" a traditional big-government liberal -- somebody who's gonna hurt your pocketbook"

Does it matter at all that such a liberal has never existed?  Even the few who get their taxes raised get paid back by a booming, stable economy.  Democrats outperform republicans at the very important job of coddling millionaires.

The GOP's siren song of being the party of the real American is hard for many to resist.  And then we end up with another disatrous economy courtesy of Republican government malfeasance and corruption and almost everyone loses in the long run, even the bigshots. 

I wonder when the "media" first decided that they should pontificate on what strategies would be effective for campaigns to pursue?!

How nice of the press to spread misinformation as if the McBush campaign isn't already doing that...Mr. & Ms. reporters, just report what the campaigns are saying and do the fact checking, and hopefully see the forest for the trees.

They don't have to. George Bush allready swiped 700 billion in one stroke of the pen, and got his treasury secretary, whom he appointed , as the supreme czar to apportion the funds without review. And Mccain wants to take another 300 billion out for his mortgage saving plan ( in addition I might note ). We are getting screwed by these tax increases and allowing the media to not report as tax increases.

The cut/raise tax issue is really a red herring...useful only in pandering for votes...igniting clear lines of class warfare.

Almost without exception...the American economy has increased revenue to the federal treasury year over year...covering administrations that raised taxes and those that cut taxes.

A revenue stream of about $3 trillion dollars is damn sure enough money to run an effective federal govt...one that can satisfy both the liberal and conservative agendas.

It's a spending problem...pure and simple...practiced by feckless politicians.

*sigh* no.  Revenues and expenses rise together with population and the economy.  Reckless spending accounts for a tiny portion of the budget.  That's why nobody, anywhere, is able to present a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes.  But you've been told that, again and again.

In 2001 the deficit changed 180 degrees.  The nation's tax policy changed 180 degrees.  The composition of congress did not change.  Wake up and feel the obvious smacking you on the face.  The health of the federal budget is dependent on tax policy.  That's why they corollate so well.

 -- Reckless spending accounts for a tiny portion of the budget. -- steeve

Spending increased by an average of about 3.5% annually during the Clinton years. Over the last 7 years it has increased about 6.6% annually.

Comparing those increases against actual revenue means that over the last 7 years we have increased the spending/revenue deficit by $1.6 trillion. Had we continued to increase spending by 3.5%...we would have accumulated a small surplus.

It doesn't take severe cuts...it takes controlled spending...it is not a revenue problem.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Bingo, Wesley!!!! But Steeeeeeeeve doesn't believe that so you might as well go outside and give the same presentation to a tree.

lol...yeah, steeve believes fervently that the only way to increase the govt's revenue is to take more from the citizens. The facts are different. The govt. has seen revenue increase during times of tax increases...and tax cuts.

Taxation is just a devisive political ploy for the two parties. Democrats playing on the emotions of the lower/middle classes with their claim of "we'll take care of you...we're going to tax the hell out of those greedy rich bastards".

Republicans piously clamor for lower taxes and smaller govt...pandering for votes.

The reality is...no matter what they promise...when they get to Washington they spend their asses off...and that is the problem.

"The govt. has seen revenue increase during times of tax increases...and tax cuts." -- Your chart says that 1999 had 46% more revenue than 1992, and 2007 had 5% more revenue than 2000.  Sorry, but tax policy makes a huge difference.

"when they get to Washington they spend their asses off" -- they got to Washington in 1994.  They're still there.  Why did they wait for a republican president before spending their asses off?

All I ask is that you believe something that is real.  If it is really possible to balance the budget with spending cuts, then someone, somewhere, in this entire country would have shown how to do it, by listing actual spending cuts that could actually happen without ruining the lives of millions of poor people.  Isn't there a single republican politician, a single denizen of a conservative think tank, a single 3rd party candidate who can demonstrate that your wish can be a reality?

By the way, if it could be done, I'd be all for it.

All you have is 6.6% vs 3.5%.  How much of that 6.6% is waste, and how much is for important stuff like paying skyrocketing medical bills for a burgeoning elderly population?  You don't have the foggiest idea.  If there was a lot of waste in there we wouldn't be wasting our time talking about bridges to nowhere and bear DNA studies.  Someone would be able to list the waste, and have it add up to more than a few billion dollars.

Each year most of us set personal budgets that balance expenditures and receipts. We make spending decisions that affect our daily lives and yet we survive. Maybe its one or more less meals out, maybe its forgoeing that morning latte, or perhaps its something else, but we do it.  I have been through many years with minimal raises, if any, while raising a family and yet we made it.  I still submit the government could do the same and still get the basics taken care of. I've given you a couple of examples in the past, from a 54 page report I downloaded some time back and you blew them off. Plus if its a revenue problem, why is BHO putting forth a plan that will not completely pay for itself either? "Most of my tax cuts for the lower brackets will be paid for by increases on the upper bracket."(somewhat paraphrased).  Same old, same old. Spend more than you receive, shoot the bull instead of corraling it. Steeeeevie, it can be done, it must be done if this country is to survive.  We can't tax our way to prosperity, nor can we continue to outspend our income.

