I have a really nice ice scraper. ;-)

Probably has one of them nylon brushes on one side, too. Only socialists have THOSE, you know?

(or was it Godless Communists? Or 'Libbies" It was SOMETHING or other....)

Probably does. Goddess Communist, if you please. ;-)

Tax rates were lower than this until 1986.

And, if the GAO report was adopted, we could have a $200 billion spending cut TODAY- by eliminating overlapping and redundant federal programs.

Then there are the completely stupid programs- like the new "secret shopper" program. Cut that one. Cut the program that sends out social workers to all low income, first time mothers- are they too poor to have mothers of their own?

Use some of those Justice department lawyers and investigators to get the military contractors having military materials manufactured in China- then pocketing the savings as extra profit. Fine the heck out of them.

Democrats want increased revenue? Tell the Obama administration to get out of Boeing's way. Let that plant open- a thousand workers will be paying income taxes, and Boeing will pay taxes on their profits.

Get back the stimulus monies from companies that used those funds to open or expand plants in China.

There is a lot more that can be done, but you get the idea.

DBO, that sums it up perfectly!

"There is a lot more that can be done, but you get the idea."

Yes- I'm agreeing with you, No Jo. BUT- why not cut all this crap, and ALSO raise revenues by an equal amount each time a cut is made??

Spending is at an all time high. This is not a revenue problem. Again, I get you all don't want to hear it, but just take a gander out here in Cali.

They raised revenue, a lot, but guess what - it made no difference. Oh wait, it did make it different - it's worse now.

But Drive By I am puzzled - if we raise revenue each time a cut is made what would the net effect be? SO it's really just a wash?

So Jody, Drive By, or Anna M - why is the federal situation going to be any different that here in Cali? Four years of increased revenue and we are worse off and looking for a bail-out.

I'd love to hear why or how this time it'll be different.

Could have sworn the population has almost doubled since 1950, so that means as a whole we are paying twice as much as back then doesn't it Driveby????

No Joe

"Tax rates were lower than this until 1986."

Sorry, Joe, incorrect. According to the Tax Foundation, the only time tax rates were lower than this prior to 1986 was prior to 1916, and from 1925 to 1932. They weren't even this low in 1986. In 1986, the top tax rate was 38.5%. It is currently 35%. I keep hearing that the tax rates are lower than they have been since 1950. In 1950 the to tax rate was 84.36%. A lot of misinformation floating around on this issue. There have been 9 out of the last 95 years that the top tax rate has been lower than it is now.

Raise taxes........How about we have the 40% of Americans filing thier taxes who either pay nothing or get a refund larger than the amount they paid to share some of the burden. I'm all for a flat 10% on All income. That's fair to everyone. Tell the government there's your budget. You spend what you take in, no more than that. Government needs to run thier budget like all of us run ours. We spend what we earn. We just can't demand a raise when we need more cash...........We have to live within our means and so should those we elect to run our country. A flat tax would cut billions from the budget by shutting down the IRS alone.

NOJO....."Cut the program that sends out social workers to all low income, first time mothers- are they too poor to have mothers of their own?"

You really don't get it do you?

Likely the mothers have passed on less than stellar skills. Social workers can help to break a cycle. Isn't that what we want? Don't we want to lift up those that have less. If they are stronger we are all stronger. My best girlfriend is an investigator for the AG in Arkansas. She can tell us about hundreds of success stories from programs like this.

Ha.. NOJO...your head just expoded didn't it? Someone standing up for the poor.....eeeeek.

Honestly Vermontgirl, I don't care. I don't see why any of my tax dollars should go to help someone who was too lazy to go down the the health department and get on some form of birth control. Most liberals are pro-abortion and most are even pro-state funded abortions. This seems like a case where the parent should have excercised this contstitutional right.

