- Joined
- Oct 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,276
- Reaction score
- 5,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Just like Obama, I want to balance our budget through a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases. The key difference is, unlike Obama, I want to raise revenue by cutting loopholes, not raising rates. We have so many loopholes in our tax system. Loopholes that unfairly benefit the wealthy, or that incentivize behavior that is not socially or economically useful. These loopholes complicate the system, making figuring out what you owe more expensive for you, and making administering the system more expensive for the government. If we cut all the loopholes that disproportionately favor the wealthy or that no longer promote activities we feel should be encouraged, we will save billions of dollars. If done in a serious way, we should even be able to lower rates across the board and still see an increase in overall government revenue. We'd be solving two problems at once. But I want to do this with bipartisan input. I am willing to negotiate with Democrats on how to reform the loopholes and rates in a reasonable and fair manner. I think that is a discussion we should have after the election, when the two sides will be more motivated to work together. For now, this is my general strategy, and I think it is far less extreme than my opponent's, which is to raise tax rates while our economy is still fragile, and ignore the problems posed by unfair and irrational loopholes.
------------------------
The focus on 20% cuts, paired with the vagueness on which loopholes he would close, makes him look ridiculous. It makes it look like what he really cares about is the 20% cut, and who cares if they aren't able to work out a deal on loopholes that makes the plan actually work fiscally. They can cut the rates and then blame Democrats for not being able to come to a deal on the loopholes. Most people sense the warped priorities, and the disconnect between the platform of deficit reduction and the policy which seems only to benefit the wealthy. IMO, he would be better off being vague on both sides of the equation.
------------------------
The focus on 20% cuts, paired with the vagueness on which loopholes he would close, makes him look ridiculous. It makes it look like what he really cares about is the 20% cut, and who cares if they aren't able to work out a deal on loopholes that makes the plan actually work fiscally. They can cut the rates and then blame Democrats for not being able to come to a deal on the loopholes. Most people sense the warped priorities, and the disconnect between the platform of deficit reduction and the policy which seems only to benefit the wealthy. IMO, he would be better off being vague on both sides of the equation.
