Hey Dumbass: Tax-Cuts Don't Have To Be Paid For

[mudwhistle]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.



Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

As a matter of fact tax-cuts do the opposite of what Democrats claim. They raise revenue....however tax increases lower revenue because of lost jobs and lower earnings which stifles growth.

If we had a flat-tax this would be a bit different. Automatic deductions would be taken out of your paycheck. The Dems would love this. You pay according to what you earn and the government gets your money before you get it. That is the only way they could change this in part. Jobs would still be lost because of high taxes. Less money to spend on consumables results in less demand for commercial products which results in less trade....lower cash flow....and less jobs.....which causes recessions and even depressions.

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Another lie that the Dems used to great advantage is that the Bush tax-cuts were just for the rich...but now they've had to admit they benefited everyone who pays taxes. This bold-faced lie has been repeated for years and now they've tried to claim that voting on extending the middle-class portion is now a tax-cut. In fact it will be a tax increase for the rich. Nothing would change for the rest of us. They want to act like they're doing us a friggen favor.

The Bush tax-cuts were working....till the Dems took control of Congress Jan. 07' and they've done everything in their power to reverse that. The recession started in Dec. of 07' and lasted till the Summer of 09'. Are they trying to tell us that they had nothing to do with that?

Looks bad for the Democrats, doesn't it?

Not in their minds. The party of snappy slogans thinks they can blame all of this on the GOP. The GOP's ideas worked before but they're old, worn out, and out dated. We need something new this time.

Ever heard them say that?? Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? New ideas are needed, Right??

I'd settle for something that works.....not something that just sounds good.

 

[rdean]

Yea, let's see how long the country lasts without government.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

Fiscal conservatism in action.

 

[rightwinger]

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Taxes are revenue in
Spending is revenue out

Both impact the deficit. Republicans cut taxes and increased spending to pay for two wars. If you cut taxes and maintain spending the same ....you still run a deficit

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, we DON'T have to cut spending (somewhere-else), to "pay" for tax-cuts, huh??

Good thinkin', there.....MUDD-BUTT!!!!!!

*

*

 

[Greenbeard]

Taxes are revenue in
Spending is revenue out

Both impact the deficit.

Note that if tax cuts aren't a cost, the stimulus bill actually came in at around $500 billion, significantly smaller than the number usually cited.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.



Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

As a matter of fact tax-cuts do the opposite of what Democrats claim. They raise revenue....however tax increases lower revenue because of lost jobs and lower earnings which stifles growth.

If we had a flat-tax this would be a bit different. Automatic deductions would be taken out of your paycheck. The Dems would love this. You pay according to what you earn and the government gets your money before you get it. That is the only way they could change this in part. Jobs would still be lost because of high taxes. Less money to spend on consumables results in less demand for commercial products which results in less trade....lower cash flow....and less jobs.....which causes recessions and even depressions.

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Another lie that the Dems used to great advantage is that the Bush tax-cuts were just for the rich...but now they've had to admit they benefited everyone who pays taxes. This bold-faced lie has been repeated for years and now they've tried to claim that voting on extending the middle-class portion is now a tax-cut. In fact it will be a tax increase for the rich. Nothing would change for the rest of us. They want to act like they're doing us a friggen favor.

The Bush tax-cuts were working....till the Dems took control of Congress Jan. 07' and they've done everything in their power to reverse that. The recession started in Dec. of 07' and lasted till the Summer of 09'. Are they trying to tell us that they had nothing to do with that?

Looks bad for the Democrats, doesn't it?

Not in their minds. The party of snappy slogans thinks they can blame all of this on the GOP. The GOP's ideas worked before but they're old, worn out, and out dated. We need something new this time.

Ever heard them say that?? Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? New ideas are needed, Right??

I'd settle for something that works.....not something that just sounds good.

You did good, posting many of the axioms of today's Republican in an almost coherent editorial. Of course we missed the evidence to support the axiom, and for this we must drop your grade.
And, to be honest, if tax cuts were the panacea, wouldn't our economy be a high speed train taking our entire population towards economic security?
For taxes were cut in 1981 and 1983. And yet, and yet ... our economy collapsed under the watch of President Bush and his economic advisers.
Failing to explain this event means we must drop your grade some more.
If taxes are bad, why is borrowing good. Or, if both are bad, why would we engage a war of choice without raising taxes or at least selling war bonds?
Sadly Mudd, you failed. But don't feel bad, turn on Fox 'News', listen to Rush & Sean, and cheer on the New Right & the 'ideas' of the leaders of the tea party. They will erase any doubts you may have. Doing nothing and creating gridlock is a great idea - one wonders why the founding fathers of this nation didn't stay home, smoke some hemp and count their money.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

Fiscal conservatism in action.