We now live in a society where people that lack proper education are being coddled by others at the expense of those of us who are out here busting our tails trying to earn a living. I am the non custodial parent of a child born with a permenant disability to whom I'm leagally required to support for the rest of my life. Do you think our wonderful government has any programs for these people once they reach the age of 18? I was told although her handicap is physical and even though she will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life that she is my responsibility. I try to live up to that responsibility to the best of my ability, so don't go telling me that some uneducated hick deserves a helping hand because they did something they knew could lead to having a child. Anyone that tells you they didn't know they could get pregnant from having unprotected sex is either a) lying, or b) are mentally unstable and shouldn't legally be allowed to have children since they obviously can't care for them.

vermont girl - I have an adopted niece with two kids that has no problem in scamming the system for all it is worth and she sees nothing wrong with riding the system for all it is worth. My sister and brother-in-law had her as a tween foster child and later adopted her and her older brother. She raised two sons and adopted a korean girl as well. Seems that the three she raised from birth have a sense of responsibility of being good citizens. The two foster kids don't seem to care. your tax dollars at work...lmao!

The debt ceiling has been put on hold until Republicans sneak back, er uh, return from the secret meeting in Vail, Colorado with the Koch brothers.

57% of tax evasion comes from folks who self-report their income (the richest 2%), not the W2 working poor. A flat tax does not take into account proportion of income required for basic needs (food, shelter, etc.), so a progressive tax will always be needed in some form.

If you're so concerned about welfare, let's start with corporate welfare. Let's start with the folks that caused the Great Recession. The investment bankers have been laughing their head off at the GOP/TP suckers. Make these rat-bastards who have gotten rich from destroying Main Street pay up!

DBO comment said:

BUT- why not cut all this crap, and ALSO raise revenues by an equal amount each time a cut is made??

Maybe you didn't do to well in math , cause what you are saying sounds like a wash to me... oh my that's fuzzy math, sorry didn't take that class!!

Now let's see if you subtract a dollar in spending cuts then add a dollar in tax increase (to the evil rich of course) what's the sum total ... zero savings and no cuts, no changes to the budget or deficit!!

There is the dirty little secret the libs don't want the average Joe's to know about... but we raised the taxes on the evil rich and helped the middle class with the reduction... blah blah blah

It's time to stop this crap talk and REDUCE spending, put down the credit card... it's that simple!!

Y-M D- exactly. Not only do they need to agree to some kind of compromise on doing BOTH ( I cut spending by a buck, you cough up a buck), they could even hammer out such a deal for a temporary time period. Say, until economic indicators start to show we made it, and are again making postitive progress. THEN go back to the p!ssing contest.

Of course, that might benefit one or the other parties, so THAT ain't gonna happen!

Pssst - Drive By that's exactly what they said here. "Don't worry, it'll all just be temporary."

We never "made it" here. It benefited neither party and especially did not benefit the taxpayers or the state.

Why are you advocating for a plan that already has been show to be a failure?

Spanky- Why are conservatives advocating for a plan that has already been shown to be a failure?

What plan is that Heart?

The Cali plan of temporary raises failed badly. In fact although revenues were significantly increase the debt went up.

Time for deep cuts across the board. Plus can you spare $120 billion? We could really use it.

Cutting taxes further on the rich and corporations, subsidizing corporations that are already making unprecedented profits, subsidizing the offshoring of jobs and cutting or eliminating social programs. That has not worked out all that well, or we would not be where we are. Dems have conceded spending cuts. Now it's time for Repubs to concede revenue increases.

Congress needs to be treated nationally as it is in California. Those idiots out there can't decide on a budget either, but a little known law is now in effect where as they don't earn any salary until they do figure out a budget. It's saving the state a whole lot of money and none of the salaries will be retroactive either. They just start earning a salary again after they come up with a budget.

Heartlight3

Spanky- Why are conservatives advocating for a plan that has already been shown to be a failure?

Answer:

GOP - party ideology before country

$1 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue is fair. If you don't agree, explain why not, and provide specifics, evidence, and credible sources.

I dont think they need more revenue........what do they take in now? 2.5 trillion? I think that's enough to run the government. Giving them more revenue just gives them more reason to spend more money. They need to learn to live within the country's means. You can't go to work tomorrow and demand a raise just because you are over spending. I don't think our government has that right either.

