On 10/29/2010 10:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Jeff wrote:

On
Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

Deficits occur when you spend more than you have. Period no matter the
party. Taking the tax cuts out of the equation, if you have a certain
amount of money coming in, and you know you are only going to have a
certain amount of money coming in, then you reduce your spending to that
level. Math 101.
The thing about tax cuts and the "cost" is the underlying
assumption that the government is some how entitled to a certain amount
of money. That is the most disingenuous part of the whole discussion to
my mind.
The government is only entitled to the amount of tax money that I
can legally avoid not sending under the current laws. Not one penny
more. The fact that the Congress (again pretty much independent of the
party with power over the purse strings) refuses to reign in spending to
that level is a shame on the electorate .

I have nothing against cutting spending.

Here is the Fed Budget for 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I'd be interested in seeing where you would cut 800 billion from
discretionary spending. Feel free to elaborate.

Jeff