It would depend on the tax being cut. The cut in dividend taxes in the Bush tax cuts produced substantially more revenue than the old tax rate.
The tax credits for cash for clunkers produced less revenue.
Tax cuts for the top 20% of earners always end up producing more revenue for the government than tax cuts for the bottom 20% because high earners can scale up or down their earnings in response to changes in the tax code and have greater incentive to do so.

I wish the left would cease its stupid pointless and self destructive class warfare. Of course then they wouldn't be the Democratic Party, the Party of Fuck You.

 

[Care4all]

Increasing spending with the medicare pill bill, growing the military spending, creating homeland security, the cost of 2 wars, the boomers nearing retirement, while cutting taxes- was the most non fiscal thing the republicans did or could do and this grew our national debt by over $6 TRILLION dollars in just 8 years, let alone the future deficits coming from the programs they instituted.

the tax cuts did not increase our revenues as you claim, it reduced our revenues and they did not even reach the level they were at in 2000 until the year 2005, and under any normal situation tax revenues would have increased each year on their own just by the growth in gdp, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. In addition to this, with these tax cuts still in place and our crappy economy we went back to collecting less revenues than we did in 2000 BEFORE the tax cuts.

Cut us a break Mudwhistle...and do some research on this before making false claims, as you did.

Those tax breaks, are and will continue to add trillions upon trillions to our national debt for the next 20 years or even forever, if changes are not made....and are putting this debt on many generations of our children to come.

Tax cuts without cutting spending is IMMORAL....it puts the spending they've done during our time on to others that had nothing to do with the spending imo.

 

[mudwhistle]

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Taxes are revenue in
Spending is revenue out

Both impact the deficit. Republicans cut taxes and increased spending to pay for two wars. If you cut taxes and maintain spending the same ....you still run a deficit

Explain how they increased spending yet the deficit was shrinking up until 07'.

 

[boedicca]

Glad to see you acknowledge spending as a problem.

Let's cut that back.

 

[Article 15]

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Taxes are revenue in
Spending is revenue out

Both impact the deficit. Republicans cut taxes and increased spending to pay for two wars. If you cut taxes and maintain spending the same ....you still run a deficit

Explain how they increased spending yet the deficit was shrinking up until 07'.

They kept the cost of both wars off the books.

 

[rightwinger]

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Taxes are revenue in
Spending is revenue out

Both impact the deficit. Republicans cut taxes and increased spending to pay for two wars. If you cut taxes and maintain spending the same ....you still run a deficit

Explain how they increased spending yet the deficit was shrinking up until 07'.

It wasn't

The magically decided that what we were paying for two wars didn't count

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

Fiscal conservatism in action.

It would depend on the tax being cut. The cut in dividend taxes in the Bush tax cuts produced substantially more revenue than the old tax rate.
The tax credits for cash for clunkers produced less revenue.
Tax cuts for the top 20% of earners always end up producing more revenue for the government than tax cuts for the bottom 20% because high earners can scale up or down their earnings in response to changes in the tax code and have greater incentive to do so.

I wish the left would cease its stupid pointless and self destructive class warfare.

Yeah, we should (all) drop to our hands-and-knees in Praise of the present Red-Hot economy (as a result of the tax-rates Republicans want to maintain)!!

 

[mudwhistle]

Increasing spending with the medicare pill bill, growing the military spending, creating homeland security, the cost of 2 wars, the boomers nearing retirement, while cutting taxes- was the most non fiscal thing the republicans did or could do and this grew our national debt by over $6 TRILLION dollars in just 8 years, let alone the future deficits coming from the programs they instituted.

the tax cuts did not increase our revenues as you claim, it reduced our revenues and they did not even reach the level they were at in 2000 until the year 2005, and under any normal situation tax revenues would have increased each year on their own just by the growth in gdp, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. In addition to this, with these tax cuts still in place and our crappy economy we went back to collecting less revenues than we did in 2000 BEFORE the tax cuts.

Cut us a break Mudwhistle...and do some research on this before making false claims, as you did.

