan cut tax rates for the wealthy and proceeded to quadruple the national debt from less than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion.

Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and 1993 and balanced the annual budget and generated surpluses. The entire debt was scheduled to be paid off by 2012.

George W, Bush cut taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 using reconciliation to block a Democrat filibuster and proceeded to double the national debt again. Also....for the first time in the history of this great republic he began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks to fund the shortfall. Anybody who fails to see that his actions moved borrowed money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans doesn't understand the tax structure and marginal tax rates.

 

[auditor0007]

Well yeah, tax cuts without the accompanying spending cuts WILL lead to deficits. Who doesn't know that?

Talk to Republicans. They keep saying that the Bush tax cuts didn't add to the deficit.

It doesn't... just as if you work on commission and you earn less in a month, it does not add to your personal spending deficit... your continued spending or increased spending adds to the deficit... most any intelligent person would know to cut back on what you spend... but not our government

Dave, you are being dishonest here. The Republican mantra since Reagan has been that tax cuts increase revenues. While this is true if the economy takes off and grows at a quicker pace due to the tax cuts, then it is a valid argument. However, when the economy hits a downturn, the loss in revenue all of a sudden shows up in very big numbers. This is what happened with the Bush tax cuts. While the economy was booming based on the housing bubble, revenues increased substantially. The problem with it all was that the economy wasn't growing due to more people working and making more money; it was almost entirely based on the housing bubble. When that burst, revenues tanked. In the end, the Bush tax cuts reduced revenues, and that is the bottom line.

 

[Dragon]

Once again

Tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer a dime

Untrue -- or at least, untrue to the extent that tax cuts add to the deficit. If the government is currently running a surplus, and a tax cut merely eliminates the surplus without creating a deficit, then yes, you're right. But that's not a real-world hytothetical.

Deficits cost the taxpayers in future service on the debt.

It's the spending that costs.

Well, yes, spending costs money in taxes. But we were discussing the DEFICIT. Either a spending increase or a tax cut can increase the deficit. That's basic math and common sense.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and 1993 and balanced the annual budget and generated surpluses. The entire debt was scheduled to be paid off by 2012.

Under Clinton the debt ceiling increased:

by $225 billion to $4.37 trillion in April 1993;
by $530 billion to $4.9 trillion four months later, in August 1993;
by $600 billion to $5.5 trillion two years and seven months later, in March 1996;
and by $450 billion to $5.95 trillion 17 months later, in August 1997.

What happened to all this surplus to balance this nation's DEBT? Yes I can see what happened to the overall debt during the time frame you mentioned in 1992 and 1993.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Once again

Tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer a dime

Untrue -- or at least, untrue to the extent that tax cuts add to the deficit. If the government is currently running a surplus, and a tax cut merely eliminates the surplus without creating a deficit, then yes, you're right. But that's not a real-world hytothetical.

Deficits cost the taxpayers in future service on the debt.

It's the spending that costs.

Well, yes, spending costs money in taxes. But we were discussing the DEFICIT. Either a spending increase or a tax cut can increase the deficit. That's basic math and common sense.

Republicans never want to discuss the deficit. They created it. Remember ol' Dick Cheney...he said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That!"

The interest due on the Reagan Bushes debt was about $450 billion each year when Obama took the helm. That accounts for over $1.2 trillion of the new debt since that time. Subtract that from Obama's and add it to the Reagan Bushes debt. That's the only way it can possibly be considered fair.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Once again

Tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer a dime

Untrue -- or at least, untrue to the extent that tax cuts add to the deficit. If the government is currently running a surplus, and a tax cut merely eliminates the surplus without creating a deficit, then yes, you're right. But that's not a real-world hytothetical.

Deficits cost the taxpayers in future service on the debt.

It's the spending that costs.

Well, yes, spending costs money in taxes. But we were discussing the DEFICIT. Either a spending increase or a tax cut can increase the deficit. That's basic math and common sense.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Once again

Tax cuts do not cost the taxpayer a dime

Untrue -- or at least, untrue to the extent that tax cuts add to the deficit. If the government is currently running a surplus, and a tax cut merely eliminates the surplus without creating a deficit, then yes, you're right. But that's not a real-world hytothetical.