Hey TruePatriot,

I don't agree. You need a lot more spending cuts than you do revenue increases. You don't cure addictive behavior (i.e. overspending) by enabling more of the same.

If you want some references on what actually works I suggest you have a look at the comprehensive study of post-World War II fiscal consolidations in developed economies published last year by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna conclude that successful deficit reduction averaged $5 to $6 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes. They also found that higher taxes more often led to recession.

There should be no debate about the need for both spending cuts and revenue increases. We have lived beyond our means for decades. We need to immediately put in place a PAY AS YOU GO approach so that we can stablize our ship before it sinks. On top of that we need to have some surplus to start paying off the debt we've amassed.

And in terms of where the extra revenue needs to come from, I say it should come from 100% of all wage earners. No more free rides for nearly 50% of US wage earners. Everyone has to have some skin in the game. Those at the upper end should pay more but those at the bottom CANNOT KEEP PAYING NOTHING! Corporations can also start paying on their WORLDWIDE income (regardless of repatriation) just like every America citizen does. Finally, if corporations want tax breaks then they can have them in exchange for creating jobs here and/or moving outsourced positions back to the US. I have no problem with GE not paying a cent in taxes IF they create enough well-paying positions here in the US. The federal government will collect on the wages a hell of a lot more than they would collect from the company without the positions.

Look into that study and do a little homework and then come back and tell us how $1 for $1 makes sense.

had enuf of our elected ones - We are in agreement on more than we disagree on.

I said revenue, in other words increasing the tax BASE (not tax rates), increasing the tax base--most notably ending tax evasion, ending subsidies for high profit entities like Exxon Mobil, and credits for things like corporate jets. That goes for any company regardless of employees hired. Companies that create good-paying jobs in the US should be rewarded with a lower tax rate, but anyone who enjoys the benefits of this country needs to contribute.

Placing more burden on the struggling middle class is out of the question right now--certainly not until the economy improves, unemployment goes down, and wages go up (if ever). Those at the bottom who pay nothing because they are so poor that tax credits allow them to pay nothing would pay more if tax credits were removed, which I support -- As long as there is a progressive tax rate taking into account proportion of income required for basic needs (food, shelter, etc.).

But 57% of tax evasion comes from folks who self-report their income, unlike the W2 working poor and middle class who are subjected to third-party reporting. These folks are doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, etc. (richest 5%-2%) who do not create jobs. We know they cheat to show zero income--that's why no documentation loans were invented. Conservatives love to point to Greece for spending problems, but 6 out of 10 people in Greece were not paying taxes.

In regard to that study, here is an interesting article referencing it: "Does fiscal austerity boost short-term growth? A new IMF paper thinks not" -- http://www.economist.com/node/17147618?story_id=17147618&fsrc=rss. No doubt there are other studies that reach different conclusions.

PAYGO was supposedly supported by Republicans...until President Obama agreed to it. The GOP/TP hypocrisy is what really bugs people. Whether it's how many times Republicans raised the debt ceiling under Bush, or never complained about the legality or cost of the wars, or health care initiatives like Bush's prescription drug plan, it's become obvious the Republicans want President Obama and therefore the economy to fail in hopes of surviving the 2012 elections.

Take a look a Jan Schakowsky's fair tax bill--that's what we need right now.

1 for 1 just breaks even. If you look at the revenue the govt takes in as a % of gdp it averages 18.3% over the last 30 years or so and 18% for the last 50 years. It stays close to the same no matter what the marginal rates are. If we spend more than this we are screwed.

We are now spending 25% of GDP (took in 2.2T and spending 3.7T) and i don't think we have ever come close to collecting that and is not sustainable. Rarely do we touch 20% of GDP as revenue. If we can't learn to spend less we are doomed. Tax rate increases won't put even a small dent in the amount of deficit spending we have. We are spending waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

I said $1 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue was fair. Really, the point is the Dems can offer $3 in spending cuts for $1 in revenue, and the GOP/TP will have a hissyfit.

I don't embrace or believe in the "starve the beast" hypothesis. For one thing, we were able to have a surplus under Clinton, so we know it can be done, and it requires revenue and not just spending cuts. I mean, that wasn't in some distant past--it was just the administration before Bush/Cheney. Conservatives talk about cuts in the abstract, but if spending was actually slashed to the levels they propose, it would be disastrous.

