That is true. The debt is so high we could never eliminate it with revenure increases. So much of the deficit is entitlement spending that we simply cannot tax our way out of the mess we are in. We have to change the future obligations. The truth is we need to grow our way out of debt, which will in turn lead to revenue increases. Paying down the debt is not as vitally important as returning to a healthy debt to GDP ratio
Where exactly did I say that? I have been denying 123's post that it was impossible to raise taxes enough to pay down the debt. By pointing out that we did so as recently as under Clinton. All of your talk about it being more complex and a good economy is correct but quite irrelevant. The fact is that income exceeded expenses, a surplus was created, and it was used to pay down the debt. 123 is incorrect. It is indeed possible to collect enough taxes to pay down the debt. Having trouble keeping up, Pop? Debate is a blood sport. Fun and witty have their place but what it's really about is command of the facts and command of the language. Yes, Virginia, I will twist thy comments as doth my opponents twist mine. I will evade, even as I curse thee for evasion. I will shuck and I will jive. Acceptable sources to me. It's just that they are huge resources and without a link to the relevant data it's often difficult to find the evidence. Also I find that sometimes people cite the CBO when they are actually quoting some blogger's opinions who cited the CBO somewhere in his article. The best way to get me to drop an objection is to give me a link to relevant original data that backs up your argument. I try to do this and when others do it we can quickly drop dead-end arguments and move on to other topics. I don't mind being asked to provide a source or back up my claims with facts if its not some kind of diversion, so I don't mind asking for the same. I realize that we do not always have the time or resources to research everything we discuss. But we should try when we can. Understand that my debates with martin and 123 sometimes get heated, but we're just having fun and we don't take it personally. I will try to remember that you are more sensitive. 123 and I tend to bash each other with hyperbole and invective, it's a brawl. martin and I try to knife each other with wit and cynicism and it's more of a duel. Honestly, I haven't figured out your style, yet. And again, I understand all of this and do not dispute you. I include all of this when I say that the Clinton budgets posted surpluses that paid down the debt. Thank you for pointing this out to us. But 123 is still wrong when he says that we can't tax enough to pay down the debt. Clearly circumstances (that you have described in detail for us) can easily exist where tax income exceeds expenses and create surpluses to pay down debt. It is NOT impossible.
Clinton cut spending about about 95% of the increased tax amount as well as the economy was growing at a rate greater than 1%. You argument is flawed b/c taxes were not the sole solution to Clinton's surplus.
Tax income isn't the only factor. That has been my entire point. A tax only policy is IMPOSSIBLE and stupid.
I never said that tax increases were the only way to increase revenues. In fact, time after time after time I have stated that tax increases are necessary but need to be a part of a larger package that includes spending cuts to entitlements, defense and some discretionary spending. I have also stated that this package should include a plan to balance the federal budget over the next 10 years. Why do you keep trying to make it sound like I have said different? I will not repeat this again. If you cannot understand plain english then I cannot help you.
My statement in red inferred nothing. But all you, Red, and Obama talk about is well, raising taxes on the rich. Obama's budget got zero votes. Zero. All he keeps talking about is raising taxes on the rich. That will do nothing with current unemployment, spending levels, and additions to health care/welfare.
We also cut spending num nutts. The economy also grew more than 1%. How on earth can you even pretend to act like taxes were the only solution?
It is irrelevant what complex reasons were behind the Clinton surpluses. But the bottom line is that tax income exceeded government expenditures. Yes there was an economic boom and this situation could happen again. Your argument that it is IMPOSSIBLE to raise taxes enough to surplus and pay down is invalidated by the Clinton budgets. Had you said that the surpluses needed to pay down debt could be created by taxation, economic growth, spending cuts or all three, I would have had no objection. But you simply can't rule out taxation as a possible solution to a deficit situation. It may be politically incorrect for you, but it is a real and valid option that has both virtues and faults, as do the others.
You are arguing semantics. You are talking about tax "income" I am talking about the tax rate. You could not raise the tax RATE enough to pay down the debt. FUCKING SEMANTICS. Again, when you are man enough to separate your self from the bullshit you keep spweing. We can continue the actual policy of Obama.
And before you say I am backtracking, you never once attempted to understand the context of my statement. You took it for your meaning.