Deficits cost the taxpayers in future service on the debt.

It's the spending that costs.

Well, yes, spending costs money in taxes. But we were discussing the DEFICIT. Either a spending increase or a tax cut can increase the deficit. That's basic math and common sense.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

You're not very good at math there ol' bud.

Reagan cut taxes and he and GHW Bush quadrupled the national debt.


Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes, balanced the budget, generated 22,000,000 new jobs, left a surplus in fy 2001. On his way out he used a cigar on Monica.
George W. Bush cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, doubled the debt, wrecked the economy, gave the banks a trillion dollars and threw his middle finger up at the nation on his way home to Crawford.

If we didn't have one other example Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes and borrowed 80% of all the debt this nation had accumulated in 232 years. Most of the borrowed money ended up in the pockets of the richest 2% of all the taxpayers in America.

 

[Political Junky]

Kyl says tax cuts don't have to be paid for - YouTube

Kyl is a great friend to Democrats. Let's hope he just keeps talking.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Untrue -- or at least, untrue to the extent that tax cuts add to the deficit. If the government is currently running a surplus, and a tax cut merely eliminates the surplus without creating a deficit, then yes, you're right. But that's not a real-world hytothetical.

Deficits cost the taxpayers in future service on the debt.



Well, yes, spending costs money in taxes. But we were discussing the DEFICIT. Either a spending increase or a tax cut can increase the deficit. That's basic math and common sense.

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

You're not very good at math there ol' bud.

Reagan cut taxes and he and GHW Bush quadrupled the national debt.


Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes, balanced the budget, generated 22,000,000 new jobs, left a surplus in fy 2001. On his way out he used a cigar on Monica.
George W. Bush cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, doubled the debt, wrecked the economy, gave the banks a trillion dollars and threw his middle finger up at the nation on his way home to Crawford.

If we didn't have one other example Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes and borrowed 80% of all the debt this nation had accumulated in 232 years. Most of the borrowed money ended up in the pockets of the richest 2% of all the taxpayers in America.

Wrong again Skippy.

The tax cuts, any tax cuts do NOT cause deficits and do NOT cost the taxpayer money.

Spending, specifically spending more than is collected causes deficits and spending costs the taxpayers money.

It is wanton spending that has been, is now and will continue to be the problem.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

You're not very good at math there ol' bud.

Reagan cut taxes and he and GHW Bush quadrupled the national debt.


Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes, balanced the budget, generated 22,000,000 new jobs, left a surplus in fy 2001. On his way out he used a cigar on Monica.
George W. Bush cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, doubled the debt, wrecked the economy, gave the banks a trillion dollars and threw his middle finger up at the nation on his way home to Crawford.

If we didn't have one other example Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes and borrowed 80% of all the debt this nation had accumulated in 232 years. Most of the borrowed money ended up in the pockets of the richest 2% of all the taxpayers in America.

Wrong again Skippy.

The tax cuts, any tax cuts do NOT cause deficits and do NOT cost the taxpayer money.

Spending, specifically spending more than is collected causes deficits and spending costs the taxpayers money.

It is wanton spending that has been, is now and will continue to be the problem.

Hey Numbnuts...Reagan got less than he asked for seven of the eight years he was in the white house. Just how is it you can make shit like that compute.

He spent more than anybody at any previous time...including the second world war where the allied forces lost 2,000,000 soldiers. Think about what you are saying. Have you conveniently forgotten about Star Wars and the missles to Iran shit. Show me one goddam time when some Republican administration actually reduced spending. I'm 77 years old and the first time I voted for a president was for Eisenhower in 1956. Don't keep repeating that load of horse shit to me. Somebody might roll over and give you your way but I'll treat you the same way I treat my 25 year old grandchildren...chew your right wing ass up and spit you out.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You're not very good at math there ol' bud.

Reagan cut taxes and he and GHW Bush quadrupled the national debt.


