I hate to break the news to you

[Sematary]

But there is NO WAY to get this government back on solid ground without some taxes going up.
Of course, if they don't cut shit then it won't matter.
So ya, no tax increases without cuts but I want the damn cuts

[alucard13mmfmj]

Raising Taxes is like gaining weight... Once you raise it, it is hard to lower it.

That is what concerns me. If they raise taxes and if it goes on long enough, people will accept it as norm and won't fight it.

I would prefer for the government to cut what they can BEFORE they raise taxes. Cut first, raise taxes later would be a better way. RIght now, they want to raise taxes without doing modest cutting.

[youngbuck]

I hate to break it to you, but they aren't going to cut anything. Subtracting 2 and adding 5 does not count as cutting, but that's what we'll get.

[heavenlyboy34]

But there is NO WAY to get this government back on solid ground without some taxes going up.
Of course, if they don't cut shit then it won't matter.
So ya, no tax increases without cuts but I want the damn cuts
lolz :D They could tax 100% and it still wouldn't fix the fundamental problems with the system. ETA: I read once that if you took all of Warren Buffet's cash it would only run the government for 4 days. I've heard a lot of other figures about how confiscating the top 10% of income earners would only run the gov'ment for 3 months. I'm not sure if that's exactly right, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[AuH20]

So you're saying we can't "run" the federal government on 2.3 trillion dollars? because that's what they took in 2011.

[AuH20]

lolz :D They could tax 100% and it still wouldn't fix the fundamental problems with the system.

True. They are just milking us for interest payments on the debt with no intention of paying down this imposing mountain of broken promises and outright fraud.

http://www.silverdoctors.com/niall-ferguson-us-unfunded-liabilities-top-238-trillion/

[dannno]

Turn off the tv for a while.

[CaptUSA]

I fail to see how taking off the burden of government spending while adding a new burden of higher taxes can be considered a "balanced approach" to solve the problem. "Balanced" would be "cut from your side and cut from my side". Not "slow spending a little on your side and raise taxes on my side" to allow oversized government to keep growing.

[AuH20]

Raising Taxes is like gaining weight... Once you raise it, it is hard to lower it.

That is what concerns me. If they raise taxes and if it goes on long enough, people will accept it as norm and won't fight it.

I would prefer for the government to cut what they can BEFORE they raise taxes. Cut first, raise taxes later would be a better way. RIght now, they want to raise taxes without doing modest cutting.

The worst part of this lie, is that actually there is no such animal as "cuts" in the true Washington lexicon. They are just cuts to PROJECTED INCREASES. And the only two polis with the courage to air this mind-shattering fact to the sheeple are the Pauls.

[James Madison]

Great idea. Let's give a bunch of people who managed to accumulate $16,000,000,000,000 in debt MORE money. Clearly, the only thing crack addicts need to break free of their addiction is more crack.

[AuH20]

Great idea. Let's give a bunch of people who managed to accumulate $16,000,000,000,000 in debt MORE money. Clearly, the only thing crack addicts need to break free of their addiction is more crack.

It's the equivalent to picking up a second job so as to support your neighbor's ever increasing drug habit. That's what I feel like at the moment. Down is up. And wrong is right in the USA.

[Sematary]

Great idea. Let's give a bunch of people who managed to accumulate $16,000,000,000,000 in debt MORE money. Clearly, the only thing crack addicts need to break free of their addiction is more crack.

I'm not saying we should. I'm just stating the obvious - it's going to happen

[AGRP]

Why dont we just print more money? If our debt is roughly $20 trillion, then we should print $20.1 trillion. Problem solved.

[ican'tvote]

Tax increases won't work.
http://youtu.be/bvqNVs4ix6E

[KCIndy]

The worst part of this lie, is that actually there is no such animal as "cuts" in the true Washington lexicon. They are just cuts to PROJECTED INCREASES. And the only two polis with the courage to air this mind-shattering fact to the sheeple are the Pauls.


This is the very core of the problem. Folks, look up and understand "baseline budgeting" and you'll see how the political establishment manages to hoodwink 99.5% of the population each and every year.

Baseline budgeting is how a government program's cost can go from 1.0 billion one year to 1.1 billion the next year and still be counted as a "spending cut."

Pure insanity.

[Jack Bauer]

This is the very core of the problem.

Pure insanity.

http://i.imgur.com/JQZWm.jpg

[thoughtomator]

We're already above the sustainable level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. Any tax hikes from here will destroy enough of the revenue base to be a net negative, no matter what their phony numbers say.

You'll see it in action if these morons allow a $2k/family tax hike to go through, it will kick consumer spending in the balls. Not to mention what that will do to local and state tax revenues, which will not get the benefit of collecting the added federal tax.

Some here might be familiar with the concept of diminishing marginal utility of debt; there is a similar phenomenon that happens with tax rates.

[angelatc]

But there is NO WAY to get this government back on solid ground without some taxes going up.
Of course, if they don't cut shit then it won't matter.
So ya, no tax increases without cuts but I want the damn cuts

They'll just do the same thing next time. Spend spend spend, then we'll decide we have to live with higher taxes to pay for what they already spent. I really wish it would just end already.