Sheesh. The next thing you know they'll want to give tax breaks for golf outings. Or do they do that already?

How does the president (or anyone) get around the FOX filter? Or the "cone of silence" conservatives live in? Oh forget it, you'd have to deprogram all of them first, and who knows how long that would take, assuming it's even possible.

I'm not a conservative, nor a liberal. I'm constitutionalist. 90% of our representatives need to be tossed and replaced. We vote em in and they forget about us until re-election time. Truman should have demanded term limits for Congress when he signed into law term limits for the POTUS.

Saphiremite

Finally someone else around here who has some common sense.

The democrats and republicans together have us fighting amongst ourselves while they pad their own pockets and kick back to their major supporters. The on-going stalemate we've had for nearly a decade suits them perfectly. We the people are so distracted by the rhetoric and fighting with each other that we have no time to hold them accountable and force them to do their jobs...NAMELY, ACTING IN THE INTERESTS OF OUR COUNTRY.

WE ARE BEING "HAD" BY BOTH PARTIES AND INSTEAD OF REALIZING IT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WOULD RATHER CONTINUE BEING FOOLS AND ARGUING/BLAMING WHILE THESE CROOKS CONTINUE TO PULL THE WOOL OVER OUR EYES.

If we don't come to our senses and force our elected officials to do their jobs our country is going to crash. We no longer have the luxury of allowing the stalemate to continue. Other countries are exploiting our inaction to their advantage. They attract investments, our jobs and the highly eductaed away from the US. They will continue to lose confidence in the ability of the United States to handle its fiscal affairs and that will lead to higher interest rates which will compound our problems because then we'll need to spend more of the revenues we do have on servicing the debt. Continued bickering and inaction is a sure path to a death spiral.

Heaven help us all if it comes down to this. You will see violence in the streets. The rule of law will be out the window and it will be every man for himself. That's our future on the current path. Anarchy and chaos.

There is always a lesser of two evils--on evil does not cancel the other evil. The Democrats are compromising, the Republicans are not.

When did the polarization start? When FOX was launched in the mid-1990s, and then Hate Radio, and then bogus websites, and then Viral E-mails. The misinformation (propaganda) that is so proliferate now and very damaging.

Holy cow, I don't know what it would take to get people off their couches and into the street, but I agree that the US is not investing in the future or competing in the global economy the way we should.

Please explain exactly who it is you think put those "loopholes" in place Jody.

Again, you have never read the tax code. Yet here you are spouting off anout something you know nothing about.

How about this Jody - would you consider the home mortgage deduction a "loophole?" If not, why not? If it was eliminated tax revenues would increase, right?

Now tell us, who put that one in the code and why.

Jody, I also wonder why you single out McConnell. You are aware that it was Rangle who was in charge of the actual code, right? What did he do during his tenure Jody? How about Pelsoi, she was Rangel's boss, right? Did she anything?

So again Jody, why Mitch?

Make the "home mortgage deduction operative on first homes only. Second and third and fourth homes and vacation homes would not receive the benefit. That should satisfy both sides of the argument. Why is that not being considered?

So you are looking to even further chill the real estate market, eh?

I tend to think that would be a poor idea, especially now. Besides that benefit is already reduced.

It'd also make it harder to have a second home and a motorhome and they are both really fun to have.

All intrest should be tax deductible. It's part of someone else's income and they should pay the taxes on it. As it stands here in the state I live in, we are taxed on income by both federal and state, we have a sales tax, property tax, sin tax, etc, etc, etc. By the time a dollar makes it back to the Federal Reserve it's been taxed 10 times it's value.........

A flat tax will solve this mess and an amendment about double taxation. This paying income and sales tax on the same dollar should be unconstitutional. Those of us who work for a living and don't have a bunch of loopholes or earned income credit are already taxed to death.