Bill Clinton came along, raised taxes, balanced the budget, generated 22,000,000 new jobs, left a surplus in fy 2001. On his way out he used a cigar on Monica.
George W. Bush cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003, doubled the debt, wrecked the economy, gave the banks a trillion dollars and threw his middle finger up at the nation on his way home to Crawford.

If we didn't have one other example Reagan and the Bushes cut taxes and borrowed 80% of all the debt this nation had accumulated in 232 years. Most of the borrowed money ended up in the pockets of the richest 2% of all the taxpayers in America.

Wrong again Skippy.

The tax cuts, any tax cuts do NOT cause deficits and do NOT cost the taxpayer money.

Spending, specifically spending more than is collected causes deficits and spending costs the taxpayers money.

It is wanton spending that has been, is now and will continue to be the problem.

Hey Numbnuts...Reagan got less than he asked for seven or the eight years he was there. Just how is it you can make shit like that compute.

He spent more than anybody at any time...including the second world war where the allied forces lost 2,000,000 soldiers. Think about what you are saying. Show me one goddam time when some Republican administration actually reduced spending. I'm 77 years old and the first time I voted for a president was for Eisenhower in 1956. Don't keep repeating that load of horse shit to me. Somebody might roll over and give you your way but I'll treat you the same way I treat my 25 year old grandchildren...chew your right wing ass up and spit you out.

FYI Asswipe

I don't give a rats diseased ass about Reagan, he was another big government dupe pretending to be a small government guy.

I am not a right winger whatever that means in that pea brain of yours and I certainly am not a Repugnantcan.

Every corrupt asshole of a president regardless of party has spent more of our money to increase the size scope and thereby the cost of government for decades.

It's the spending, stupid.

 

[Dragon]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

It's also completely ignorant. Anyone who's ever balanced a budget knows that income and expenditures are equally important sides of the equation. To say otherwise is to proclaim nonsense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits.

Spending causes deficits.

It's very simple.

It's also completely ignorant.

Do tax cuts cause deficits?

 

[Dragon]

Do tax cuts cause deficits?

Yes, most of the time.

 

[Stephanie]

The whole "tax cuts need to be paid for" meme is contradictory.

Since a tax cut doesn't cost the taxpayers anything why do you think the government needs money to "Pay for" allowing people to keep more of their own money?

It is government spending and only government spending that costs the tax payers money.

So from now on at least be accurate in your ranting and and preface this argument with the true statement that government spending needs to be paid for rather than the inaccurate tax cuts need to be paid for.

no kidding. It cracks me up when they say tax cuts need to be paid for.

ridiculous

 

[Cammmpbell]

Wrong again Skippy.

The tax cuts, any tax cuts do NOT cause deficits and do NOT cost the taxpayer money.

Spending, specifically spending more than is collected causes deficits and spending costs the taxpayers money.

It is wanton spending that has been, is now and will continue to be the problem.

Hey Numbnuts...Reagan got less than he asked for seven or the eight years he was there. Just how is it you can make shit like that compute.

He spent more than anybody at any time...including the second world war where the allied forces lost 2,000,000 soldiers. Think about what you are saying. Show me one goddam time when some Republican administration actually reduced spending. I'm 77 years old and the first time I voted for a president was for Eisenhower in 1956. Don't keep repeating that load of horse shit to me. Somebody might roll over and give you your way but I'll treat you the same way I treat my 25 year old grandchildren...chew your right wing ass up and spit you out.

FYI Asswipe

I don't give a rats diseased ass about Reagan, he was another big government dupe pretending to be a small government guy.

I am not a right winger whatever that means in that pea brain of yours and I certainly am not a Repugnantcan.

Every corrupt asshole of a president regardless of party has spent more of our money to increase the size scope and thereby the cost of government for decades.

It's the spending, stupid.

Damn strange that the second world war was paid for by high tax rates. All the way into the 1950's anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year had to pay 91% of the excess in federal taxes. We used to pay our bills. Everybody used to go fight. I was a Republican back then.