Ok im a little slow on the uptake here. Sooooo why do they put "TAX CUTS" in the "COSTS" column?

Just a guess here, but Im thinking it might be because in the minds of liberals giving the money back to the people that it belongs to in the first place is a COST.

+1 to earthship

Lol earth :) heh

If you owe me 10 apples and I instead only collect 9, how is that more or fewer apples than I would have had?

(please subtract the "how" from that sentence)

is that from 8 years of bush or 4 years?

Rob my allegiance is to progressive values not the democrat party or republican party. I'd happily vote for a republican if they were more progressive than Obama. As an actual member of the GOP how does one reconcile this data with their party's bitching about over spending. Maybe if Obama spent half what bush did in new policies I could understand but it's not even a fourth.

jpc: "If you owe me 10 apples and I instead only collect 9, how is that more or fewer apples than I would have had?"

I love how you equate taxes to something that taxpayers "OWE" the government. This is exactly the issue here. Government is on a complete spending spree and they speak of taxpayers money as if it belongs to them first and only taxpayers second.

sigh. unless you're saying that no one owes any taxes to the government, it doesn't matter what the amount should be

this is all in reference to earthwhatever's question of why it's marked as a cost.

planned income = X, tax cuts means the income is now x-(amount of taxcuts). It's a subtraction from the amount of income, just like spending.

Unless we're arguing semantics.

It isn't semantics jpc. You are missing earth's point; which was pointing out the absurdity of calling tax cuts "spending". Which implies that the money belongs to the government in the first place.

If BO get's fired from his job; he can't claim that McDonald's has spent all his money; when he doesn't get his pay check anymore.