Tax cuts do not cost anything. Nor do they need to be "paid for"

[danielpalos]

It is my understanding that the $200+ trillion number is based on future spending and governmental income, not current numbers. The unfunded liabilities are based on something called an infinite-horizon financial gap. I'm perfectly willing to believe that, based on current spending, debt, tax laws, etc., that the debt will reach that total, but I don't believe it can be considered current debt.

I would say the debt is going to get even worse than expected, many times over because of the federal government/career politicians they always overspend. Less people are putting less in and more people are taking more out of socialist entitlement programs....

Raise taxes on the one percent until our debt is gone.

You could tax 100% of everything the top 10% have and it would not even pay off a fraction of a fraction, of a fraction of the country's debt… Fact
You can't be that fucking stupid, the debt is north of $225 trillion dollars… There's not enough money in the world to pay that off.
Why tax the wealthy, prosperous and successful for other peoples fuck ups? The Collective is strong in you... lol

I don't take the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Progressive budgeting…

That is the right wing; the left is for taxing and, then spending.

 

[sakinago]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

 

[bendog]

It is my understanding that the $200+ trillion number is based on future spending and governmental income, not current numbers. The unfunded liabilities are based on something called an infinite-horizon financial gap. I'm perfectly willing to believe that, based on current spending, debt, tax laws, etc., that the debt will reach that total, but I don't believe it can be considered current debt.

I would say the debt is going to get even worse than expected, many times over because of the federal government/career politicians they always overspend. Less people are putting less in and more people are taking more out of socialist entitlement programs....

Raise taxes on the one percent until our debt is gone.

You could tax 100% of everything the top 10% have and it would not even pay off a fraction of a fraction, of a fraction of the country's debt… Fact
You can't be that fucking stupid, the debt is north of $225 trillion dollars… There's not enough money in the world to pay that off.
Why tax the wealthy, prosperous and successful for other peoples fuck ups? The Collective is strong in you... lol

dude, the debt is meaningless. The target is just balancing the frigging budget.

I see, the debt is meaningless...
you do realize that the person/entity is slave to the lender?

Nice try grasshopper

I don't know about meaningless. There are actually some benefits to other countries having a stake in our future. But the meaningful measure of debt is how much debt is there compared to the total measure of the economy.

Soc Sec and Medicare have separate revenue streams than just general taxes. Eventually, they will balance out and soc will run a surplus .. until the milleniales retire.

Not counting soc sec and medicare, general spending is actually going down ... a little. We need to simplify taxes, reduce loopholes, add 3% revenue and at least hold discretionary spending at 0% growth, absent a recession. And it will work out. It's not rocket science. (-:

 

[dblack]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

 

[sakinago]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

It's why I'm such a strong supporter of flat taxes (I'm fine with an exemption that applies to everyone on the first 30,000 or so they make). But everyone needs to have skin in the game, which is why progressive taxes do not work. The lower taxes brackets out vote and demand higher and higher taxes on the upper bracket, and they do so BC politicians sow class warfare, and make those promises, push them through, then sow more class warfare to continue to pay into their Ponzi scheme that they don't intend to break even on. It's not like this scenario hasn't played out many times in this country, before JFK our top tax rates were 91%, for a long time, and nobody could figure out why unemployment was so high.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

There is a capital gains preference to engender Jobs Booms; why not end that, if it does not produce Jobs Boom results?

 

[danielpalos]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

Let's end the drug war, first.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is to stop "voting for subsidies, benifits, welfare, pensions we can't afford". That isn't going to happen if no one is actually paying the bills. There's simply no incentive to pinch pennies when you're using someone else's credit card.

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

It's why I'm such a strong supporter of flat taxes (I'm fine with an exemption that applies to everyone on the first 30,000 or so they make). But everyone needs to have skin in the game, which is why progressive taxes do not work. The lower taxes brackets out vote and demand higher and higher taxes on the upper bracket, and they do so BC politicians sow class warfare, and make those promises, push them through, then sow more class warfare to continue to pay into their Ponzi scheme that they don't intend to break even on. It's not like this scenario hasn't played out many times in this country, before JFK our top tax rates were 91%, for a long time, and nobody could figure out why unemployment was so high.

why can we afford a war on drugs? who is making the profit on that?

class warfare is blaming the poor for poor management style of the wealthy, while being rich.

 

[dblack]

indo?

 

[sakinago]

So it's the fault of the people voting for politicians promising all these things, and saying we need these, despite knowing full well it's unaffordable?

Ultimately, yes.

So now politicians need to punish and teach them to not vote for them after they've promised all this free stuff, we're not supposed to believe them huh?

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

It's why I'm such a strong supporter of flat taxes (I'm fine with an exemption that applies to everyone on the first 30,000 or so they make). But everyone needs to have skin in the game, which is why progressive taxes do not work. The lower taxes brackets out vote and demand higher and higher taxes on the upper bracket, and they do so BC politicians sow class warfare, and make those promises, push them through, then sow more class warfare to continue to pay into their Ponzi scheme that they don't intend to break even on. It's not like this scenario hasn't played out many times in this country, before JFK our top tax rates were 91%, for a long time, and nobody could figure out why unemployment was so high.

why can we afford a war on drugs? who is making the profit on that?

class warfare is blaming the poor for poor management style of the wealthy, while being rich.

The government is actually making a really good profit on it, it's called assets forfeit seizure. Think of it as a 100% tax on drug dealers that they catch. They just made a 4 billion dollar bust recently.

 

[danielpalos]

Ultimately, yes.

It's not a matter of punishment. Just real feedback. Do you think government should be free?

