The Bush tax cuts absolutely created a massive deficit. Period. There is no arguing that point.
A loss in revenue does not create a deficit. Only SPENDING can create a deficit.
Okay, FINE. The Bush tax cuts that were not accompanied with BUDGET CUTS created a deficit. You see, if you spend your entire income and then you cut your income but do not cut your spending, you create what we call "debt." Do I need to define this concept for you, or are you familiar with the idea?
Everybody bitches about how intrusive the government is until something happens that they WANT government to take care of. Then they bitch about the government not being involved ENOUGH. You know what? I'm all for it. Let's cut back on government services to the people who do stupid shit and then expect to have their asses wiped for them. Maybe it will give them an education, since they're clearly not learning "logic" from our free schools.
The Bush tax cuts absolutely created a massive deficit. Period. There is no arguing that point.
A loss in revenue does not create a deficit. Only SPENDING can create a deficit.
Smaller government? How about less intrusive government?
No, you are objectively wrong. You have a source of revenue for the government People pay taxes, period. Telling rich people that they no longer need to pay taxes as much as they did cause a drop in government revenue and CONTRIBUTES TO THERE NOT BEING ENOUGH MONEY, THUS CREATING A DEFICIT. Just because you don't want to pay a ludicrously inappropriate and pointless semantics game with it doesn't change the fact.
The government went into a crushing deficit during the Bush years because of unfunded mandates, war, AND GIVING THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE TAX CUTS AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME. We are STILL suffering from the Bush years, and we need to put the government revenue back where it was PRE-BUSH. That means PRE-BUSH TAX LEVELS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN EASILY AFFORD IT.
PLUS, insinuating that not only should you not raise taxes, but not help out people who desperately need the money in any way because it would cause a deficit when the deficit is OBVIOUSLY something you don't give to shits about is disgusting to me. I can't point to a more flagrant example of talking out of both sides of your mouth than what these assholes are doing right this fucking second.
As an aside, I'm all for less intrusive government, but when banks, energy companies, oil companies, airlines, and the like prove that when they are given no regulations they rape the shit out of everything, than I'm sorry, the adults need to come back and take over. The past ten years have been a perfect example of how horrible unchecked deregulation has been. You can bitch and moan about government interference, but big business did a really good job of proving they do as much shady, illegal shit as they possibly can when not regulated. So tough titties, you broke your fuckin' toys, now deal with it.
PLUS, insinuating that not only should you not raise taxes, but not help out people who desperately need the money in any way because it would cause a deficit when the deficit is OBVIOUSLY something you don't give to shits about is disgusting to me. I can't point to a more flagrant example of talking out of both sides of your mouth than what these assholes are doing right this fucking second.
Funny, I do not recall insinuating any such thing.
I will state it again (since some people do not seem to be able to understand basic economics). A reduction in revenue does not cause a deficit. Only unfunded spending can cause a deficit.
If you were to spend $100 a day living your life (an expense) while bringing in $200 a day in income (revenue) you would be fine and running a surplus. As long as your income stayed above $100 a day you would continue to be fine. If your income dropped below $100 a day you would find yourself in a deficit situation because you would be spending more than you take in. It is not the drop in income that creates this situation but your continued spending. At this point it would be up to you to either create a new revenue stream OR reduce spending.
Revenue loss != Deficit. Spending more money than you bring in = deficit.
PLUS, insinuating that not only should you not raise taxes, but not help out people who desperately need the money in any way because it would cause a deficit when the deficit is OBVIOUSLY something you don't give to shits about is disgusting to me. I can't point to a more flagrant example of talking out of both sides of your mouth than what these assholes are doing right this fucking second.
Funny, I do not recall insinuating any such thing.
I will state it again (since some people do not seem to be able to understand basic economics). A reduction in revenue does not cause a deficit. Only unfunded spending can cause a deficit.
If you were to spend $100 a day living your life (an expense) while bringing in $200 a day in income (revenue) you would be fine and running a surplus. As long as your income stayed above $100 a day you would continue to be fine. If your income dropped below $100 a day you would find yourself in a deficit situation because you would be spending more than you take in. It is not the drop in income that creates this situation but your continuedspending. At this point it would be up to you to either create a new revenue stream OR reduce spending. Revenue loss != Deficit. Spending more money than you bring in = deficit.
This econ 101 stuff here.
No, no, wrong, no, and wrong. When you have people who can afford to pay a revenue stream, and you cut it off, YOU CREATE A DEFICIT BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND. Objective moral reprehensibility aside, it's the wrong thing to do, the wrong way to do it, and I'm not playing this bullshit semantics game with you anymore. You're wrong.
