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

[shintao]

For starters it would help if Obama wasn't using reckless rhetoric....all of this spread the wealth talk is just stifling new hires. Spread the wealth is another way of saying get ready for massive tax increases.

Hmm, I thought it meant that capitalism had reached it's flaw, accumulated wealth left no consumer money in circulation to buy products, and the system, again, collapsed on itself.

His six month drilling moratorium cost a few hundred thousand jobs.

And what did contaminating the gulf for the next hundred years do?

Extending unemployment benefits over and over again is causing some folks to stop looking for work.

Really? What is "some folks?" You might think through what you are proposing, ...what happens when they can't make payments? What do alternative programs to put people to work cost?

The main problem is a lack of trust in government. We don't know what other crazy shit these folks may pull.

Yes, I wonder where they learned to distrust their government from?

 

[mudwhistle]

For starters it would help if Obama wasn't using reckless rhetoric....all of this spread the wealth talk is just stifling new hires. Spread the wealth is another way of saying get ready for massive tax increases.

Hmm, I thought it meant that capitalism had reached it's flaw, accumulated wealth left no consumer money in circulation to buy products, and the system, again, collapsed on itself.

WTF???? Reached it's flaw???? Higher taxes takes money out of circulation. Everyone worries about being able to pay their bills because they know the government is trying to take all of their profits.

His six month drilling moratorium cost a few hundred thousand jobs.

And what did contaminating the gulf for the next hundred years do?

Oh....I guess you didn't hear the Obama Administration claim that oil all evaporated.

Extending unemployment benefits over and over again is causing some folks to stop looking for work.

Really? What is "some folks?" You might think through what you are proposing, ...what happens when they can't make payments? What do alternative programs to put people to work cost?

The main problem is a lack of trust in government. We don't know what other crazy shit these folks may pull.

Yes, I wonder where they learned to distrust their government from?

From listening to Osama...I mean Obama tell us he's not talking about taking over banks and businesses at the same time he's taking over banks and businesses and about to put insurance companies out of business. Obama and his anti-business policies are to blame here.

 

[shintao]

Hmm, I thought it meant that capitalism had reached it's flaw, accumulated wealth left no consumer money in circulation to buy products, and the system, again, collapsed on itself.

WTF???? Reached it's flaw???? Higher taxes takes money out of circulation. Everyone worries about being able to pay their bills because they know the government is trying to take all of their profits.

The flaw in Capitalism is when all wealth has accumulated in the top 2-10%ers, and people can no longer afford to buy their products. No buyers, the factory closes, people are laid off, the 2%ers take their profits and leave, if they are smart. Who wants to stay around and pay taxes into a failed system. And that is how capitalism works.


Does America have bills to pay for? And your suggesting we be fiscally irresponsible and not pay our way? Or are you suggesting union workers should be making more and also be paying less taxes?

Oh....I guess you didn't hear the Obama Administration claim that oil all evaporated.

No, I did not hear Obama say all oil evaporated.

Really? What is "some folks?" You might think through what you are proposing, ...what happens when they can't make payments? What do alternative programs to put people to work cost?Yes, I wonder where they learned to distrust their government from?

From listening to Osama...I mean Obama tell us he's not talking about taking over banks and businesses at the same time he's taking over banks and businesses and about to put insurance companies out of business. Obama and his anti-business policies are to blame here.

Yes, we should deregulate and let businesses have their way with the populace. Then we can distrust businesses, instead of government. In theory that should be the way government works, but then in practice you learn that all of these hampering laws, rules, and regulations have been put there, because business has shown us they cannot be trusted.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Well, that depends... Are you saying that because of the tax credits that Obama told people were tax cuts? Are you saying Tax credits are tax cuts... And do we really have to go over it once again that tax credits are anything but tax cuts?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Well, that depends... Are you saying that because of the tax credits that Obama told people were tax cuts? Are you saying Tax credits are tax cuts... And do we really have to go over it once again that tax credits are anything but tax cuts?

Tax credits are targeted tax reductions for a certain purpose...tax cuts are mindless one-size fits all cuts.

Tax credits are the way to go

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Well, that depends... Are you saying that because of the tax credits that Obama told people were tax cuts? Are you saying Tax credits are tax cuts... And do we really have to go over it once again that tax credits are anything but tax cuts?

Tax credits are targeted tax reductions for a certain purpose...tax cuts are mindless one-size fits all cuts.

Tax credits are the way to go

You're right, it's the only way to GIVE other people's money to someone who might not even be paying taxes and still pretend it's a tax cut... "Buy a toaster for 5$ after a 20 tax credit!!"

