What would be your budget plan?

[^_^ 5,021]

@ invading Mexico

[scandal 951]

@ invading Mexico

There are a bunch more :rofl: in this thread

[웃 910]

You can try and alter revenue all you want, but as I said, it's ingenuous to dare say that the tax cuts caused anything. Raising and lowering revenues is not something you can calculate in any way, shape, or form. It can only be guessed upon.

The one factor that you can control, is spending.

That is like saying "No, you cannot say that raising spending by $300 billion dollars increased spending"

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That is like saying "No, you cannot say that raising spending by $300 billion dollars increased spending"

If you understood what a balanced budget was, then you wouldn't be laughing.

You can only SPEND what money you have. If you don't have that money, then you shouldn't be increasing your spending, you should be decreasing it.

The idiots in Washington have this idea that they can magically raise taxes and they'll have all the income they'll ever need. It doesn't work that way, just as lowering taxes doesn't work that way (though trends of the last century show otherwise in a stable economy). You can raise, you can lower taxes all you want, but you'll never know what your revenue stream is until you start collecting from those who you are able to collect from. Those who you can collect from can increase in numbers and they can decrease in numbers. The funny part being, the more people working, the more money the government will collect either way. So then you have to ask, why raise taxes? Why not let those who have started earning a living keep paying less where maybe they can keep their income and save it? Why be a greedy government and demand money that you didn't earn as government?

The left and the right both like to tout the balanced budget at the end of the Clinton era. Well, had we not increased spending out the butt in the past 11 years, then we'd be sitting here just fine with the "Bush/Obama tax cuts." - Had the spending not increased, then the revenue actually increased after the tax cuts happened and we would have been paying off some of the previous debt... Remember, even Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax down. People seem to forget these little tidbits.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If you understood what a balanced budget was, then you wouldn't be laughing.

You can only SPEND what money you have. If you don't have that money, then you shouldn't be increasing your spending, you should be decreasing it.

The idiots in Washington have this idea that they can magically raise taxes and they'll have all the income they'll ever need. It doesn't work that way, just as lowering taxes doesn't work that way (though trends of the last century show otherwise in a stable economy). You can raise, you can lower taxes all you want, but you'll never know what your revenue stream is until you start collecting from those who you are able to collect from. Those who you can collect from can increase in numbers and they can decrease in numbers. The funny part being, the more people working, the more money the government will collect either way. So then you have to ask, why raise taxes? Why not let those who have started earning a living keep paying less where maybe they can keep their income and save it? Why be a greedy government and demand money that you didn't earn as government?

The left and the right both like to tout the balanced budget at the end of the Clinton era. Well, had we not increased spending out the butt in the past 11 years, then we'd be sitting here just fine with the "Bush/Obama tax cuts." - Had the spending not increased, then the revenue actually increased after the tax cuts happened and we would have been paying off some of the previous debt... Remember, even Clinton cut the Capital Gains tax down. People seem to forget these little tidbits.

I thought they called you in to straighten everything out. Why are you still wasting your brilliant mind and talents here?