Yes, the military is by far our biggest discretionary budget item and I have no problem starting there. I just think we have to be careful how we do it. I am not an expert on these matters, by no stretch, but it’s been fairly well documented that there is a large amount of wasteful spending in our government. This includes the military budget and I think that is where we should start. Someone with a good eye for spending and the military should be put in charge of cutting every piece of waste they can find. I have no idea how much savings there would be, but it would be a good start.

Concerning the Bush tax cuts for the rich folks, let me ask this. What will happen if we allow their taxes to increase? How much more money will be taken from the economy? How will that help encourage those businesses who are hit with the tax increases to grow their business?

We have discussed this before, but I base some of my opinions on what I see happening right in front of me at work. My employer is extremely concerned about how the possible tax increase will affect the company. So many people say that these increases will affect only the top 2%, but he certainly falls outside of that category and his accountant has told him he will be affected. He is in the middle of performing some capital improvements to the business, ie. new equipment, new counter tops for the office, etc., in order to take advantage of some of the deductions. I was told this afternoon that they would rather spend the money to give everyone a $1.00 per hour raise, but they can not afford it because of the new tax laws. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is going to do nothing to alleviate that concern.

I would much rather see spending cuts to offset the funds the government loses from the tax cuts. Again, I know it should have been done from the start. The Republicans totally missed it on that one.

Here’s my issue, though, with your last comment. If you have no interest in increasing the deficit, then why push for continuing the tax cuts for the 2%? The US continues to borrow 700 billion dollar a year to fund them because we continue to have a revenue shortage that was caused by the tax cuts in the first place. There is also a correlating increase in the amount of debt service payments we have to make.

If this is truly about job creation incentives, then wouldn’t it make more sense to let the cuts for the wealth expire? If we have to continue some sort of stimulus to encourage jobs creation, then wouldn’t it make more sense to channel the money into something like a jobs tax credit that would reduce payroll taxes on a firms new hires?

I forget the exact figures, but the CBO did a cost/benefit analysis of this strategy and estimated that the econmic growth would be 3 times that of keeping the cuts. doing something like this both gives businesses an incentive to hire AND makes sure we’re not doling out money that does not have the intended consequences, like we have seen over the past 6 years.

Cutting spending sounds great, but the largest discretionary budget item by far-military- is the only place we can cut enough to make any sort of an impact. Note: I don’t say it’s the only place we can cut, it’s just the only program that is large enough to make a difference. The “pie” chart you and Mike highlighted in a previous post makes this crystal clear.

Bottom line, spending needs to be cut and yes, I am fully aware that the Republicans failed miserably at doing that while they were in control. Until that happens, we will never dig our way out of this economic downturn.

The simple truth of the Bush tax cuts is that they drastically cut US tax revenue-all of them-and the United States has been borrowing money to pay for what it used to naturally collect. While it may seem like a good thing, it is an illusion. Our country did not benefit with increased jobs (as we were told would happen)in the first six years of this borrowing scheme.

I’m not crazy-let’s not get back to 90% income taxation. But really-Why is good conservative policy to continue borrowing to fund the tax cuts when there has been no discernible benefit and especially amid real concerns of deficits out of control?

I have NO idea how this concept is considered “conservative” by any stretch of the imagination.

I am not even a member of the Tea Party, but I am getting a bit tired of hearing them blasted by President Obama and the media at every turn. They continually marginalize them, trying to paint them as radicals and as controlled by special interest groups. It seems to me they are worried about the influence they will have and want to minimize it as much as possible. In doing so, they are resorting to accusing the Tea Party of the very things they are guilty of themselves. No surprise there.

The simple fact is, the wealthy in America already pay the vast majority of the taxes that are collected by the IRS. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to go away would make them pay even more taxes, an even higher percentage. At what point do we say enough is enough and stop trying to tax the wealthy into submission? I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense to raise taxes on anyone, much less those who are paying more already.

He would raise taxes, and tank the economy. Either this is the desired result, or he just doesn’t get it. We can play the class warfare game, but then we have to ignore the fact that the “evil” rich that the left wants to soak accounts for about 30% of consumer spending. What happens to the economy if they take that much money right out of the economy. How many more people lose their jobs? How few less people do they hire?

Then, I find it interesting that he wants to say that the Tea Parties are funded by big organizations. He says that, while George Soros has been a frequent guest at the White House. Does he really think we’re stupid? The first Tea Party event I attended had a bullhorn for a PA. Did FreedomWorks pay for that? I could have gone to 9-12 events, our local Tea Party arranged buses. I would have had to pay $30 to go. No big corporate funding there.

Sorry to leave a bit of a rant, but I think the man does not live on the same planet as the rest of us.