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.

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!!!!!

​

Dude....meltdown must be a constant state for you. Reading your posts is like reading the posts of a 3 year old.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So you predict that the wars will cost more then the Stimulus. So far the price tag is around $700 billion over 9 years. The Porkulus cost us that much and more in only a matter of months. Lets also not forget about all of the follow up stimulus bills that Obama needed because the first massive spending bill didn't work.

The way they kept the deficit down was by an expected increase in revenue coming into the treasury due to the increase in incomes....something that Democrats hate [unless it's their own personal balance sheets]. Obama and his experts tell us that they want to get even with the Fat-cats. Zero profits are the goal. Some of them have actually said this.

What does income tax tax?

Profits.

If you put in place policies that reduce or put a ceiling on profits you decrease taxable income. So of course the only recourse is to raise taxes. Any economist knows this. And the same goes for any CPA. The Dems refuse to tell us what they're planning so uncertainty is driving the market. No amount of money can reverse uncertainty in the job market.

So we have a government that says one thing but does another. A lack of trust is the problem here. Nobody is gonna hire anyone under this constant fear of the unknown.

 

[Article 15]

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.

What...are you gonna stamp your wuttle footsees and cry?

So you predict that the wars will cost more then the Stimulus. So far the price tag is around $700 billion over 9 years. The Porkulus cost us that much and more in only a matter of months. Lets also not forget about all of the follow up stimulus bills that Obama needed because the first massive spending bill didn't work.

The way they kept the deficit down was by an expected increase in revenue coming into the treasury due to the increase in incomes something that Democrats hate [unless it's their own personal balance sheets].

What does income tax tax?

Profits.

If you put in place policies that reduce or put a ceiling on profits you decrease taxable income. So of course the only recourse is to raise taxes. Any economist knows this. And the same goes for any CPA. The Dems refuse to tell us what they're planning so uncertainty is driving the market. No amount of money can reverse uncertainty in the job market.

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

So if my original post is wrong how am I right?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.



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.

What...are you gonna stamp your wuttle footsees and cry?

So you predict that the wars will cost more then the Stimulus. So far the price tag is around $700 billion over 9 years. The Porkulus cost us that much and more in only a matter of months. Lets also not forget about all of the follow up stimulus bills that Obama needed because the first massive spending bill didn't work.

The way they kept the deficit down was by an expected increase in revenue coming into the treasury due to the increase in incomes something that Democrats hate [unless it's their own personal balance sheets].

What does income tax tax?

Profits.

If you put in place policies that reduce or put a ceiling on profits you decrease taxable income. So of course the only recourse is to raise taxes. Any economist knows this. And the same goes for any CPA. The Dems refuse to tell us what they're planning so uncertainty is driving the market. No amount of money can reverse uncertainty in the job market.

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

And if you're gonna blame the minority for what's going on now then I guess you think it's okay for the GOP to blame part of the spending during the Bush years on the Democrats, right? If one Dem voted for military spending then they are equally responsible. Usually only one or two Republicans voted with the Democrats on the Stimulus and every follow up spending bill. So the Dems feel free to blame everything on them. Isn't it fair to blame them in part for all of the spending that took place back then? I mean it's only fair.

No...you want to ignore that.

I still don't know where you get off thinking it was worse then it is now. Compare a deficit of $167 billion to the current $3 trillion deficit.....not to mention the raising of the debt ceiling to over 12 trillion.

 

[Article 15]

What...are you gonna stamp your wuttle footsees and cry?

So you predict that the wars will cost more then the Stimulus. So far the price tag is around $700 billion over 9 years. The Porkulus cost us that much and more in only a matter of months. Lets also not forget about all of the follow up stimulus bills that Obama needed because the first massive spending bill didn't work.

The way they kept the deficit down was by an expected increase in revenue coming into the treasury due to the increase in incomes something that Democrats hate [unless it's their own personal balance sheets].

What does income tax tax?

Profits.

If you put in place policies that reduce or put a ceiling on profits you decrease taxable income. So of course the only recourse is to raise taxes. Any economist knows this. And the same goes for any CPA. The Dems refuse to tell us what they're planning so uncertainty is driving the market. No amount of money can reverse uncertainty in the job market.

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

.

Sort of false..

