budget cuts...

[Art]

Originally posted by Larry

Art,

I hate to break it to you, but the defecit is the difference between revenues and expendatures, and the Government (mostly Congress) has controll of both numbers.

While it certainly gan be argued, say, that allowing "Bush's" tax cuts to expire (the way Bush himself keeps budgeting) might (or might not) be desirable, it certainly can't be claimed (despite your patronizing attempts to do so) that the option doesn't exist.

A myth is still a myth, no matter how insultingly it's repeated.

I know you know this.

Larry,

How is it you know the deficit is the difference between revenue and expense, which is exactly what I'm telling you, yet somehow not understand that deficits are caused by spending more than you have?

Bush does not intend his cuts to expire. He's talking about making them permanent. The Bush tax cuts have NOTHING to do with spending more than you bring in. I'm being patronizing to you because you're being dumb if you think spending more than you bring in doesn't cause deficits.

I think you're being ludicrous if your proposal is instead of actually controlling spending we simply allow the government to take more from us. But, what if I were to tell you that since the tax cuts, revenue to the government has actually gone up? Would you believe the government took more money in in 2004 than ever before?

To be fair, I don't have those numbers as they aren't published yet. I'm just asking if you'd be surprised that revenue has increased, just not as fast as spending.

It is not, however, a myth to continue insulting people who don't get the fact that you can ONLY SPEND your way to deficit. You proved this by suggesting you realize deficit is the difference between revenue and expense. So, you know spending causes deficits. Nothing else causes deficits.

If you make less in your life, do you just shrug and assign yourself more money by fiat? You have that power? Or do you adjust your budget according to what you have? What do YOU do as an individual, Larry?

I think it's noble of you to be willing to give more of your money to help with those deficits. Have you sent in extra funds to the government for this cause?

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art

Larry,

How is it you know the deficit is the difference between revenue and expense, which is exactly what I'm telling you, yet somehow not understand that deficits are caused by spending more than you have?

Bush does not intend his cuts to expire. He's talking about making them permanent. The Bush tax cuts have NOTHING to do with spending more than you bring in. I'm being patronizing to you because you're being dumb if you think spending more than you bring in doesn't cause deficits.

I think you're being ludicrous if your proposal is instead of actually controlling spending we simply allow the government to take more from us. But, what if I were to tell you that since the tax cuts, revenue to the government has actually gone up? Would you believe the government took more money in in 2004 than ever before?

To be fair, I don't have those numbers as they aren't published yet. I'm just asking if you'd be surprised that revenue has increased, just not as fast as spending.

It is not, however, a myth to continue insulting people who don't get the fact that you can ONLY SPEND your way to deficit. You proved this by suggesting you realize deficit is the difference between revenue and expense. So, you know spending causes deficits. Nothing else causes deficits.

If you make less in your life, do you just shrug and assign yourself more money by fiat? You have that power? Or do you adjust your budget according to what you have? What do YOU do as an individual, Larry?

I think it's noble of you to be willing to give more of your money to help with those deficits. Have you sent in extra funds to the government for this cause?

Y'know, I think we're engaged in two conversations, here, on two different threads, where the same argument is being used on both threads.

Here, you're saying that, given two numbers on a piece of paper, if one number is larger than the other, then clearly the "fault" lies entirely with one number, and the other number is completely blameless. Clearly, the only way to change the situation is to change one of the numbers. (And let's throw in a comparason to a different situation, in which the other number isn't under the person's controll, and try to imply that this means that number can't be controlled in the case under discussion.)

In the discussion of bankrupcy, you're (it is you, right? I haven't checked) claiming that, given a contract with two signatures at the bottom, and given that there's now a problem arising from that contract, that clearly the entire blame rests exclusively with one of the names at the bottom. The other name bears no responsibility whatsoever. Obviously, given a situation in which Group A (lenders) are making record profits under the existing system, and Group B (people with bad credit) are going bankrupt in record numbers, what's needed is to change the law to give more power at the bargaining table to Group A.

[Thiebear]

Spending Cuts or

Smaller Rise or

Larger Rise

I don't care: If you have committees that say over the years this or that government agency has produced nothing or is a duplicate/triplicate of that branch... End it or Justify it.

Then take said money and give it to other branches that are Doing something, or have a reachable goal.

