"Paying" for tax cuts

[Meister]

Great....I get to keep more of my hard earned money for myself and my family.
The politicians would just blow it any ways.

Of course not accepting taxation and applauding tax cuts, is saying you are irresponsible and not taking personal responsibility for your own actions that caused the deficit. in short, you have nothing coming and should be taxed at 75% until you clean up your mess, instead of handing to your child to do it.

What I find unacceptable is our governments addiction to spending. My 75% taxation only means that the government can spend more.....are you really this naive?

 

[The Rabbi]

I dont' know what the price of silver has to do with anything.
The issue is not deficits per se. The issue is the size relatively to the rest of the economy. If the GDP were where it was in 2006 or so and we had the same tax revenues this wouldn't be much of an issue.
The issue is the size of the deficit relative to the overall economy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

"Money is not a limited resource"

I will never understand the misapplication of economics and logic that lead people to make this claim.

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. 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.

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.

As for the inflation part of my post, I think I either got it wrong or you misread my intention. Personally I hope you misread it, but I have to admit I probably just got it wrong. You are correct on that, and I just got it backwards for some reason. Economics is not my specialty, and, as far as I can tell, no one completely understands it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Lemme guess.......you have marginal-difficulties with big-words like Extension, as in....the Extension of Bush tax-cuts.
​

 

[Meister]

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

Lemme guess.......you have marginal-difficulties with big-words like Extension, as in....the Extension of Bush tax-cuts.
​

Your talking about 10 years ago, shaman......at some point you need to let go and call them what they are....a tax increase.

 

[The T]

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

Lemme guess.......you have marginal-difficulties with big-words like Extension, as in....the Extension of Bush tax-cuts.​

Your talking about 10 years ago, shaman......at some point you need to let go and call them what they are....a tax increase.

View attachment 12268

^Shaman's New Avie I take it?

 

[Meister]

Lemme guess.......you have marginal-difficulties with big-words like Extension, as in....the Extension of Bush tax-cuts.​

Your talking about 10 years ago, shaman......at some point you need to let go and call them what they are....a tax increase.

View attachment 12268

^Shaman's New Avie I take it?

Yes it is, T.

 

[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.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Stuttering LimpTard rationalizes that as long as the government has a printing press "nothing ever costs the government anything."

December 7, 2010
RUSH: Chuck, are you really worried about that? They've got a printing press. The government doesn't lose any money ever, Chuck. They're the one entity that never loses anything. They never do without, Chuck. Show me where a budget has been less one year than the next, full government budget. And Brian Williams, "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington can possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans while allowing benefits for jobless Americans to be cut off." Americans are not wondering that, Brian. Some of the kook fringe leftists on the websites might be, but not in this context. "Americans have been wondering how lawmakers in Washington could possibly extend tax breaks for wealthy Americans." They're not. In fact a lot of the unemployment, those who want to work, are saying, "When's Washington gonna do something to stop punishing people who hire people?" These people pay no attention to election results, and why? Do they not read their own exit polls? And F. Chuck, how much did this cost the government? Chuck, do you really look at things this way, because nothing ever costs the government anything.

 

[shintao]

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

"Money is not a limited resource"

I will never understand the misapplication of economics and logic that lead people to make this claim.

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.

You cannot make your own money in the US, another right they stole from you, and passed counterfeiting laws to back them up.

 

[skookerasbil]

Progressive tax rates dont work


neither does "stimulus"..........ever in the history of the world

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Is the payroll tax cut a cut?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If tax cuts don't add to the deficit,

why did everyone, including every one of you rightwing clowns, refer to the 2009 stimulus bill as costing 750 billion dollars (or thereabouts)?

300 billion of that stimulus was TAX CUTS, but I never heard single one of you clowns refer to it as the 450 billion dollar stimulus package. And not one of you hesitated to include the whole 750 billion in your citings of the DEFICIT.

Suddenly, now, you want to proclaim that tax cuts don't add to the deficit?

lol. Stop making me laugh. lol. Seriously. Stop making me laugh. lol . Dang it! Stop!

 

[shintao]

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.??

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?

 

[traveler52]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

What is a k00ks wet dream?

When the Pentagon has been totally disbanded!!


Thankfully for the rest of us, their numbers are fringe...........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If tax cuts don't add to the deficit,

why did everyone, including every one of you rightwing clowns, refer to the 2009 stimulus bill as costing 750 billion dollars (or thereabouts)?

300 billion of that stimulus was TAX CUTS, but I never heard single one of you clowns refer to it as the 450 billion dollar stimulus package. And not one of you hesitated to include the whole 750 billion in your citings of the DEFICIT.

Suddenly, now, you want to proclaim that tax cuts don't add to the deficit?

lol. Stop making me laugh. lol. Seriously. Stop making me laugh. lol . Dang it! Stop!

Because they are politicians, and all politicians are liars.

Any other questions?