Those tax breaks, are and will continue to add trillions upon trillions to our national debt for the next 20 years or even forever, if changes are not made....and are putting this debt on many generations of our children to come.

Tax cuts without cutting spending is IMMORAL....it puts the spending they've done during our time on to others that had nothing to do with the spending imo.

So why do the Dems want to do it? But they want to wait till after the election to do it?

Well..they want to increase spending but cutting taxes are gonna be put off indefinitely.

The Dems keep sending money out of the country along with thousands of jobs but they also want everyone to think they're open to tax-cuts.

This is a fucken lie of course.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Well they've already spent money they don't have. So future Tax Cuts really do scare the Hell out of them. The Democrats have completely sunk so many future generations with their insane spending. Tax cuts are an irrelevant issue at this point. Raising taxes is also irrelevant at this point. They know they can't pay for their madness. Raising taxes wont even add up to a drop in the bucket in the whole scheme of things. Things are very very bad. It's clear the Socialist/Progressive Democrats have no answers. All they have is more of the same and raising taxes. Not much to run on there. So bye bye Democrats,it wasn't so nice knowing ya.

 

[polpotterybarn]

You do need to pay for tax cuts. Contrary to what you may believe, not every dollar earned is used to buy goods with sales tax, in fact the more we make the less we spend. Therefore, lowering taxes does not increase revenue. In short, tax cuts most definitely need to be paid for

 

[teapartysamurai]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.



Nobody knows how much revenue will be collected until it is collected....so a tax-cut doesn't need to be paid for because it's not a solid number.

As a matter of fact tax-cuts do the opposite of what Democrats claim. They raise revenue....however tax increases lower revenue because of lost jobs and lower earnings which stifles growth.

If we had a flat-tax this would be a bit different. Automatic deductions would be taken out of your paycheck. The Dems would love this. You pay according to what you earn and the government gets your money before you get it. That is the only way they could change this in part. Jobs would still be lost because of high taxes. Less money to spend on consumables results in less demand for commercial products which results in less trade....lower cash flow....and less jobs.....which causes recessions and even depressions.

The other dirty little secret, if you want to call it a secret, is that over spending is the primary cause of a deficit...not tax-cuts. Sounds simple doesn't it? Well the Dems don't want you to think that way.

Another lie that the Dems used to great advantage is that the Bush tax-cuts were just for the rich...but now they've had to admit they benefited everyone who pays taxes. This bold-faced lie has been repeated for years and now they've tried to claim that voting on extending the middle-class portion is now a tax-cut. In fact it will be a tax increase for the rich. Nothing would change for the rest of us. They want to act like they're doing us a friggen favor.

The Bush tax-cuts were working....till the Dems took control of Congress Jan. 07' and they've done everything in their power to reverse that. The recession started in Dec. of 07' and lasted till the Summer of 09'. Are they trying to tell us that they had nothing to do with that?

Looks bad for the Democrats, doesn't it?

Not in their minds. The party of snappy slogans thinks they can blame all of this on the GOP. The GOP's ideas worked before but they're old, worn out, and out dated. We need something new this time.

Ever heard them say that?? Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? New ideas are needed, Right??

I'd settle for something that works.....not something that just sounds good.

Shhhh!

Liberals are hoping there are enough stupid people in the world that think like them.

That all money really belongs to the government and our keeping more of it is "theft" from the government.

Thus, it has to be "paid for." This is liberal for, whenever republicans cut taxes, when Democrats get back into power, they are going to raise taxes big time TO MAKE YOU GREEDY PEOPLE PAY for daring to keep more of what really belongs to the government!

 

[mudwhistle]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, we DON'T have to cut spending (somewhere-else), to "pay" for tax-cuts, huh??

Good thinkin', there.....MUDD-BUTT!!!!!!

*

*

Shitman.

The Repugs want to cut spending. I guess you just haven't been listening as usual.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I keep hearing Progressives and Liberals talking about paying for tax-cuts. This is the problem with them. They feel that our money belongs to them. They assume that what you earn is their's, not ours.

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them. This is ether a lie or just a mind-set that is based on their socialist mind-set.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, we DON'T have to cut spending (somewhere-else), to "pay" for tax-cuts, huh??​

Good thinkin', there.....MUDD-BUTT!!!!!!​

*

*

Shitman.

The Repugs want to cut spending. I guess you just haven't been listening as usual.

It isn't even the Republicans that want to cut spending. It's the conservatives in the Tea Party that the Republican Leadership fear!