Americans back tax increases in debt fix: Reuters poll

[AFTiger 282]

I must be confused...is anyone here advocating the idea that we can tax our way out of deficits or that we shouldn't address spending? Because I could have sworn no one has.

The thread subject seems to be "Tax the rich." Taxing the rich is an empty and useless gesture. Cut the spending and grow the economy.

[Auburn85 434]

Roll back Bush tax cuts on top two income brackets = $700 or so billion over 10 years

Eliminate the oil subsidies = $21 billion over 10 years

This year's budget deficit is expected to top out around $1.4 trillion.

The combined $721 billion from the rollback of the top two income brackets and oil subsidies over 10 years is barely enough to halve this year's budget deficit.

Extending the Bush tax cuts on everyone not in the top two income brackets = $2.9 trillion over 10 years

The annual budget has to be decreased. 2010 or 11 total was about $3.5 trillion. If 2012's budget is $3.6 trillion or higher, what have we accomplished as far as cuts? Having a budget that is $3.6 trillion with an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion shouldn't count as a cut either.

Before all the tax cuts were passed last year, there was talk of how would the tax breaks on the top two income brackets be paid for. So those same people need to tell us how they are going to pay for the tax cuts on everyone except the top two brackets.

As you can see above, rolling the tax cuts on the top two brackets and oil subsidies is not enough to cover the tax cuts for everyone else. Go ahead and throw in farm subsidies for people like Ted Turner. It's still not going to be enough to cover the tax cuts for everyone else.

What can realistically be cut? Even with ending higher income tax breaks and oil subsidies, an enormous amount still needs to be cut just to balance one annual federal budget.

Bringing every troop home from Afhanistan and Iraq isn't going to do the trick. We've borrowed an enormous amount of money to fund the wars not soley dollars via tax revenues.

It's hard to take the term 'cutting' serious. Especially in D.C. on the heels of "Thebiggest annual budget cut in history" Went from tens of billions to hundreds of millions.

And where is the fire in the belly where it comes to cuts right now in Washington? $21 billion over ten years in Oil subsidies. Democrats could have ended those in 09, but it would have been a politcal layup nobody would have noticed. A lot of energy is being used over this token amount of money when compared to the bigger picture. All the hearings, the props, the graphs, the cameras,are a waste of time. It's political theatre at its finest.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Obama's stimulus package was over 800 billion, and it wasn't spread out over 10 years.

In January, the CBO pegged the ultimate cost to taxpayers of the $700 billion TARP at $189 billion. When the agency issued revised numbers in late March, it revised that to $356 billion, a change that drew little attention. The larger estimate reflects, among other things, the Treasury's move to use the TARP to help avoid foreclosures, as well as the changing details of its aid to American International Group Inc., and the deterioration of financial conditions and of banks in which the Treasury has invested TARP money.

So, while Bush's TARP bill is costing us more than originally estimated, it falls FAR short of Obama's pointless stimulus package, which doesn't even include other cost increases, like Kash for Klunkers, and general increases in hiring and the pay for govt employees.

Link to those numbers or delete.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I must be confused...is anyone here advocating the idea that we can tax our way out of deficits or that we shouldn't address spending? Because I could have sworn no one has.

The thread subject seems to be "Tax the rich." Taxing the rich is an empty and useless gesture. Cut the spending and grow the economy.

It only seems that way because your switch is stuck in that position where the second someone mentions any kind of tax increase, closing a tax loophole, taking away tax subsidies and so on you tune out everything else they say. You ignore it even when it's been said repeatedly by me and others on this forum that our way out of this is not an either/or approach to taxes and spending. It's both/and. We need both spending cuts AND more revenue...more than will be generated simply by a growing economy. That is if people are as serious about debt reduction as they say they are. Merely balancing the budget isn't enough, we have to get well into the black to have enough left over to start paying down debt. That requires hard choices and some sacrifices both from virtually everyone.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Roll back Bush tax cuts on top two income brackets = $700 or so billion over 10 years

Eliminate the oil subsidies = $21 billion over 10 years

This year's budget deficit is expected to top out around $1.4 trillion.

The combined $721 billion from the rollback of the top two income brackets and oil subsidies over 10 years is barely enough to halve this year's budget deficit.

