"Paying" for tax cuts

[rightwinger]

What do workers do when they lose income? They cut spending even if it makes life tough at times. Only the government thinks it is allowed to spend as much as it wants with no regard to income. Stupid,Stupid,Stupid.

Workers do not turn away potential sources of income either.

A workers fixed expenses remain the same if he is working or not. Like it or not, taxes are the governments source of income

Even is that source of income is stealing more from a neighbor?

Taxes are what loyal Americans pay to support their country. It is not stealing

 

[Toro]

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.

Of course its an ideological position. It is nothing but ideology. The only people who make this argument are people on the Right. If it wasn't ideological, then you could find many in the center and the Left who agree. But you won't. It is as ideological as saying that spending never causes the deficit, only a lack of taxes.

You say that the only thing that causes the deficit is spending we don't have. Well, if the budget is in balance, and we cut taxes causing a deficit, clearly we had the money to pay for the spending but we chose not to pay for it.

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 taxes are cut and spending is not, then tax cuts caused the increase in the deficit. If spending is increased and taxes are not, then spending caused the increase in the deficit. It is simple math.

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.

It is the conscious act that matters. If you decide you want to work less and make less money but maintain your spending, it is the decision to work less that causes your deficit. Likewise, if you are making the same amount of money but decide to increase your spending, it is the decision to increase your spending that causes the shortfall. It is not the absence of the decision that matters, which is what you are arguing. It is the decision itself.

If you buy a car then one day decide you no longer want to pay for it and instead want to bank your car payments, it is the act of choosing not to make your car payments that causes your problem. If the budget is in balance, before you cut taxes, you can afford to pay for government spending. If you then cut taxes, clearly you can pay for something but you choose not to.

If you can pay but chose not to and go bankrupt, you can stiff your creditors. This is what Orange County did in 1994 when it went bankrupt because its Treasurer bought derivatives. The richest county in the country could have paid off the debt but chose not to and instead stiff their creditors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Taking in less revenue does not increase the deficit, spending more money does. Why do you insist on getting it backwards and blaming the revenue instead of the spending?

To rephrase your bolded statement, increasing spending when you know you do not have the money is going to increase the deficit. The problem is not that Congress is proposing a cut in taxes, it is that they are going to spend more than they would have even if they allowed the tax raises to go into effect. How is demanding a proportionate cut in spending going to make a difference when the government will still be spending more money than it has?

You have to blame the tax cuts because the government is not making the people pay for what it's giving them.

We already HAVE a deficit in case you haven't noticed. Now, in order to balance the budget (which isn't about to happen)

we would have to cut spending to wipe out the former deficit AND THEN cut spending more to wipe out the deficit that this tax cut is creating.

When EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is hard enough as it is, politically, to even balance the current budget,

making that even more difficult is simply insane.

But fiscal conservatism is in its death throes as we speak. The Free Lunch is winning.

 

[icculus]

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

Clearly this must not be the case, hence the tax cuts having to expire following 10 years:

"One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course its an ideological position. It is nothing but ideology. The only people who make this argument are people on the Right. If it wasn't ideological, then you could find many in the center and the Left who agree. But you won't. It is as ideological as saying that spending never causes the deficit, only a lack of taxes.

If, as you state, the only people who make this argument are people on the right that would mean that the only people with common sense are people on the right. Since I can easily point out many right wingers who argue, as you do, that we have to pay for tax cuts it is pretty obvious to me that everyone in the government lacks common sense, which makes my argument entirely non partisan.

Come to think of it, it makes yours non partisan also.

You say that the only thing that causes the deficit is spending we don't have. Well, if the budget is in balance, and we cut taxes causing a deficit, clearly we had the money to pay for the spending but we chose not to pay for it.

If the budget is in balance, and we then run a surplus, and the government increases the spending beyond that surplus, is that because the taxes were not high enough?

If taxes are cut and spending is not, then tax cuts caused the increase in the deficit. If spending is increased and taxes are not, then spending caused the increase in the deficit. It is simple math.