No tax credits, period. As soon as you try to manipulate the market, or encourage or punish lifestyles or behavior, it will always be abused and will always be unfair and will often cause unintended consequences. A flat tax does not take into account proportion of income required for basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.) so a progressive tax will always be needed in some form.

Removing loopholes increases the tax base, thus making it more viable to decrease the tax rates (per Jody's post above). If conservatives can't grasp this concept with their narrow, simple minds, or that there are two parts to the deficit equation--spending AND revenue--then move aside and allow more capable people to solve the problem.

As I posted earlier (above), those who caused the recession and those who got richer from the recession are the ones who should be paying to get us out of the recession--now THAT's fair.

BTW, the recent b!tching about Rangel -- We know he was chief tax writer in the House and that he was busted for "errors" with the IRS. I can't find a credible source reporting anything else. What is point you are trying to make, and please provide a link.

TP,

Your argument against a flat tax would make more sense if you were talking about a national sales tax or a value added tax (VAT).

Our current tax system is both flat and progressive. It is flat within income bands, with the flat rate being progressively increased as income levels increase.

Getting rid of the vast majority of credits and deductions (along with lowering the progressively flat rates) would go a long way to preventing a lot of the abuse of the system that goes on today. It really doesn't matter if I make $100k with a standard deduction of $5700 and 4 exemptions worth $14k so that my net taxes end up having a net cost to me of around 8% of gross versus eliminating most of the deductions and charging me 7% for the first $50k and 9% for the next $50k flat with no deductions. In the end I pay around $8k either way, but with the most of the credits and deductions eliminated my incentive to try and hide income is greatly reduced.

On the other hand, you seem to think it is fair that those at the bottom get away with paying ZERO. I would ask you what makes that fair. I worked hard to put myself through undergrad and grad school, taking on a large amount of student loan debt in order to do so. Then I worked my way through the ranks of corporate America paying back those loans (and my dues) to get to a decent lifestyle where I currently am. Those were choices that all of us are entitled to make because of the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of this country. Those who did not make the same choices I made benefited differently from the choices they made. I have no issue with paying more than someone else who may not be as fortunate as I have been, but I DO have a problem with the less fortunate getting away with paying nothing at all. That is not fair.

Just because someone is less fortunate than someone else, why does that give them the right to be exempt from helping to support the country that we all share? You cannot possibly claim that the vast majority of these people have NO discretionary income at all. So why should I have to give up some of my discretionary income as taxes if they do not have to give up some of theirs? Explain why working hard and making choices that led to a better outcome than others makes it fair that the others should be freed from paying a fair share?

I have news for you. Besides the bankers and wall street types there were plenty of "less fortunates" who contributed to causing this recession through not paying any federal taxes or signing on for mortgages that they could not possibly afford. There's plenty of blame to go around and NO ONE can claim that they were not a part of it.

You need to give up the blame game and accept reality. Otherwise its only a matter of time until you wake up one morning, look in the mirror and finally recognize that the face looking back at you is one of the people that contribured to the disintegration of our nation.

had enuf of our elected ones

I replied to most of this in a post above. I support a "mix" of taxes for the very concerns you express. For example everyone pays sales taxes. Then there are property taxes (which is a form of a progressive tax because it is based on the value of the property), and so forth. Because there are those who are paid cash under the table or barter or what have you, these are other ways to get taxes from them.

Still, the W2 working person cannot afford a team of accountants to set up tax shelters like the richest 2% to 1%. During Bush, Republicans passed income tax cuts across the board in 2001. But in 2003 they passed additional tax cuts on dividends, capital gains, and estate taxes that apply only to the rich. The 2003 taxes are another part of the "mix" that that should be reinstated to ensure that everyone is contributing.

When I was young and working at minimum wage, I paid income taxes. I've always paid income taxes no matter what I've earned. So it amazes me how anyone is able to pay zero in taxes. As stated in posts above, just get rid of all tax credits and no will be able to do that. But a flat tax doesn't work--it is like the Bible story about the women who gave a penny in tithing but it was all that she had.

Enough with the individual responsibility crap. Once again, there is always a lesser of two evils, and those who became richer by destroying others are the worst.