Extending the Bush tax cuts on everyone not in the top two income brackets = $2.9 trillion over 10 years

The annual budget has to be decreased. 2010 or 11 total was about $3.5 trillion. If 2012's budget is $3.6 trillion or higher, what have we accomplished as far as cuts? Having a budget that is $3.6 trillion with an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion shouldn't count as a cut either.

Before all the tax cuts were passed last year, there was talk of how would the tax breaks on the top two income brackets be paid for. So those same people need to tell us how they are going to pay for the tax cuts on everyone except the top two brackets.

As you can see above, rolling the tax cuts on the top two brackets and oil subsidies is not enough to cover the tax cuts for everyone else. Go ahead and throw in farm subsidies for people like Ted Turner. It's still not going to be enough to cover the tax cuts for everyone else.

What can realistically be cut? Even with ending higher income tax breaks and oil subsidies, an enormous amount still needs to be cut just to balance one annual federal budget.

Bringing every troop home from Afhanistan and Iraq isn't going to do the trick. We've borrowed an enormous amount of money to fund the wars not soley dollars via tax revenues.

It's hard to take the term 'cutting' serious. Especially in D.C. on the heels of "Thebiggest annual budget cut in history" Went from tens of billions to hundreds of millions.

And where is the fire in the belly where it comes to cuts right now in Washington? $21 billion over ten years in Oil subsidies. Democrats could have ended those in 09, but it would have been a politcal layup nobody would have noticed. A lot of energy is being used over this token amount of money when compared to the bigger picture. All the hearings, the props, the graphs, the cameras,are a waste of time. It's political theatre at its finest.

See I look at this and think, great. Roll back top bracket tax cuts and oil subsidies and we're already cut the deficit in half. There are probably some other loopholes and inequities in the tax code that could be shored up to get us a little closer. Now let's start cutting some spending. Get serious about restructuring Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Examine our defense spending. Something tells me if we get someone that has the balls to actually do all this hard work and quit telling people what they want to hear ("No tax increases, we can cut our way to debt reduction!" or "No one's pet program has to go, just tax the rich and evil corporations!"), we can actually do this, but both sides are gonna have to quit living in Dreamworld.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Link to those numbers or delete.

Why do you have to be such a douche about it ? All you have to do is google like the first sentence, and find it...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123880278764488701.html

" delete this."

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Link to those numbers or delete.

Why do you have to be such a douche about it ? All you have to do is google like the first sentence, and find it...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123880278764488701.html

" delete this."

Grow up and follow the simple rules without whining and complaining.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Grow up and follow the simple rules without whining and complaining.

Article and link were provided, and you have nothing of substance to say on the topic ?

Go yourself.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

You've been lied to. We have both. There's my substance.

[AURaptor 1,137]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

You've been lied to. We have both. There's my substance.

We've all been lied to. So, what can we do about it ?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Fix it by figuring out where the tax code doesn't make sense and is giving away revenue it shouldn't? Perhaps for a while raise rates slightly on upper incomes? Raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits and raise the $106,800 cap on SSI tax eligibility and perhaps introduce a means testing requirement? Restructure Medicare? Stop being the world's policeman?

I know I keep saying the same thing, but my point is to drill into everyone's heads that Democrats and Republicans are both going to have to slaughter some sacred cows or it's simply not going to get done. We'll just kick the can down the road for another generation who will find the situation even worse and perhaps even inescapable.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Entitlement spending is far and away the biggest drain our tax $'s. We've been sold a bill of false hope w/ these Ponzi schemes, and no one wants to admit it. They lied to us w/ SSI, then they stole from the ' lock box ', and now the population numbers are starting to flip, and we've screwed ourselves by going so far in dept.

What we NEED to do, is drop the progressive tax system, go to either the FAIRTax ( or a flat tax ), phase OUT SSI, and start running this nation in a mature, responsible manner.

[Grumps 3,706]

Fix it by figuring out where the tax code doesn't make sense and is giving away revenue it shouldn't? Perhaps for a while raise rates slightly on upper incomes? Raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits and raise the $106,800 cap on SSI tax eligibility and perhaps introduce a means testing requirement? Restructure Medicare? Stop being the world's policeman?