If taxes are cut and spending is not the problem is not that we cut taxes, it is that we spent more money than we have. How is it possible for any rational person to insist that it works the other way around?

It is the conscious act that matters. If you decide you want to work less and make less money but maintain your spending, it is the decision to work less that causes your deficit. Likewise, if you are making the same amount of money but decide to increase your spending, it is the decision to increase your spending that causes the shortfall. It is not the absence of the decision that matters, which is what you are arguing. It is the decision itself.

No it is not, it is your decision to continue spending that causes the deficit. Spending more than you have is the only, repeat only, way to increase a deficit. Every argument you are trying to make says the exact same thing, except you seem to think that someone ignoring the fact that they don't have the money is more important than them having the money, and still spending more. Your lack of logic in this boggles my mind.

If you buy a car then one day decide you no longer want to pay for it and instead want to bank your car payments, it is the act of choosing not to make your car payments that causes your problem. If the budget is in balance, before you cut taxes, you can afford to pay for government spending. If you then cut taxes, clearly you can pay for something but you choose not to.

If I cut taxes, that is not choosing to not pay for something. If I buy it knowing I do not have the money, that is choosing not to pay for it. The only way to get into debt is spending more money than you have.

Period.

If you can pay but chose not to and go bankrupt, you can stiff your creditors. This is what Orange County did in 1994 when it went bankrupt because its Treasurer bought derivatives. The richest county in the country could have paid off the debt but chose not to and instead stiff their creditors.

And that decision had nothing to do with the taxes they were, or were not, collecting, thus proving my contention yet again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Taking in less revenue does not increase the deficit, spending more money does. Why do you insist on getting it backwards and blaming the revenue instead of the spending?

To rephrase your bolded statement, increasing spending when you know you do not have the money is going to increase the deficit. The problem is not that Congress is proposing a cut in taxes, it is that they are going to spend more than they would have even if they allowed the tax raises to go into effect. How is demanding a proportionate cut in spending going to make a difference when the government will still be spending more money than it has?

You have to blame the tax cuts because the government is not making the people pay for what it's giving them.

We already HAVE a deficit in case you haven't noticed. Now, in order to balance the budget (which isn't about to happen)

we would have to cut spending to wipe out the former deficit AND THEN cut spending more to wipe out the deficit that this tax cut is creating.

When EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is hard enough as it is, politically, to even balance the current budget,

making that even more difficult is simply insane.

But fiscal conservatism is in its death throes as we speak. The Free Lunch is winning.

I have to blame the tax cuts? Somehow it is not the fault of the politicians who are promising people money that does not exist, it is all the fault of the tax cuts.

Tax cuts are not sentient, and thus not to blame for anything. You have just demonstrated that you are completely without either common sense or intelligence.

By the way, if we simply cut the planned increase in spending by about 4% we could balance the budget in about 10 years. We can accomplish the impossible without either cutting real spending or raising taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Clearly this must not be the case, hence the tax cuts having to expire following 10 years:

"One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration."

You do know that some of these people want to change the law so that pi is equal to 3, don't you? Because a bunch of people make a law that says tax cuts add to the deficit, and then create ways to get around that law, does not make it work that way in the real world.

 

[The T]

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

Clearly this must not be the case, hence the tax cuts having to expire following 10 years:

"One of the most notable characteristics of EGTRRA is that its provisions are designed to sunset, or revert to the provisions that were in effect before it was passed. EGTRRA will sunset on January 1, 2011 unless further legislation is enacted to make its changes permanent. The sunset provision sidesteps the Byrd Rule, a Senate rule that amends the Congressional Budget Act to allow Senators to block a piece of legislation if it purports to significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. The sunset allowed the bill to stay within the letter of the PAYGO law while removing nearly $700 billion from amounts that would have triggered PAYGO sequestration."

You do know that some of these people want to change the law so that pi is equal to 3, don't you? Because a bunch of people make a law that says tax cuts add to the deficit, and then create ways to get around that law, does not make it work that way in the real world.

When the correct answer is that Gubmint just wont cease spending despite the increased revenues spurred by cuts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Taking in less revenue does not increase the deficit, spending more money does. Why do you insist on getting it backwards and blaming the revenue instead of the spending?

