chiefsfaninkc: Tax cuts don't need to be paid for. If you believe Tax breaks need to be paid for then you must also believe the government owns every dollar you make and only by its good graces do you get to keep any of the money you work for.

Semantics but as the tax cuts were defined as temporary, you do in fact have to temporarily account for that loss of revenue in the budget. Another way of saying that would be to "pay" for them.

If tax cuts are made permanent, "paying for them" is less appropriate of a term. Or, if Dubya would have permanently cut spending to account for the loss in revenue, you could no longer say you had to pay for them. Neither applies.

As they were defined by Dubya as temporary relief/stimulus, they do in fact have to be paid for.

I can't wait until Turtle McConnell gets his gibbery gullet up to the mic sometime this week to try and paint this whole thing as bad news for Obama.

This is why I really can't consider myself a Republican anymore. I'm for what are supposed platforms of the GOP: limited govt., economic freedom (with restraints on Crony Capitalism and unfettered corruption), low taxes (but not ridiculously low, and Grover Norquist can go Bachmann a corndog) and kind of more libertarian on social issues.

However, the GOP has become so ass backwards whenever someone with a "D" after their name says something, they immediately howl, using the same arguments that the Dems use. It's not about a consistent ideology. It's about staying in power and enriching friends and donors.

And the most annoying thing is "well Ronald Reagan..."

Get off Zombie Reagan's nuts. He's not Jesus 2.

Fark politics, and fark the GOP. I'm not a Republican anymore.

/damn sure not a Dem, though

chiefsfaninkc: Tax cuts don't need to be paid for. If you believe Tax breaks need to be paid for then you must also believe the government owns every dollar you make and only by its good graces do you get to keep any of the money you work for.

Tax cuts are a loss of revenue. If I decide to leave my employment to go get a PhD, my total revenue will go down by 60% or so. In order to accomodate that loss of revenue, I have to cut out things from my budget. Whatever terminology or semantics you want to use, I have to "pay for" that revenue cut. So, saying that tax cuts ned to be paid for is legitimate. Revenue loss must be offset - same thing, different words.

Descartes: Why would we offset not increasing taxes?

If the tax cuts go away, revenue goes up.
if the tax cuts stay, revenue stays the same.
There's nothing to offset.

Just the two wars that were run off the official books. Yep, NOTHING to offset.

/this is why the GOP is going to lose in 2012, complete dishonesty and greed.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Skanque: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Cut defense by 1%. Problem solved.

I would say by like 25%. Then we would be on the fast track to prosperity!!!

Tiny American flags for all!!!

[www.veritiesandvagaries.com image 640x499]

I was thinking specifically of the student loan offset dog and pony show. Personally I'd like to see defense cut 5% per year for ten years.

Especially because we get jackshiat for the money on the R&D side. Hmmm, a super fighter that pilots won't fly. A stealth destroyer that can't defend itself. A missile defense system that doesn't work. Ospreys that fall from the sky left and right. An engine for the f35 that nobody who matters wanted. It goes on and on, our taxpayer dollars go to companies that simply can't deliver on contracts properly.

Cut all new R&D expenditures and do proper audits on existing projects. Of course the Hill would probably go up like a volcano when all those meal tickets get punched, but I am willing to watch that circus. That many corporations shouldn't depend so much on the government dole.