The Obama Presidency

That only costs more if you give it to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

That only costs more if you give it to them.

---

Or they steal it from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vasteel

Or they steal it from you.

---

Shhhhh, Yoshi doesn't believe there is a down side to letting masses of poor people to go uncared for.

Seriously, if there's one thing worse than paying for dumb/annoying people's foodstamps, it's having them on the streets asking you for money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

Shhhhh, Yoshi doesn't believe there is a down side to letting masses of poor people to go uncared for.

---

Or that decent, hardworking people fall on hard times. Everyone who is poor is just lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarsKitten

Right how? In agreeing to the tax cuts extension which weren't paid for in any way?

---

Why would anyone have to pay for tax cut extensions?

Quote:

---

All this does is increase the amount of the debt by the tax cuts + interest paid on them over the years. Yoshi, you'll be paying for your, and your parent's tax cuts for years to come.

---

No it doesn't. And no he won't. Do you still believe in the Boogeyman as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

Of course you pay for them. Spending depletes revenue, tax cuts deplete revenue. The idea that tax cuts are "free" or the more ridiculous one that that tax cuts actually create revenue is one of the more retarded theories of conservatism.

---

You couldn't be more wrong, though I should be careful stating that because you could prove me wrong by saying something even more ignorant. The fact that you just said spending depletes revenue and tax cuts deplete revenue immediately indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Tax cuts don't cost anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooch

You couldn't be more wrong, though I should be careful stating that because you could prove me wrong by saying something even more ignorant. The fact that you just said spending depletes revenue and tax cuts deplete revenue immediately indicate that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Tax cuts don't cost anything.

---

Well revenue implies that the givernment is a business, which it is not. But if it were, we could say tax cuts lower revenue and spending consumes revenue. The distinction is not important. Tax cuts "cost" money just as price cuts do for a business. They are effectively selling a product at below cost.

The only thing you are correct about is that you cannot look at the government as a business. Saying the distinction is not important, however, is about as wrong as you can be. The distinction is everything.

Tax cuts don't cost anything.

Tell me so I can gauge the degree of misunderstanding:

1) Why does the issuer of a non-convertible currency, the issuer having a monopoly on that currency, assess taxes in the first place when it has no operational constraint restricting it from issuing/printing/electronically creating as much of that currency as it pleases (aside from self-imposed restrictions)? Basically, why are taxes assessed in the first place if the issuer of the currency does not need to collect them to increase its supply of US Dollars?

2) If the issuer of the currency does not spend any of the newly issued currency, how does it get into the economy?

3) If the issuer of the currency increases its taxes, does that take money out of an economy or does it increase the money in an economy?