You might be a tea partier and not know it

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/how ... tter_share

"Here are three possible budgetary futures for the US government. Which one do you prefer?

Option A: Balance in 3 Years. If we freeze all federal outlays (spending) at the 2014 level, the budget will balance in three years (by 2017).

Option B: Balance in 10 Years. If we freeze all outlays at the 2014 level except the "big three" entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), the budget will balance in ten years (by 2023).

Option C: Balance Never. If we do nothing to rein in spending, federal deficits will grow in perpetuity, the national debt will reach unprecedented heights, and by the 2030s the US government will be forced to default on its debt.That, in turn, will in all likelihood trigger a global economic crisis and impoverish millions of working Americans.

Which option do you prefer?

If you answered either A or B, congratulations, you're a member of the tea party."

Good analysis. (But the press & Dems calls those who advocate for options "A" and "B" crazy!)

Where is the option to balance the budget by adding new revenue to the equation?

archer wrote: Where is the option to balance the budget by adding new revenue to the equation?

Ok... here it is...

d) Raise taxes and impoverish millions of working Americans

archer wrote: Where is the option to balance the budget by adding new revenue to the equation?

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. We can't tax ourselves into budget. We have to quit assuming that every year more $$ must be spent, or else it is considered a "cut". My budget doesn't work like that. Why should the govt.?

I would opt for B.....AND CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT THE RICH ARE ENJOYING.....budget
balanced in 1/2 the time....5 years.....of course, THAT is way too sane, simple and intelligent.

homeagain wrote: I would opt for B.....AND CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT THE RICH ARE ENJOYING.....budget
balanced in 1/2 the time....5 years.....of course, THAT is way too sane, simple and intelligent.

Even with the loopholes, the rich pay much more of the tax receipts than those at 50% or below.

homeagain wrote: I would opt for B.....AND CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT THE RICH ARE ENJOYING.....budget
balanced in 1/2 the time....5 years.....of course, THAT is way too sane, simple and intelligent.

Exactly why we need a flat tax system. Then there would be no loopholes.

We can keep doing what we are doing, spending money like there is no tomorrow and watch the middle class foot these bigger expenditures like ACA and others until they squeal like stuffed pigs. Until then I don't think people have a clue.

Flat tax so that the middle class doesn't get all those loopholes either. Plenty of loopholes in the 1040 form that so many take advantage of.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

homeagain wrote: I would opt for B.....AND CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT THE RICH ARE ENJOYING.....budget
balanced in 1/2 the time....5 years.....of course, THAT is way too sane, simple and intelligent.

Exactly why we need a flat tax system. Then there would be no loopholes.