The difference is tax cuts are fair and tax credits are evil. Tax credits are "the way to go" if YOU are the company or product getting the magical government money.
Try and remember a tax credit costs the Government money, meaning they would have to raise taxes or (haha) cut spending somewhere to pay for the "program" of tax credits... Tax cuts don't cost anything *extra* to do.

2 years into Obama and 4 of a Dem congress so I think it's fair to say that you fucking liberals love your wars so much that you won't *cut* you precious military spending so we can get some real tax cuts.

You noobs didn't start the war but it's only taken 4 years to expand one and get the other 1 down to 50k troops, so not even over... Liberals worst enemy is themselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Well, that depends... Are you saying that because of the tax credits that Obama told people were tax cuts? Are you saying Tax credits are tax cuts... And do we really have to go over it once again that tax credits are anything but tax cuts?

Tax credits are tax cuts. Don't be an ass.

 

[Toro]

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.

The terms "cost" and "paid for" do not imply ownership in this case. These terms are used to describe the amount that will not be going to the Treasury because of the tax cuts. That is a cost.

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.

We can get a pretty good approximation of how much tax revenues will be generated through econometric forecasting. So yes, we generally know how much revenues are coming in. Not knowing how much is coming in exactly to the penny is irrelevant.

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.

Income tax cuts do not raise revenues. This is a factually incorrect and has been long discredited, except for ideologues engaging in massive cognitive dissonance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html

 

[shintao]

You're right, it's the only way to GIVE other people's money to someone who might not even be paying taxes and still pretend it's a tax cut... "Buy a toaster for 5$ after a 20 tax credit!!"

Yes, people who pay no taxes have no stake or gains in two ME wars, have not cost the infrastructure a dime, and yet sent their son to die for you. A small cost I assume that you gave anyone.

2 years into Obama and 4 of a Dem congress so I think it's fair to say that you fucking liberals love your wars so much that you won't *cut* you precious military spending so we can get some real tax cuts.

You wanted blood, you got it!!! Now don't chicken out now, and show the world your a weak asshole. Show them you are a person who stands for freedom through thick and thin, and will fund the wars to the end, even if you won't fight them............

You noobs didn't start the war but it's only taken 4 years to expand one and get the other 1 down to 50k troops, so not even over... Liberals worst enemy is themselves.

I might say that about you dude.................

 

[Avorysuds]

You're right, it's the only way to GIVE other people's money to someone who might not even be paying taxes and still pretend it's a tax cut... "Buy a toaster for 5$ after a 20 tax credit!!"

Yes, people who pay no taxes have no stake or gains in two ME wars, have not cost the infrastructure a dime, and yet sent their son to die for you. A small cost I assume that you gave anyone.

2 years into Obama and 4 of a Dem congress so I think it's fair to say that you fucking liberals love your wars so much that you won't *cut* you precious military spending so we can get some real tax cuts.

You wanted blood, you got it!!! Now don't chicken out now, and show the world your a weak asshole. Show them you are a person who stands for freedom through thick and thin, and will fund the wars to the end, even if you won't fight them............

You noobs didn't start the war but it's only taken 4 years to expand one and get the other 1 down to 50k troops, so not even over... Liberals worst enemy is themselves.

I might say that about you dude.................

A: I don't give 2 shits about the military and the people in it. It was their choice to sign up and just because you sign on the dotted line does not make you a hero as the NG and military tries to make it out to be like these days.


B: I never supported the wars, ever.


C: I never wanted blood.


You have to make shit up as you go along cuz you're full of shit, fat ass. Now GTFO sissy boi.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Explain how the wars cost us less then the Porkulus bill alone did and yet you feel you have the right to complain about all of the spending that took place during the Bush years.

 

[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.

The terms "cost" and "paid for" do not imply ownership in this case. These terms are used to describe the amount that will not be going to the Treasury because of the tax cuts. That is a cost.

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.

We can get a pretty good approximation of how much tax revenues will be generated through econometric forecasting. So yes, we generally know how much revenues are coming in. Not knowing how much is coming in exactly to the penny is irrelevant.

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.

Income tax cuts do not raise revenues. This is a factually incorrect and has been long discredited, except for ideologues engaging in massive cognitive dissonance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/51527-tax-cuts-dont-pay-for-themselves-gop-economists.html

Says you. But history says otherwise. As taxes decrease for some strange reason revenue goes up. And money that never went to the Treasury cannot be counted until it does. So it cannot be counted as a loss. But that's beside the point. For some strange reason less taxes were collected last year then was collected the years before. Wonder why that is? Could it be because less people are employed? I think it is.

Also money that our government is spending cannot offset the loss of revenue because it has to be deducted from the total. Private sector money doesn't get deducted from that amount. So anything that the government spends is a loss.....even if it's used to create or save jobs. Waste is rampant. In LA $111 million was spent to save or create 55 jobs. That's about $2 million per job. Kind of expensive don't you think? Why not let the private sector keep their profits and create those jobs at a fraction of that cost?