[Art]

Originally posted by Larry

Y'know, I think we're engaged in two conversations, here, on two different threads, where the same argument is being used on both threads.

Here, you're saying that, given two numbers on a piece of paper, if one number is larger than the other, then clearly the "fault" lies entirely with one number, and the other number is completely blameless. Clearly, the only way to change the situation is to change one of the numbers. (And let's throw in a comparason to a different situation, in which the other number isn't under the person's controll, and try to imply that this means that number can't be controlled in the case under discussion.)

In the discussion of bankrupcy, you're (it is you, right? I haven't checked) claiming that, given a contract with two signatures at the bottom, and given that there's now a problem arising from that contract, that clearly the entire blame rests exclusively with one of the names at the bottom. The other name bears no responsibility whatsoever. Obviously, given a situation in which Group A (lenders) are making record profits under the existing system, and Group B (people with bad credit) are going bankrupt in record numbers, what's needed is to change the law to give more power at the bargaining table to Group A.

Yes, Larry, here I'm saying you have two numbers on a piece of paper and if one number is larger than the other, then clearly the fault lies with that number being LARGER than the other if one is concerned about deficits.

Clearly, the only way to change the situation is to keep one number from being bigger than the other number. And, since revenue is not a fixed number, the only number Congress CAN fix is spending. Revenue adjusts based on people working, the economic strength, etc. In fact, revenue the government takes in is at an all time high. So, that number has gone up.

Just not as much as the other number. And, one can not run a deficit if that one number is smaller than the other number. Therefore, clearly, spending causes debt. Again, YOU know this. You know this from YOUR life. There are two numbers in your life too, right? How do you get into debt? Is this really a hard concept for liberals to embrace that spending causes deficits?

It's astounding the lengths some of you will go to support a political leaning. If you can't even get your mind wrapped around a very simple fact, it probably means you are simply unwilling to actually address problems.

Spending causes debt.

As for the other conversation, lenders don't cause debt. Spending causes it. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the bankruptcy thread in that my position there is people who willingly take on debt and spend it should pay it back when they have the money to pay it back.

You're obviously against this. It's a shame you are so partisan that you can't even wrap your mind around the concept of people with money paying off their debts. And, that's exactly the concept you continue to be against here AND with regard to the government, by simply assigning blame anywhere but where blame goes.

And that's to where you KNOW it goes. Spending.

[Ignatius J.]

Art,

why not win this argument in the rational way?

Just say the government already takes more money in than it should, therefore it should vut spending?

Why all this absurdity about how the only way to eliminate the deficit is to cut spending? that's false.

Congree could declare that taxes are going to be raised 15 percent across the board, move to canada if you don't like it. Problem solved in the short term.

Now, underneath what you are saying are some good points, why not use those?

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Art,

why not win this argument in the rational way?

Just say the government already takes more money in than it should, therefore it should vut spending?

Why all this absurdity about how the only way to eliminate the deficit is to cut spending? that's false.

Congree could declare that taxes are going to be raised 15 percent across the board, move to canada if you don't like it. Problem solved in the short term.

Now, underneath what you are saying are some good points, why not use those?

Because if one doesn't grasp the fundamental logic that a deficit is ONLY caused by spending more than one has, that person will never understand what is actually LESS rational -- for a liberal. That being the government takes in more than it EVER has, which is way too much, and yet, we run a deficit because we continue spending more than even THAT record amount.

A deficit only exists by spending more than you have. The only way to eliminate deficits is to spend less than you have. There's no other way to do it.

[Ignatius J.]

Yeah, but your implication is wrong.

Let's do a little comparison that you love.

I'm a poor student, but I'm really smart, as evidenced by my brilliant solution over in the math thread.....

So let's imagine that I'm spending way more than I take in, several thousand dollars a month. (You like comparing the federal government to a person, so this should be right up your alley)

According to you my only options are to cut my spending or incur debt......

and you'd be wrong!

I could go work for a finance firm in new york any time I want and make six figures easily if I decide that's want I want to do. And poof, there goes my debt.

Your underlying points are right though art, the government does take in too much money already, and raising taxes isn't a good idea. But your arguments look more like a testament to your willpower than your logic.

I guess it's just the mathematician in me, you're right, but It's like you don't know why you're right.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ignatius J.

Yeah, but your implication is wrong.

