because even simple concepts from the real world seem to elude you. If the term "rich" is well defined in economcs like you suggest, then you should have no trouble relaying that definition. Failing that, what income or net worth point do YOU use when defining someone as rich. It's a simple question. Can you answer it?

As for the tax cuts being a loan, actually, that's manure. Tax rate reductions allow individuals to keep a higher percentage of the money they earn. They also change the balance between sheltering income from excessive taxation as opposed to maximizing income. That was one of the biggest reasons why tax revenues increased so sharply following the 1980s tax rate reductions. The top marginal rates were reduced from about 60% to 28%. Because the marginal tax rates were reduced, it made more sense to make more money than to shelter it from taxation. Tax rate changes affect people's behavior. That's where the people who insist that a rate reduction automatically translates into a revenue reduction have been proven wrong time after time.

There are two sides to the deficit question: revenues and spending. It's interesting how the spending side of the equation is so seldom addressed compared to the revenue side. Given both a rising population and inflation (no matter how low), spending across the entire budget is always going to rise. The key is controlling the rate of increase, keeping it to a manageable level compared to population and inflation increases.

Actual limitations on the rate of increase in government spending are almost unheard of except for Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). During the 1990s when revenues were soaring, most states and the federal government went on spending sprees. In Colorado, TABOR kept that tendancy under control. The result was that when the economy slowed and revenues fell, Colorado was in much better shape than most states. We still had some budget shortfalls but no where near as severe as states without spending discipline.