To rephrase your bolded statement, increasing spending when you know you do not have the money is going to increase the deficit. The problem is not that Congress is proposing a cut in taxes, it is that they are going to spend more than they would have even if they allowed the tax raises to go into effect. How is demanding a proportionate cut in spending going to make a difference when the government will still be spending more money than it has?

You have to blame the tax cuts because the government is not making the people pay for what it's giving them.

We already HAVE a deficit in case you haven't noticed. Now, in order to balance the budget (which isn't about to happen)

we would have to cut spending to wipe out the former deficit AND THEN cut spending more to wipe out the deficit that this tax cut is creating.

When EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is hard enough as it is, politically, to even balance the current budget,

making that even more difficult is simply insane.

But fiscal conservatism is in its death throes as we speak. The Free Lunch is winning.

I have to blame the tax cuts? Somehow it is not the fault of the politicians who are promising people money that does not exist, it is all the fault of the tax cuts.

Tax cuts are not sentient, and thus not to blame for anything. You have just demonstrated that you are completely without either common sense or intelligence.

By the way, if we simply cut the planned increase in spending by about 4% we could balance the budget in about 10 years. We can accomplish the impossible without either cutting real spending or raising taxes.

A genuine fiscal conservative would say,

we're not cutting taxes without simultaneous spending cuts. A genuine fiscal conservative would not let the tax cut zealots play the old con game of promising that spending cuts are coming, someday, sometime,

but in the meantime let's cut taxes.

 

[Toro]

If, as you state, the only people who make this argument are people on the right that would mean that the only people with common sense are people on the right. Since I can easily point out many right wingers who argue, as you do, that we have to pay for tax cuts it is pretty obvious to me that everyone in the government lacks common sense, which makes my argument entirely non partisan.

Come to think of it, it makes yours non partisan also.

All ideological people think their arguments are common sense. If they didn't think it made sense, they wouldn't believe it.

If the budget is in balance, and we then run a surplus, and the government increases the spending beyond that surplus, is that because the taxes were not high enough?

No. That is the left-wing ideological argument. If the increase in spending causes the budget deficit, then the budget deficit is caused by the increase in spending. The ideological left always thinks the problem is too little taxes. The ideological right always thinks the problem is too much spending. It is always black and white with ideologues.

If taxes are cut and spending is not the problem is not that we cut taxes, it is that we spent more money than we have. How is it possible for any rational person to insist that it works the other way around?

"We" have the money. "We" chose not to spend it. "We" chose to finance a tax cut with borrowed money for our spending. How can any rational person insist that cutting taxes does not cause the deficit?

No it is not, it is your decision to continue spending that causes the deficit. Spending more than you have is the only, repeat only, way to increase a deficit. Every argument you are trying to make says the exact same thing, except you seem to think that someone ignoring the fact that they don't have the money is more important than them having the money, and still spending more. Your lack of logic in this boggles my mind.

My logic is that of an accountant. Your reasoning is that of an ideologue. And a right-wing ideologue always thinks it is a spending problem, just like a left-wing ideologue always thinks taxes are never high enough.

If I cut taxes, that is not choosing to not pay for something. If I buy it knowing I do not have the money, that is choosing not to pay for it. The only way to get into debt is spending more money than you have.

Period.

It is absolutely, totally and completely a choice. We choose not to tax ourselves to pay for things. We can choose to raise and lower our taxes. We can choose to to raise and lower spending. That is a conscious, political choice.

If you choose to buy something without the money, you can choose to go into debt. You can choose to get another job to make more money. You can choose to work two jobs. You can choose to get a better education to improve your skills. You have numerous choices to increase your income. Politics is no different.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Of course its an ideological position. It is nothing but ideology. The only people who make this argument are people on the Right. If it wasn't ideological, then you could find many in the center and the Left who agree. But you won't. It is as ideological as saying that spending never causes the deficit, only a lack of taxes.

