patrick.net

Your assumption is predicated on the idea that you can't replace the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts on middle and lower income people. That is what the Democrats have proposed.

"Soak the Rich becomes HIGHER TAX RATES FOR ALL."

People do not understand that this ideology is exactly why we have income taxes in the first place! In 1913 the federal government convinced the middle class to put an income tax on the top 0.1% of income earners ONLY. Look what we have now! If the course of the last 99 years is not evidence enough to convince someone that this tendency is factual, nothing will!!!

Honest Abe says

100% tax rate won't service the debt which is why the government

God this is obviously untrue. Perhaps you don't know what "Service the Debt" means. We do currently "service the debt" which means we pay enough taxes to pay the interest.

FWIW, in 2008 the top 1% of tax returns had $1.8T in income, (an average of $1.285M per tax return). There are roughly 1.4M returns in the top 1%.

If they were so concerned about the debt, they could donate ALL of their income except the median family income of $50k, for a little less than 9 years. The ENTIRE debt would be paid.

1.4MM tax returns going from the top 1% in income to the current median. All debt paid off in less than nine years.

Seems like a good investment because the debt is what they claim is hindering our economic recovery. So put you rmoney where you mouth is: they have the lions share of the assets, and if the economy exploded like they say they would be the primary benefactor.

No one is talking about taking assets. Just agressively retiring debt on those assets so the economy could flourish. The asset holders would be the benefactors, if the premise of the debt being the anchor holding th eeconomy back were true...

Bob, you and I agree in that we both oppose massive government debt, and spending cuts need to occur first.

But I disagree that "its mathematically impossible to get things under control by cutting spending". How did it get this bad in the first place? Could it be the result of a latent overactive promissory gland found in most politicians, as well as overspending?

What would it take to get things under control? How about a 20% cut, across the board, on EVERYTNING? If that doesn't work, how about a 35% cut, if that doesn't work...well, you get the point.

At some point things would reach a balance. And the pain would be equally shared. Equality of suffering - now thats a concept the libs can get their arms around - equality, haha.

BTW, endless wars and empire building would end with a sound currency, as I have pointed out countless times before. A sound currency would have the same effect as taking away a pre approved credit card, with no limit, away from a fiscally irresponsible teenager. NO MONEY = NO WAR.

And yea, welfare queens shouldn't be offered a lifetime of dependency on the backs of working people. A "life line" yes, a "safety net" yes, a lifelong government sponsored hammock - NO. Welfare shouldn't be a way of life...should it ???

Illegals...on the one hand they provide cheap labor. On the other hand they burden the system. They overload schools, hospitals, law enforcement, and get preferential treatment in college.

By the way, you're not inferring that I"M a demagogue, are you?

Honest Abe says

How did it get this bad in the first place?

Tax cuts and foreign wars. Next question?

Honest Abe says

What would it take to get things under control? How about a 20% cut, across the board, on EVERYTNING? If that doesn't work, how about a 35% cut, if that doesn't work...well, you get the point.

No I don't get the point.

The federal budget is 2.8 trillion, the deficit is 1.32 trillion. An honest accounting says that over half of the budget is military. Interest on the debt of .4 trillion is strictly off limits. So we need to cut 1.32 trillion out of 2.4 trillion or about 55%. Would you like to start with a 55% cut to all military and government pensions as well as active duty service people? Air traffic control? Prisons? Name it.

bob2356 says

So we need to cut 1.32 trillion out of 2.4 trillion or about 55%. Would you like to start with a 55% cut to all military and government pensions as well as active duty service people? Air traffic control? Prisons? Name it.

Not to mention that when you cut that much out of the economy, tax receipts are going to shrink considerably so you'll end up chasing your tail and will never balance the budget...

I guess were screwed and turning into japan with permaZIRP+infiniteDeficitSpending.

I hear Japan is still a nice place but everybuddy lives in a tiny box worse that SF?

PockyClipsNow says

I guess were screwed and turning into japan with permaZIRP+infiniteDeficitSpending.

I hear Japan is still a nice place but everybuddy lives in a tiny box worse that SF?

Japan has a lot of hilly terrain. Whats left is where you pack the farms and factories and people.