I'm willing to start there and I'm willing to make major cuts, but even if we completely eliminated military spending, we wouldn't be close to balancing the budget. If you eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket, and leave the other brackets alone, we're still light years away from a balanced budget.
We HAD a balanced budget in 2001. Why did the idiots mess with it?
The real solution is to increase taxes on the wealthy and cut spending.
The real solution is to increase revenues sufficiently to come within hailing distance of outlays. Outlays are a given. There is no waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no bloat, no fat, no pork that you can cut that will amount to a hill of beans. The outlays curve is practically constant over time. It is the revenue curve that shifts around, either causing or solving problems. If we can't get revenues repaired, we simply continue to run huge deficits.
Being 62 years old, I never really thought I would live long enough to see the idea that only one side of a budget needs to be dealt with. Somehow, someway we have fallen down the rabbit hole into a fantasy land populated by zealots and fantatics who believe that the Bookkeeping 101 text which shows both INCOME and EXPENDITURES is somehow on a par with Das Kapital.
Yes, these are the fruits of a 30-year right-wing investment in creating an alternative information media of their own. First, one that could influence other media, then one that could dominate them. These days, they push out the most ridiculous malarkey, and still there are still those who will slop it all up. Doesn't say much for democracy, at least not American style.
Just a wee bit tired of the same old dishonest talking points:
They were not just "for the rich."
LOL! When I get five figures up front while the average guy gets maybe enough for a decent dinner out, and then my part grows each year while his part shrinks, that was a tax cut for the rich. About 50% of the annual benefits of provisions still in effect accrue to the top 1%. I guess that's cool by you because not 100% goes to the top 1%.
Originally Posted by Neomalthusian
Tax cuts are not direct wealth transfers.
Yes, they are. When Bush arrived, the top 1% were paying 25 cents out of every dollar of AGI in federal income taxes. He cut that to less than 21 cents. That's four cents and change out of every dollar in direct wealth to the already wealthy. Then there was the huge increase in income share that went to the top 1% on top of all that.
If we bring the tax rates back to where they were in the 90s, they'll be LESS progressive, not more progressive.
The proposal affects only the top two brackets. The 35% marginal rate on taxable income above $379,150 would become 39.6%. The 33% marginal rate on AGI between $212,300 and $379,150 would become 35%. For many, their actual tax bill would not change because even with the increase in their 1040 tax calculations, their AMT calculations would still produce a higher number.
Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 02-05-12 at 02:07 PM.