"I've given you a couple of examples in the past, from a 54 page report I downloaded some time back and you blew them off." -- never saw them.  If you put it here before Tuesday I swear I'll see it.

"We can't tax our way to prosperity" -- I thought that line died out when Bill Clinton did exactly that.  But this is the problem.  A conservative will construct a theory that seems logical, makes sense, and sounds good.  But they won't take the next step and allow reality to modify their theory.

"if its a revenue problem, why is BHO putting forth a plan that will not completely pay for itself either?" -- he's putting out a wimpy half-measure because he, the voters, or both are not acquainted with the Fundamental Theorem of Liberalism ("a rich person is still rich after taxes").  Look here to see the horrifying socialism our country endured in the 50s and 60s, yet those decades had the best economy ever, even a little better than the Clinton Miracle.

Your plan can't even be fully described.  Mine has worked spectacularly in real life multiple times.  Raising taxes on the rich doesn't hurt the economy, doesn't hurt the country, and doesn't even hurt the rich.

Go to: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer 

Burrow through some of the links on the page. I've mentioned the Dept of Ag in the past as well as DOE. Add Weapons Systems that even the Military doesn't want, make UPSP truly self suffient, raise the retiremtn ages for federal employees to the same as the private sector (except of military) instead of 20-30 years of service, make the Bureau of Reclamation more self funding (increased water useage fees for example), cut farm subsidies on farms earning more than a given baseline amount (reverse tax bracket type structure). Thinking outside the box may yield many good ideas.

Clinton's tax rates were not the outlandish rates of the 50s, 60s or 70s and may have been sustainable.  Do we want to go back to the rates under DDE, JFK, LBJ, etc? As has been noted by others here, the days of Beaver, the Nelson family, etc are way behind us, never to return.                                                                          

Note to self UPSP should be USPS (geesh)

That site spends most of its time on pork, which by its own admission is only $20 billion a year.  Getting rid of it is good, but it has no place in a budget discussion.

They say they're nonpartisan, but I found this:  "The Bush tax cuts gave working Americans much-needed relief, allowing them to spend, save, and invest which in turn stimulated the economy." -- that is a 100% republican, and 100% false, statement.

The good stuff is here.  Finally we're talking about enough money to make a difference in the deficit.  But looking through the items reveals that it's not a considered budget proposal, but a collection of wishlists from any small-government activist they can find.  This is real drown-government-in-a-bathtub stuff.  There's huge reductions in college aid, drastic medicare cuts, and a whole bunch of other stuff that would hurt real people.

"Clinton's tax rates were not the outlandish rates of the 50s, 60s or 70s and may have been sustainable." -- haha, the "outlandish" rates were sustainable for decades.  Reality is shoving you out of the way.

Pork is pork.  A lot of those projects may be worthwhile if we have a surplus, but when we are running a deficit, they become pork. The $20 billion represents a little over 1/2 of budget overrun.  I still believe that another $15-20 Billion could be found if the will to do so were there rather that the desire to "buy" re-election after re-election.

Cllinton's tax rates produced a budget surplus for a couple of years.  Do you really want to go back to the days of 70-90% marginal tax rates? I submit that the lower tax rates have allowed the economy to grow.  What percentage of taxpayers were earning over $400,000 per year then compared to those earning over $1 Million today?  I, for one of several here, do not want to see that much power in the hands of the Federal government.

The $20 billion represents a little over 1/2 of budget overrun.

Then how we get deficifs of 300 to 500 billion dollars per year?

Do you really want to go back to the days of 70-90% marginal tax rates?

Why not?  That 70 - 90 percent taxcut rate kicked in on anything above 3 million dollars (in today's dollar).

I submit that the lower tax rates have allowed the economy to grow.

The economy has grown but it has only benefitted the rich.  If you look at Bush's economic approval ratings through his entire presidency it mostly ranges in the mid to high 30s.  That's why the "blame Democrats" for the economic crisis strategy is not working; most people have been suffering through Bush's economy and now the rich are suffering too.

 -- how much is for important stuff like paying skyrocketing medical bills for a burgeoning elderly population? -- steeve

Here's an interesting take on this issue from a joint study by the liberal Brookings Institute and the conservative Heritage Foundaton:

 -- The U.S. Treasury recently reported that the federal deficit will hit a record high of $311 billion for the first half of the fiscal year...The report was greeted with stifled yawns by official Washington. Similar indifference greeted the Social Security and Medicare trustees when they issued their annual spring warning about an even bigger fiscal time bomb: exploding entitlement cost...