Let's do a little comparison that you love.

I'm a poor student, but I'm really smart, as evidenced by my brilliant solution over in the math thread.....

So let's imagine that I'm spending way more than I take in, several thousand dollars a month. (You like comparing the federal government to a person, so this should be right up your alley)

According to you my only options are to cut my spending or incur debt......

and you'd be wrong!

I could go work for a finance firm in new york any time I want and make six figures easily if I decide that's want I want to do. And poof, there goes my debt.

Your underlying points are right though art, the government does take in too much money already, and raising taxes isn't a good idea. But your arguments look more like a testament to your willpower than your logic.

I guess it's just the mathematician in me, you're right, but It's like you don't know why you're right.

Except this doesn't alter the fundamental point that you can only incur debt when you spend more than you have. If you have more, and continue spending less, you won't have a debt.

Nothing has changed here except you may no longer immediately spend more than you have and your debt will go down because you no longer spend more than you have. Having more is meaningless if you're not spending less than you have.

This has nothing to do with willpower, Yomar. It's a simple fact. You CAN NOT have debt if you don't spend more than you make. It's THAT simple. There is no point that counters that. Yours simply reinforces it.

Spending causes debt. There is no other position one can reasonably take.

And once everyone seems to get that you can only run a deficit by spending more than you have, you can drill down to other areas of the discussion that ultimately lead, safely, back to the government is too damn big.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

Because if one doesn't grasp the fundamental logic that a deficit is ONLY caused by spending more than one has, that person will never understand what is actually LESS rational -- for a liberal. That being the government takes in more than it EVER has, which is way too much, and yet, we run a deficit because we continue spending more than even THAT record amount.

A deficit only exists by spending more than you have. The only way to eliminate deficits is to spend less than you have. There's no other way to do it.

:hammer: You know that's not true. There are always two ways for any business to eliminate a deficit. For small businesses with relatively fixed costs, like a hot dog stand or a two-man consulting company, the only way to do it is often to try to increase revenues. You can eliminate a deficit two ways: spending less than you have OR making more than you spend.

Consider the last time we had consistent balanced budgets. There were some spending cuts, of course, but during that same period of time, Clinton raised taxes and the economy was growing, which enlarge the tax base. I think most people would agree that the during the 90's, it was increased revenue, and not decreased spending, that was primarily responsible for the balanced budgets.

...I'm not saying I don't agree with you that the government is spending too much, but you're trying to argue a point that is simply not true.

[Larry]

I'm pretty much with Ignatius.

I'm at least willing to consider that the "Bush cuts" are a Good Thing. (My final opinion, like many things will depend on the details as they eventually get worked out.) I've already pointed out that I think merely cutting agricultural supports qualifies as a Good Start.

Now, one thing I'm waiting to see is: Does Bush actually intend these cuts to occurr? Or is this simply a "proposal" that he knows won't fly (and he has no intention of pushing for), that's being made simply so he can say "It's not my fault"?

And I do have a problem with the simple tactic of declaring 75% of the budget (and all of the tax cuts) as being non-existant, and simply declaring "Gee, I had to disconnect that lady's respirator, because the entire rest of the federal budget doesn't exist".

[Art]

Originally posted by DjTj

:hammer: You know that's not true. There are always two ways for any business to eliminate a deficit. For small businesses with relatively fixed costs, like a hot dog stand or a two-man consulting company, the only way to do it is often to try to increase revenues. You can eliminate a deficit two ways: spending less than you have OR making more than you spend.

Consider the last time we had consistent balanced budgets. There were some spending cuts, of course, but during that same period of time, Clinton raised taxes and the economy was growing, which enlarge the tax base. I think most people would agree that the during the 90's, it was increased revenue, and not decreased spending, that was primarily responsible for the balanced budgets.

...I'm not saying I don't agree with you that the government is spending too much, but you're trying to argue a point that is simply not true.

Now you people are starting to irritate me.

DJ, what is not true about deficit coming from spending more than you have? Making more than you spend simply means spending less than you make. They are the same thing. How you are using it to support your position is odd, since, it further explains mine.

You can ONLY have a deficit by spending more than you make. If you make more than you spend, you don't have a deficit. The key here is what you spend. If it's lower than what you make, you have no deficit. If it's higher, you have a deficit.

The sky is blue. Honest.

