Since when did tax cuts 'cost' the government?

[airdvr 200]

It's revenue not received. Only those who are deluded in DC would be so brazen as to say a tax cut costs them. Medicare, Medicaid, SS, Defense...these are costs. Taxes are income.

In business if revenues fall you have to cut spending. Why don't these asshats get this? And BTW this is not about whether I think the tax cuts shoud be allowed to expire. It's the mindset that the government is somehow entitled to taxes and when they don't get them they call it a loss.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[metalslug 31]

Quote

...and when they don't get them they call it a loss

But it is a loss, isn't it ? Loss of income ? That's how I read it.

As far as "cost" goes, one might say that an election campaign blunder can "cost" you the presidency, meaning that you lost something that you would have otherwise had.

Sure I understand your sentiments, but then I reckon most people also know what government means when they use "cost" in this context. I don't think they are actually fooling many people.

[wmw999 2,149]

So a pay cut wouldn't cost you?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pirana 0]

Quote

Why don't these asshats get this?

You've already answered the question.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's the mindset that the government is somehow entitled to taxes and when they don't get them they call it a loss.

Correct. They have the idea that all money initially belongs to them, and they should get to decide how much of it you deserve to keep for yourself. So if you get to keep more for yourself, then that's costing them money from their pot 'o gold. And you should feel oh so grateful for their generosity in allowing you have some of their money.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So a pay cut wouldn't cost you?

Wendy P.

There are no cuts at all in this

This bill would just maintain things as they are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

It's the mindset that the government is somehow entitled to taxes and when they don't get them they call it a loss.

Correct. They have the idea that all money initially belongs to them, and they should get to decide how much of it you deserve to keep for yourself.

Not quite I don't think... I think the mindset is more that they (and by "they" I mean pretty much any given politician) take all spending and all receipts that were in place when they themselves walked in the door for granted. From there they only attempt to tackle problems marginally. Nobody actually has any motivation to fix anything, they just want to make little tweaks that gain them popularity.

[SkyDekker 1,145]

When you put a budget together, you look at expected income and base expenses on that.

In this case, the expected income was based on the tax cuts expiring, which would increase revenue. If the tax cuts don't expire it would cost the government that budgeted revenue.

Just a figure of speech, don't think it really warrants looking for any secret messages, Same when your wife comes home and says she saved $100 by spending $1,000.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Correct. They have the idea that all money initially belongs to them, and they should get to decide how much of it you deserve to keep for yourself. So if you get to keep more for yourself, then that's costing them money from their pot 'o gold. And you should feel oh so grateful for their generosity in allowing you have some of their money.

sadly, this is exactly the situation today

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Remember how Al Gore would call tax cuts - reckless "spending"

they truly think ALL the money is theirs and anything not taxed is accounted as "spending" on the gov ledgers....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Remember how Al Gore would call tax cuts - reckless "spending"

they truly think ALL the money is theirs and anything not taxed is accounted as "spending" on the gov ledgers....

Winner winner chicken dinner

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Same when your wife comes home and says she saved $100 by spending $1,000.

Among the reaons I know longer have one of those

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In this case, the expected income was based on the tax cuts expiring, which would increase revenue. If the tax cuts don't expire it would cost the government that budgeted revenue.

both McCain and Obama campaigned in 2008 with "tax cut plans" that used the expirations as a baseline, rather than the status quo, which is what all voters use. Any assumption that the sunset would occur is naive, short sighted accounting.

Granted, I doubt anyone would have guessed that all provisions would be upheld, plus several more.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So a pay cut wouldn't cost you?

Wendy P.

It would. But does a person who gets a pay cut ever say, "how am I going to pay for this pay cut?" Does that person ever say, "how are you going to pay m$e for this pay cut?"

A pay cut is not an expense. When pay is cut we cut expenses. Government may be wise to try it sometime.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,434]

>A pay cut is not an expense. When pay is cut we cut expenses.

Exactly. And surely one of the stupidest thing to do when your expenses are high is to intentionally cut your pay. Reduce expenses, pay off your credit card bill - THEN ask your employer for less money.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>A pay cut is not an expense. When pay is cut we cut expenses.