Quick campaign

Mr Rumsfeld is in Europe to try to gain backing for possible military action against Iraq.

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war

So "I doubt six months" has become almost ten years.

And if you're gonna blame the minority for what's going on now then I guess you think it's okay for the GOP to blame part of the spending during the Bush years on the Democrats, right?

Huh? Seriously, are we having the same conversation? Where in this thread did I blame anybody for anything? To answer your weird question, knock yourself out. If you can get people to buy that then good for you.

If one Dem voted for military spending then they are equally responsible.

Uh, no.

Usually only one or two Republicans voted with the Democrats on the Stimulus and every follow up spending bill.

Ok ...

So the Dems feel free to blame everything on them.

Blame what on them? The stimulus? That sounds like some GOP logic where it's the minority party's fault we went into Iraq.

Isn't it fair to blame them in part for all of the spending that took place back then?

I mean it's only fair.

Like I said before, if you can sell it then have at it.

No...you want to ignore that.

It seems to me it is you who wants to ignore what happened prior to January 2009, or at the very least rewrite it to your liking.

You don't get it. I blame them all.

So vote Republican, right?

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

.

Sort of false..



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war

So "I doubt six months" has become almost ten years.



Huh? Seriously, are we having the same conversation? Where in this thread did I blame anybody for anything? To answer your weird question, knock yourself out. If you can get people to buy that then good for you.



Uh, no.



Ok ...



Blame what on them? The stimulus? That sounds like some GOP logic where it's the minority party's fault we went into Iraq.



Like I said before, if you can sell it then have at it.

No...you want to ignore that.

It seems to me it is you who wants to ignore what happened prior to January 2009, or at the very least rewrite it to your liking.

You don't get it. I blame them all.

So vote Republican, right?

The problem is the war against IRAQ ended in a matter of months. The war against Al Qaeda and an Iranian backed insurgency took a bit longer. We took out Iraqs Army in short order.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them.

Americans love Socialism, dude.

 

[Article 15]

The problem is the war against IRAQ ended in a matter of months. The war against Al Qaeda and an Iranian backed insurgency took a bit longer. We took out Iraqs Army in short order.

... and without us going in in the first place there would be no AQ or Iranian backed insurgency there to fight. You can't have your cake and eat it to, Mud.

"A bit longer"

Geez.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mudwhistled nailed it!

When you listen to Progressives they think that the Government IS the economy! They have it all backwards and it's hard to talk sense to them.

You first have to point out to them their Gubbamintcentric world view because it's so deeply ingrained most of them do not realize theyve been programmed that way

 

[CrusaderFrank]

For all of the denials of being Socialists this alone gives away the honest to God truth about them.

Americans love Socialism, dude.

Let's talk on Nov 3rd.

 

[G.T.]

So the same people saying that Tax cuts don't need to be paid for..............

Are the same people including the tax cuts/credits in the Stimulus Bill in its total COST.

"Isn't it ironic? Yea, I really do think." - Alanis Morissette

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Assuming your correct....it was not $500 billion well spent.

 

[JBeukema]

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

.

Sort of false..



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Rumsfeld foresees swift Iraq war

So "I doubt six months" has become almost ten years.



Huh? Seriously, are we having the same conversation? Where in this thread did I blame anybody for anything? To answer your weird question, knock yourself out. If you can get people to buy that then good for you.



Uh, no.



Ok ...



Blame what on them? The stimulus? That sounds like some GOP logic where it's the minority party's fault we went into Iraq.



Like I said before, if you can sell it then have at it.



It seems to me it is you who wants to ignore what happened prior to January 2009, or at the very least rewrite it to your liking.

You don't get it. I blame them all.

So vote Republican, right?

The problem is the war against IRAQ ended in a matter of months. The war against Al Qaeda and an Iranian backed insurgency took a bit longer. We took out Iraqs Army in short order.

And Afghanistan is the longest war in American history.

 

[rightwinger]

What...are you gonna stamp your wuttle footsees and cry?

So you predict that the wars will cost more then the Stimulus. So far the price tag is around $700 billion over 9 years. The Porkulus cost us that much and more in only a matter of months. Lets also not forget about all of the follow up stimulus bills that Obama needed because the first massive spending bill didn't work.

The way they kept the deficit down was by an expected increase in revenue coming into the treasury due to the increase in incomes something that Democrats hate [unless it's their own personal balance sheets].

