You have not "seen" it because you refuse to look at anything other than your one-sided liberal/socialist outlook on everything.  Tax cuts have been explained to your several times over, but you just keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over all the while calling peope blind supporters of Bush.

IslandDog

The explanations do not hold water. The REASON Bush gave for the tax cuts were to return a SURPLUS that does not exist. The Comptroller General had documented that the added tax revenue from new investment caused by the tax cuts only covers 1/2 the revenue lost from the tax cuts. Thus you have not answered the question. The answer is that since there was NO SURPLUS the tax cuts should have been phased out the way Greenspan and O'Neil recommended!

LOL.

Col do you realize putting something in bold doesn't make you right.  Go back through the years and read the posts about tax cuts from people other than yourself.  You will find your answer there. 

IslandDog

I have looked at what makes up the budget and NOTHING that has been suggested is either possible or will do the job. Most of what makes up the budget are things like National Defense, Interest or entitlements that CAN NOT be cut. In fact Interest and national defense will continue to increase! The truth is people who say balancing the budget is simply a matter of cutting Federal Spending do not know what they are talking about! We can and should the cut Pork but that will not come close to what is required! Anyone that continues to claim that we can balance the budget by cutting spending has not looked at what makes up our spending! This is what makes up the federal spending:


I took a look at the budget go to http://www.federalbudget.com/

There are 24 categories of spending listed. If you were to cut 10% from the first 11 departments you would cut about $10 Billion

# 12 Homeland Security will need more money to secure the border and add the guards needed. That will most likely go up $5 Billion.

# 13 Energy 10% cut 4 Billion

#14 justice They will need more not less to deal with terrorist threats.

#15 Housing 10% cut 5 Billion

#17 Labor cut 10% 5 Billion

#18 Transportation cut 10% 7 billion

# 19 veterans That will go up to deal with tens of thousands of Iraq War Vets. That could go up $10 Billion


# 20 Pers Mgmt That is pensions and can not be cut.


# 21 Agricultural Cut 10% 9 Billion


# 22 DOD That will go up- Troop Surge, increase in active military by 90,000 and replace most of the equipment Up $50 Billion

# 23 Health Increasing population will require MORE not Less- No cut possible


# 24 Interest That will go up about $40 Billion over next two years due to higher debt and interest rates.


That is an increase of about $44 Billion. People who claim they will cut $600-700 Billion from the budget have not looked at what makes up the budget. Try again!

ColGene, it has been proven every time it has been tried, tax cuts increase (not decrease) money collected in federal taxes. The government has MORE money, not less than before the tax cuts.

Now, to your answer to my challenge. You say you would cut pork, I agree, so would I. However, it isn't Prs. Bush who packs a bill with pork, so why do you refuse to put the responsibility on his shoulders. Pork is a huge problem, one that rests completely on the shoulders of the members of the House and Senate.

Next, you refuse to cut whole departments. The dept of Education has no constitutional basis, so why not cut it. The VA medical system has NEVER worked. If it was disolved and our health care providers merely billed the VA for our care, we would get better care and the government would save billions. It wouldn't take an increase in budget if the border patrol were just allowed to actually DO THEIR JOBS. So far all we see is that the agency is more interested in prosecuting agents and giving drug smugglers a free pass.

You talk about how nothing can be cut, but EVERY department and program is a bloated beauracracy, so the first thing that should be done is to have outside, private sector accounting firms audit every department's books... and cut out every position and department that only exists to perpetuate itself. While that is going on, the authority of members of Congress to add pork to a bill needs to be restricted. Here's a simple rule of thumb to start with... if the program only benefits a single state... it has NO constitutional basis, so it gets NO federal money.

But all this is meaningless to you, since all you really care about is sticking it to anyone who you think is more rich than you... which makes you part of the problem. Taxes aren't meant to be a tool for social engineering. You make more than the average American, yet you don't think you should be taxed more. You think that everyone who makes more than you should pay more... I say that anyone who whines on and on about how the "Rich" aren't paying their share should automatically be taxed at 50%... if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, you should just shut it.

ParaTedf2K

I have balanced more budgets then most people and I understand what is needed. The issue is very simple. Our government which includes BOTH Congress and the President have approved a level of spending that they have not funded. You may want to cut out the VA and have no medical care for the Vets that have been injured serving the will of the President and Congress. I do not agree with you.

When the government we have elected approves a level of spending we must insure that the tax revenue is equal to the approved spending. That is what I want done. That will require higher tax levels then are in place today. Bush cut taxes predicated on his claim that we were being over taxed and that we had to return a SURPLUS that he claimed would be $5.7 Trillion in the ten year period from 2002- 2011. There was NO Surplus and we were not being overtaxed at the old rates as Bush Claimed. We need to return to the tax rates before the Bush cuts and see how close we are to a balanced budget, If the budget is still not balanced we must look at cutting the budget or increasing revenue to bring out approved spending and tax revenue into balance. We also need to begin repaying the $9 Trillion in debt because that is the ONLY way the annual interest will be reduced. The least harm to our economy and the majority of Americans is to ask those that have been able to acquire substantial wealth to pay a little more. We do not need anything close to 50% but returning to 39% on incomes over $200,000 would help. Increasing taxes on middle income working families will reduce spending and cause hardship on these group. It has nothing to do with wanting to punish the wealthy but what is BEST for the country overall.

