X-boxershorts: Cite where I am wrong.

1) "YOU are, by refusing to raise revenue". My response - I have never refused to raise revenue. Citation: HeadLever 2012-09-11 03:45:32 PM "Not that I am aginst some targeted tax increases as we definaly need the revenue,. . "

2)"The real flaw in your argument comes from the fact that SS outlays DON'T EVEN COUNT IN THE BUDGET" Citation: already provided did you miss it the first time?

3) "It all went to corporate America and was extracted OUT of the economy" Ciatation: I gave you numbers disputing this fact that were from a variety of souces best one-stop shoping for these number would likely be here

4)"A paid partisan sniper." Citation: LOL, I wish I was paid. However, I consider beating back your ignorance to be a noble cause of education. I'm a non-profit in that way. Also not exactly sure how well I fit into the 'partisan' mold as I have major disagreements with the standard GOP stance of no tax increases.

Never mind. I don't need your shiat. Rot your brain at your own expense fool.

And there it is. The classic 'LALALALALA! I can't hear you!' dribble that keep the narrow minded safley cloaked in ignorance. Folks like you make good sheep.

Interest rates are lower than inflation. We should be borrowing and spending our way out of the recession.

Marcus Aurelius: Maybe we could let Bush's "temporary" tax cuts expire and then tax capital gains like regular income.

That should go a long way toward fixing the problem.

But that's much too sensible.

It wouldn't be really close at all. We had $3.5 trillion in expenditures last year against $2.3 trillion in revenues. The "Bush" tax cuts -- which have been approved by both parties, repeatedly, even when each party had significant majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the Presidency -- only cost a couple hundred billion a year. Even if you did eliminate them, you're still looking at hundreds of billions in additional cuts to get things even close.

If you really want to balance the budget, you're going to have to pair up a significant tax increase (preferably one which does away with all the stupid deductions and tax shelters) combined with significant cuts in spending on defense, medicare, medicaid, and social security.

FloydA: GanjSmokr: nyseattitude: More compelling evidence we need more tax cuts for the wealthy?

That's just stupid. More spending is the only way out.


/what would be ideal (and actually make sense) is more taxes and less spending but that would require compromise from both sides and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

The problem there is that cutting government spending during a recession or a weak recovery will tend to prolong the recession. Businesses aren't spending, but unless money starts moving from place to place, the economy is stagnant. If we could ask all the businesses to "pretty please start hiring people so that they have money to spend," then the government would not have to. Unfortunately, it's in each company's best interest to delay hiring until the public is spending, so nobody is willing to take the first step.

Government spending is not ideal, but the real world seldom is.

I should replace "less spending" with "smarter spending". If we spent "smarter" we'd end up spending "less" and get better results for our money.

As of June 2012, Germany holds $65 Billion in US debt.^Source If they're so "concerned" they should feel free to sell.

The Muthaship: We must spend our way out of debt. It's the only way.

Debt is not our primary problem (not the national debt, anyway). We need to right the economic ship, and debt is a tool to fix our problems, especially when we're borrowing at historically low rates.

More compelling evidence we need more tax cuts for the wealthy?