[1rudeboy]

Tax cuts (if properly targeted) do not need to be “funded.”

[Wolfie]

When you spend like Bush, they certainly do.

[mnehring]

I swear, sometimes it sounds like Nancy Pelosi has accounts on Free Republic. I can’t believe the economic ignorance of thinking you have to ‘fund’ tax cuts. That is like trying to grow a corn plant in someone’s stomach. If you want more corn, you plant it. Historically, revenue increases when taxes are reduced, even when spending is not reduced or increases.

[RFEngineer]

“Tax cuts (if properly targeted) do not need to be “funded.””

Tax cuts will not be passed without political compromise (increased spending)

The increased revenues from tax cuts will be more than offset by increased spending, if the past is any guide.

I’m not against them, quite the contrary, but the argument that tax cuts add more revenue than they “cost” the government, while true, does not tell the whole story - a tale of woe that always has the same big-spending ending, and the inevitability of big future tax increases.