REGARDLESS of what the GOP is trying to call it, and regardless of how they are attempting to justify it, it comes down to "we want rich people to have more money and aren't willing to make them give more money to help people who lost their jobs in small part because over the past decade, we've wanted rich people to have more money."
No, no, wrong, no, and wrong. When you have people who can afford to pay a revenue stream, and you cut it off, YOU CREATE A DEFICIT BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND. Objective moral reprehensibility aside, it's the wrong thing to do, the wrong way to do it, and I'm not playing this bullshit semantics game with you anymore. You're wrong.
REGARDLESS of what the GOP is trying to call it, and regardless of how they are attempting to justify it, it comes down to "we want rich people to have more money and aren't willing to make them give more money to help people who lost their jobs in small part because over the past decade, we've wanted rich people to have more money."
It's complete socioeconomic irresponsibility.
Marxism does not trump reality. Just because someone can "afford" to pay for something does not mean they should be forced to do so. That is not economics that is theft.
Cutting revenue does not create a deficit. Spending more than you take in creates a deficit.
PS: I don't care what the GOP calls it. I'm calling it what it is. Take your politics out of the equation and you will have to agree that I am right.
No, no, wrong, no, and wrong. When you have people who can afford to pay a revenue stream, and you cut it off, YOU CREATE A DEFICIT BECAUSE YOU HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND. Objective moral reprehensibility aside, it's the wrong thing to do, the wrong way to do it, and I'm not playing this bullshit semantics game with you anymore. You're wrong.
REGARDLESS of what the GOP is trying to call it, and regardless of how they are attempting to justify it, it comes down to "we want rich people to have more money and aren't willing to make them give more money to help people who lost their jobs in small part because over the past decade, we've wanted rich people to have more money."
It's complete socioeconomic irresponsibility.
Marxism does not trump reality. Just because someone can "afford" to pay for something does not mean they should be forced to do so. That is not economics that is theft.
Cutting revenue does not create a deficit. Spending more than you take in creates a deficit.
PS: I don't care what the GOP calls it. I'm calling it what it is. Take your politics out of the equation and you will have to agree that I am right.
SO when the country is in dire straights, and has the ability to fix it, but they simply don't because they want the richest people to have more money, that's okay? Seriously?
And I can't "take the politics out" because of the way the GOP is using the language. Did you read the quotes from the articles?
Marxism? Pfft. Having people pay taxes is not Marxism. Having people pay a progressive tax is not Marxism. Taking all the money from everyone and redistributing all of it so that everyone has the exact same amount is Marxism. How could you even suggest that putting taxes back where they were before the GOP's actions both directly and indirectly sent the country spiraling into a depression is somehow Marxist? That makes no sense.
But then, you rarely make sense, so I guess it's par for the course.
What is so hard about understanding that deficits come from spending more money than you have? Why are you unable to grasp this very simple economic concept?
Why are you throwing all this extra crap into this discussion?
Do you agree that deficits come from spending more than you have or not? Because that is ALL that I am saying in this thread. I'm not arguing right or wrong just economic facts.
What is so hard about understanding thatdeficitscome from spending more money than you have? Why are you unable to grasp this very simple economic concept?
Why are you throwing all this extra crap into this discussion?
Do you agree that deficits come from spending more than you have or not? Because that isALLthat I am saying in this thread. I'm not arguing right or wrong just economic facts.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. But also understand that deficits have been the way of this country for almost a decade. We can't run in deficits forever. We have shit to pay for is what everyone is arguing, and taxes are how they're payed for.
I was arguing the first line of GTM's post about "paying" for tax cuts. You don't "pay" for revenue.
I understand what you mean by "not paying for revenue" but there is a consequence for cutting off your own revenue, especially when there is no reason for it. The GOP's language is poorly chosen at best, and demonstrates a gross disregard for anyone not wealthy in this country at worst.
I was arguing the first line of GTM's post about "paying" for tax cuts. You don't "pay" for revenue.
Yes, I understand that. But GTM is arguing on a policy level and you're arguing about the definition of the word "pay." Don't be petty. If you want to argue for cutting taxes while maintaining our silly level of deficit spending, you have the floor.
I'm not arguing policy because the initial basis of GTM's argument of "paying for tax cuts" is flawed. I can not even begin to argue policy when the foundation of his argument is so brutaly flawed.
You're just parroting a tired republican argument that has been used to confuse a lot of people for many years. If you object to the phrase "pay for tax cuts", maybe you'll be happier with "adverse consequences of tax cuts".
Going back to your analogy of the person who makes $200.00 per day and has $100.00 of expenses per day. Some of those expenses are non-discretionary, like food. Now, if that person's boss cuts his salary to $50.00 per day, he's going to suffer some adverse consequences. He might be able to modify some spending habits, but there are some expenses that can't be cut completely.
GWB cut taxes on the rich while pursuing an expensive war. That has never been done before in history and it helped to ruin the economy.
Since you are so interested in cutting expenses, why don't we cut defense? Why are republicans so eager to spend money to kill people and profit from war, but they don't want to spend anything to help ordinary people who are out of work?
Oh, one other thing: It's easy to notice over the last few years another of the republican selling points that make arguments like this palatable to ordinary people, i.e. the hope that they will somehow become rich and therefor benefit from a tax policy that favors the rich. Get over it. Most people will never be that rich. In the 50s and 60s, the super-rich were taxed at almost 90 percent. If people had any political will, they'd bring back those rates.
You're just parroting a tired republican argument that has been used to confuse a lot of people for many years. If you object to the phrase "pay for tax cuts", maybe you'll be happier with "adverse consequences of tax cuts".
Going back to your analogy of the person who makes $200.00 per day and has $100.00 of expenses per day. Some of those expenses are non-discretionary, like food. Now, if that person's boss cuts his salary to $50.00 per day, he's going to suffer some adverse consequences. He might be able to modify some spending habits, but there are some expenses that can't be cut completely.
GWB cut taxes on the rich while pursuing an expensive war. That has never been done before in history and it helped to ruin the economy.
Since you are so interested in cutting expenses, why don't we cut defense? Why are republicans so eager to spend money to kill people and profit from war, but they don't want to spend anything to help ordinary people who are out of work?
Oh, one other thing: It's easy to notice over the last few years another of the republican selling points that make arguments like this palatable to ordinary people, i.e. the hope that they will somehow become rich and therefor benefit from a tax policy that favors the rich. Get over it. Most people will never be that rich. In the 50s and 60s, the super-rich were taxed at almost 90 percent. If people had any political will, they'd bring back those rates.
Blah blah blah...
I am not touching on policy I'm simply pointing out that GTM's assertion that you have to "pay for a tax cut" is wrong. You pay for programs not tax cuts. Stop screwing around with economic definitions.
Yes Joe, I would be happier with the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts".
You want to bring back 90% tax rates? Go for it BUT be sure to put something in the tax law that allows an individual/small business to deduct 100% of the cost of anyone they employ. Since so many republican talking heads always say that these high taxes stop small business from hiring (the hiring money gets sucked out in taxes) providing said deduction would provide an incentive for hiring workers. Hell, give them a 110% deduction so they will have a real incentive to hire. If you are worried about tax revenue lost in such a situation don't forget that the workers pay taxes too and employed citizens cost less than unemployed citizens from a govt program point of view.
Yes Joe, I would be happier with the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts".
. . . and what do we sometimes call adverse consequences? I've heard many people refer to adverse consequences as "payment", as in "Well, I thought I was getting a good deal on rent, but it turns out that my new apartment is a roach-infested hellhole. I guess I really PAID for that bad decision." Or, "Gee, the levies broke because we didn't maintain them properly. I guess we're PAYING now for that past neglect."
Also, just for laughs, I'd like to invoke Heinlein's TANSTAAFL. If you institute a policy of tax cuts, the money from that revenue stream is no longer there. You don't get to have cuts without consequences. If you have to give up x in order to obtain y, we often say that you PAID fory by giving up x. So, in order to have the tax cuts you want, you have to choose to give up something that you had before, like a social program to give indigent kids health insurance. In that way, you PAY for the cuts. Another example would be, "I PAID for my Nintendo DS by giving up my GameCube."
Also, just for laughs, I'd like to invoke Heinlein's TANSTAAFL. If you institute a policy of tax cuts, the money from that revenue stream is no longer there. You don't get to have cuts without cponsequences. So, you have to choose to give away something that you had before, like a social program to give indigent kids health insurance. In that way, youPAYfor the cuts.
Always picking the programs people want as targets? Nice...
Why not just let the people vote on ALL of the programs and let them decide what to cut?
My local school system is way too top heavy (too many admins not enough teachers) why not let the townsfolk vote to cut the admin costs while increasing the teaching costs? Instead we get the BOE telling us that if we don't approve their 5% budget increase little Timy is going to starve because school lunches will go away. then his body will atrophy because the pe/sports programs will be cut. They never offer to fire the extra admin who makes $200K+ and doesn't do anything.
. . . and what do we sometimes call adverse consequences? I've heard many people refer to adverse consequences as "payment", as in "Well, I thought I was getting a good deal on rent, but it turns out that my new apartment is a roach-infested hellhole. I guess I really PAID for that bad decision." Or, "Gee, the levies broke because we didn't maintain them properly. I guess we're PAYING now for that past neglect."
