Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Being the government is not entitled to our extra money they should run the government within the means by which they are authorized to tax us at. There are certain tax codes they use for revenue to run this country and if they lived within those means we would not run a deficit.
Cutting taxes allow people to spend more of their own money and puts more money back into the economy, when more money is spent into the economy more businesses hire more people, and then those people spend more money in the economy which in turn creates more tax revenue for the government.
Stop listening to the funny math that they love so much on the left, it's a failure.
That's a theory that has never worked. All we've done in the last 30 years when we've cut taxes is to simply increase deficits to make up for the lost tax revenue. If any 'stimulus' occurs at all in that scenario,
it's because the government is borrowing money to spend into the economy without making YOU pay for that spending.
I'm sure that things like Obamas' drilling moratorium and the democrats increase in capital gains taxes that chased businesses "And jobs" out of this country have nothing to do with the bad deficit right?
This country would not be that bad off if it where not from the piss poor policies by the left.
Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administrations control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
Tax cuts do not cause deficits.
Spending causes deficits.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
The spending is what causes deficits not the tax cuts.
If you're fucking stupid enough to spend the same amount if revenue is lessened it is still the spending (and of course the stupidity) that causes deficits.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
The spending is what causes deficits not the tax cuts.
If you're fucking stupid enough to spend the same amount if revenue is lessened it is still the spending (and of course the stupidity) that causes deficits.
The stupidity is cutting taxes when you know the decreased revenue won't pay the bills.
Tax cuts do not cause deficits.
Spending causes deficits.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
I really don't see anything positive that came from it
Cutting taxes don't add to the debt, spending more then you take in does.
More nonsense.
If you spend $100 and take in $100 of taxes your budget is balanced.
If you spend $100 and cut taxes 20%, you take in $80 and you now have a $20 deficit.
It's math people.
Tax cuts do not cause deficits.
Spending causes deficits.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
Tax cuts do not cause deficits.
Spending causes deficits.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.
So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).
It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.
Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
That is very stupid. How about we are spending 7 Billion and taking in 5 Billion, similar to what ishappening now. Then we decide to give tax cuts of 1 Billion. The deficit is increased. This is closer to the present status of budget. As a matter of fact, that is precisely what the GOP pushed and were able to get....INCREASING THE DEFICIT.
Nonsense.
Tax cuts will cause deficits even if spending remains the same.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.
So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).
It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.
Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.
So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).
It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.
Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.
So. Your synopsis wold be if the Government were spending 6 trillion dollars per year, but had been running a deficit and decided to try to stimulate the private sector economy by cutting taxes, THAT would LEAD to a bigger deficit.
And of course, that's crap.
If the government had been running a deficit, that would mean that it had been spending more than it was taking in. Pretty fucking stupid and irresponsible most of the time. So, here's the hint. STOP DOING THAT.
Cutting taxes might hinder government revenues OR it might just do as hoped and stimulate the private sector. In the latter case THEIR increased wealth production might just lead to increased revenues for the gubmint even at the reduced tax rate.
Your presupposition is that if the government taxes us at "X" per cent, then the government will take in "Y" dollars. Obvious sophistry. It doesn't work like that. If the "economy" were totally static, it might. But what economy of this size could possibly be "static?"
Raising taxes, by contrast, might very well cut productivity and thereby reduce government revenues.
Since taxation to achieve these socio-economic goals is far from certain, let's go with something that can be handled with honest math. CUT THE DAMN SPENDING.
Really?
Let us hypothesize that the government is spending $5 trillion a year, and is taking in $6 trillion. They look at these numbers, and instead of raising spending decide to cut taxes to $5.5 trillion a year.
How does that increase the deficit?
The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.
So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).
It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.
Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.
No it cannot.
The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have. The problem with saying that tax cuts increase the deficit is at assumes that the money belongs to the government in the first place, and that they get to decide how much you keep.
The difference between tax revenue and spending is the deficit if negative. It is called a surplus if positive. If it is zero then we have a balanced budget.
So cutting taxes in our current situation increases the deficit (bigger negative number).
It can also shrink a surplus or turn a surplus to a deficit.
Subtraction is the new higher math... I think my daughter started doing 'take aways' in the 2nd grade.
No it cannot.
The only way to increase the deficit is to spend more money than you have. The problem with saying that tax cuts increase the deficit is at assumes that the money belongs to the government in the first place, and that they get to decide how much you keep.
You don't have to assume anything. A deficit is tax revenue minus spending period. It is what it is.
You seem stuck on the much repeated conservative talking points "It's our money, not the governments...they're just letting us keep more of our own money. blah, blah, blah." None of that changes what a deficit is.
I am just not going to let you get away with changing definitions just to fit your narrative.
You are right I didn't specify "if the difference is negative" like I did in the earlier post.$2.8 trillion tax revenues - $2.5 trillion in spending does not make a deficit, despite your insistence that it does.
I really don't see anything positive that came from it
90% of government spending is welfare. Liberals attempt to define welfare so narrowly that almost all payments to parasites are excluded.
Medicare is welfare. Social Security is welfare. Ethanol subsidies are welfare. It's all welfare.
Then I guess the VA is welfare too, eh?
Stupid fuck. You don't even go to jail for not paying taxes at all. But you can go to jail for tax evasion.
So you don't understand the difference between working for the government and getting a government check for not working? Seriously?
Well thank you. I never thought of all people I would be agreeing with you. My tone in this particular thread is simply a reaction to the tone of comments from a breed of people who don't think they owe anything to the rest of the people who occupy this space and who have forgotten, or never known, what UNITED means for a country to survive.
They seem to want to build their castles and step on anyone who hasn't kept pace with their own successes as just being in the way. I agree that a fairer tax code would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, but what about the attitudes? My biggest concern is that far too many people no longer have a conscience. They're out for themselves, period.
You're not paying 50% of everything you earn in taxes. Stop.