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

It's why I'm such a strong supporter of flat taxes (I'm fine with an exemption that applies to everyone on the first 30,000 or so they make). But everyone needs to have skin in the game, which is why progressive taxes do not work. The lower taxes brackets out vote and demand higher and higher taxes on the upper bracket, and they do so BC politicians sow class warfare, and make those promises, push them through, then sow more class warfare to continue to pay into their Ponzi scheme that they don't intend to break even on. It's not like this scenario hasn't played out many times in this country, before JFK our top tax rates were 91%, for a long time, and nobody could figure out why unemployment was so high.

why can we afford a war on drugs? who is making the profit on that?

class warfare is blaming the poor for poor management style of the wealthy, while being rich.

The government is actually making a really good profit on it, it's called assets forfeit seizure. Think of it as a 100% tax on drug dealers that they catch. They just made a 4 billion dollar bust recently.

Just republican forms of taxation? How much does our drug war cost. Welfare may be cheaper.

California recently legalized pot and expects around a billion a year in revenue.

 

[sakinago]

No never said that at all. Do most people have the time to extensively look into the budget of the government and decide what's what, or is the job of politicians to tell the whole truth about what they're proposing. And practice government in a responsible manner. Remember Romneys whole 47% remark? Well there's plenty of truth to that, and just because you raise taxes, there's still a large portion of the population not paying taxes, what's going to stop them from voting for more free stuff, since it actually is free for them, in a way.

Yep. That's a problem as well. That's why I stipulated taxes need to be raised across-the-board. Everyone should feel the pain of too much government.

It's why I'm such a strong supporter of flat taxes (I'm fine with an exemption that applies to everyone on the first 30,000 or so they make). But everyone needs to have skin in the game, which is why progressive taxes do not work. The lower taxes brackets out vote and demand higher and higher taxes on the upper bracket, and they do so BC politicians sow class warfare, and make those promises, push them through, then sow more class warfare to continue to pay into their Ponzi scheme that they don't intend to break even on. It's not like this scenario hasn't played out many times in this country, before JFK our top tax rates were 91%, for a long time, and nobody could figure out why unemployment was so high.

why can we afford a war on drugs? who is making the profit on that?

class warfare is blaming the poor for poor management style of the wealthy, while being rich.

The government is actually making a really good profit on it, it's called assets forfeit seizure. Think of it as a 100% tax on drug dealers that they catch. They just made a 4 billion dollar bust recently.

Just republican forms of taxation? How much does our drug war cost. Welfare may be cheaper.

California recently legalized pot and expects around a billion a year in revenue.

I never said I like WOD, but it is providing a lot more funding than you think, to both federal and especially localities. Not to mention, it's lower on the list of areas we desperately need spending reform.

 

[AntonToo]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

 

[sakinago]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

 

[AntonToo]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

 

[sakinago]

When your income fluctuates you are supposed to compensate by adjusting your spending accordingly.

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

 

[dblack]

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue.

In which case, it's not really a tax cut, is it?

 

[sakinago]

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue.

In which case, it's not really a tax cut, is it?

Yes it still very much is, what your thinking of is tax revenue, different from tax rate (which is what would be cut). You cannot confuse the 2 like many here are, they are not the same. With tax cuts citizens still keep more of their money, whether government takes in more revenue or not.

 

[AntonToo]

That nice. Time for a reality check though:

"Income fluctuation" is not something that will simply "happen to us" it is an premeditated POLICY of collecting less taxes, getting less income.

And this is not in a context of balanced budget this ELECTED pay cut would come amidst growing deficits as far as the eye can see.

What kind of crazy person elects to take a pay cut in a fiscal situation like that?

So here is a crazy idea for you: You want tax cuts to "not cost anything?" How about you Republican cranks first manage to post a budget with a SURPLUS.

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

 

[sakinago]

There hasn't been a budget surplus since Jefferson. And not William Jefferson.

? That is factually wrong.

There was a budgeted surplus in 2000 with a projection for surpluses going forward. It is how the Bush tax cuts were sold as - giving back to the people these projected surpluses...except when all this green turned into rivers of red ink due to bad economy and trillion dollar wars the Republican support for ever more tax cuts hasn't moved even one inch.

When it rains the fix is tax-cuts, when it snows the fix is more tax cuts, when it's sunny we need more tax-cuts. This complete disregard for economic factors points to severe intellectual deficiencies on economics in the right-wing movement - it's a straight up tax-cut cult.

And the other half the equation is an ever expanding government, requiring a greater and greater share of the citizens wealth. Tax cuts are desirable, making the government spend tax money more responsibly is desirable.

Thats right, [Spending] and [Revenues] are the 2 components of [Deficits]:

R - S = D

It is very straight forward math but there is one side of the political spectrum that refuses to acknowledge that reducing Revenues effects the deficits. (see thread's OP).

IF it reduces revenues. Economic growth leads to increased tax revenues. We have not surpassed 5% GDP growth in the past 8 years. Tax cuts when done properly increase economic growth, and in turn increases revenue. What comes first is getting government to cut spending and stick to it.

You are conflating general economy and tax-cut effects specifically. Just because economy is doing good or bad, does not necessarily mean ANYTHING about tax-cuts. Their effects need to be isolated from everything else going on.

You are also conflating tax-cut costs to budget and some secondary effects that offset a fraction of those upfront costs. This is known as "dynamic effects" and Bush's own economists estimated them to offset about 20% of the upfront cost. Other then their modest offset, "dynamic scoring" also sets up a false standard - spending EQUALLY has dynamic effects, but nobody ever scores that, so you end falsely comparing apples and oranges.

But we do seem to agree on the order of policy - first post the surplus THEN start tax-cutting.

Never conflated anything. In history we've seen stagnant economies come roaring back with tax cuts. Other times we've seen economies come back through tech innovations. We have the tech innovations left and right, yet our economy has been very stagnant, and our small business are growing at a negative rate, the first time since the 50s.