Sorry Joe, you're 'paying for adverse consequences' argument does not hold water. What you are describing is 'not' paying for programs/upkeep/infrastructure. Your examples are anecdotal at best and refer to 'paying' for a bad decision or not paying the proper upkeep costs for a necessary item. They also in no way support the notion that you pay for a tax cut.
The reason I said I would be happier if you used the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts" is because it is so much easier to point out the flaws in your argument when you use an argumentum ad consequentiam.
The reason I said I would be happier if you used the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts" is because it is so much easier to point out the flaws in your argument when you use anargumentum ad consequentiam.
The moves have angered some residents because of the choking dust and windshield-cracking stones that gravel roads can kick up, not to mention the jarring "washboard" effect of driving on rutted gravel.
Your examples are anecdotal at best and refer to 'paying' for a bad decision or not paying the proper upkeep costs for a necessary item. They also in no way support the notion that you pay for a tax cut.
The reason I said I would be happier if you used the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts" is because it is so much easier to point out the flaws in your argument when you use anargumentum ad consequentiam.
No. What I am describing are opportunity costs and implicit costs. They are costs that are paid, whether there is a cash payment or not. If a government cuts taxes, it must cut programs that those taxes had previously been used to fund. The lost programs are an opportunity cost or an implied cost of the tax cuts. When someone asks, "How are we going to pay for these tax cuts?", at least one thing they really mean is "Which government programs that we rely on now are going to be cut so that we can have the tax cuts?
Somehow programs never seem to be cut when taxes are cut. Our massive deficit suggests that the correlation is less than direct.
The solution, obviously, would be to not cut taxes when you need money. Which is something the GOP did during Bush, and is trying to continue now, regardless of the damage it will cause.
The Democrats are not derserving of a free pass when it comes to spending. Raising taxes is fine only if the spending is appropriate. But both parties spend like trailer park lotto winners.
Roads are a core function of government. We can cut taxes and still maintain roads. It's pork, unwinable wars, useless programs, and waste that are the problem. Stop being alarmist.
Of course I was the only idiot on this forum who steadfastly maintained that there would be no public option or torture prosecutions. So what do I know? You guys are so much smarter.
Comments
Smaller government? How about less intrusive government?
Everybody bitches about how intrusive the government is until something happens that they WANT government to take care of. Then they bitch about the government not being involved ENOUGH. You know what? I'm all for it. Let's cut back on government services to the people who do stupid shit and then expect to have their asses wiped for them. Maybe it will give them an education, since they're clearly not learning "logic" from our free schools.
The government went into a crushing deficit during the Bush years because of unfunded mandates, war, AND GIVING THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE TAX CUTS AT THE WORST POSSIBLE TIME. We are STILL suffering from the Bush years, and we need to put the government revenue back where it was PRE-BUSH. That means PRE-BUSH TAX LEVELS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAN EASILY AFFORD IT.
PLUS, insinuating that not only should you not raise taxes, but not help out people who desperately need the money in any way because it would cause a deficit when the deficit is OBVIOUSLY something you don't give to shits about is disgusting to me. I can't point to a more flagrant example of talking out of both sides of your mouth than what these assholes are doing right this fucking second.
As an aside, I'm all for less intrusive government, but when banks, energy companies, oil companies, airlines, and the like prove that when they are given no regulations they rape the shit out of everything, than I'm sorry, the adults need to come back and take over. The past ten years have been a perfect example of how horrible unchecked deregulation has been. You can bitch and moan about government interference, but big business did a really good job of proving they do as much shady, illegal shit as they possibly can when not regulated. So tough titties, you broke your fuckin' toys, now deal with it.
I will state it again (since some people do not seem to be able to understand basic economics). A reduction in revenue does not cause a deficit. Only unfunded spending can cause a deficit.
If you were to spend $100 a day living your life (an expense) while bringing in $200 a day in income (revenue) you would be fine and running a surplus. As long as your income stayed above $100 a day you would continue to be fine. If your income dropped below $100 a day you would find yourself in a deficit situation because you would be spending more than you take in. It is not the drop in income that creates this situation but your continued spending. At this point it would be up to you to either create a new revenue stream OR reduce spending.
Revenue loss != Deficit.
Spending more money than you bring in = deficit.
This econ 101 stuff here.
REGARDLESS of what the GOP is trying to call it, and regardless of how they are attempting to justify it, it comes down to "we want rich people to have more money and aren't willing to make them give more money to help people who lost their jobs in small part because over the past decade, we've wanted rich people to have more money."
