I see you can't understand the concept of debt financing.
In the current fiscal year yes. However, your argument ignores how these were funded. Debt financed tax cuts and credits will need to be repaid with either spending cuts or tax hikes in the future. Reagan started to do this and Bush HW did this. The tax cuts and credits given out were debt financed. That eventually had to be paid back. Guess what Clinton's tax cuts and additional credits were? Pay down the debt, much of it was tax cuts from the Reagan years.
So is it really a tax cut or credit when you will eventually face higher taxation to pay off the debt and its accrued interest incurred to provide you that tax cut?
No, that's by definition a loan. The worst thing is, we have no idea what the actual effective interest rate is, especially since debt is being taken out to finance older debt. Bush's tax cuts and business credits were estimated by the CBO to have added 35% to the deficit. All of that was debt financed.
Perhaps you should enroll in a local community college to understand just how debt works.
See above. Interesting how you make a crack about age, yet show absolutely no understanding of mature topics like debt financing.
What in the HELL does debt financing have to do with my comments about your inability to distinguish the difference between a tax cut, and a tax credit?
I have a degree in Finance/Accounting with a 3.68 GPA; do you really think you can argue with me about "debt" financing, the inflationary effects of Government debt and economic theory? What is your degree in; false uninformed rhetoric?
The only thing more laughable about your notions about how the REAL world works is this constant blather about how Bush's tax cuts added 35% to the budget deficit!
Let me give you a tiny clue; revenues always INCREASE. They INCREASED during Bush's Presidency and they will eventually INCREASE under Obama's.
But it won’t matter because the GOVERNMENT ALWAYS SPENDS it FASTER than they can TAKE it IN.
This inane notion that Government will lose revenue when people are allowed to keep more of their money is patently absurd.
Here's a very simple formula of REALITY:
Allowing people to keep more of their money = more spending = business growth = profits = more employment = more tax payers all of which = increasing revenue.
When you use REGRESSIVE tax codes or LEGISLATE in an irresponsible fashion in an attempt to REDISTRIBUTE wealth, make things more fair or punish Capital formation then what happens is you get LESS economic output, Capital finds a safer haven and you end up actually having LESS revenue to pay your bills because of declining employment and declining profits.
It doesn't take someone with an economics degree or genius to figure it all out, just some basic commons sense; try it sometime, you may actually appreciate REALITY more.
Here’s another REALITY, when the Democrats finally get around to being HONEST about how to pay for all this incredibly irresponsible Government spending, EVERYONE will be paying a much HIGHER tax burden because Companies do not pay taxes, they pass their costs to ALL OF US. Then you will REALLY have something to whine about as you watch the economy tank even more. :roll:
Now hurry up and run to the basement and whine about me some more; you're an expert at it. :roll:
