"Paying" for tax cuts

[Quantum Windbag]

Let say we cut the military by 95%, and NO, we are not the World Police, let the UN do its job. That is what they are there for. Notice the word "US TROOPS." That means troops that defend the US. Stop sticking our troops on the bloody fucking target.

Now the question remains for spending cuts, would you cut the military to 95% to balance the budget, lower your taxes, and etc.??

If you can conclusively prove that the only way to cut the deficit is to cut military spending by 95% than have at it with my full support. Since the truth is that all we have to do is reduce the planned increase in spending by a bout 4% to eliminate the deficit in about 10 years you are going to have a hard time selli9ng that one though.

It is not the ONLY WAY, it is the best way of cutting spending. It is spending, like foreign aid that is not spent on the American people. And the military in particular spends over 1/2 the US budget on foreigners. Screw them, be patriotic, protect your own, spend your tax dollars in America. That money leaves America, and does not circulate in the American economy, is not available for bank loans, and only drags you deeper into the deficit black hole.

Further, when we fund US Troops, they die for foreigners, not for us. They come home missing faces, arms & legs & in wheel chairs. And there is no reason on god's earth why we should be anywhere except on US Soil. We also spend billions more to take care of them, and give them the benefits we agree to do. Just bring all our US Troops home.

For instance when a welfare mama gets her check, it is spent in America on Americans and goes into circulation, it is spent at the grocery store benefiting an American company, that sticks it into an American bank, and then buys American products with it.

When we pay Haliburton millions in the ME, the money goes into the Saudi Arabia banks to stimulate their economy, not ours. So which spending should be cut? Cut our own throats, or foreigners throats?

It is a way, it is not necessarily the best way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just who does your money belong to anyway?

Much is being made of the cost of the Obama tax compromise. The left in particular is taking aim on extending the Bush tax rates for “millionaires and billionaires.” The lefty press is quick to point out what they perceive as hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. After all, extending the tax rates will “cost the government” $400 billion and $140 billion for the millionaires. Not so says Judd Gregg. It’s your, “It’s not your money” quote of the day. Now I will admit my ultimate fiscal conservative dream is to see government cut down to size. And it is true if government spending isn’t cut, then the government has to borrow or confiscate more money from us, including the rich. But tax cuts don’t need to be paid for because … well as Gregg points out to Andrea, it ain’t the government’s money.

Senator Judd Gregg schools MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on taxes | Radio Vice Online

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

Just in case some progressives out there have trouble with the concept I will rephrase this in simpler language. The government is not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how rich they are. Money is not a limited resource, and Bill Gates having billions of dollars is not making anyone poorer. If you take money from him and give it to everyone else all you will accomplish is making Gates poor, you will not make anyone else rich.

The only way to spend more money than you have is to spend more money than you have.

Senator Judd Gregg attempts to explain this revolutionary concept to Andrea Mitchell. He is wasting his breath, but I know he is right so I will join him in wasting my time posting the same thing.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdJAjaceIM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Say it along with me, the only way to add to the deficit is spend more money than you have.Money is artificial, and one person having more of an artificial object does not deny others anything.

For those here who are rich and think the government should have more of your money, just send it to them. they will be more than happy to take it and find a way to waste it without you insisting that everyone else has to give up their money.

How many Repblican's at this site and other sites stood shoulder to shoulder and toe to toe, four square, and in a single loud voice protested "Generational Debt" and demanded an end to "The Out of Control Spending of Obama", and yet think this piece-o-crap tax bill is a good idea?

IF"Generational Spending" was evil only 18-months ago, it is equally evil now. IF you
opposed "Out of Control Government Spending By Obama" not that long ago, then why do you not oppose it now?

All this bill does is pass on an even greater debt to our chidren and grandchildren, which each Republican used to oppose, when it suited them.

Excuse me? How is challenging the mantra that we have to pay for tax cuts, and pointing out that the only way to increase the deficit is by spending more money than we have, in any way equate with me suppoting government spending in any way, shape, or form?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just who does your money belong to anyway?

Much is being made of the cost of the Obama tax compromise. The left in particular is taking aim on extending the Bush tax rates for “millionaires and billionaires.” The lefty press is quick to point out what they perceive as hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. After all, extending the tax rates will “cost the government” $400 billion and $140 billion for the millionaires. Not so says Judd Gregg. It’s your, “It’s not your money” quote of the day. Now I will admit my ultimate fiscal conservative dream is to see government cut down to size. And it is true if government spending isn’t cut, then the government has to borrow or confiscate more money from us, including the rich. But tax cuts don’t need to be paid for because … well as Gregg points out to Andrea, it ain’t the government’s money.

