it does not take a rocket scientist to see this...

The US under Bush collected 20% more revenue then it did under clinton. When you cut taxes, you collect more money. When you raise taxes, you collect less money.

So raising taxes means the US government has less money to pay bills. (You can argue all you want, but history proves this fact)

The issue under the Bush administration has never been generating revenue, it's been insane spending.

We spend WAY to much money. The answer (and neither candidate is pushing for this), is to stop spending so damn much money in Washington.

Obama wants to spend more money, and he wants to do with with less income coming in... how the hell does that work?

You are completely overestimating the elasticity of revenue in relation to taxes. Supply-side economics is pseudo-science that doesn't rely upon any proven or any scientific methodologies. You have even completely contradicted yourself.

So if we got rid of taxes completely we would collect more money, or if we only taxed people 1%? Your logic is completely incoherent.

One thing you can count on in America is that people want money, and they will work their asses off to make money because they are greedy. Its human nature, and taxes, fear of death, or even God himself probably couldn't stop that.

And where are you getting these figures from? I wouldn't have as much of a problem with your logic if you were actually citing some.

And you are completely discounting the fact that the economy has grown between now and then, which means more total dollars to be taxed.

You have pretty much failed in every regard in this post.

I assume you want to rely on the Laffer curve as a model.

Let me tell you one thing, most of the people supporting supply-side economics have little real data to back up their claims.  Yes, it is very obvious if you overtax people there is a point of diminishing returns, but if you try to pin them down and get them to tell you that point, they never will.  In this country, you could probably tax the rich up to 40-50% without that much of a diminishing returns on revenue, you know why?  Because people are greedy sons of bitches.  You think people will stop working because they might make less money?  That's total bullshit unless you are talking about a +50% tax.

And people completely ignore that some of the services that the government would provide if people were taxed that much (such as healthcare), people wouldn't have to pay for out of their pocket, so the taxes they pay would be offset in their disposable income.

Supply-side economics is speculative at best, and doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis.

Of course there are more dollars, I think you are forgetting a very basic principle. Inflation, where your money is worth less.

Combine inflation with slow growth in wages and corporate income and you get less purchasing power or as I like to call it, "2008".

I heard it from Obama in an interview. It was told to him, and he agreed. The economic growth over the last 8 years has not been 20%

And my logic is not flawed. If you think it is, that means you think if we collect 99% of taxes, we will collect more then if we collect 1% of taxes. I hope you can see how that is incorrect. 1% would generates a whole lot more money.

Yes, there is a point where lowering taxes will collect less money. We are no where near that point yet.

I bet you even Bush would argue with you about this.

Maybe it's just me, but didnt Clinton leave a SURPLUS of cash when he left office. Don't we owe more money now than ever.  I don't get your point.

name one service the government provides that's cheaper then the private sector.... one.

Everything the government pays for, you and I pay for. If the people don't pay for it out of there pockets, where is the money coming from? it doesn't come out of thin air.

You aren't even analyzing anything!  How can you say we are nowhere near that point when you haven't even brought up any real research or any real data!  Just because you say something doesn't just magically make it true.  Your logic is nothing but flawed because you haven't even presented anything to construct a logical analysis from.

We owe more money because of spending. It's like if I lived in a $100,000 house and made 40k a year. I get a new job for 80k, and then go buy a house that cost 600k. I will run out of money, and it has nothing to do with my income, and everything to do with my spending.

Bush spends way to much money... well... Bush doesn't spend a dime, congress does. They spend way to much money.

But your telling me it's wrong without any logical analysis?

Police protection, military protection, firefighting services, emergency aid...you see, a private company offering those same services would not want to do so without making a profit, and the government is not interested in making a profit, it is simply providing those services.

It is much more difficult to reign in on a private industry too because cities would have to sign a whole bunch of contracts with a whole bunch of different providers of these services across the country which would generate a bunch of needless litigation if there was fault on the part of the provider of that service.

Please explain to me how that would be cheaper, or a better alternative?  There is a reason why the government takes control over some things, because it would be inefficient to let the private sector do so.  Would we want to have all of our military power in the hands of private corporations?  What's to stop a foreign country from paying them more so they would wipe us off the face of the earth?