I don't mind eating beans and rice for 10 years if it means my kids will get a shot. But I don't see that happening. The socialists have stripped the very soul from this nation.

[jay_dub]

Obama at least acknowledged the debt/deficit issue in the debates with Romney. Trouble is, he acted like doing *some* spending cuts and *some* tax increases would allow us to invest in other things. WTF????

HELLO!!! $16 Trillion in debt means you don't save a nickel so you can spend a dime somewhere else!!

Nothin' but idiots running the show. That they've gotten away with it for so long is a testament to the average American's willful ignorance.

[torchbearer]

lolz :D They could tax 100% and it still wouldn't fix the fundamental problems with the system. We don't need no water. let the motherfucker burn!

[AFPVet]

Like Ron said, all they like to do is cut spending as opposed to ACTUALLY cutting something. Why don't we actually shrink the size of government?

[Zippyjuan]

Let's say we do want to balance the budget. Some have suggested a balanced budget amenement to the Constitution to force this. Politically any options will be difficult but nothing would be more difficult than trying to cut Social Security/ Medicare/Medicaid (which being the largest items in the budget SHOULD be a place you look at for reductions along with Defense spending- the other big item). Let's say you don't want to raise any taxes. OK. Cut 100% of everything (including defense) if you leave the above off the table and you can get there. Doesn't leave anything but the social programs and intrerest on the debt. Let's say you want to do it only with raising income taxes. You have to double them. Then your books will balance- assuming you don't start spending any more than you do now.

And remember that this is only to take care of the deficit. The $15 trillion we already owe will still be there.

Think any of that (or some combination thereof) is actually going to happen?

[torchbearer]

Like Ron said, all they like to do is cut spending as opposed to ACTUALLY cutting something. Why don't we actually shrink the size of government?because this country is majority ignorant. the government will reflect that.

[Czolgosz]

Cut spending and apply your current income to the existing bills. Works for me, can work for them.

[Zippyjuan]

We're already above the sustainable level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. Any tax hikes from here will destroy enough of the revenue base to be a net negative, no matter what their phony numbers say.

You'll see it in action if these morons allow a $2k/family tax hike to go through, it will kick consumer spending in the balls. Not to mention what that will do to local and state tax revenues, which will not get the benefit of collecting the added federal tax.

Some here might be familiar with the concept of diminishing marginal utility of debt; there is a similar phenomenon that happens with tax rates.

Actually, as a precent of GDP taxes are pretty close to where they have been for the last 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945%E2%80%932015.jpg

But you are probably right that raising rates could reduce revenues given the current state of the economy. Certainly if you raise them enough to have anything beyond a symbolic effect on the deficit.

Now debt as a percent of GDP has only been higher during WWII- and it is quickly rising.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_Presiden t.jpg

[Kregisen]

Tax increases won't work.
http://youtu.be/bvqNVs4ix6E



We're already above the sustainable level of taxation as a percentage of GDP. Any tax hikes from here will destroy enough of the revenue base to be a net negative, no matter what their phony numbers say.

You'll see it in action if these morons allow a $2k/family tax hike to go through, it will kick consumer spending in the balls. Not to mention what that will do to local and state tax revenues, which will not get the benefit of collecting the added federal tax.

Some here might be familiar with the concept of diminishing marginal utility of debt; there is a similar phenomenon that happens with tax rates.

You guys are both right and wrong. Look up the Laffer curve. (Art Laffer was Reagan's economic advisor and is the one who came up with the idea) Tax rates and total tax revenue form a parabola. a 0% tax rate = $0 in taxes, while 100% tax rate also = $0 in taxes, since nobody would earn anything. Therefore, there is some point (x) that maximizes tax revenue.

"for academic studies, the mid-range for the revenue maximizing rate is around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[10] A 1996 study by Y. Hsing of the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[11] A 1981 paper published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[12] A recent paper by Trabandt and Uhlig of the NBER presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies are on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue)."

Take that for what you will....what I think is most interesting is when Art Laffer and Reagan instituted the tax cuts, here is what happened to the national receipts...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200



in current 2005 dollars, u.s. receipts never passed 1981's until 5 years later. Reagan's tax cuts may have actually lowed total revenue for the low 1980's - not raising it like Art Laffer predicted (this is the same Art Laffer who laughed at Peter Schiff when Schiff predicted the economic collapse this past decade)

Regardless, what is really important is spending cuts, and no politicians other than the Pauls are serious about it, because it is political suicide. If you cut spending in area A, everyone who is currently getting the handouts in area A will campaign hard against you. If you try to cut from area B, everyone who benefits in area B will fight against you. There is no way out.

[Kregisen]

double post

[Anti Federalist]

We don't need no water. let the motherfucker burn!

Yup.

Shit, just take it all, we don't own any of it anyway.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul's budget did it.

