The Democrats are wrong again...
Increased federal revenues resulted in the deficit being down 14.1% "below the pace of last year."
Make no mistake about it, tax cuts work.
Posted by Matt at September 14, 2006 03:46 AM
Comments
Yes, but here's the real problem:
Government spending is also at record levels so far this budget year, totaling $2.43 trillion, an increase of 7.6 percent from the same period a year ago.
Posted by: Bigfoot at September 14, 2006 09:48 AM
It seems that tax cutters will never understand that the "increased revenues" they brag about is just the tax on recycled Federal money that is balooned by the failure to pay debts. "increase" will never offset the deficet to any appreciable degree, and borrowed money without repayment wil always make you rich.
Posted by: James Melbert at September 14, 2006 10:01 AM
Tax cuts shouldve been enacted a long time ago. In fact, if society in America really knew about how legal the IRS really is, we'd all probably move to another country. Its sad when a corporation, not even govt. owned is kept running because they fund the government.
Posted by: Brice at September 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Bigfoot,
You are correct that Government spending needs to be controlled better. But, to this there are extenuating circumstances; some cost are better to add to the budget now, while the economy is robust rather then defray the cost to a possibly more advantageous time. It’s not exactly like paying down the debt, but some expenses realized now rather than financing them, will reduce the amount necessary to service the debt, thus reducing the deficit. Infrastructure costs are usually financed; some of those costs are being put into the operating budget rather than the capital budget. While not reducing the Debt, in the long run, this will pay off with lower debt charges.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at September 14, 2006 12:00 PM
“tax on recycled Federal money that is balooned (sic) by the failure to pay debts”
Wait, what?
That is singularly the stupidest statement I have ever read on federal finances.
Equally as stupid is this one; “"increase" will never offset the deficet (sic) to any appreciable degree” Did we somehow miss this statement at the beginning of the thread; “Increased federal revenues resulted in the deficit being down 14.1%”? Are we saying 14.1% is not “appreciable”? Or are we saying that increasing revenue doesn’t offset expenditures? Either way, if you don’t have a clue read until you understand, then comment.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at September 14, 2006 12:05 PM
Wow, the deficits only going to be $300 billion this year! Hooray! Hooray for tax cuts! Sure they created the deficit, but its not as bad this year as it was last year. Clearly, the tax cuts are 'working'. Hooray for Bush!
Matt, who takes care of your finances? Your mother? No way someone as clueless as you is in charge of his own money.
Posted by: steveGA at September 14, 2006 12:13 PM
I don't know about anyone else but I'm not seeing any savings with these tax cuts. Gas is still
expensive, interest rates keep going up. The
only thing NOT going up is my paycheck.
Posted by: Jeff777 at September 14, 2006 01:22 PM
Take heart Jeff.
While the rest of us earn more by investing, or receiving merit raises or promotions, you can move to California where the Governor just raised the minimum wage, this may help pay for your membership @ www.spank-me.com.
Meanwhile, the adults here will discuss the Federal deficit, run along now.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at September 14, 2006 01:30 PM
James, I too am confused by your statement. You didn't tell us anything that challenges the validity of the deficit and tax revenue numbers presented; you basically just said "No, it doesn't work that way". So... tell us how you think it does work. And what the heck is "recylced federal money"?
Posted by: Nate at September 14, 2006 02:05 PM
No way someone as clueless as you is in charge of his own money.
Steve, no way someone as stupid as you has any money. Maybe you should ask mommy for an allowance...
Posted by: keefer at September 14, 2006 09:03 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Yes, but here's the real problem:
Government spending is also at record levels so far this budget year, totaling $2.43 trillion, an increase of 7.6 percent from the same period a year ago.
It seems that tax cutters will never understand that the "increased revenues" they brag about is just the tax on recycled Federal money that is balooned by the failure to pay debts. "increase" will never offset the deficet to any appreciable degree, and borrowed money without repayment wil always make you rich.
Tax cuts shouldve been enacted a long time ago. In fact, if society in America really knew about how legal the IRS really is, we'd all probably move to another country. Its sad when a corporation, not even govt. owned is kept running because they fund the government.
Bigfoot,
You are correct that Government spending needs to be controlled better. But, to this there are extenuating circumstances; some cost are better to add to the budget now, while the economy is robust rather then defray the cost to a possibly more advantageous time. It’s not exactly like paying down the debt, but some expenses realized now rather than financing them, will reduce the amount necessary to service the debt, thus reducing the deficit. Infrastructure costs are usually financed; some of those costs are being put into the operating budget rather than the capital budget. While not reducing the Debt, in the long run, this will pay off with lower debt charges.
That is singularly the stupidest statement I have ever read on federal finances.
Equally as stupid is this one; “"increase" will never offset the deficet (sic) to any appreciable degree” Did we somehow miss this statement at the beginning of the thread; “Increased federal revenues resulted in the deficit being down 14.1%”? Are we saying 14.1% is not “appreciable”? Or are we saying that increasing revenue doesn’t offset expenditures? Either way, if you don’t have a clue read until you understand, then comment.
Wow, the deficits only going to be $300 billion this year! Hooray! Hooray for tax cuts! Sure they created the deficit, but its not as bad this year as it was last year. Clearly, the tax cuts are 'working'. Hooray for Bush!
Matt, who takes care of your finances? Your mother? No way someone as clueless as you is in charge of his own money.
I don't know about anyone else but I'm not seeing any savings with these tax cuts. Gas is still
expensive, interest rates keep going up. The
only thing NOT going up is my paycheck.
Take heart Jeff.
While the rest of us earn more by investing, or receiving merit raises or promotions, you can move to California where the Governor just raised the minimum wage, this may help pay for your membership @ www.spank-me.com.
Meanwhile, the adults here will discuss the Federal deficit, run along now.
James, I too am confused by your statement. You didn't tell us anything that challenges the validity of the deficit and tax revenue numbers presented; you basically just said "No, it doesn't work that way". So... tell us how you think it does work. And what the heck is "recylced federal money"?
No way someone as clueless as you is in charge of his own money.
Steve, no way someone as stupid as you has any money. Maybe you should ask mommy for an allowance...