2+2=4. Still. Honest.

And, you can't have a deficit if you don't spend more than you make.

In the 90s what accounted for balanced budgets was pay-go rules that required a balanced budget.

The only person arguing a point that isn't true, appears to be those who suggest you can run a deficit by spending less than you make. Please, do me this favor.

Explain to me how it's possible to have a deficit when you spend less than you bring in. Once you do that, I'll admit I'm arguing a false position. If you can't do that, will you admit you are arguing a false position?

[Funkyalligator]

Currently the government is extremely inefficient across the board you have tons of civil service people that are completely incompetent and barely do anything worthwhile in their jobs....it is next to impossible to fire someone once they get into the government...so they just keep getting promoted and the incompetence continues up the ladder

[DjTj]

True:

Originally posted by Art

You can ONLY have a deficit by spending more than you make. If you make more than you spend, you don't have a deficit. The key here is what you spend. If it's lower than what you make, you have no deficit. If it's higher, you have a deficit.

True:

Originally posted by Art

And, you can't have a deficit if you don't spend more than you make.

Not True:

Originally posted by Art

The only way to eliminate deficits is to spend less than you have. There's no other way to do it.

Not True:

Originally posted by Art

Clearly, the only way to change the situation is to keep one number from being bigger than the other number. And, since revenue is not a fixed number, the only number Congress CAN fix is spending.

True:

Originally posted by Art

2+2=4. Still. Honest.

4-2=2. Also True.

Deficits are only caused when you spend more than you make. Deficits are only caused when you make less than you spend. These are equivalent statements, and they are both true.

The argument we're having is over the solution, and I think people are simply trying to say that there are TWO solutions. You can make more OR you can spend less.

You are right in that it is easier for Congress to spend less, because there are more projections on the revenue side than the expense side. However, there are projections on both sides - projects run over cost just as economic forecasts are wrong. Neither tax revenues nor spending can be completely fixed.

I would agree that reducing spending is the BETTER and the EASIER solution. However, I would not agree that is the ONLY solution.

[chiefhogskin48]

I don't see how Art's position is assailable. You run deficits because you spend more than you bring in. It's pretty simple. There are various reasons behind deficit spending, but the reality of the situation doesn't change.

Those of you whose position is always "just raise taxes"... it's easy to say, but tough when YOUR paycheck is further butchered like mine is so that we can fund agro subsidies, a study on swan breeding habits, an art show, or other such bunk. If you want to donate money to those causes, fine, no one's stopping you, but keep your hands out of my wallet.

[Art]

DJ,

Explain how there's another way to eliminate deficits other than spending less than you have. You said that's not true. Your response, of course, will be to have more. And, that's fine. But does it alter the fundamental premise that you can have more all you want, but if you don't spend less than you have, you won't eliminate deficits?

Do you seriously not get this simple statement of fact?

What you have can increase or decrease any amount you want. Deficits can only be eliminated if you spend less than what you have. It can't decrease any other way. Deficits can't exist but by spending more. They can't disappear but by spending less.

Now, explain how the only number Congress can fix is not spending. You said that's not true. Can Congress, tomorrow, tell you exactly how much revenue taxes will bring in? No. Congress can't fix the amount of revenue it brings in. It's impossible for Congress to do that. It can estimate. But it can't fix the amount.

Therefore, the only thing Congress CAN fix is the amount it spends. Spending is a number ONLY Congress comes up with. It isn't variable. It's defined by what Congress signs off on. So, you have assigned untruth to two clear truths.

Unless you are going to explain to me that Congress can fix the amount of revenue it brings in. I'm dying to see how you explain that.

As you just said, and seem inclined to believe because you said it, deficits are only caused when you spend more than you make. Deficits are only caused when you make less than you spend. These ARE absolutely equivalent statements and BOTH are true because they are BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING.

Seriously, DJ, I've come to respect a lot of what you say on this board.

Are you just playing the idiot in this thread for some greater effect I'm not seeing the purpose of?

The argument we're having is not over a solution. We haven't APPROACHED a solution discussion. I'm still getting you to explain how you can spend less than you make and run a deficit. Deficits ONLY come from spending beyond what you make.

I can't even get you to agree with that.

And, frankly, I'm stumped.