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

I've heard a lot of other figures about how confiscating the top 10% of income earners would only run the gov'ment for 3 months. I'm not sure if that's exactly right, but I wouldn't be surprised.

This video explains it very well:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak

[JK/SEA]

DATELINE 2040, Washington D.C.

From Drudge via Ron Paul Forum:

''But there is NO WAY to get this government back on solid ground without some taxes going up.
Of course, if they don't cut shit then it won't matter.
So ya, no tax increases without cuts but I want the damn cuts''

[Keith and stuff]

But there is NO WAY to get this government back on solid ground without some taxes going up.
Government should get more efficient as time passes. As government becomes more efficient, taxes should be lowered. Unless there is a crazy disaster, year after year, taxes should go down. If things don't work that way, there is a major problem.

[juleswin]

Raising Taxes is like gaining weight... Once you raise it, it is hard to lower it.

That is what concerns me. If they raise taxes and if it goes on long enough, people will accept it as norm and won't fight it.
.

That same arguement can be made for raising spending but every year spending is raised and not nearly enough people are outraged by this. I love your analogy so much that I hope you dont mind if I expanded on it. Here it goes

Raising spending is like having an unhealthy diet that only clogs your arteries with plaques without the weight gain that usually accompanies it while raising taxes is like clogging your arteries with plaques with the weight gain. On one hand, you are stressed by the fact that your cloths longer fit and its harder to move around and on the other hand, you are completely unaware of any negative effects and thus unconcerned with your bad eating habit, in fact you might start eating more thinking that there are no negative effects of your unhealthy diet.

This is exactly how I see it, preventing the pain of taxation will deceive the American people into thinking yearly spending increase is ok. Spending increase without taxing increase is more of a danger to the US than spending increase + tax increase

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Like Ron said, all they like to do is cut spending as opposed to ACTUALLY cutting something. Why don't we actually shrink the size of government?

I got this, I got this!!!

Because cutting spending is an anathema to a politician, regardless of political party. Cutting government spending means cutting government power, which means a reduction of power the human farmers have over their human livestock. We're not Citizens any longer.

To back my claim, I point to the Obama Phone Lady video, available for your viewing pleasure over at the YouTubeses 24 hours a day.

There will be no cuts. There will be no cuts. There will be no cuts. THERE WILL BE NO SPENDING CUTS. Even if there DO end up being real, actual spending cuts, it's little more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. Buckle up, boys and girls - 2013's gonna be a bumpy ride!!!

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul's budget did it.

Ron's balanced budget assumed that revenues (taxes collected) would rise by 24% over three years to balance things by the end of that time so his wasn't all cuts either (though more cuts than anybody else is willing to consider).

He has revenues for 2013 at $2.476 trillion and rising to $3.069 trillion by 2016.

Link to PDF of the plan: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

[mport1]

Giving the government more money just means they use it to grow their power and inflict more death and destruction on in this country and abroad. I'm crossing my fingers for bankruptcy.

[frodus24]

As I told my mother, if they raise taxes, the Congress will just piss it away!

[Liberty74]

Raising taxes doesn't work and never has. If it did, CA, IL, NY, etc and all the European countries that tax their GDP up to 70% would be flourishing with surpluses and low unemployment. Guess what? Europe is collapsing because the problem is the spending and the welfare state. What are we on now? The third Greece bailout. PLEASE!!!

BTW, 40% of Europeans are considered mentally ill by their health departments. BRAVO! All that free education and free stuff really pays off uh?

[sailingaway]

Ron's balanced budget assumed that revenues (taxes collected) would rise by 24% over three years to balance things by the end of that time so his wasn't all cuts either (though more cuts than anybody else is willing to consider).

He has revenues for 2013 at $2.476 trillion and rising to $3.069 trillion by 2016.

Link to PDF of the plan: http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/RestoreAmericaPlan.pdf

Ron Paul's budget used Obama administration's budget assumptions of a growing economy to say the same tax rate on a more profitable society brings in more, to be apples and apples. They are still starting from those assumptions but on top of that talking about raising taxes, in the 'fiscal cliff' soap opera.

[Zippyjuan]

BTW, 40% of Europeans are considered mentally ill by their health departments.

Link?

One reason that unemployment is a bigger problem is not just higher taxes but also the cuts in government spending- they are combining to mean less money being spent and fewer jobs (government cuts means people losing jobs- those people don't have money to spend on things- the places they used to shop don't have revenue so they cut back on workers too, those workers in turn have less to spend in other places, etc. ) If the government lays off 10,000 people it has the same effect as say Ford laying off 10,000 people. Long term, they may be better off when they get their finances under control. Short term, there is definate pain. The US position is to avoid as much pain as possible- even if it would be good in the long term (we only care about the "now").

That is also why Democrats say "tax the rich". Somebody else will pay for everything so you won't have to. Avoids the pain.

[Pericles]

Great idea. Let's give a bunch of people who managed to accumulate $16,000,000,000,000 in debt MORE money. Clearly, the only thing crack addicts need to break free of their addiction is more crack.

It wouldn't bother me so much if the crack addicts were spending their own money ....