You say that the only thing that causes the deficit is spending we don't have. Well, if the budget is in balance, and we cut taxes causing a deficit, clearly we had the money to pay for the spending but we chose not to pay for it.

You never had anything. You only had projections as to what you may have had, if everything went according to the baseline...Which it almost never does.

If you don't spend, you don't incur debt. This is as true for the gazillionaire as it is for the fry cook.

 

[Toro]

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.

Of course its an ideological position. It is nothing but ideology. The only people who make this argument are people on the Right. If it wasn't ideological, then you could find many in the center and the Left who agree. But you won't. It is as ideological as saying that spending never causes the deficit, only a lack of taxes.

You say that the only thing that causes the deficit is spending we don't have. Well, if the budget is in balance, and we cut taxes causing a deficit, clearly we had the money to pay for the spending but we chose not to pay for it.

You never had anything. You only had projections as to what you may have had, if everything went according to the baseline...Which it almost never does.

If you don't spend, you don't incur debt. This is as true for the gazillionaire as it is for the fry cook.

And if you don't work, you don't generate revenue.

See how this works? Ideologues on both sides only see the one side of the balance sheet that they most identify with.

And it is not projections. It is current taxes and spending, right here, right now.

 

[Oddball]

Politicians and bureaucrats don't produce added value to the overall economic picture, so their only "work" is to expropriate from the productive.

That's not ideology, that's the fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have to blame the tax cuts because the government is not making the people pay for what it's giving them.

We already HAVE a deficit in case you haven't noticed. Now, in order to balance the budget (which isn't about to happen)

we would have to cut spending to wipe out the former deficit AND THEN cut spending more to wipe out the deficit that this tax cut is creating.

When EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is hard enough as it is, politically, to even balance the current budget,

making that even more difficult is simply insane.

But fiscal conservatism is in its death throes as we speak. The Free Lunch is winning.

I have to blame the tax cuts? Somehow it is not the fault of the politicians who are promising people money that does not exist, it is all the fault of the tax cuts.

Tax cuts are not sentient, and thus not to blame for anything. You have just demonstrated that you are completely without either common sense or intelligence.

By the way, if we simply cut the planned increase in spending by about 4% we could balance the budget in about 10 years. We can accomplish the impossible without either cutting real spending or raising taxes.

A genuine fiscal conservative would say,

we're not cutting taxes without simultaneous spending cuts. A genuine fiscal conservative would not let the tax cut zealots play the old con game of promising that spending cuts are coming, someday, sometime,

but in the meantime let's cut taxes.

What the **** have I posted that makes you think I am a anything other than a genuine windbag? Not being restricted by anyone else's definitions of me or my beliefs I can honestly point out that the only thing, repeat the only thing, that increases the deficit is spending money that does not exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All ideological people think their arguments are common sense. If they didn't think it made sense, they wouldn't believe it.

That does explain why you keep insisting that revenue contributes to debt.

No. That is the left-wing ideological argument. If the increase in spending causes the budget deficit, then the budget deficit is caused by the increase in spending. The ideological left always thinks the problem is too little taxes. The ideological right always thinks the problem is too much spending. It is always black and white with ideologues.

Are you trying to tell me that revenue, not spending, puts people into debt, and are simultaneously trying to tell me that you are not an ideologue? Are you going to try to sell me some ocean front property in Arizona next?

"We" have the money. "We" chose not to spend it. "We" chose to finance a tax cut with borrowed money for our spending. How can any rational person insist that cutting taxes does not cause the deficit?

The government never has the money. They always operate on credit. The budget is built on the assumption that the tax rates will bring in so much in revenue, and they spend based on that assumption, if they are operating on a balanced budget. If you do not understand that we should not even be having this discussion because you are woefully uneducated about how the government operates.

My logic is that of an accountant. Your reasoning is that of an ideologue. And a right-wing ideologue always thinks it is a spending problem, just like a left-wing ideologue always thinks taxes are never high enough.

That was funny. thanks for the laugh.

It is absolutely, totally and completely a choice. We choose not to tax ourselves to pay for things. We can choose to raise and lower our taxes. We can choose to to raise and lower spending. That is a conscious, political choice.

