archer wrote: At what point does it get bad enough that congress will agree on a bill that BOTH cuts spending AND raises revenue? A one dimensional approach will never do it....we can't cut enough to bring down the debt fast enough.....we absolutely have to increase revenue NOW, not wait till maybe, perhaps, possibly, the so called job creators the GOP wants to pander to with further tax cuts, decide for the first time that they might trickle down some money to the masses and create jobs at some undetermined future date.
Know what archer? I have yet to see even a single bill which actually cuts the amount of money spent by the federal government. The only ones I see are ones which plan to spend a less of the more they were originally slated to spend. When I see a Democrat leader actually stand up and say that the federal government needs to spend less money next year than it did the year before rather than saying they've cut the deficit because they are only going to be spending 7% more instead of 10% more I'll be willing to consider looking at raising tax rates even though every tax rate cut has resulted in a rise in revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP within 2 years. Know why those tax rate cuts have resulted in higher revenues as a percentage of our GDP? Letting people keep more of the rewards for taking risks gives them incentives to take risks with their money instead of saving it.
Democracy4Sale wrote: That's Right-wing talking-point drivel... not "reality"...But thanks for playing. Your hysteria is duly noted.
Since business profits are at a 50-year high, it would appear that "trickle-down" isn't....
Still trying to use gross dollars I see; the same metric by which the taxes in the ACA are the largest tax hike in the history of the Union that you insist isn't true. You are aware, aren't you, that no one is buying what you are trying to sell anymore, don't you? The only ones who believe that drivel are the ones who are hanging out in the same echo chambers you frequent.