I know I keep saying the same thing, but my point is to drill into everyone's heads that Democrats and Republicans are both going to have to slaughter some sacred cows or it's simply not going to get done. We'll just kick the can down the road for another generation who will find the situation even worse and perhaps even inescapable.

Great post. I agree with most of it, but I am not sure that raising tax rates on upper incomes will have the desired effect. Cutting entitlements also needs to be done. Could you give more info on the means testing requirement?

[Grumps 3,706]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues. Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

THIS IS THE POINT THAT PEOPLE DO NOT SEEM TO BE GETTING!!!!!

[Aufan59 101]

No they don't.

Americans who think that have been lied to. We have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem.

The spending problem is so bad that the only way to truly fix it is to increase revenue.

We know spending is the problem, but to say that we can fix things only with spending cuts is simply wrong.

No, it's not wrong, it's prudent and the right thing to do. We spend far too much tax payer $ on things the govt has no business paying for in the first place.

No one's saying we shouldn't cut spending. What we are saying is that we can't just spending cut our way out of this mess. It's going to take both increasing revenues AND cutting spending. It will require some sacrifices from practically every segment of society to get this debt situation under control.

Economic growth and more jobs paying taxes will increase revenues. Obama and his fellow Democrats are stifling recovery. Tax increases right now are suicidal.

THIS IS THE POINT THAT PEOPLE DO NOT SEEM TO BE GETTING!!!!!

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

[Aufan59 101]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Economic growth between 2000-2007 was below post WW2 averages.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=575

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Far less than under Clinton when taxes were raised on the top 2 percent, and were maintained at levels higher than now on everyone else. Republicans then said the same wrong things in 1993 that they are saying now.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Far less than under Clinton when taxes were raised on the top 2 percent, and were maintained at levels higher than now on everyone else. Republicans then said the same wrong things in 1993 that they are saying now.

They're not wrong. Clinton era economy didn't benefit from the tax increases as you claim. There was more to it than the simple cause /effect scenario you'd like to paint.

And there weren't 2 wars going on , nor had the US been struck, as happened on 9/11.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Far less than under Clinton when taxes were raised on the top 2 percent, and were maintained at levels higher than now on everyone else. Republicans then said the same wrong things in 1993 that they are saying now.

They're not wrong. Clinton era economy didn't benefit from the tax increases as you claim. There was more to it than the simple cause /effect scenario you'd like to paint.

And there weren't 2 wars going on , nor had the US been struck, as happened on 9/11.

They were wrong. They said tax increases would cause the sky to fall. It didn't. They predicted dire consequences, just as they always do, if any taxes are increased. They were dead wrong about that.

BTW, fighting wars used to mean you raised taxes to pay for them, not cut them. Republican strategy-- spend more, take in less.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Economic growth between 2000-2007 was below post WW2 averages.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=575

That wasn't the question. The answer is 13 quarters ( or 52 straight months )of jobs growth.

But thanks for playing.

[AURaptor 1,137]

They were wrong.

They weren't wrong. The GOP congress came in and curtailed much of Clinton's spending. And the situation we have now isn't the same as it was 18 years ago.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

They were wrong.

They weren't wrong. The GOP congress came in and curtailed much of Clinton's spending. And the situation we have now isn't the same as it was 18 years ago.

Clinton had already trimmed discretionary spending, but let's go with your assertions for a minute-- increased taxes, decreased spending growth, budget surplus. So we agree.

[Aufan59 101]

Bush tax cuts make people realize that it is slightly more complicated than decrease tax rate = increase revenues.

And how many quarters of job growth and economic expansion did we have in the Bush years ?

Economic growth between 2000-2007 was below post WW2 averages.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=575

That wasn't the question. The answer is 13 quarters ( or 52 straight months )of jobs growth.

But thanks for playing.

This game is lame. You ask an irrelevant question, unrelated to the topic. When I provide relevant information, you say I wasn't playing your game correctly.

What does 13 quarters of job growth have to do with this thread? Those 13 quarters of job growth were below average, and worse than what happened in the 1990's aftertaxes were raised.

Tax cuts potentially reduce revenues. Economists agree that revenues would have been higher without the Bush tax cuts.

If you think we can balance the budget without increasing various taxes, you are bad at math or good at ignoring blatant facts.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

We can balance the budget by CUTTING SPENDING!!!!!