Republicans Struggle To Say How They Would Pay For Tax Cuts

[Full-Auto]

The house of cards we have built over the decades will not survive what the republicans want to do right now.

The dem plan gives us less time to default.

Perhaps, but the end result is the same.

More of the same is our death knell.

No perhaps about it. Increased spending brings the issue to the forefront. Where as cutting spending slows the growth rate of debt. Simple math.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If they'd cut back on spending they COULD start paying the debt without raising taxes.

Put defense on the table first.

Wrong. Defense is Mandated by the Constitution. Socialist Government programs are not.

How much does the Constitution 'mandate' that we spend on Defense annually?

Give me the number.

 

[uscitizen]

The dem plan gives us less time to default.

Perhaps, but the end result is the same.

More of the same is our death knell.

No perhaps about it. Increased spending brings the issue to the forefront. Where as cutting spending slows the growth rate of debt. Simple math.

Are we back to that again?
NEITHER side has any intent of cutting spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep pure flat tax, no deductions.

So someone with 4 kids making what I make pays the same exact tax I pay (with no kids)??

lolol, try getting that passed...

 

[DiamondDave]

Really? Specifically what spending will the GOP cut? I only ask because it wasn't explained in Boehner's bullshit "Contract Hit on America".

Want me to start list of agencies to cut out again

Start a list of agencies to abolish that MOST Republicans are running on abolishing.

I don't give a shit what MOST republicans are running on... I do not support MOST republicans... and I don't support MOST democrats who continue going after large spending as well..

Again... I can start with the letters A and B to show the stupid amount of unnecessary agencies within our overbloated government... I've done it before..

 

[Revere]

Put defense on the table first.

Wrong. Defense is Mandated by the Constitution. Socialist Government programs are not.

How much does the Constitution 'mandate' that we spend on Defense annually?

Give me the number.

Doesn't matter. The welfare states who spend nothign on defense are still broke.

 

[The T]

Wrong. Defense is Mandated by the Constitution. Socialist Government programs are not.

How much does the Constitution 'mandate' that we spend on Defense annually?

Give me the number.

Doesn't matter. The welfare states who spend nothign on defense are still broke.

^Yep.

 

[Full-Auto]

Perhaps, but the end result is the same.

More of the same is our death knell.

No perhaps about it. Increased spending brings the issue to the forefront. Where as cutting spending slows the growth rate of debt. Simple math.

Are we back to that again?
NEITHER side has any intent of cutting spending.

I can partially agree to that. Just going back to the 2008 levels would be huge. I would also mention that was and is a stated objective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rollback spending to pre-Obama levels.

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

That will show you where defense spending will go back to.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. Defense is Mandated by the Constitution. Socialist Government programs are not.

How much does the Constitution 'mandate' that we spend on Defense annually?

Give me the number.

Doesn't matter. The welfare states who spend nothign on defense are still broke.

Nobody's talking about spending 'nothing' on defense, so why would you say that? other than to waste time, space, and energy.

Again the question is:

How much does the Constitution MANDATE that we spend on Defense annually?

here's a clue: The Constitution does not mandate any specific amount, therefore, the Constitution is IRRELEVANT to a discussion about how much we should spend on defense.

 

[DiamondDave]

How much does the Constitution 'mandate' that we spend on Defense annually?

Give me the number.

Doesn't matter. The welfare states who spend nothign on defense are still broke.

Nobody's talking about spending 'nothing' on defense, so why would you say that? other than to waste time, space, and energy.

Again the question is:

How much does the Constitution MANDATE that we spend on Defense annually?

here's a clue: The Constitution does not mandate any specific amount, therefore, the Constitution is IRRELEVANT to a discussion about how much we should spend on defense.

But it does not grant the power AT ALL for a huge amount of what government is spending on... making the specific amount for those ZERO... and that IS relevant to the discussion on how much should be spent on entitlement programs etc...

As for defense... I think you cut a huge chunk by stopping payment to contractors who do not fulfill obligations... reviewing validity of projects... and more carefully watching the details... but as for just a broad statement to 'cut' defense... hell fucking no... it is the PRIMARY charge of our federal government and always should be

 

[The T]

Doesn't matter. The welfare states who spend nothign on defense are still broke.

Nobody's talking about spending 'nothing' on defense, so why would you say that? other than to waste time, space, and energy.

Again the question is:

How much does the Constitution MANDATE that we spend on Defense annually?

here's a clue: The Constitution does not mandate any specific amount, therefore, the Constitution is IRRELEVANT to a discussion about how much we should spend on defense.

But it does not grant the power AT ALL for a huge amount of what government is spending on... making the specific amount for those ZERO... and that IS relevant to the discussion on how much should be spent on entitlement programs etc...

