Republicans Struggle To Say How They Would Pay For Tax Cuts

[wyomingpatriot]

Mega Defense spending. He did not reduce the size of the Federal Government, he expanded it significantly...especially the DoD

Reagan quadrupled the deficit to pay for his tax cuts and defense spending

And he did so for a very good reason - the USSR.

You libs seem to forget about that whole Cold War thing.

I'm certainly glad we had someone like Reagan who had the balls to stand up against the Russian communists. I know that's a sore subject to bring up, since liberals have always taken up the Marxist cause as their own.

you dont know anything about history. the soviet union was dying for its own internal reasons long before ever reagon had the privilege of being president when it finally fell (i guess technically bush sr. '91) the soviet union collapsed because it wrapped its entire economy around a military it couldnt sustain because it couldnt let go of the paranoia instilled forty years earlier by the german invasion and the subsequent loss of 25 million citizens. the united states had nothing to do with it, and certainly not reagen making some populist speech in front of the brandenburg gate.
how the hell do you compare liberal agenda to the soviet union??? perhaps i'm blind...do we have police everywhere, telling us where we can and cant go and can and cant say? do we live in constant fear of imprisonment?

 

[wyomingpatriot]

reagon as a poster child of gop beliefs is so beautifully ironic - a president who raised taxes, increased the government, increased the debt, presided over a recession. basically an ideology of betrayal.

 

[editec]

Republicans Struggle To Say How They Would Pay For Tax Cuts (VIDEO)

Whats fucking funny is how dipshit rightwing posters in this forum are suppprting a party and its advocacy of tax cuts when it doesn't know to pay for them. Note how Rand Paul said tax cuts don't need to be paid for. Tax cuts, like the welfare check you rightwing lamb shit eaters keep complaining about, also have to be paid for.

First and foremost. Tax cuts do not require payment. They are not debt.

Spending is what creates debt. They have said repeatedly they will cut spending.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

What will they cut?

Aye there's the rub!

 

[rightwinger]

Ok genius, if trickle down doesn't work, what does? See you don't get to post a statement and then not get called on it.
The fastest and best way to grow an economy is to have the earners keep as much of their earnings as possible while taxing them enough to maintain a stable government that is funded for essential services only.
Taxes are never too low. Neither are revenues. Politicians always have the choice to spend less.
I will ask you .....Why is it you support high taxes?

Trickle down does not work because the wealthy would rather just keep the money. Just like they did with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. You don't create jobs because you have more tax money, you create jobs because there is increased economic opportunity

What does work? Targeted tax incentives for creating jobs in the US, providing funding for new technologies (energy, health, agriculture), educational funding. You can't get this by funding only essential services. We have a modern economy operating on a global scale and we need a modern government to ensure we remain competitive. Going back to a 1920's government structure will not do that

I don't support high taxes. I just don't support borrowing money to pay for ineffective tax cuts that allow the richest 2% of Americans to get richer. I support a balanced budget that means sufficient revenue to support your expenditures. Cutting taxes while you increase spending (Bush, Reagan) is financial insanity

 

[wyomingpatriot]

Ok genius, if trickle down doesn't work, what does? See you don't get to post a statement and then not get called on it.
The fastest and best way to grow an economy is to have the earners keep as much of their earnings as possible while taxing them enough to maintain a stable government that is funded for essential services only.
Taxes are never too low. Neither are revenues. Politicians always have the choice to spend less.
I will ask you .....Why is it you support high taxes?

Trickle down does not work because the wealthy would rather just keep the money. Just like they did with the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. You don't create jobs because you have more tax money, you create jobs because there is increased economic opportunity

What does work? Targeted tax incentives for creating jobs in the US, providing funding for new technologies (energy, health, agriculture), educational funding. You can't get this by funding only essential services. We have a modern economy operating on a global scale and we need a modern government to ensure we remain competitive. Going back to a 1920's government structure will not do that

I don't support high taxes. I just don't support borrowing money to pay for innefective tax cuts that allow the richest 2% of Americans to get richer. I support a balanced budget that means sufficient revenue to support your expenditures. Cutting taxes while you increase spending (Bush, Reagan) is financial insanity

ive had more success explaining all of that to a child.

 

[rightwinger]

Mega Defense spending. He did not reduce the size of the Federal Government, he expanded it significantly...especially the DoD

Reagan quadrupled the deficit to pay for his tax cuts and defense spending

And he did so for a very good reason - the USSR.

You libs seem to forget about that whole Cold War thing.