Should I simply keep reposting this link with 40 responses to it that demonstrates that yes, people have looked, found ways to balance the budget every time you try to pretend that argument hasn't been crushed?

http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=139446

 

A minimal tax will not cause "hardship" on the middle class.  They just might not be able to afford that extra iPod or HDTV next year.  You keep advocating taxing one class of people for "the good of the country", that's not the way it works, but you don't seem to understand that.

All this post does is attempt to make excuses for taxing the rich.  Nothing else.

IslandDog The explanations do not hold water.

Maybe in "your" fantasy land they don't hold water.

I have balanced more budgets then most people and I understand what is needed.

And it would seem that "only" you have this knowledge? Seems to me that there are "quite" a few others might know better? Or is that beyond your comprehension?

drmiler

Well given the fact when Bush took over he was given a balanced budget and he has added $3 trillion on NEW debt in 6 years, he is not one that knows how to balance the budget!

Dragional

I used your site and the problem, given assumption that reflect reality such as that Military spending will increase, the deficit got worse. Nothing you have said alters the fact that we have approved spending of about $600 Billion MORE then we are taxing!

I also noticed the model you sighted only counts NET Interest. That means it does not consider the interest we are paying to Social Security and Medicare. Last year we borrowed $224 Billion from them and had to pay interest on that as well. You model ignores that interest. It also assumes that inflation does not exist if you use the no increase option. That is not realistic since so many of the items contain salaries that will go up at least by inflation. If you select the 10% option that is far above inflation rates we have been experiencing.

Bottom Line—We have NO chance to balance the budget simply with any combination of cuts that are possible or would be acceptable to the American Voter. Much of the budget can not be cut like the interest. Many other elements would not be acceptable to the majority of Voters. Time for those with most of the wealth to pony up a little more and invest is a sound financial future. If we allow the situation to get too far out of control, the remedy will be a bitter pill for the wealthy and not so wealthy in our country!

drmiler

Well given the fact when Bush took over he was given a balanced budget and he has added $3 trillion on NEW debt in 6 years, he is not one that knows how to balance the budget!

Dragional

I used your site and the problem, given assumption that reflect reality such as that Military spending will increase, the deficit got worse. Nothing you have said alters the fact that we have approved spending of about $600 Billion MORE then we are taxing!

I also noticed the model you sighted only counts NET Interest. That means it does not consider the interest we are paying to Social Security and Medicare. Last year we borrowed $224 Billion from them and had to pay interest on that as well. You model ignores that interest. It also assumes that inflation does not exist if you use the no increase option. That is not realistic since so many of the items contain salaries that will go up at least by inflation. If you select the 10% option that is far above inflation rates we have been experiencing.

Bottom Line—We have NO chance to balance the budget simply with any combination of cuts that are possible or would be acceptable to the American Voter. Much of the budget can not be cut like the interest. Many other elements would not be acceptable to the majority of Voters. Time for those with most of the wealth to pony up a little more and invest is a sound financial future. If we allow the situation to get too far out of control, the remedy will be a bitter pill for the wealthy and not so wealthy in our country!

No one has given an answer as to we have tax cuts to return a Surplus that NEVER existed?

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent (lie) what I said. Sorry to burst your stupidity bubble, but I never said that we shouldn't have medical care for those injured in war. What I am saying is that the VA medical system has been broken for decades. Most of the problem is that it's a bloated beauracracy. Like all bloated beauracracies, it is incapable of treating vets with any real standard of care. Perpetuating itself is its #1 goal. Why should I have to drive 70 miles to wait all day long just to get ex-rays that were ordered 3 months ago? That is what YOU consider "care" for us vets? But since you didn't give a crap about the medical care of the troops in your command when you were a commander, there's no reason for me to imagine you care about the vets now... unless of course you can use them to feed your Hate Bush fetish.

Eliminate the midrange gasoline. The federal regulations on this alone would save 100 million a year. It will also make the gas cheaper because the refineries would not be forced to make a midrange gas that few people use and is not recommended by car manufacturers but is demanded by environmentalist.
Eliminate the national endowment of the arts another 117 million a year. Subtotal of 217 million
Welfare reduce it by 70% meaning that all the people on welfare are people that need it rather than people to support the federal employees that administer the welfare system comes to 12 billion a year. Subtotal of 12 billion 217 million
Eliminate the DEA, 324 billion saved there each year. 336 billion 217 million saved this year. Getting close to the political hacks number of 700 billion.
Domestic Emergency Funding should only be used for real emergencies instead of hurricanes and floods that will save the nation 530 billion dollars a year. Subtotal of 866 billion 217 million dollars saved

I did not touch the important stuff like Medicare or social security or defense and I have already saved almost 900 billion dollars without hurting anyone. And those are just the government agencies off the top of my head that don’t do anything useful. If I had time to do some proper research instead of using figures that are at least two years old meaning that they are spending more than what is listed, I could have taken down at least 2.4 trillion dollars but I only limit my time to each reply to 5 minutes. What I can find and type in that time is all I use. Times up.

Parated2K

You were the one that was talking about what to cut from the budget. If you cut the VA and provided the service some other way you would still have the expense and the question of would there be other facilities capable of handling the vets. I have no problem seeking an alternative way to provide the care but we are still going to see a BIG increase in that cost in the budget given the number of injured from a war that did not have to be fought and a WAR that has not made our country safer!