Rath said:
Baalzamon said:
Rath said:
Honestly what would be best is both increasing revenue and decreasing expenditure. The Tea Party is hilarious on insisting on both having a balanced budget and not in anyway increasing tax revenues - to balance the American budget both deep cuts and significant new revenues are going to be required.
|
Even though it could theoretically be done (fixing the budget solely with cuts), it is almost obvious that more tax revenue will be needed to balance the budget, yes. My huge, massive problem with agreeing with raising taxes to fix the budget, however, is it doesn't fix the budget with the stupid legislators we have. They see it as even more money they can spend, and the budget doesn't get fixed at all, and we wind up with even higher tax rates. That is why I am so against raising taxes, because legislators saying they are doing it to fix our budget are full of shit.
|
As are legislators claiming that they want to balance the budget entirely without raising any extra revenue. Honestly most of your politicians are full of crock on the economy.
|
What I'm hearing is that whenever there's a new piece of legislation which includes cuts and tax increases, the plan is done for 10 years. The tax increases are usually front-loaded (i.e. many are effective immediately), while the budget cuts get planned for the last few years of the 10-year period. Later on the budget cuts never actually happen or get drowned in other increases...