Quote:
Originally Posted by GregWeld
NOPE! Not as long as it comes with SPENDING CUTS. And that's the bargaining chip. Higher taxes are FINE IF they come with entitlement cuts.
Obviously that's where the two idiot sides need to get their shiat together.
As stated earlier -- NOT entitlement cuts that hurt the people the need them.
|
I'm not sure I understand why you want to go after "entitlements" rather than, say, bullet trains or military spending.
I'm going to retire in a few years, with some savings both after tax and tax deferred. My savings are probably enough that I might be hit by your desire for a need test on benefits that I will have paid for for over 50 years. Why is that the best way to reduce the debt?
Moreover, I don't see anything in the Republican plans that looks like a needs test, all I see is across the board cuts. Again, why is that the best way to reduce the deficit, particularly while resisting any change to the top tax rates?
Tax savings for the 1% aren't going to be immediately recirculated in the economy because the 1% simply don't need that money day-to-day; tax savings for the 99%, on the other hand, are likely going to be spent and help the economy.
I agree there's a lot of government waste but most of what people are talking about here (Solyndra, Obama phones, Medicare disability payments) is down in the budgetary noise. If you want to reduce the deficit, increase taxes, reduce military spending and invest in this country (decent education, infrastructure and, yes, alternative energy), so we can increase GDP and, as a result, the taxable base.