I can't move on to a solution discussion until you at least show a grasp that you understand -- and since YOU HAVE SAID YOU UNDERSTAND I ASSUME YOU DO -- that deficits occur from spending more than you make.

The ONLY solution to eliminate deficits, therefore, is to spend less than you take in. If you take in more, you STILL have to spend LESS than you take in. It's not hard, DJ. I promise. This isn't some vast trick to get you to become conservative. It's a simple fact.

No matter what you bring in, if you spend beyond that, you have a deficit. So, spending less means you don't.

[Art]

Originally posted by chiefhogskin48

I don't see how Art's position is assailable. You run deficits because you spend more than you bring in. It's pretty simple. There are various reasons behind deficit spending, but the reality of the situation doesn't change.

Those of you whose position is always "just raise taxes"... it's easy to say, but tough when YOUR paycheck is further butchered like mine is so that we can fund agro subsidies, a study on swan breeding habits, an art show, or other such bunk. If you want to donate money to those causes, fine, no one's stopping you, but keep your hands out of my wallet.

It's tremendously simple. It is the most simple premise in the world.

If you have X and you spend Y if Y is more, you have a deficit, if Y is less you don't. If X increases and Y is less, you don't have a deficit. If X increases and Y is more, you do. If X lowers, and Y is more, you have a deficit. If X lowers, and Y lowers below it, you don't.

Y always has to be less than X.

Always.

In every scenario to eliminate deficits. Therefore, Y is what you control to eliminate deficits.

As an individual you don't control X. As a government you don't control X. X is variable. It changes over time, in good times and bad. X has grown to record amounts, but Y keeps going up greater amounts. Until you understand you have to make Y less than you expect X to be, you'll never remove deficits.

I'm just stunned that otherwise bright people are simply so lost in space here that they are pretending not to get this.

I get that a number of you REALLY like proving me wrong, so you appear in threads you hope to do just that. But, when I have you people openly stating that you can eliminate deficits without keeping spending below revenue, I think you're taking the wrong thread to try to accomplish the goal.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

DJ,

Explain how there's another way to eliminate deficits other than spending less than you have. You said that's not true. Your response, of course, will be to have more. And, that's fine. But does it alter the fundamental premise that you can have more all you want, but if you don't spend less than you have, you won't eliminate deficits?

Do you seriously not get this simple statement of fact?

As Ignatius said, we can always eliminate the deficit in any single year by increasing taxes to 50%. That is one other solution. It is clearly not a good idea, but I am simply arguing that another solution exists, not that I would support it.

Originally posted by Art

What you have can increase or decrease any amount you want. Deficits can only be eliminated if you spend less than what you have. It can't decrease any other way. Deficits can't exist but by spending more. They can't disappear but by spending less.

Now, explain how the only number Congress can fix is not spending. You said that's not true. Can Congress, tomorrow, tell you exactly how much revenue taxes will bring in? No. Congress can't fix the amount of revenue it brings in. It's impossible for Congress to do that. It can estimate. But it can't fix the amount.

Therefore, the only thing Congress CAN fix is the amount it spends. Spending is a number ONLY Congress comes up with. It isn't variable. It's defined by what Congress signs off on. So, you have assigned untruth to two clear truths.

Unless you are going to explain to me that Congress can fix the amount of revenue it brings in. I'm dying to see how you explain that.

A large portion of the federal budget is mandatory spending rather than discretionary spending. Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and many other federal outlays are determined by demographics and economics rather than what Congress signs off on. Just as taxes are based on projections, this portion of our budget is based on projections. Neither side of the equation can be reliably fixed.

You are right in that the revenue side is much less predictable than the expense side, which is why reduced spending is the BETTER solution. However, it does not mean it is the ONLY solution.

Originally posted by Art

As you just said, and seem inclined to believe because you said it, deficits are only caused when you spend more than you make. Deficits are only caused when you make less than you spend. These ARE absolutely equivalent statements and BOTH are true because they are BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING.

Seriously, DJ, I've come to respect a lot of what you say on this board.

Are you just playing the idiot in this thread for some greater effect I'm not seeing the purpose of?

To some extent yes, I am playing the idiot because I feel like you're arguing with people over a silly point of logic, when what we really should be arguing about is the best solution, not about what the only solution is...

I guess I just want you to concede that it is possible to eliminate the deficit in any one year by raising taxes considerably. Not that it is a good idea, but that it is possible.