It's complete socioeconomic irresponsibility.
Cutting revenue does not create a deficit. Spending more than you take in creates a deficit.
PS: I don't care what the GOP calls it. I'm calling it what it is. Take your politics out of the equation and you will have to agree that I am right.
And I can't "take the politics out" because of the way the GOP is using the language. Did you read the quotes from the articles?
Marxism? Pfft. Having people pay taxes is not Marxism. Having people pay a progressive tax is not Marxism. Taking all the money from everyone and redistributing all of it so that everyone has the exact same amount is Marxism. How could you even suggest that putting taxes back where they were before the GOP's actions both directly and indirectly sent the country spiraling into a depression is somehow Marxist? That makes no sense.
But then, you rarely make sense, so I guess it's par for the course.
Why are you throwing all this extra crap into this discussion?
Do you agree that deficits come from spending more than you have or not? Because that is ALL that I am saying in this thread. I'm not arguing right or wrong just economic facts.
You do not "pay" for tax cuts.
Going back to your analogy of the person who makes $200.00 per day and has $100.00 of expenses per day. Some of those expenses are non-discretionary, like food. Now, if that person's boss cuts his salary to $50.00 per day, he's going to suffer some adverse consequences. He might be able to modify some spending habits, but there are some expenses that can't be cut completely.
GWB cut taxes on the rich while pursuing an expensive war. That has never been done before in history and it helped to ruin the economy.
Since you are so interested in cutting expenses, why don't we cut defense? Why are republicans so eager to spend money to kill people and profit from war, but they don't want to spend anything to help ordinary people who are out of work?
Oh, one other thing: It's easy to notice over the last few years another of the republican selling points that make arguments like this palatable to ordinary people, i.e. the hope that they will somehow become rich and therefor benefit from a tax policy that favors the rich. Get over it. Most people will never be that rich. In the 50s and 60s, the super-rich were taxed at almost 90 percent. If people had any political will, they'd bring back those rates.
I am not touching on policy I'm simply pointing out that GTM's assertion that you have to "pay for a tax cut" is wrong. You pay for programs not tax cuts. Stop screwing around with economic definitions.
Yes Joe, I would be happier with the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts".
You want to bring back 90% tax rates? Go for it BUT be sure to put something in the tax law that allows an individual/small business to deduct 100% of the cost of anyone they employ. Since so many republican talking heads always say that these high taxes stop small business from hiring (the hiring money gets sucked out in taxes) providing said deduction would provide an incentive for hiring workers. Hell, give them a 110% deduction so they will have a real incentive to hire. If you are worried about tax revenue lost in such a situation don't forget that the workers pay taxes too and employed citizens cost less than unemployed citizens from a govt program point of view.
Feel better now?
Also, just for laughs, I'd like to invoke Heinlein's TANSTAAFL. If you institute a policy of tax cuts, the money from that revenue stream is no longer there. You don't get to have cuts without consequences. If you have to give up x in order to obtain y, we often say that you PAID fory by giving up x. So, in order to have the tax cuts you want, you have to choose to give up something that you had before, like a social program to give indigent kids health insurance. In that way, you PAY for the cuts. Another example would be, "I PAID for my Nintendo DS by giving up my GameCube."
Why not just let the people vote on ALL of the programs and let them decide what to cut?
My local school system is way too top heavy (too many admins not enough teachers) why not let the townsfolk vote to cut the admin costs while increasing the teaching costs? Instead we get the BOE telling us that if we don't approve their 5% budget increase little Timy is going to starve because school lunches will go away. then his body will atrophy because the pe/sports programs will be cut. They never offer to fire the extra admin who makes $200K+ and doesn't do anything. Sorry Joe, you're 'paying for adverse consequences' argument does not hold water. What you are describing is 'not' paying for programs/upkeep/infrastructure. Your examples are anecdotal at best and refer to 'paying' for a bad decision or not paying the proper upkeep costs for a necessary item. They also in no way support the notion that you pay for a tax cut.
The reason I said I would be happier if you used the term "adverse consequences of tax cuts" is because it is so much easier to point out the flaws in your argument when you use an argumentum ad consequentiam.
The deficit saddens me to no end.
EDIT: Additional proof that the GOP has no fucking clue what they're doing or how to solve any problems, ever.
Pete Sessions elucidates Republican ideas for the future.
Roads are a core function of government. We can cut taxes and still maintain roads. It's pork, unwinable wars, useless programs, and waste that are the problem. Stop being alarmist.
Of course I was the only idiot on this forum who steadfastly maintained that there would be no public option or torture prosecutions. So what do I know? You guys are so much smarter.