The point is that given the deficit, we simply can not afford the loss in federal revenue caused by the tax cuts to the wealthy. There is no series of cuts that would be acceptable to Americans that will bridge the difference between Federal revenue and Expenses. That means, even with cuts and closing corporate tax loop holes, there will need to be more tax revenue. The wealthy are the only source for the needed money. Even the Fed Chairman, a republican said last week that the deficits are unsustainable. He and O'Neil told Bush when he started with the tax cuts that tax cuts should be dependent on a surplus to pay for them. They both told Bush not to return to annual deficits. What did Bush do, created the largest deficits in our history by cutting taxes and increasing spending with no end in sight.

I take it you can not come up with ANY accomplishments that "HELPS US" ?

Actually, Colonel, I cannot. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Goose egg. Nothing. Can you?

It's called deal with it! He's in office until 2008 and *nothing you or your loopy lobotomized leftists can say or do is going to accomplish one damn thing.

What? No denial? Good strategy on the personal attacks. Ha!

Actually in one way he does help us. While this man will go down in history as the most financially loose president ever, the democrats have not helped the situation. The platforms they had during the Kerry campaign called for even more spending than Bush's. So while I won't call him "conservative" I will call more financially responsible than the opposition. Sad state of affairs really.

It's called deal with it! He's in office until 2008 and *nothing you or your loopy lobotomized leftists can say or do is going to accomplish one damn thing. What? No denial? Good strategy on the personal attacks. Ha!

Personal attack? You obviously do not know what an attack is. That is unless you claim to be a loopy lobotomized leftist?

The point is that given the deficit, we simply can not afford the loss in federal revenue caused by the tax cuts to the wealthy.

You saying we can't afford it doesn't mean it's true.  First, you have no idea how much, if any, of the federal deficit is caused by tax cuts.

You know what kind of tax proposal I would support? A consumption tax.  The top 5% of the people pay half the taxes. Did you even know that? I bet you didn't or you would quit ranting about "tax cuts for the rich".

A consumption tax would be much more fair.  1% consumption tax on non-food purchases over $10.

What annoys me about our tax system is that half the adult population basically pays no federal income taxes. 

Dabe

His road map in the middle east conflict was a good plan and he got agreement from all the essential factions. He failed to make sure the plan was carried out and that all parties upheld their responsibilities.

Draginol

I did read the article that estimated 270 Billion in 2004 is due to the tax cuts. I can not locate it . The issue is that he continued tax cuts and making them permanent is bad policy. The Brookings Institute did a study that showed making the Bush tax cuts permanent would aid $2.4 trillion by 2014 to the national debt. You can go to their web site to find that study.

The Brookings institute is a left-leaning thinktank. It means nothing. The Heritage Foundation (the right wing version of the Brookings Institute) has numerous articles talking about how much the economy will grow thanks to those tax cuts.

See, here's the thing - you don't like the deficit. I don't like the deficit. Your solution is to make me and others like me pay to bring it down.  My solution is to freeze spending across the board.

People of my view are the ones in control of the congress and people like you are influential enough to keep congress from freezing spending.

So it's a deadlock and hence the tax cuts stay.

I guess the CBO is also a left-leaning thinktank. They just indicated that the Bush tax policies will add another 2.58 Trillion to the deficit. There is nothing wrong with the tax rates that were in effect prior to 2001. People in your income bracket had the best ten years in their history. I know I did. If you believe things like the military, or any other agency that employs people or buys anything can be level funded, you have lost it. We could cut the 30 Billion of pork but the GOP, who has the power to cut that, will not. Starving the Beast is going to create such a financial problem, only very large tax increases will keep us solvent!

Col Gene - you have yet to provide a link to the CBO quote you claimed.   You have very little credibility.  The CBO, at most, estimates what it thinks deficits will be in coming years. It doesn't cast a "Blame" towards them.

I'm all for cutting welfare programs.  Tell ya what, you raise social security retirement age to 75 years old, eliminate medicaid, make it so that only those who are 75 years or older can receive social security and I'll support your tax increase.

Draginol

I do not think your ideas will fly. If congress used your suggestions to balance the budget, they would not be reelected and the new members would reverse such changes. It is better to deal with issues before they become too large. Returning to the tax rates for the top 5% that were in effect prior to 2001 and cutting pork plus closing corporate tax loop holes would go a long way to bringing the budget into balance.

The concept called the margin propensity to consume is the economic reason it is more effective to raise tax rates on the wealthy then on the more moderate income group. Over all, the lower income taxpayer will spend a much higher proportion of any additional dollar and stimulate demand to a greater extent than will tax cuts to the wealthy. That is why it is more advisable increase taxes on the upper income citizens.

Draginol I do not think your ideas will fly

No more than yours will

"The top 5% of the people pay half the taxes. Did you even know that? I bet you didn't or you would quit ranting about "tax cuts for the rich"."

It is much the same in Britain too, but we must remember that income tax is not the only form of tax. The peasants often finds themselves hit hard from tax on cigarettes to VAT on the cheap food they eat.

I was aware of that. That does not alter the fact we are spending about $675 Billion more this year then we tax. That is what can not continue. When cuts that are acceptable to the majority have been made and loop holes closed, the remaining deficit must be filled with more revenue (Taxes). The tax rates in every other industrilized nation are far greater then in the US. Also, the higher tax rates on those who can afford to pay a bit more did not adversely inpct the economy in the 1990's in the U S.

See, here's the thing - you don't like the deficit. I don't like the deficit. Your solution is to make me and others like me pay to bring it down. My solution is to freeze spending across the board.

Freezing spending does not reduce the deficit, it only assures that we have a steady rate of deficit.
Those in the top 5% have gained most from the American economic system, are able to afford it the most, and have the most influence within Congress.

What annoys me about our tax system is that half the adult population basically pays no federal income taxes.

I won't call for a link for you to prove your statement because its misleading and irrelevent. Everyone pays taxes in the form of witholding which the government can use without paying interest back until their refunds are due. Additionally funds from everyones social security is borrowed against to pay off the general budget.
Do you and Draginol propose that we tax poor and lower middle income familiies higher?

The consumption tax is a sham. Those in favor argue that it will help the lower income classes more. Total lie. The new taxes would tax medical and food. Are you telling me a family makes so little money that they do not pay income taxes is going to save money by now being taxed on food? What it does is take the tax brackets down for the upper classes. Additionally there are no provisions to allow for charitable contributions, nor assistance for homeowners paying high interest rates for the pleasure of having a place to live.