"Paying" for tax cuts

[AmericanFirst]

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?

The welfare mom can join the military, oh wait , her drug addiction that she spends the welfare money on would keep her out of the military, my bad.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

The Bush "tax cuts" call for a tax INCREASE starting 2011. Obama is CUTTING the Bush 2011 tax increase!!!
Typical CON$ervaTards, they only know how to tell half truths.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Clinton scaled down the military in response to the end of the Cold War. We had the wrong doctrine, wrong equipment, wrong deployment. Military restructure was necessary

What did Clinton do that made us vulnerable to attack? Do you think the military should have stopped 9-11?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

How would our existing military "round up" illegal aliens? Do we send an army into our cities knocking on doors and rounding up people?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Vunerable to attack?

And I can't think of anything more "Anti-American" or Anti-US Constitution then the current configuration, funding, and mission of the military.

The military was meant to provide for defense.

Not conquer other countries.

The founders were not looking for an Empire.

 

[Sallow]

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.

How would our existing military "round up" illegal aliens? Do we send an army into our cities knocking on doors and rounding up people?

Yet another in a series of conservative Anti-US Contitution ideas.

 

[onecut39]

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

No it does not. The act of spending more money than you have, and borrowing to cover the deficit, adds to the deficit. Tax cuts themselves do not, especially if they are 10 years old.

Then I guess the only honorable thing to do is to raise taxes to pay off your obligations. Is that not what any responsible honest person would do? Once you do that you are free to persue your own course. To the extent you do not is the extent to which you are a felon.

Since Bush ran up about six trillion in debt all by himself it woud seem conservatives are somewhat complicit in the robbery of America.

Why is it, having run up these debts, you now feel no obligation?

Seems like conservatives do that a lot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The current tax proposal is doing exactly that. The GOP, and Obama, and some Democrats, want to continue a condition that is exactly what you are defining (and is, incidently obvious)

taking in less revenue than they are going to spend. That creates the deficit.

If you are quibbling over semantics, to say that tax cuts increase the deficit is less precise than to say that tax cuts without a proportionate cut in spending increases the deficit.

I think you're trying in your trademark weasely way to let tax cuts off the hook here, in the area of blame.

 

[Oddball]

Who's getting a tax cut? I just see no one is getting a tax increase.

as currently proposed in the compromise, anybody who works is getting a tax cut - specifically, a reduction of two percentage points off of their FICA contribution (applied to income up to about 102,000 annually). That equals a tax cut of a $1,000 for someone making 50K and $2,000 for a person making 100K.

Total booby trap.

When this "tax holiday" runs out, dems will whine and cry about how republicans will be then raising taxes on the much ballyhooed "working families".

Of course, republicans are stupid and will fall for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

It was your stupid idea. I highlighted it. You want to stop forcing people to pay taxes. That would make taxation voluntary.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Even in the silly game of semantics you're playing, how does deliberately reducing the amount of money we have not impact the deficit? What's odd is that you've actually formulated it correctly here with "The only thing that adds to the deficit is spending more money than we have," the problem is that in your head that seems to have been reduced to simply "spending money" with the entire concept of "more money than we have" being lost. But, as you correctly note, revenues and expenditures are equally important in determining the deficit.

Toro, of course, is absolutely correct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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)

Whose money supply went down as a result? Overall the average American lives better than the Vanderbilts did in their heyday. Who is paying for that vast concentration of resources? Who can you point to and say that, if not for Gates having all that money, this guy would have more?

Money is not gold, it is not limited.

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.

His actions increased the money supply, even if, as you argue, we accept that it is not in his direct control. If money was a limited resource nothing anyone could do would increase the supply. There is a finite amount of gold on the planet, and nothing anyone can do will increase it until we manage to get off the planet and mine other worlds, moons, and asteroids.

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

News flash, it doesn't have any value. It is a concept that exist only on paper and in our minds. Some stores do not even accept it, that alone proves it has no value.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Having less to spend is not the problem, spending more than we have is. Until you understand that concept nothing anyone does with taxes will fix the deficit because you will keep allowing the politicians to lie to you and tell you they need more money when what they need is to spend less.

I am not advocating tax cuts here, I am simply pointing out that the problem is not taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Congress should only be able to spend money it has, not the money it expects to get. If they write a balanced budget and revenues fall short they have already spent more money than they have, which increases the deficit. If they raise taxes, they spend more money. If they cut taxes they spend more money. That is not semantics, that is historical fact. We need to curb spending and require Congress to only spend money they have. That is the only way to reduce the deficit, anything less is political posturing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Tax cuts, in a vacuum, reduce the amount of revenue that enters the treasury.
As such, they are not paid out from the treasury.
So... they have no cost that must be paid for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not discussing any proposed tax cuts specifically, I am arguing against the statement that we have to "pay" for tax cuts. Your income belongs to you, and the government should remember that, and not assume that it belongs to them. That is the problem inherent in arguing that we have to pay for tax cuts, all we have to pay for is spending. If we do not pay for our spending now we will eventually end up paying even more for our spending later, and all the tax increases in the world will not prevent that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

It doesn't jibe with the theory that tax increases cut the deficit either. Or did you forget the Reagan tax increases and the deficit he left behind?

 

[boedicca]

Tax cuts are not properly effective without spending cuts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Clinton scaled down the military in response to the end of the Cold War. We had the wrong doctrine, wrong equipment, wrong deployment. Military restructure was necessary

What did Clinton do that made us vulnerable to attack? Do you think the military should have stopped 9-11?

Should have? Definitely.

Could have, probably not.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What tax cuts? We're cutting taxes? When did this happen?