Originally posted by Art

The argument we're having is not over a solution. We haven't APPROACHED a solution discussion. I'm still getting you to explain how you can spend less than you make and run a deficit. Deficits ONLY come from spending beyond what you make.

I can't even get you to agree with that.

And, frankly, I'm stumped.

I can't move on to a solution discussion until you at least show a grasp that you understand -- and since YOU HAVE SAID YOU UNDERSTAND I ASSUME YOU DO -- that deficits occur from spending more than you make.

The ONLY solution to eliminate deficits, therefore, is to spend less than you take in. If you take in more, you STILL have to spend LESS than you take in. It's not hard, DJ. I promise. This isn't some vast trick to get you to become conservative. It's a simple fact.

No matter what you bring in, if you spend beyond that, you have a deficit. So, spending less means you don't.

Even if you make more, you still have to spend less than that. Even if you spend less, you still have to make more than that.

You're saying that even if we raise taxes, we can create a deficit by spending too much. However, it's also true that even if we were to cut spending in half, we would run a deficit it we cut taxes too much.

I just want this argument to be about which is the BETTER solution, and I agree with you that reduced spending is far superior to raising taxes. Stating that you have the ONLY solution detracts from your argument.

[Thiebear]

So let me get this straight.

your example:

You spend thousands more a month than you take in.. You getting a job in N.Y. for more money.

SO like the government get more money but now needs a NY apartment AND live in NY Cola... thus now still living above his means AND now miserable for taking a job he sadly HAD to take because of illogical spending..

What a sad story... kinda like our current administration if they done fix this mess...

[Darth Tater]

Government will probably spend any increased revenue. Further, if the government found we could increase the revenue by increasing the tax rate, that increase would not be temporary. Also, a large increase in the tax rate would most likely reduce revenue while cutting spending ALWAYS ensures deficit reduction . Finally, cost cutting ALWAYS provides more 'bang' than any other method. Not to mention the fact that onerous tax rates are destructive to property rights and therefore destructive to freedom.

[Art]

Originally posted by DjTj

As Ignatius said, we can always eliminate the deficit in any single year by increasing taxes to 50%. That is one other solution. It is clearly not a good idea, but I am simply arguing that another solution exists, not that I would support it.

I know Yomar said it, but that Yomar said it doesn't make it so, does it. Yes, the government could, absolutely, increase taxes to 100 percent of all money Americans make. Every penny RIGHT to the government. That, alone, is meaningless. That doesn't solve deficit problems. That simply changes X. Unless you ALSO keep Y below X you will have a deficit. It doesn't matter WHAT you do to X if you don't keep Y below.

You guys suggesting we bounce X to solve deficits leaves out the critical component. We've bounced X for 100 years and Y has been greater for about 95 of them. There is no solution to deficits to simply increase revenue. The solution is to keep spending below revenue. Whatever revenue is. Now, not only did I say this to you, but you know this is true. You know that simply boosting X is meaningless if you ALSO don't limit Y. And since NO MATTER WHAT you do with X you MUST account for Y, it's Y that is the key to deficits. Y causes them when Y is greater than X.

You know this.

I simply don't get how you say if you make X bigger it's a solution to deficits, because, it's not, if Y isn't smaller than X. Is that what you're saying? Are you saying increase revenue WHILE keeping Y below? You haven't said it. Do you mean to?

A large portion of the federal budget is mandatory spending rather than discretionary spending. Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and many other federal outlays are determined by demographics and economics rather than what Congress signs off on. Just as taxes are based on projections, this portion of our budget is based on projections. Neither side of the equation can be reliably fixed.

Except almost no portion of the federal budget is mandatory. You have chosen to believe programs are mandatory. But, they aren't. We could eliminate almost all government spending overnight. Remember, a mandatory program didn't spring into existence after 150 years of the nation being in existence.

The Constitution DOES require the government to have some expense. Absolutely. But, the mandatory portion of the budget is a fraction of the total budget.

You are right in that the revenue side is much less predictable than the expense side, which is why reduced spending is the BETTER solution. However, it does not mean it is the ONLY solution.

