Just heard on the radio that the deficit was cut in half again due to tax revenue created..?

Question

BY THE TAX CUTS.... how do the libs explain this?

Nick...

Yes I do... but progress on either front is a good thing... yes?

Clinton created a false budget surpluss by destroying our military and intelligence communities...

And the source was CBS news...

Answer 1

Dude.
The libs on here don't have a clue about debt and deficit, how they relate, and how one can affect the other. Nor do they understand the philosophy of, tax cuts=more business investment=more business output=more jobs=more income tax revenue=more business tax revenue. All done without hitting our pockets. Its practically a no brainer.

The debt, the one that the libs are whining about? Is a cumulation of the deficits through the years. In our case probably since around Sept. 11, 2001 to present. The deficit is the amount it would take to completely balance the budget for that year. In other words, if we had 0 deficit, our budget for that year would also come out 0.
So the very fact that the deficit has been decreased by 50% is in direct correlation to higher tax revenue. Now I've asked libs this on several occasions.
No one can deny that we all have gotten tax breaks. Some big, some not so big. Point is we got them. So my question to them is, that being the case, then how do they explain the deficit decreasing if taxes weren't increased? Of course then they start going into the debt VS deficit thing. I then give up.

At least we get it.

The other thing that irks me is they talk about, well, well Clinton had a surplus. Yeah so. He did it by basically destroying the military. The one that the libs now bytch about being stretched too thin. My thought was this. That being a surplus. If somebody like Gore had been elected. We never would have seen that money again. It isn't theirs to begin with. It was ours. Libs are more prone to instant gratification. Sure, we could increase FICA to 30% and the federal debt would get paid, leaving all of us in deep personal debt. If Reagan's plan had been allowed to continue for another 10 to 15 years, we would have also had a surplus, but in a stronger more effective way. It takes longer, but the investment is much more worth it. It's kind of like buying stocks. Do you buy hi return high risk stocks, taking a chance on losing everything in a quick flash? Or do you buy low return low risk stocks that have a steady increase in value and don't bounce around like a yo-yo?

Okay, I'll get off my hi horse now.

Answer 2

It relies upon, for sure decrease sales coming in will create even larger deficits if spending isn't decrease. i'd not do some thing that ought to diminish sales at this aspect. The economic gadget ought to augment back earlier sales can develop. What can make that ensue? some thing that receives more effective economic interest going. per chance easing up on regulations for small business organization. reducing the operating fee for small business organization (ought to correctly be tax cuts). more effective available credit for small business organization. a number of those issues ought to help.

Answer 3

Deficit can only be decreased by spending less than is earned. You can't increase revenue by decreasing it. That would be akin to saying you make more by taking a pay cut.

My guess would be that the budget deficit this year is only half of what it was last year.

Answer 4

Source?

Considering Bush has run the deficit up to historic heights and keeps asking for more money, it is difficult to see how he has done this. Clinton created a budget surplus, so it can be done: but Bush hasn't really been very economical...

Answer 5

excellent, but do you realize the defict is not the debt

yes it's progress which is good, but until there is 0 deficit, the debt is still increasing, but I agree progress made to that end is certainly good

Answer 6

They will credit evereything EXCEPT the tax cuts. Facts just don't matter to them.