Senator Judd Gregg schools MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on taxes | Radio Vice Online

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

Just in case some progressives out there have trouble with the concept I will rephrase this in simpler language. The government is not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how rich they are. Money is not a limited resource, and Bill Gates having billions of dollars is not making anyone poorer. If you take money from him and give it to everyone else all you will accomplish is making Gates poor, you will not make anyone else rich.

The only way to spend more money than you have is to spend more money than you have.

Senator Judd Gregg attempts to explain this revolutionary concept to Andrea Mitchell. He is wasting his breath, but I know he is right so I will join him in wasting my time posting the same thing.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdJAjaceIM&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Say it along with me, the only way to add to the deficit is spend more money than you have.Money is artificial, and one person having more of an artificial object does not deny others anything.

For those here who are rich and think the government should have more of your money, just send it to them. they will be more than happy to take it and find a way to waste it without you insisting that everyone else has to give up their money.

So you want to make all taxes voluntary?

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

 

[Toro]

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

This is ideological semantics. It is a philosophically damaging proposition which harms the nation because it contributes to political intransigence that debases the currency and wealth of the nation. Tax cuts unto themselves add to the deficit. Ownership of resources is irrelevant when it comes to the fiscal balance of a nation.

In nature and in economics, if something is in equilibrium, whatever disturbs that equilibrium is the reason why equilibrium no longer exists. A balanced budget is fiscal equilibrium. The act of solely cutting taxes disturbs fiscal equilibrium.

If the only thing the government did was fund the military, and the military was fully funded each year by taxes, and then the politicians abolished taxes and government revenues plummeted to zero so that the government could not pay the military, it is not the military spending which caused the deficit, it is the abolition of taxes which caused the deficit. The entire government is no different.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

This is ideological semantics. It is a philosophically damaging proposition which harms the nation because it contributes to political intransigence that debases the currency and wealth of the nation. Tax cuts unto themselves add to the deficit. Ownership of resources is irrelevant when it comes to the fiscal balance of a nation.

In nature and in economics, if something is in equilibrium, whatever disturbs that equilibrium is the reason why equilibrium no longer exists. A balanced budget is fiscal equilibrium. The act of solely cutting taxes disturbs fiscal equilibrium.

If the only thing the government did was fund the military, and the military was fully funded each year by taxes, and then the politicians abolished taxes and government revenues plummeted to zero so that the government could not pay the military, it is not the military spending which caused the deficit, it is the abolition of taxes which caused the deficit. The entire government is no different.

Bullshit. It is not an ideological position, nor is philosophically damaging, it is a simple fact. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have. The only way the government can improve the fiscal balance of a nation is get out of the way and let the nation's economy work.

Every time we have had a balanced budget the government increased both spending and taxes. The problem is that they always increase taxes at a slower rate than they increase spending, which results in an increase in the deficit. Notice that, again, it was the spending that increased the deficit, not the taxes.

If you went to a bankruptcy court and argued you do not have to cut your spending even though you lost your job they would tell you the same thing I am. It is not the fact that you lost your job that is causing the problems, it is the fact that you are not cutting your spending.

Common sense does not change just because we are talking about governments. Tax cuts do not increase the deficit, the only way to increase the deficit is spend money we do not have. In your example it was not the loss of revenue through eliminating taxes that caused the problem, it was the government refusing to recognize that the money was no longer there, and continuing to spend like it was still coming in that caused the deficit to increase.

 

[Sallow]

If tax cuts can't add to the deficit, let's cut taxes to zero and then see whether or not the deficit gets bigger.

Let me try this again.

The only way to increase the deficit is spending more money than you have. The elimination of all governmental revenue will not result in any increase in the deficit unless the government spends money it does not have.

 

[Sallow]

Just who does your money belong to anyway?

Senator Judd Gregg schools MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on taxes | Radio Vice Online

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

Just in case some progressives out there have trouble with the concept I will rephrase this in simpler language. The government is not entitled to anyone's money, no matter how rich they are. Money is not a limited resource, and Bill Gates having billions of dollars is not making anyone poorer. If you take money from him and give it to everyone else all you will accomplish is making Gates poor, you will not make anyone else rich.

The only way to spend more money than you have is to spend more money than you have.

Senator Judd Gregg attempts to explain this revolutionary concept to Andrea Mitchell. He is wasting his breath, but I know he is right so I will join him in wasting my time posting the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkdJAjaceIM&feature=player_embedded

Say it along with me, the only way to add to the deficit is spend more money than you have.Money is artificial, and one person having more of an artificial object does not deny others anything.

For those here who are rich and think the government should have more of your money, just send it to them. they will be more than happy to take it and find a way to waste it without you insisting that everyone else has to give up their money.