As for defense... I think you cut a huge chunk by stopping payment to contractors who do not fulfill obligations... reviewing validity of projects... and more carefully watching the details... but as for just a broad statement to 'cut' defense... hell fucking no... it is the PRIMARY charge of our federal government and always should be

^Yep.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

Easy, ditch this stupid healthcare plan.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Hey lay low,...why is it you libs are never concerned with how tax INCREASES are to be paid for?

now that is not "fucking funny"..It's God Damned sad.
Paul is correct.. Tax cuts do not get paid for. It's our money in the first place
What government needs to do is SPEND LESS MONEY. To you libs why is that such a foreign concept?
Of course you people on the left don't give a rat's ass as long as you get your spot at the taxpayer tit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Has there ever been a tax cut that Republicans paid for with reduced spending?

Yes....However, the simple solution is reduced spending./ Those on the political left will not hear of it. Reduced spending translates to an angry democrat constituency.

 

[Spoonman]

Has there ever been a tax cut that Republicans paid for with reduced spending?

Yes....However, the simple solution is reduced spending./ Those on the political left will not hear of it. Reduced spending translates to an angry democrat constituency.

A near trillion dollar pork laden stimulus package that did pretty much nothing to stimulate the economy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Tax cuts are a decrease in revenue. Unless you make up for them with a comparable cut in spending you run a deficit

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.
It's very simple. When wealth is confiscated from the private sector, production, investment and employment falls. The result is less cosnumer spending, fewer businesses opening or expanding which leads to higher unemployment. Fewer people with incomes means fewer people paying taxes.
Government cannot increase revenues by curtailing economic activity. Increasing taxes curtails economic activity. Period. Done. End of story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has there ever been a tax cut that Republicans paid for with reduced spending?

Yes....However, the simple solution is reduced spending./ Those on the political left will not hear of it. Reduced spending translates to an angry democrat constituency.

A near trillion dollar pork laden stimulus package that did pretty much nothing to stimulate the economy.

300 billion of that near trillion were tax cuts.

Of course people on the right don't count tax cuts as adding to the deficit, unless they're talking about the stimulus package,

and then, magically, tax cuts are a cost.

Ever hear a conservative subtract the tax cuts from the stimulus package when he talks about how much it cost?

No, you haven't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Revenue has increased every time taxes have been cut.

Sure it has

How did Ron Reagan triple the deficit with his tax cuts?
How did Bush add $5 trillion to the deficit with his tax cuts?

Daddy Bush had it right...Voodoo Economics

Cut taxes and pray

Nice try. Reagan did not add to the deficit. In fact while his admion did reduce the top marginal rate, Carter's policies of wage and price controls had only begun to effect economic activity during the first Reagan admin..The recession of the late 70's started when Nixon was in office did not end until the early 80's.
Reagan had faults. What president does not. Reagan got this country believe in itself again. He told the nation that government was not the answer. People are the greatest asset we had. We took that message and ran with it.
Now you're going to point out the crash of '87...Ok why did that happen? You will say "Reagan did it"..Wrong. Tell me, what happens when the economy overheats and growth skyrockets?....Does the word inflation come to mind?
The Fed had to raise interest rates to slow economic growth and simmer down the value oif a skyrocketing US Dollar.
Investors panicked and sold off securities and other investments. BOOM! The stock market had it's largest one day selloff in the history of the NYSE
A month later when the dust settled, everything was back to normal. Why? Because the government stayed out of the way.
Clinton enjoyed his 8 years in office watching the economy hum along for two reasons. One small investors were able to get into the stock market vis their 401k's and mutual fund investments. Second, Clinton's economic advisors were wise. They told the Clinton Admin to not interefere with the marketplace. Success.

 

[Spoonman]

Yes....However, the simple solution is reduced spending./ Those on the political left will not hear of it. Reduced spending translates to an angry democrat constituency.

A near trillion dollar pork laden stimulus package that did pretty much nothing to stimulate the economy.

300 billion of that near trillion were tax cuts.

Of course people on the right don't count tax cuts as adding to the deficit, unless they're talking about the stimulus package,

and then, magically, tax cuts are a cost.

Ever hear a conservative subtract the tax cuts from the stimulus package when he talks about how much it cost?

No, you haven't.

smoke and mirrors. The jackass gave each American a few hundred dollars tax cut. Bush gave each American more. Of course the method Obama used classified that cut as income so you have to pay tax on it next year. Then Obama goes and cuts a ton of federal funding for programs like transportation and others. Which now get passed back to the taxpayer in increased taxes and costs. So the good old average American ends up spending more out of pocket so Obama can say hey look, I gave you a tax cut.