Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
...if anyone thinks that a problem of this magnitude can be solved with spending cuts alone, they need to re-visit arithmetic class.
Oh, I know the arguments against "increasing revenue"...don't tax the job creators (even though they haven't created anywhere enough new jobs)...it's "income redistribution" (even though income and wealth IS being re-distributed by current policies, from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy)...economic growth will create more revenue (even though arithmetic shows that it would take 10% annual growth in GDP for fifty years to create enough new revenue to balance the budget).
No, ultimately we'll find that this problem can't be solved without tax increases as well as deep cuts in spending. Using your example of the family budget, it means sending the wife and kids out to get a job, regardless of the effect it might have on family happiness, recreation and the like.
|
Depends on what you want to consider "new revenue". New revenue used to mean exactly that in our English language. The creation of new monies. Now "new revenue", as defined by our administration and maybe now by you, means taking more resources from the citizens in the form of increased taxes.
Increased taxes is a very poor way to induce the creation of what is truly "new revenue". New goods and new services are the best way to increase "new revenue". Ronald Reagan proved this and he did that by decreasing taxes and gutting capital gains taxes which in due time boosted true "new revenue"
At least call it what you really mean it to be. You want to take more money from the only citizens really able to boost the private economy and give it to the government to distribute even though all their previous attempts to "grow" our economy has been a dismal failure.
Also, forcing Republicans to break their "no new taxes" pledge is a great campaign tool. Ask George H. Bush, he'll tell you all about it.