So you want to make all taxes voluntary?

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

Probably from all the right wing whining about "taxes" while the people they vote for spend more then anyone else..and cause more economic calamities.

Enough to make your head spin.

 

[The Infidel]

So you want to make all taxes voluntary?

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

Probably from all the right wing whining about "taxes" while the people they vote for spend more then anyone else..and cause more economic calamities.

Enough to make your head spin.

Exactly what spending are you talking about...? The Dems have had control of Congress since 2006. Who has held the spending purse strings? The Dems... and we still have no budget for the this year.... no budget resolution.... You dare to say the Repubes are to blame?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you want to make all taxes voluntary?

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

Probably from all the right wing whining about "taxes" while the people they vote for spend more then anyone else..and cause more economic calamities.

Enough to make your head spin.

I have not said anything about taxes, I keep talking about spending and how it increases the deficit.

 

[Sallow]

Where do you people get these stupid ideas? Is there something about being a liberal that causes brain damage?

Probably from all the right wing whining about "taxes" while the people they vote for spend more then anyone else..and cause more economic calamities.

Enough to make your head spin.

I have not said anything about taxes, I keep talking about spending and how it increases the deficit.

Yeah..it does.

So perhaps we should stop spending money on crazy orbital nuclear launch stations, missile hitting missile technology, super duper sonic fighter planes that have no justification and wars against people that live in mud huts.

Along with bloated contracts with private companies that over charge the government for just about everything.

 

[8537]

First, let me apologize for my smartass response. I could have made my point without being a jackass...

Educate me then. I believe money is an artificial construct imposed on trade by governments so that they can keep track of everything their citizens do. It is not tied to any resource, is controlled entirely by central banks, and more is printed every time we face the specter of inflation. What exactly is it that limits how much money exist in the world, and how does Gates having a few billion keep anyone else from getting as much as they want?

I don't think it's imposed on trade by governments - the earliest forms of money weren't government issued at all, and even here in the US we have had several instances of private money production. Money simply facilitates trade (and stores value....)

The fed doesn't print more money when we face inflation - it does just the opposite. it contracts the supply. On the flipside, creating more money can sometimes lead to inflation.... But I suspect I misread your intention with that comment?

More to the point, however, is that the amount of money in circulation is in large part irrelevant. What matters more is how quickly it is exchanged. If Gates keeps billions and billions of it under his mattress, the entire economy responds with deflation. But the real value of money is very certainly finite - it's simply the real value of the goods and serviced produced (divided by velocity, but that's a different discussion). There is a limit to our productive capacity and a limit to the scarce resources money represents - and therefore a scarcity of money. If 50% of productive capacity and resources are owned by Bill Gates, that only leaves the remaining 50% for everyone else. Printing more money for printing's sake doesn't change the capacity or the amount of resources.

I keep using Gates as an example because the only resources he sells are ideas. Microsoft does label some hardware, but most of their money comes from intangible software, not tangible goods.

Right, but his company increases both the goods and services sold and the productive capacity of the economy. Everything else being equal, that would make money more valuable relative to goods - the same number of dollars chasing more goods. No new money required. Gate's share of that productive capacity increases (and in this example, his share of its representative, money)

Since the aggregate of whose intangibles is greater than the sum of all the tangibles that goes into producing them, and he Gates can sell the idea again and again without using more resources, he is actually increasing the money supply as he produces more goods.

He can't increase the money supply. He can only create an environment where others choose to increase the money supply. During the heyday of the gold standard, instead of increasing the money supply sufficiently (which required digging shiney nuggets out of the ground in order to put them underground somewhere else), we experience deflation - which is the other option. The amount of money stays the same, and people can buy more with it. There is a finite and increasing amount of productive capacity, and therefore a finite amount of real-value money.

If, as you argue, money is based on goods and services, and thus limited, he would be unable to increase the supply because money itself is limited. That clearly is not the case.

In order for money to serve any purpose, it must be scarce and limited. If money was not scarce, it would have no value.

 

[rightwinger]

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than you get.

This is ideological semantics. It is a philosophically damaging proposition which harms the nation because it contributes to political intransigence that debases the currency and wealth of the nation. Tax cuts unto themselves add to the deficit. Ownership of resources is irrelevant when it comes to the fiscal balance of a nation.

In nature and in economics, if something is in equilibrium, whatever disturbs that equilibrium is the reason why equilibrium no longer exists. A balanced budget is fiscal equilibrium. The act of solely cutting taxes disturbs fiscal equilibrium.