Is charging $20,000 a plate MORE presidential? Personally, I think it's more "man of the people" than "presidential." I'm actually thinking about giving $5. That's about all I think anyone should give.

Nope, $20,000 is disgusting, its a terrible waste of money.

Such a provision would, in all likelihood, be found unConstitutional- so it would not be worth the paper it was written on.

The only way to solve the spending problem is by cutting spending.

Period.

Brought to you by the only avowed socialist in congress. Please...

what is your solution to this mess in America?

not sure if you read the letter, it is from a Senator. Is it socialist to ask everyone to pay the same % so that everyone feels the same % of pain? Is it fair:

Exxon Mobil. In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did Exxon avoid paying any federal income taxes that year, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

or

Bank of America. Last year, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and just a couple of years ago received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

or

General Electric. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

What it tells me, Robert, is that they overpaid their taxes, thereby giving Uncle Sam an interest free loan for the year.

Google Bernie Sanders- he identifies HIMSELF as a socialist, which is why he is listed, in votes, as an "I".

If YOU, personally, believe you are under taxed, by all means, send more. I gave the same advice to Warren Buffet online. Put YOUR money where your mouth is- and keep your hands out of other peoples pockets.

Except that tax policy has little to do with the debt. And the drug program only costs about 40 Billion/yr compared to a 1.5Trillion budget deficit this year.

no matter how much you tell them they want listen,would we be at this debt ceiling if obama would not hve spent 4 trillion in three years most of it wasted on unfulfilled promises.

What I don't understand, dangerfield, is why President Obama believes he's going to achieve a better (in what way?) negotiated agreement on the debt crisis than the Plan submitted by the bipartisan debt commission.

Every member of Congress has parochial interests related to their constituencies...but President Obama's constituency is the country as a whole.

Does he really believe he can build a bipartisan consensus to achieve a viable agreement addressing the debt crisis that is substantially different from the Plan produced by his own debt commission...a Plan with bipartisan support that addresses both revenue and spending?

What leads him to believe that?

Does anyone believe it?

I don't believe it. I also don't believe anyone running for office in 2012 (or any other time) will follow the debt commisions advice. Too politically painful. No statesmen in the house (or Senate, or WH).

Then we're done, Social Worker.

At some point in the not-so-distant future our economy will either collapse under the weight of its unsustainable debt, or the federal government will begin printing money by the bushel-full in a manner that'll make QE2 look like a gnat on an elephant's back, and collapse as a result of hyper-inflation.

Take your pick.

There are "revenue enhancers" I would like to see implemented as part of this plan- but I can practically guarantee they will never be part of any bill.

For one, all the "green technology" loopholes written into the tax code, that allowed GE, among others, to have zero tax liability in a highly profitable year, would go.

In fact, ALL the loopholes that favor unprofitable businesses over viable businesses should go. Why on earth is the government creating tax incentives to keep certain businesses, that would have died on the vine, going concerns.

With the politicians we have today, buggy whip companies would still be in business, and the tax code would be what was propping them up.

OR perhaps we should take the approach that business, like everything else in a "free market", should not be artificially propped up..... profitable or not.

Tell me, if a business is profitable, why should we further subsidize it? And furthermore, the artificial subsidizing of a profitable business simply encourages excessive growth to the point where it is no longer sustainable without subsidies!

Why would we create artificial markets that are sustainable only with taxpayer money!???

We ARE cutting spending. Earlier this year the congress was fighting over cutting $75 billion from the budget. I was out of the country for a month and I come back to the Republicans threatening to default on our loan payments unless we cut $2 trillion! Will any concessions by the Dems be enough? It seems to me that they are willing to destroy the country to make sure they get control. Will what they end up having control over be worth having?

Do you really think complex social problems have bumper sticker slogan solutions? Surely not...

Biggest argument from the left is that Bush's tax rate of 35% caused our recession. The rate went into effect May 2003 and the non farm payroll jobs from bureau of labor statistics went as follows:

May 2003 130,067,000 6.1% unemployment

May 2007 137,831,000 4.5% unemployment

Total of 7,764,000 jobs added in the four years following the month the rate went into effect.