[P-Marlowe]

CNBC said an aide to Romney pegged the total cost of his package at about $250 billion.

Tax cuts are supposed to be targeted to INCREASE revenues.

If this tax cut is going to "cost" $250 Billion, then who's going to pay for it? My children? My grandchildren?

A properly designed tax cut should not "cost" anything.

[madison10]

If this tax cut is going to "cost" $250 Billion, then who's going to pay for it? My children? My grandchildren?

Oh, for crying out loud, the MSM always says that someone is "going to pay for the tax cuts." They just use that phrase to scare people, as do the Dems. A tax cut means more in pockets, not less.

The only ones losing money are the fatcats in Washington for their pet projects.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You are not allowed to use dynamic accounting when doing tax cuts. You have to say they “cost” money, even though they probably won’t cost nearly as much as it says.

The question is, will a cut in the corporate tax rate stimulate the economy? If so, then it won’t cost what they say.

[tantiboh]

~”If this tax cut is going to “cost” $250 Billion, then who’s going to pay for it? My children? My grandchildren?”~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Read up.

You may want to have your knee looked at. That jerking can’t be natural.