So if we got all that back we could have limited the budget deficit to $400b last year.
Good thing I made a point of saying it wasn't a singular solution or else you'd look dumber than usual.
The point is that not only is it not a singular solution, it isn't necessary or right. The federal government should stop looking in to the pockets of people who are productive to hand out vote-buying freebies to those that aren't. Warren Buffet could write a check to the G for 99.9% of his entire net worth and still have more money in the bank than 99.9% of American's will earn in their entire lives. His comments about who should and shouldn't pay more are just as, if not more so, meaningless as people who pay no federal income tax.
Of course, that's about 10% of the deficit then, right? We could make the rest in cuts! I'm sure a 1:10 ratio of tax increases to cuts would be acceptable to conserv...
The problem, and you know this, is that the Democrats want their taxes now, their spending now and their headlines now, but they don't want to give up their cuts until after the next election or in to the next decade. I am almost positive that if you had a Democrat proposal to raise $42b in taxes in the 2012 budget, and cut $420b from spending (not make an expected increase smaller, not hold to 2011 levels, cut the budget, meaning we would spend $420b less in 2012 than we did in 2011) that you would see a GOP controlled congress pass it.
Then you could talk about the 2013 budget, and what you were willing to cut out of 2012 spending levels to get your next tax increase.
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.
[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]