SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (44818)8/16/2010 6:58:10 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
The interest on the debt

1 - Is spending.

and

2 - Wouldn't exist without the previous spending, or even just without the previous spending being so high. Since 2000, real-per capita spending has gone up by something like 60%. Nominal spending has gone up by over 110%. Reduce our federal government spending by 60% and we have a surplus (maybe not if you do it all at once, because the shock from such a big cut in a soft economy, but if we had done it over the years).

Which is exactly what I already said: "OF COURSE they [tax reductions] are completely affordable! Just so long as one CUTS SPENDING to make up for whatever revenue will be lost

I agree with that. But that's not what I said.

Whether or not you cut spending, the tax cuts are not a cost. They impact the deficit, but that isn't the same thing. My income is lower than it was a couple of years ago, that doesn't mean that my costs are higher. Its the same thing with the government. That's why I say that tax cuts are not a cost, and "the only cost is the spending".

Depending on the specifics of the tax cut, there can be another way that they are not a cost, they might not reduce revenue, so even if you count a reduction in revenue as a cost, they still would not be a cost, but that wasn't my point (and often isn't true). My point is that costs and reduced income are too different things. A reduced income reduces your ability to afford things, but is not itself something that you have to afford.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News