And, again, yes, the ONLY solution to deficits is making sure you aren't spending more than you bring in. That's the only solution. Bringing in more is not a solution. The government brings in more now than ever, and it hasn't solved deficits. Your thought that deficits are controlled by anything but spending is a tremendously weak and false position because you know it and are for some reason unable to put your own words together to realize you do know it, despite having stated it.

And, again, spending can be reliably fixed. You can say, right now, we will spend $2 trillion and not a penny more. That's the total amount we'll spend. You can fix that overnight. And, you know what, if you did that, you'd also have no deficit. Odd how that works .

To some extent yes, I am playing the idiot because I feel like you're arguing with people over a silly point of logic, when what we really should be arguing about is the best solution, not about what the only solution is...

Except it's not a silly point of logic when I can't get you to admit that you can't have a deficit if you spend less than you bring in. Until I get you to admit that, this is the debate. And, once I get you to admit that, I've gotten you to the solution. Spend less than you bring in and deficits go away. That's the ONLY solution. No matter what else you do around it, THAT premise remains unchanged.

I guess I just want you to concede that it is possible to eliminate the deficit in any one year by raising taxes considerably. Not that it is a good idea, but that it is possible.

It is not possible to eliminate deficit by raising taxes considerably. I can't admit that to you, because it's false. It IS possible to eliminate deficit by raising taxes substantially AND keeping spending below the increased tax revenue. But, your statement is false in that it does not include the remainder of the solution that is required.

If you raise taxes substantially you can still run a deficit by spending more. Until I get you to recognize that you can't run a deficit when you don't spend more than you bring in, there's really only this to talk about.

Even if you make more, you still have to spend less than that. Even if you spend less, you still have to make more than that.

There you go. In each post you show you understand it. Put it together now and go the rest of the way.

You're saying that even if we raise taxes, we can create a deficit by spending too much. However, it's also true that even if we were to cut spending in half, we would run a deficit it we cut taxes too much.

It is also true that even if we cut spending in half we would run a deficit if we cut revenue too much. And, that does nothing to negate the fact that if you spend more than you take in you run a deficit. If you cut spending in half and still spent more than you take in, you have a deficit. If you cut spending in half and bring in more than you spend you don't.

You can never create a deficit by bring in too little. Ever. You only create a deficit by spending more than you take in. It's impossible to create a deficit any other way.

I just want this argument to be about which is the BETTER solution, and I agree with you that reduced spending is far superior to raising taxes. Stating that you have the ONLY solution detracts from your argument.

Stating the truth can never detract from an argument.

And you know the truth.

If you spend less than you take in, you can't run a deficit. It's impossible to run a deficit. As the ONLY way you can run a deficit is to spend more than you take in, the ONLY solution to eliminating a deficit is to spend less than you take in. That's the sole and only solution.

I'm waiting for a single example that disproves this. I've yet to see one.

[Art]

Originally posted by Darth Tater

Government will probably spend any increased revenue. Further, if the government found we could increase the revenue by increasing the tax rate, that increase would not be temporary. Also, a large increase in the tax rate would most likely reduce revenue while cutting spending ALWAYS ensures deficit reduction . Finally, cost cutting ALWAYS provides more 'bang' than any other method. Not to mention the fact that onerous tax rates are destructive to property rights and therefore destructive to freedom.

Darth, hold off on this.

You're right. Government WILL spend any increased revenue. As we see now, since the tax cuts the government is taking in more revenue than it ever has and yet it continues to spend all that revenue and more. This is phase two of the discussion.

Once we get everyone on board that it is impossible to run a deficit if you don't outspend your revenue, we can go to the obvious strength of the remainder of our debate. But, since we now have at least three liberals who suggest you can have a deficit apparently while spending less than you bring in, we at least have to get them to prove it.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Art

You can never create a deficit by bring in too little. Ever. You only create a deficit by spending more than you take in. It's impossible to create a deficit any other way.

If I run a hot dog stand and I buy 100 hot dogs for 10 cents each, but I only sell 10 hot dogs today for 50 cents each, I am running a deficit of $5. Did I create the deficit by buying too many hot dogs or did I create the deficit by selling too few?

Alright, I think I'm going to stop arguing about this because in the end it is a completely meaningless point, and you're not going to concede anything.

Let X be tax revenues

Let Y be federal spending

If X < Y, we have a deficit: D = Y - X

If we hold X constant and decrease Y by D, we can eliminate the deficit.