I'm certainly glad we had someone like Reagan who had the balls to stand up against the Russian communists. I know that's a sore subject to bring up, since liberals have always taken up the Marxist cause as their own.

you dont know anything about history. the soviet union was dying for its own internal reasons long before ever reagon had the privilege of being president when it finally fell (i guess technically bush sr. '91) the soviet union collapsed because it wrapped its entire economy around a military it couldnt sustain because it couldnt let go of the paranoia instilled forty years earlier by the german invasion and the subsequent loss of 25 million citizens. the united states had nothing to do with it, and certainly not reagen making some populist speech in front of the brandenburg gate.
how the hell do you compare liberal agenda to the soviet union??? perhaps i'm blind...do we have police everywhere, telling us where we can and cant go and can and cant say? do we live in constant fear of imprisonment?

Hard to believe that after 20 years people still believe Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. As if their entire economy could collapse in a couple months

But then again...some still believe trickle down works

 

[beowolfe]

Republicans Struggle To Say How They Would Pay For Tax Cuts (VIDEO)

Whats fucking funny is how dipshit rightwing posters in this forum are suppprting a party and its advocacy of tax cuts when it doesn't know to pay for them. Note how Rand Paul said tax cuts don't need to be paid for. Tax cuts, like the welfare check you rightwing lamb shit eaters keep complaining about, also have to be paid for.

First and foremost. Tax cuts do not require payment. They are not debt.

Spending is what creates debt. They have said repeatedly they will cut spending.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Then why did the Bush tax cuts immediately cast us back into deficit spending after Clinton left a balanced budget?

 

[theHawk]

Mega Defense spending. He did not reduce the size of the Federal Government, he expanded it significantly...especially the DoD

Reagan quadrupled the deficit to pay for his tax cuts and defense spending

And he did so for a very good reason - the USSR.

You libs seem to forget about that whole Cold War thing.

I'm certainly glad we had someone like Reagan who had the balls to stand up against the Russian communists. I know that's a sore subject to bring up, since liberals have always taken up the Marxist cause as their own.

you dont know anything about history. the soviet union was dying for its own internal reasons long before ever reagon had the privilege of being president when it finally fell (i guess technically bush sr. '91) the soviet union collapsed because it wrapped its entire economy around a military it couldnt sustain because it couldnt let go of the paranoia instilled forty years earlier by the german invasion and the subsequent loss of 25 million citizens. the united states had nothing to do with it, and certainly not reagen making some populist speech in front of the brandenburg gate.
how the hell do you compare liberal agenda to the soviet union??? perhaps i'm blind...do we have police everywhere, telling us where we can and cant go and can and cant say? do we live in constant fear of imprisonment?

LOL. Yea of course it died because it couldn't sustain its military - because they were trying to keep up with Reagan for 8 years. I didn't say Reagan was the sole reason it collapsed, but he sure as hell had a hand in it. And the point I was making was that during that time there was a very real threat to the United States from the USSR, and that's why Reagan had to spend as much as he did.

Yes you are blind. Who the hell do you think the Communist Party in the US vote for? Republicans or Dems? Obama appoints self-admitted Marxists and admirers of Mao. Their whole agenda is to undermine and destroy capitalism, just look at these boards and you'll notice which people are always attacking capitalism - liberals. The liberals in Congress passed the health care bill, which has the sole purpose of driving up private sector health care costs (its already succeeding) so that an all out government health care system will be more appealing to the masses. And if liberals ever get their beloved government health care, kiss all freedoms good-bye. The government will soon be dictating what you can eat and do, in order to drive down "health care costs".

 

[theHawk]

Republicans Struggle To Say How They Would Pay For Tax Cuts (VIDEO)

Whats fucking funny is how dipshit rightwing posters in this forum are suppprting a party and its advocacy of tax cuts when it doesn't know to pay for them. Note how Rand Paul said tax cuts don't need to be paid for. Tax cuts, like the welfare check you rightwing lamb shit eaters keep complaining about, also have to be paid for.

First and foremost. Tax cuts do not require payment. They are not debt.

Spending is what creates debt. They have said repeatedly they will cut spending.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Then why did the Bush tax cuts immediately cast us back into deficit spending after Clinton left a balanced budget?

Because they didn't cut spending.

 

[beowolfe]

Mega Defense spending. He did not reduce the size of the Federal Government, he expanded it significantly...especially the DoD

Reagan quadrupled the deficit to pay for his tax cuts and defense spending

And he did so for a very good reason - the USSR.

You libs seem to forget about that whole Cold War thing.

I'm certainly glad we had someone like Reagan who had the balls to stand up against the Russian communists. I know that's a sore subject to bring up, since liberals have always taken up the Marxist cause as their own.

you dont know anything about history. the soviet union was dying for its own internal reasons long before ever reagon had the privilege of being president when it finally fell (i guess technically bush sr. '91) the soviet union collapsed because it wrapped its entire economy around a military it couldnt sustain because it couldnt let go of the paranoia instilled forty years earlier by the german invasion and the subsequent loss of 25 million citizens. the united states had nothing to do with it, and certainly not reagen making some populist speech in front of the brandenburg gate.
how the hell do you compare liberal agenda to the soviet union??? perhaps i'm blind...do we have police everywhere, telling us where we can and cant go and can and cant say? do we live in constant fear of imprisonment?