No, the government chooses to spend money it does not have, we are not choosing not to pay for anything by insisting that our money belongs to us.

If you choose to buy something without the money, you can choose to go into debt. You can choose to get another job to make more money. You can choose to work two jobs. You can choose to get a better education to improve your skills. You have numerous choices to increase your income. Politics is no different.

I cannot choose to buy anything unless I have the money. I do not operate on credit, and only spend money after I have it, not in the expectation that it will arrive next week. If I want something, and I do not have the money, I do without. The government should be required to work the same way.

By the way, the only way the government can get more money is through taxing the earnings of its citizens, or it can sell the future earnings of its citizens. It has no choices other than that. It cannot go to school and learn anything, nor can it get a second job,

 

[Toro]

That does explain why you keep insisting that revenue contributes to debt.

I do not keep insisting this. If this is what you think I am arguing, that is your problem, not mine. What I keep insisting is that tax cuts by themselves are detrimental to the fiscal balance. You keep insisting that the fiscal balance is always a function of spending, no matter what the level of tax revenues.

Are you trying to tell me that revenue, not spending, puts people into debt, and are simultaneously trying to tell me that you are not an ideologue? Are you going to try to sell me some ocean front property in Arizona next?

See above.

An ideologue speaks in absolutes. They use words such as "always" and "never" to describe complex situations. This is what you are doing. This is not what I am doing.

If taxes are cut and spending is not, tax cuts caused the deficit. If spending is increased and taxes remain the same, spending caused the deficit. The right-wing ideologue says the deficit is always caused by spending and never by deficient tax revenues. The left-wing ideologue says the deficit is always caused by deficient tax revenues and never by spending.

The government never has the money. They always operate on credit. The budget is built on the assumption that the tax rates will bring in so much in revenue, and they spend based on that assumption, if they are operating on a balanced budget. If you do not understand that we should not even be having this discussion because you are woefully uneducated about how the government operates.

Sorry dude, you fundamentally do not understand the fiscal operations of American governments if you believe the government never has money and always operates on credit. That is simply flat out wrong on many levels. Governments own assets which generate income. Governments invest tax revenues in debt instruments which generates income for deferred spending.

I cannot choose to buy anything unless I have the money. I do not operate on credit, and only spend money after I have it, not in the expectation that it will arrive next week. If I want something, and I do not have the money, I do without. The government should be required to work the same way.

This isn't a serious argument.

You do not have a credit card? You do not have student loans? You don't have a car loan? You don't have a mortgage? Congratulations. You are the only one of 310 million Americans who operates solely on cash.

The world simply doesn't work that way. Corporations borrow money. People borrow money. Governments borrow money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have to blame the tax cuts? Somehow it is not the fault of the politicians who are promising people money that does not exist, it is all the fault of the tax cuts.

Tax cuts are not sentient, and thus not to blame for anything. You have just demonstrated that you are completely without either common sense or intelligence.

By the way, if we simply cut the planned increase in spending by about 4% we could balance the budget in about 10 years. We can accomplish the impossible without either cutting real spending or raising taxes.

A genuine fiscal conservative would say,

we're not cutting taxes without simultaneous spending cuts. A genuine fiscal conservative would not let the tax cut zealots play the old con game of promising that spending cuts are coming, someday, sometime,

but in the meantime let's cut taxes.

What the **** have I posted that makes you think I am a anything other than a genuine windbag? Not being restricted by anyone else's definitions of me or my beliefs I can honestly point out that the only thing, repeat the only thing, that increases the deficit is spending money that does not exist.

And cutting taxes decreases the amount of money that exists, so if that formerly existent money was paying for something, and you cut it, then that something is no longer paid for.

Therefore anyone advocating for cutting taxes without cutting spending is advocating an action that is, mathematically,

no different than someone who is advocating increased spending without increasing taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe the People should have the right to as much government as they are willing to pay for,

and no right to any government they're not willing to pay for.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich.