What does income tax tax?

Profits.

If you put in place policies that reduce or put a ceiling on profits you decrease taxable income. So of course the only recourse is to raise taxes. Any economist knows this. And the same goes for any CPA. The Dems refuse to tell us what they're planning so uncertainty is driving the market. No amount of money can reverse uncertainty in the job market.

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

And if you're gonna blame the minority for what's going on now then I guess you think it's okay for the GOP to blame part of the spending during the Bush years on the Democrats, right? If one Dem voted for military spending then they are equally responsible. Usually only one or two Republicans voted with the Democrats on the Stimulus and every follow up spending bill. So the Dems feel free to blame everything on them. Isn't it fair to blame them in part for all of the spending that took place back then? I mean it's only fair.

No...you want to ignore that.

I still don't know where you get off thinking it was worse then it is now. Compare a deficit of $167 billion to the current $3 trillion deficit.....not to mention the raising of the debt ceiling to over 12 trillion.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm not predicting anything, I know.

Here's the link:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Jump to page seven.

Oh, and let's not forget that we were told the war would be over in six months and it would pay for itself yet here we are nearly 10 years and a trillion dollars later.

But hey, if you want to fool yourself into thinking the GOP was being fiscally responsible and were actually keeping the deficit down all those years (I'm still LMFAO at that one) knock yourself out.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

And if you're gonna blame the minority for what's going on now then I guess you think it's okay for the GOP to blame part of the spending during the Bush years on the Democrats, right? If one Dem voted for military spending then they are equally responsible. Usually only one or two Republicans voted with the Democrats on the Stimulus and every follow up spending bill. So the Dems feel free to blame everything on them. Isn't it fair to blame them in part for all of the spending that took place back then? I mean it's only fair.

No...you want to ignore that.

I still don't know where you get off thinking it was worse then it is now. Compare a deficit of $167 billion to the current $3 trillion deficit.....not to mention the raising of the debt ceiling to over 12 trillion.

Nobody said the war would be over in 6 months.

It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003

The DICK......1994!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY]YouTube - Cheney in 1994 on Iraq[/ame]​

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Tax-Cuts do not have to be paid for. The Socialists/Progressives always use this B.S. spin when they want to f*ck the people over again. It's a pathetic excuse for them to raise taxes. If Budgets are put together honestly & correctly,Tax Cuts are always a good thing. You gotta love those Socialists/Progressives huh? Funny how it's always about those dreaded Tax Cuts but never ever about their spending insanity. It always comes back to spending in the end.

 

[Urkie]

Tax-Cuts do not have to be paid for. The Socialists/Progressives always use this B.S. spin when they want to f*ck the people over again. It's a pathetic excuse for them to raise taxes. If Budgets are put together honestly & correctly,Tax Cuts are always a good thing. You gotta love those Socialists/Progressives huh? Funny how it's always about those dreaded Tax Cuts but never ever about their spending insanity. It always comes back to spending in the end.

There comes a point where you can't lower the taxes anymore though. Did you ever think about that? There are some things you can't cut out of the budget to make up for the tax cut. Thus, there is a point where you can't cut taxes anymore. I think we've reached that point now judging by the massive deficit growth...

 

[G.T.]

Tax-Cuts do not have to be paid for. The Socialists/Progressives always use this B.S. spin when they want to f*ck the people over again. It's a pathetic excuse for them to raise taxes. If Budgets are put together honestly & correctly,Tax Cuts are always a good thing. You gotta love those Socialists/Progressives huh? Funny how it's always about those dreaded Tax Cuts but never ever about their spending insanity. It always comes back to spending in the end.

Yes, tax cuts do have to be paid for.

Gee, this is easy.

 

[rightwinger]

Tax-Cuts do not have to be paid for. The Socialists/Progressives always use this B.S. spin when they want to f*ck the people over again. It's a pathetic excuse for them to raise taxes. If Budgets are put together honestly & correctly,Tax Cuts are always a good thing. You gotta love those Socialists/Progressives huh? Funny how it's always about those dreaded Tax Cuts but never ever about their spending insanity. It always comes back to spending in the end.

How can the Bush Tax cuts be a good thing when they added $2 trillion to the deficit and did nothing to help the economy or create jobs?