If the only thing the government did was fund the military, and the military was fully funded each year by taxes, and then the politicians abolished taxes and government revenues plummeted to zero so that the government could not pay the military, it is not the military spending which caused the deficit, it is the abolition of taxes which caused the deficit. The entire government is no different.

Bullshit. It is not an ideological position, nor is philosophically damaging, it is a simple fact. The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have. The only way the government can improve the fiscal balance of a nation is get out of the way and let the nation's economy work.

Every time we have had a balanced budget the government increased both spending and taxes. The problem is that they always increase taxes at a slower rate than they increase spending, which results in an increase in the deficit. Notice that, again, it was the spending that increased the deficit, not the taxes.

If you went to a bankruptcy court and argued you do not have to cut your spending even though you lost your job they would tell you the same thing I am. It is not the fact that you lost your job that is causing the problems, it is the fact that you are not cutting your spending.

Common sense does not change just because we are talking about governments. Tax cuts do not increase the deficit, the only way to increase the deficit is spend money we do not have. In your example it was not the loss of revenue through eliminating taxes that caused the problem, it was the government refusing to recognize that the money was no longer there, and continuing to spend like it was still coming in that caused the deficit to increase.

If we cut taxes then we have less to spend.

Would you agree that no taxes should be cut untill the corresponding spending cuts have been made?

Basically, we are now spending less so we do not need to tax as much. Why do we always cut taxes first and then ignore the spending cuts part?

 

[G.T.]

If you don't off-set your existing costs when you decrease your income, you're adding to your deficit.

Decreasing revenue while not cutting cost = adding to deficit.
Increasing costs while not increasing revenue = adding to deficit.

Any single way that you can imagine that puts you "in the red," or "upside down" adds to your "deficit," the rest is just semantics............shooting the shit......arguing for the sake of arguing......being a block-head........etc etc etc



And who does your money belong to? Yourself and the public services enumerated in the Constitution both Federally and the State in which you live.

 

[AmericanFirst]

If you must borrow money, at interest, to make up for tax revenue, then certainly tax cuts add to the deficit.

They won't add to the deficit, that is just another dimwit lie. To have a tax cut you have to lower the current rate. They are just keeping the current rate in place. I hear they are calling it the obama tax cuts. They are the Bush tax cuts, obama is just taking credit. Typical dimwits, don't know how to tell the truth.

 

[8537]

If you must borrow money, at interest, to make up for tax revenue, then certainly tax cuts add to the deficit.

They won't add to the deficit, that is just another dimwit lie. To have a tax cut you have to lower the current rate. They are just keeping the current rate in place. I hear they are calling it the obama tax cuts. They are the Bush tax cuts, obama is just taking credit. Typical dimwits, don't know how to tell the truth.

You should read what's in the proposal before calling people dimwits -The compromise consists of more than just extending the Bush era cuts. It also includes actual tax cuts relative to current rates.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You're talking to people who have actually argued that this amounts to a tax cut because people had an expectation of higher taxes 1/1 so now that is isn't going up, it's like it is going down.

These people live in world 180 degrees out-of-phase with reality.

For the dimwits to live in their reality they would have to move to mars.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So....you don't have to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts?

Novel idea huh.

All we truly 'need' to do is cut spending to the point the dbt/def lowers. As that lowers the value of the dollar will [should] increase.

That is the problem, the dimwits love spending our money they don't have, they have proven that time and again over the last two years.

 

[AmericanFirst]

So you would agree the best way to lower the deficit is to cut spending, and since the biggest expenditure is the military, we should bring all the US troops home that do not benefit the taxpayer, and cut the military budget to zero??

Cutting the military budget to zero would be stupid. On the other hand, closing all those overseas bases that we really do not need might be a good idea. If a foreign country wants us to be there to help protect them they can pay for the costs of operating the base, and we wouldn't be facing nearly the deficit we are.

It does not have to be all or nothing.

Let say we cut the military by 95%, and NO, we are not the World Police, let the UN do its job. That is what they are there for. Notice the word "US TROOPS." That means troops that defend the US. Stop sticking our troops on the bloody fucking target.

Now the question remains for spending cuts, would you cut the military to 95% to balance the budget, lower your taxes, and etc.??

No, I would bring the militayr back and use them to round up the illegal aliens who are draining this country and ship the back to mexico. Then put the military on the borders to protect them.

 

[AmericanFirst]

If the tax cuts sunset...this might be the perfect way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan while cutting all those brand new shiny weapons systems..closing down some oversea's bases..and shrinking the number of carrier groups.

And doing what clinton did, make us vulnerable to attack again. Great anti-American thought pattern-cut defense.

 

[editec]

For the record, tax cuts do not add to the deficit.

The "record" doesn't jibe with that theory.