Go to ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not keep insisting this. If this is what you think I am arguing, that is your problem, not mine. What I keep insisting is that tax cuts by themselves are detrimental to the fiscal balance. You keep insisting that the fiscal balance is always a function of spending, no matter what the level of tax revenues.

Tax cuts are not detrimental unless the government spends more than it makes. Tax increases are not helpful unless the government spends less than it gets. The politicians in charge of our government only pay lip service to balancing the budget, they always spend more money than the government has. That happens because they believe that all money belongs to the government, and that any tax cuts they give are gifts to us. I refuse to believe this, and you apparently want me to think you believe this also, yet you insist that tax cuts is equivalent to the taxpayers refusing to pay for something we have money for.

The money does not belong to the government and tax cuts is not us refusing to pay, nor is it the government giving us our money back.

An ideologue speaks in absolutes. They use words such as "always" and "never" to describe complex situations. This is what you are doing. This is not what I am doing.

Ideologues really strive to make simple things a lot more complex than they are. They attempt to make the fact that the government spends more money than it has is the fault of the people who insist that the money that people earn does not belong to the government. They insist that cutting revenue is refusing to pay for something. They attempt to make people think up is down and that black is white. Then they try to pretend they are actually moderates and sensible by claiming that anyone who points out that the situation is actually simple, and thus easily defined, are the real ideologues.

That is what you are doing.

If taxes are cut and spending is not, tax cuts caused the deficit. If spending is increased and taxes remain the same, spending caused the deficit. The right-wing ideologue says the deficit is always caused by spending and never by deficient tax revenues. The left-wing ideologue says the deficit is always caused by deficient tax revenues and never by spending.

If taxes are cut and spending is not the problem is that the government is spending too much money. This in no way, shape, or form, means that a lack of revenue contributes to the deficit. If the government did not spend more money than it had there would not be a deficit.

The right wing ideologues you, as a left wing ideologue, are attempting to equate me with are just as wrong as you are because they believe that government spending when they do do not have adequate funds is acceptable if revenue in the future will cover the deficit. They, like the left wing idiots, think taxes are fixed, and will spend tomorrows money now because they do not accept that spending increases debt if someone tells them taxes will cover it.

You seem to be under the impression that I am supporting tax cuts. I will repeat this one last time because you seem to be particularly incapable of accepting the fact that people can think for themselves, i am not supporting tax cuts. I am contesting the idea that we have to pay for tax cuts.

Paying for tax cuts implies that the money belongs to the government. Paying for tax cuts allows the money to borrow money it does not have and spend it in place of the revenue it does not have. What we have to do is reduce spending, not pay for tax cuts.

That brings me back to the simple portion of this discussion, the part that you keep calling ideology because you are incapable of seeing past your own preconceptions and ideology. The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have. Cutting revenue only increase the deficit if if you refuse to acknowledge that loss of revenue and continue spending.

Sorry dude, you fundamentally do not understand the fiscal operations of American governments if you believe the government never has money and always operates on credit. That is simply flat out wrong on many levels. Governments own assets which generate income. Governments invest tax revenues in debt instruments which generates income for deferred spending.

While I might be accused of oversimplification I obviously understand how the government works on a more fundamental level than you do, The budget the federal government passes, if it passes one, is based on taxes and fees that they expect to receive during that budget period. The "assets" the government owns do not belong to the government, they belong to the people who give the government their consent.

Don't worry though, I am the ideologue here, the guy who believes that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution actually mean something. Nothing I say has any bearing on reality, and the truth is that the world revolves around Washington DC. Tax cuts cause deficits because we are refusing to pay for things we have the money for, even if some right wing mental defectives think we shouldn't be paying for them. We are obviously obligated to pay for everything the politicians spout out of their lips because they are smarter than everyone else.

This isn't a serious argument.

You do not have a credit card? You do not have student loans? You don't have a car loan? You don't have a mortgage? Congratulations. You are the only one of 310 million Americans who operates solely on cash.

The world simply doesn't work that way. Corporations borrow money. People borrow money. Governments borrow money.

It obviously does work that way for some people. Trust me on this, the ones that live this way are not the problem. The problem is those who believe that the only way to run the world can only run on credit.