People on the right don't seem to grasp the concept of 'things happening over time'. Things happen, they look up to see who is in power and automatically blame or give credit to that person.

 

[beowolfe]

First and foremost. Tax cuts do not require payment. They are not debt.

Spending is what creates debt. They have said repeatedly they will cut spending.

Is that too difficult for you to grasp?

Then why did the Bush tax cuts immediately cast us back into deficit spending after Clinton left a balanced budget?

Because they didn't cut spending.

So, you're saying that tax cuts do have a cost to them. That would seem to contradict what the GOP politicians are running around saying.

 

[theHawk]

And he did so for a very good reason - the USSR.

You libs seem to forget about that whole Cold War thing.

I'm certainly glad we had someone like Reagan who had the balls to stand up against the Russian communists. I know that's a sore subject to bring up, since liberals have always taken up the Marxist cause as their own.

you dont know anything about history. the soviet union was dying for its own internal reasons long before ever reagon had the privilege of being president when it finally fell (i guess technically bush sr. '91) the soviet union collapsed because it wrapped its entire economy around a military it couldnt sustain because it couldnt let go of the paranoia instilled forty years earlier by the german invasion and the subsequent loss of 25 million citizens. the united states had nothing to do with it, and certainly not reagen making some populist speech in front of the brandenburg gate.
how the hell do you compare liberal agenda to the soviet union??? perhaps i'm blind...do we have police everywhere, telling us where we can and cant go and can and cant say? do we live in constant fear of imprisonment?

Hard to believe that after 20 years people still believe Reagan was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. As if their entire economy could collapse in a couple months
But then again...some still believe trickle down works

A couple of months?

 

[theHawk]

Then why did the Bush tax cuts immediately cast us back into deficit spending after Clinton left a balanced budget?

Because they didn't cut spending.

So, you're saying that tax cuts do have a cost to them. That would seem to contradict what the GOP politicians are running around saying.

No, I am saying that no matter what your tax rates are, you shouldn't spend more than you're bringing in.

Is that too complicated to understand?

 

[beowolfe]

Because they didn't cut spending.

So, you're saying that tax cuts do have a cost to them. That would seem to contradict what the GOP politicians are running around saying.

No, I am saying that no matter what your tax rates are, you shouldn't spend more than you're bringing in.

Is that too complicated to understand?

Nope. That's not complicated at all. Though that wasn't the the topic. And based on what you said, you do have to pay for tax cuts, in some way or fashion. And considering that, how the GOP will pay for these grand tax cuts they want remains a pertinent question. Even if they pay for it with spending cuts.

 

[Toro]

Rollback spending to pre-Obama levels.

You'll have those small George Bush era deficits in no time.

Bush's last budget had the biggest deficit of all time.

 

[Toro]

Revenue has increased every time taxes have been cut.

Not really true. Tax revenue fell in 1983 after the Reagan tax cuts. Tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 after the Bush tax cuts. In inflation adjusted dollars, tax receipts in 1981 were above receipts in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. Adjusted for inflation, tax receipts in 2000 were above receipts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009. For most of Bush's term, tax receipts adjusted for inflation were below what they were when he took office.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Toro]

In the short run, your statement is correct. However in the long term reduced tax rates ALWAYS result in an increase in revenues. There are reems of facts to support this.

Could you please show one. Any one. Please show a causal econometric relationship to prove this. See, I've been looking for years and years, and I've never seen it.

I think its nonsense. I'm more than happy to change my mind, however. For example, there is ample evidence that cutting corporate income taxes increases overall revenue. There is also a great evidence that cutting mining and exploration royalties also increases revenues. I've also seen evidence that cutting taxes and increasing enforcement of penalties for tax evasion has raised revenues in second and third world countries has increased tax revenues. However, I have yet to see a single study demonstrating a causal link on how cutting income taxes, or even capital gains and dividend taxes, increase revenues in the United States. In fact, all the evidence is against it. And that evidence comes from Republican economists.

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

But if you can show otherwise, I would appreciate it.

 

[Toro]

Nice try. Reagan did not add to the deficit.

Reagan added to the deficit.

 

[ForestGirl]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out! Gee...successful private sector companies cut salaries and if necessary, eliminate positions. That's exactly what our government needs to do. Being a Fed employee is almost a 100% guarantee of a life long job. Regardless of whether you're competant or not, whether there's money to fund your employment or not. Government keeps getting bigger and they keep adding employees. It's ridiculous! Their salaries are higher than private sector ones and their benefits are more plentiful. Cut their wages and some benefits, just like many of us have had to endure.