If we hold Y constant and increase X by D, we can eliminate the deficit.

If we increase X by A and decrease Y by B, we eliminate the deficit if and only if A + B > D.

Given any D, there are inifinite solutions for A and B, and there exist solutions where A >> B. That's all I'm saying.

[Art]

Originally posted by DjTj

If I run a hot dog stand and I buy 100 hot dogs for 10 cents each, but I only sell 10 hot dogs today for 50 cents each, I am running a deficit of $5. Did I create the deficit by buying too many hot dogs or did I create the deficit by selling too few?

Alright, I think I'm going to stop arguing about this because in the end it is a completely meaningless point, and you're not going to concede anything.

Let X be tax revenues

Let Y be federal spending

If X < Y, we have a deficit: D = Y - X

If we hold X constant and decrease Y by D, we can eliminate the deficit.

If we hold Y constant and increase X by D, we can eliminate the deficit.

If we increase X by A and decrease Y by B, we eliminate the deficit if and only if A + B > D.

Given any D, there are inifinite solutions for A and B, and there exist solutions where A >> B. That's all I'm saying.

You created a deficit by spending more than you bring in.

You are right, I won't concede anything, because there's nothing for me to concede. I'm arguing clear fact and that you have positioned yourself against it is troubling to me.

I'm arguing you can't have a deficit if you don't spend more than you bring in. You have YET to show how this is at all flawed. In fact, you've EVEN AGREED with it in two posts, and yet won't allow yourself to embrace it all the way because you'll feel it'll trap you in some way.

Your equations here show you get it.

If Y is equal to or less than X, you can't have a deficit. You get it.

Given that, the only solution is to make sure Y is equal to or less than X. It doesn't matter what you do with X if Y isn't less than or equal. Please, before you sign off, tell me you know this, which will tell me you know it all.

[Baculus]

The issue that is really being avoided is the cause of much reckless spending, and that is the Federal Reserve system, whose implentation was one of the worse events that has ever happened to this nation. Not only is it unconstitutional, since only congress can print and issue money, but it has been the primary cause of the dollar being devalued over the years by using fractional banking, an unstable monetary policy. The Fed is PRIVATELY operated, whose regional heads aren't even appointed by the President, and these banks make a profit, in the millions, from issuance of our money (it is not really our money, really), at the expense of the American public for the banks own private interests. This is not conspiracy - this is fact, just one that is not often known by many folks. And one of the worst side affects of the Fed is the current problem we face - the ability for the government to spend wastefully and without end, with money being printed and issued by the Fed at an alarming rate. THAT is the issue that we face, but one that few serious folks will examine. Want to reduce government spending, the deficit and the debt? Eliminate the Federal Reserve and create a gold or silver standard, which would inhibit the ability for the Federal government to spend without check.

As Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

http://www.federal-reserve.net/whatisthefederalreservebank.htm

The reduction and elimination of federal programs is all good and all, but the problem is, many other bloated programs are not being eliminated. And Bush's fiscal policies are still increasing at an alarming rate. The odd thing is, some reduction is occuring here in the States, while billions of (uncounted) dollars is being spent elsewhere, such as Iraq.

And the problem is that you cannot lower taxes without reducing government expenditures. Reagan tried this, and had to raise taxes a few years later. And the issue is that the Bush tax cuts are actually INCREASING the deficit, not decreasing it. The idea is simple - drastically reduce federal spending, and you can then lower taxes since a need for higher taxes is not needed. Did Bush do this? Heck no. He believes in deficit spending, just like Reagan. (Which, the massive increase in federal spending coincides with both administrations.)

Lowered taxes are great and ideal, but it has to go hand in hand with across the board reduction in federal spending. The problem is, there are so many bloated programs, many of which are favored by the majority republicans, that this won't happen. Like it or not, but the Republicans are the party of BIG government. The Contact With America is dead and a farce in the end.

Incidentally, here is a link to an excellent movie on the Federal Reserve. Be warned, the link will take you to a page to start downloading the movie imbedded within browser:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia/money_fed.html

[Baculus]

Incidentally, here is a page that is related to taxes, deficits, and the federal budget.

http://www.ctj.org/

The problem with the Bush tax cuts is that, due to the Federal budget increasing, had to borrow money to pay for the tax cuts.

This page outlines a bit about this subject:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/def0104.pdf