Political leaders, we say, can no longer afford to let the big entitlement programs grow automatically each year, with no deliberation by Congress, no pressure to reconcile spending and revenues, and no attempts to make trade-offs among competing public priorities...

Inaction in the face of the looming budget crunch is not wise. Putting entitlements on a fixed budget will, we hope, set the stage for the long-overdue debate over how to ensure that our venerable social insurance programs continue to serve future generations of Americans. --

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=162&contentid=254628

Democrats playing on the emotions of the lower/middle classes with their claim of "we'll take care of you...we're going to tax the hell out of those greedy rich bastards".

Nah, that's just the emotional Republican interpretation, Wesley.Most Liberals aren't that emotional, they take care of themselves,and have no desire to punish the rich.

I won't belabor this, but if you feel like arguing your point, first fit those "limousine Liberals" like Warren Buffet and all of those Hollywood actors and rock stars into your wingnut model.

Doesn't really make sense when you factor in reality, does it?

Nah, that's just the emotional Republican interpretation, Wesley.Most Liberals aren't that emotional, they take care of themselves,and have no desire to punish the rich.

Be honest, Col. Deep down inside your liberal-Communist-Marxist-Socialist mind, you truly loath successful people because of your envy class of warfare. That's right. I said you envy different classes fighting one another.

What positive thing do we (liberal-Communist-Marist-Socialist...you forgot homosexual) get envying differant classes fighting one another? I think we're more concerned with the two percent who managed to make billions in the last 7.5 years.

How do you define sucessful people, give a few examples.

Quote of the day entry,"I don't want everyone to vote...our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Paul Weyrich, one of the major neocon architects. 

Why would any liberal envy greed, selfishness and callousness?

 -- Most Liberals aren't that emotional, they take care of themselves,and have no desire to punish the rich. -- Col.

Thanks for the soft challenge...I'll just add my anecdotal observations to yours.

I have no idea if the liberal posters on this site are willing and able to take care of themselves...or if they actually do...inspite of my powerful Karnac-like skills.

But I will tell you this. If your statement describing liberals is true...then a large portion of the liberals on this site don't fit your mold of being rational with no desire to participate in envious class warfare.

Coming here on a regular basis...as you and I both do...means wading through volumes of emotional rants from liberal posters bemoaning the unfairness of life and the greedy, rich conservative pricks that cause it...you know and I know who those posters are.

But I've learned to generally ignore them and participate in discussions with those who fit "your" mold of liberals...and I should add...that have a healthy sense of humor.

Conservative posters acting badly? Yep...we've got them too. But that's your mission should you choose to accept it.

And that concludes my Sunday morning "Hour of Power" holier than thou sermon.

Coming here on a regular basis...as you and I both do...means wading through volumes of emotional rants from liberal posters bemoaning the unfairness of life and the greedy, rich conservative pricks that cause it...you know and I know who those posters are.

Conservatives want us to feel sorry for rich people and I can't do that.  I feel sorry for people who are unemployed, underemployed and those working multiple jobs; people without health insurance and those who are under-insured; people who are one paycheck away from disaster; people with no savings; people who have no source of income other than social security when they retire; and people who are fighting and dying in a war that should have never been waged.  Why do you feel sorry for rich people as opposed to the ones I listed?

"A revenue stream of about $3 trillion dollars is damn sure enough money to run an effective federal govt...one that can satisfy both the liberal and conservative agendas."

And I guess you know that because you are a Nobel Prize winning economist? 

$3 Trillion is over $9000 for every man, woman and child in the US.  It should be enough to run an effective government. That doesn't take economics, that just takes common sense, something sadly lacking in the Ivory Towers of the country.

Just pointing out that the Nobel Prize laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, has put the cost of rebuilding our infrastructure alone at 3 trillion dollars.

Reread the part above where "part of Obama's tax cuts for the middle class will be paid for by increases on the rich". Sounds like continued deficit spending to me, especially considering the spending programs proposed. And don't give me "get out of Iraq and save" as those dollars appear to be off budget anyway. One of these two candidates needs to take the bull by the horns (instead of just shooting it) and come up will a viable plan to eliminate deficit spending in 4 years, not a projected 10+ years (that becomes someone else's problem).

Just because the cost of the Iraq occupation is off the books it has no effect on the economy? I mean, talk about, in your own words, the mother of all reckless spending. But no wonder the cons want to hide what's going on in Iraq. That conjob addiction to privatization has wasted billions of public funds on private contractors in Iraq who have done nothing but undermine the troops by destroying the confidence of the Iraqi people in the U.S military. The private contractors have no accountability and are guided not by allegiance to the mission or the uniform code of military justice, but only to the guy who signs their checks.