Exactly. And surely one of the stupidest thing to do when your expenses are high is to intentionally cut your pay. Reduce expenses, pay off your credit card bill - THEN ask your employer for less money.

And how's that working for ya, anyway?

Here in the real world, we don't get the option of telling the boss that he can't cut our pay, just because we ran over-budget.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,434]

>And how's that working for ya, anyway?

For me? I've never asked for a pay cut, and I've managed to live within my means, so I wouldn't know.

For the government? Historically our debt rises under presidents who promise (and deliver) tax cuts, and decreases under presidents who do not promise such cuts. Which makes sense.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And how's that working for ya, anyway?

For me? I've never asked for a pay cut, and I've managed to live within my means, so I wouldn't know.

For the government? Historically our debt rises under presidents who promise (and deliver) tax cuts, and decreases under presidents who do not promise such cuts. Which makes sense.

And back in the real world, the debt has risen every year since 1957, at least according to Treasury.

Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[airdvr 200]

Quote

>A pay cut is not an expense. When pay is cut we cut expenses.

Exactly. And surely one of the stupidest thing to do when your expenses are high is to intentionally cut your pay. Reduce expenses, pay off your credit card bill - THEN ask your employer for less money.

Well then we're in agreement. DC is chock full of some of the dumbest MoFo's on the planet.

Along those same lines of thinking another dumb thing would be to keep paying for gas in a car that hasn't run for 99 weeks.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,434]

>And back in the real world, the debt has risen every year since 1957, at
>least according to Treasury.

Except for 1979, 1981 and 2000. (Adjusted federal debt for GDP.)

>Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend
>like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

Agreed, with few exceptions. Responsible fiscal policy requires both reductions in spending and increases in taxes.

One such exception:

Year GDP Deficit
1994 7085.2 203.19
1995 7414.7 163.95
1996 7838.5 107.43
1997 8332.4 21.89
1998 8793.5 -69.28
1999 9353.5 -125.60
2000 9951.5 -236.24
2001 10286.2 -128.24
2002 10642.3 157.75
2003 11142.1 377.59
2004 11867.8 412.73

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

But only one side runs on a platform of not doing that.

That's what I hate most about republicunts. They claim to be fiscally conservative, but they just aren't. It's a fucking lie. If it wasn't they might actually get my votes.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>And back in the real world, the debt has risen every year since 1957, at
>least according to Treasury.

Except for 1979, 1981 and 2000. (Adjusted federal debt for GDP.)

Adjusting debt for CPI year-on-year, I agree, although 1981 is out (1980, however, is in). You also missed 2001 and 1997 in recent years.

Quote

>Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend
>like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

Agreed, with few exceptions. Responsible fiscal policy requires both reductions in spending and increases in taxes.

Either measure can work in isolation, although the delta would have to be much larger in that case. Cut spending too much and people suffer, raise taxes too much and the rich leave for greener pastures.

The root problem still comes down to Congress being unable to live within it's budget - which, unfortunately, is nothing new regardless of who has the gavel.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

But only one side runs on a platform of not doing that.

That's what I hate most about republicunts. They claim to be fiscally conservative, but they just aren't. It's a fucking lie. If it wasn't they might actually get my votes.

Yeah, I can tell that you're considering it by the way you refer to them.

Pull the other leg, you'll get music.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Except for 1979, 1981 and 2000. (Adjusted federal debt for GDP.)

...

Agreed, with few exceptions. Responsible fiscal policy requires both reductions in spending and increases in taxes.

One such exception:

Year GDP Deficit
1994 7085.2 203.19
1995 7414.7 163.95
1996 7838.5 107.43
1997 8332.4 21.89
1998 8793.5 -69.28
1999 9353.5 -125.60
2000 9951.5 -236.24
2001 10286.2 -128.24
2002 10642.3 157.75
2003 11142.1 377.59
2004 11867.8 412.73

you're adjusting for inflation? That doesn't work for individuals, where you can't presume to have a COLA every year on salary (unless you work for government)

And then you cited deficit pictures that include the yearly Social Security surplus, which really isn't free money.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Deficits are an entirely different subject, and both sides of the aisle spend like drunken sailors in an Olongapo whorehouse.

Except drunken sailors, and sober ones, stop spending when they run out of money.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.