 

[JBeukema]

Nice to see so many Statist Big Government whores in this thread that excuse spending and expanding Government while the people get screwed. Warms the heart actually. /Sarcasm

feel free to give us your ideas on what to cut, and how to get the deficit in line, with specifics, and also how to add jobs, reduce unemployment, and reduce the national debt and to pay the surplus money from social security that they used for things income tax revenues should have paid for, oh...and how you plan on paying the NOW 350 billion a year in the interest payment on the national debt, WHILE reducing taxes for everyone!

we are in a hell of a mess...took 8 years to get us here....i don't see how the problems can go away over night!!!?????

Let's start by cutting all federal welfare programs save SS and VA. Let the States handle whatever other programs their citizens feel are appropriate.


Then let's stop starting wars.

Repeal Obamacare in favour of some version of Medicare Plus.

Disband the ATF.

Cap Congressional pay @ 100k/yr.

Stop subsidizing big agra- especially corn ethanol.

Amend the US Constitution to state that Congress can only pass a budget of no greater than 95% of federal 'income' from tariffs and taxes. The only exception is to be cases of declared war against a foreign power or the suppression of rebellion.

End Congress' free (to them) health care plan- let them buy coverage if they want it.

Require all programs or agencies that are proposed to be paid for through taxes or other spending cuts in the very bills that institute them. The CBO and two outside financial experts must


For starters.

Now I want you to show me why every single federal program is needed.

 

[Toro]

Says you. But history says otherwise.

No. No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. It doesn't even closely.

It is a discredited theory. The post I linked was from Republican and conservative economists. They are telling you it is completely wrong.

Its a fantasy. A fairy tale. The only people who believe are people who ignore all the evidence and believe it only because they want to believe it.

 

[JBeukema]

Says you. But history says otherwise.

No. No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. It doesn't even closely.

It is a discredited theory. The post I linked was from Republican and conservative economists. They are telling you it is completely wrong.

Its a fantasy. A fairy tale. The only people who believe are people who ignore all the evidence and believe it only because they want to believe it.

google: religion

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Of course, it is.

All o' this came-outta YOUR mouth....MUDD-BUTT!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yeah.....that's what happened......

*

 

[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.



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.

I'd say there's sufficient-enough-data to cover stupidity, on "conservatives'" part.....

​

August 29, 1993​

"Two weeks ago, Time magazine published a picture of Ronald Reagan on its cover upside down, over the title 'Overturning The Reagan Era'. And for all its compromises, the budget plan the US adopted this month is the first real rejection of Reaganomics, the curiously irresponsible combination of tax cuts and spending rises that very nearly left the US Treasury issuing junk bonds of its own by the end of the 1980s.

After a decade of 'voodoo economics', wasteful military spending and the savings and loan bail-out, it has fallen to the next generation of taxpayers to restore the 'full faith and credit' of the US, and to Mr Clinton to distribute the pain.

If Mr Clinton is unpopular now on Wall Street, one can only imagine the reactions to such measures. But doing the right thing is proving as thankless a job on Wall Street as doing the opposite was wildly popular.

Most investment strategists believe that the economic stagnation that has accompanied austerity will soon force him away from deficit reduction. If he defies their expectations and maintains his fiscally responsible policies through to 1996, says David Shulman, chief equity strategist with Salomon Brothers in New York, 'Wall Street would build a statue in honour of Bill Clinton. But he still would not get its vote, nor Main Street's for that matter.'"

We've BEEN "HERE", before....ya' stupid, History-CHALLENGED TEABAGGERS!!!!!

​

 

[Article 15]

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

They kept the cost of both wars off the books.

Explain how the wars cost us less then the Porkulus bill alone did

The cost of the war is a "so far" number. When it is all said and done it will dwarf the cost of the stimulus.

and yet you feel you have the right to complain about all of the spending that took place during the Bush years.

Two things:

1.) You are in no position to tell me how I feel about anything nor are you in a position to tell me what I think my rights are.

2.) My post was in response to a question that you put forward and was in no way a complaint. How I feel about that decision by the Bush Admin is irrelevnat. You wanted to know how they kept the deficit down all of those years and I told you. If you don't like the facts that's your own problem.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

They kept the cost of both wars off the books.

Explain how the wars cost us less then the Porkulus bill alone did and yet you feel you have the right to complain about all of the spending that took place during the Bush years.

The figures used to make that comparison counted the 300 billion in tax cuts/credits in the stimulus bill as a COST,

because of lost revenues. So if you want to count tax cuts/credits there as a COST, you have a point, but then those who say the extension of the Bush tax cuts/credits are a COST that is not paid for are also correct.

That would refute the premise of the OP.