Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You assume one thin which I would say disagrees with what you actually wrote. Being your statements and all I will give you the benefit of doubt in reading your own commentary on your own time. For now a massive migraine is starting so I gotta go

Peace brother. I got no quarrel with you. Its fun sparring like this. Welcome to P&R!

[dalegg 143]

I think while increased revenues probably has to be part of the solution, the whole debate over taxing the top 1% is a bit of a red herring.

According to the Pew Economic Group:

# Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

# Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.2 trillion in the next decade.

So what we are talking about here is an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the national debt over the next decade attributed to families making over $250,000 a year. Well, at the rate we are going, the National debt is going to increase by $10 Trillion at least. So instead of a $20 trillion debt we have a $19 trillion. wooptie-doo.

You're only tackling 10% of the problem at best with this debate. Let's talk about the other 90%.

[mawilson 2,133]

So what we are talking about here is an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the national debt over the next decade

According to CBO, it's even worse - $700 billion if you undo the tax cuts for the $200k crowd vs $3.7 trillion if you undo the tax cuts for everyone.

[dalegg 143]

According to CBO, it's even worse - $700 billion if you undo the tax cuts for the $200k crowd vs $3.7 trillion if you undo the tax cuts for everyone.

I don't mean to sound partisan here, but here's another way to look at cost of the Bush tax cuts to the National debt- According to the numbers I read by all opponents of the Bush tax cuts, the cost to the debt over those 10 years in 2.5 Trillion dollars total. How much have we added to the National Debt since Bush left?

[Zero Sum 305]

Peace brother. I got no quarrel with you. Its fun sparring like this. Welcome to P&R!

Thanks John/GaryC (sorry! ). I feel much better this morning. The debating is fun, specially when people miss the point being argued and others that don't participate echo the observation in private... although it would be much better if they joined in.

[Zero Sum 305]

I think while increased revenues probably has to be part of the solution, the whole debate over taxing the top 1% is a bit of a red herring.

According to the Pew Economic Group:

# Making the tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, regardless of income, would increase the national debt $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

# Limiting the extension to individuals making less than $200,000 and married couples earning less than $250,000 would increase the debt about $2.2 trillion in the next decade.

So what we are talking about here is an additional 1.1 Trillion added to the national debt over the next decade attributed to families making over $250,000 a year. Well, at the rate we are going, the National debt is going to increase by $10 Trillion at least. So instead of a $20 trillion debt we have a $19 trillion. wooptie-doo.

You're only tackling 10% of the problem at best with this debate. Let's talk about the other 90%.

Of which obvious cuts in spending would be a natural target. So identifying where the majority of expenditures lie would be a good first step. Much in the same way as the 1% controlling 40% of national income. There's something fundamentally wrong about not tapping that huge income inequality as long as the taking doesn't ruin those in the top 1%. We don't want any more revolutions of the rich carried out by people that think they actually have a shot at joining the club.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't mean to sound partisan here, but here's another way to look at cost of the Bush tax cuts to the National debt- According to the numbers I read by all opponents of the Bush tax cuts, the cost to the debt over those 10 years in 2.5 Trillion dollars total. How much have we added to the National Debt since Bush left?

Well, a few other things happened aside from the 2001/2003 tax cuts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Medicare D, the Great Recession just to name the major ones. The combination of all this explains the deficits we're running not the tax cuts alone. And yes, taxing the 200/250K folks at 1999 tax rates alone surely won't do the trick. Nor would reverting to 1999 tax rates for everyone. While I believe that that should happen - should have happened at the end of last year, actually - adding to the population that acutally has a job to go to and reducing the population that doesn't would certainly help the fiscal picture. Getting out of these stupid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pulling the hell back from Libya would be more great things we could do to bring the budget back into balance.

All that said, cutting taxes further as is proposed by some in Congress most certainly will NOT balance the budget. It's never worked before and it sure isn't suddenly going to work now. And looking at the cliff, this isn't the time to jump and try. Gravity does work...