I didn't say anyone suggested we raise taxes 70%. I said we'd need to increase tax revenue by nearly 70% to cover our current spending deficit to a point where we'd come out neutral.
Yes, many things should maybe be on the table. But all of them are secondary to reforming entitlements and cutting military spending.Maybe??
No, they're not. They ran a deficit this year and are set up in such a way that a deficit is likely to be ran for years to come. And, regardless of which, all other entitlements still make up the largest percentage of federal spending and still would require reform even if you ignored social security.And the SS portion of entitlements, which make up the largest share, are fully funded by any reasonable projection.
A concept that works perhaps when you have a relatively small and managable debt so running an occasional deficit isn't a big deal. We've got a MASSIVE debt that is ever increasing with no hope in sight anytime soon of running a true and honest surplus. Small occasional deficits aren't a bad thing when you're not TRILLIONS in debt.There is no need to balance the budget. We can run deficits far into the future. The problem is the size of the deficits. Your argument is based on a fallacy.