As usual with privatization. we pay too much for too little.

If conservatives could get over your OCD-like compulsion to catch the vapors over the abstract term "spending" and view taxes through the lens of investment, they might be able to find workable solutions beyond delivering our democracy from the hands of the people to the hands of the capitalists.

Utterly pathetic.

Oh, it certainly has an effect on the economy, but I thought (mistakenly I guess) that we were talking budget here. How do you balance a budget, even using BHOs plan, when tax hikes on a targeted group of taxpayers won't even cover the tax cuts to the rest? It's pandering, it's running for re-election, it's reckless, even though it's not as bad as JSMs plan. Quit shooting the bull, politicans, corrall it!!!!!

You don't think giving taxcuts to people who spend all or most of their income will have a positive effect on the economy?

Did your (and mine) rebate checks have a positive effect on the economy?  Did the monies returned with to the lower brackets with the Bush tax cut have a positive effect on the economy? Inquiring minds want to know.

Parsing! From a con? Hilarious! I'm addressing your fixation on that 'spending' term. But whatever. Continue thinking you can extricate the budget from the economy. Or the economy from the budget. It's the kind of typical cognitive error one makes when they believe the conservative pablum that one can extricate themselves from society and go it alone. It's the error of the yo-yo (you're on your own) philosophy.

Like our monetary system, WE are interdependent.  

But, alas, as is usual with the head in the sand cons, half of the equation is hidden.

Cons somehow think that cutting taxes on the wealthy and their corporations will magically increase revenues because they'll create jobs that put revenue, by way of consumption and payroll taxes, back into the budget. In that way, the cons argue, as Bush did, the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Besides unfairly shifting the burden onto working people, it's sheer fantasy. It has not worked. Even after the irresponsible wartime Bush tax cuts, jobs still sailed out of the country at alarming rates. By the by, when you say, "tax hikes on a targeted group of taxpayers won't even cover the tax cuts to the rest" it amuses me, no end, to hear a con argue that tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

But we can agree that our tax system is unfair. We should as, Obama proposes cut taxes on the middle class, get rid of loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations, and ensure that everyone pays their fair share. Then we can talk about reinvesting in the future

JFK said the same thing, and since cons are so fond of quoting his speech from 1962, in which he lauds tax cuts, I'll provide the real context from that speech, "the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates; they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

And to tie this all together, I'll finish by saying it is beneficial to view government spending as reinvestment. After rolling back the top end tax cuts and closing loop holes, we need to invest in areas vital to our future, areas that will ensure our security and our competitiveness, areas like infrastructure, healthcare, green technology and education. Instead of giving all the bread to the fatcats and hoping they drop some crumbs downward, put people to work doing this stuff and put money in their hands so we can rejuvenate the country, and stimulate the economy from the bottom up.    
Don't get me wrong, stewardship of our public trust will require accountability of the sort you can only get, not with a private company, but with an open democratic government.

Look back a few years in history.  Ike instituted the top rate to pay for WWII and Korea, JFK cut that rate to stimulate an economy because those bills were paid. Since that time (with few exceptions) revenue to the government has doubled every 8 - 10 years, no matter the tax rate.  But spending has doubled every 6 - 8 years.  Doesn't that seem like the biggest part of the problem we now have is spending.  I've stated in the past, I would be willing to see a temporary surtax on the income tax to pay for the folly in Iraq, but it would have to have a sunset clause and the revenue would have to dedicated to that end and that end only.  When BHO proposes tax & spending plans that do not appear to pay for themselves, we're supposed to be happy???  I don't like the JSM proposal for the same reason.  And for that reason, no matter who I wind up voting for (still haven't made a firm decision), my Senators and Representative will be hearing from me on a regular basis over the next 4 - 8 years.  Each year that we spend more for debt service is another year that we have decreased revenues for "re-investment" (as you like to call it) in the country, especially when a lot of those debt service dollars are going off-shore.

What the heck, you, I and many of the others posting here are not going to solve the problem.  The next Secretary of Treasury will be a political appointee, chosen as much for his/her contribution to the part as for their expertise in economics, tax policy, etc.  In January of 2009, the first act of all the elected officials will be to start running for re-election rather than trying to work to clean up the mess.  Finger pointing will continue, more bull will be shot than corralled and in a couple of years we can go through all this again. In the meantime, we will still be relying on private companies to provide the value-added jobs, we will still shop at Wal-Mart (for imported goods) rather that support US jobs with our checkbooks, and the debt will grow (no matter the tax rates imposed.)

"When BHO proposes tax & spending plans that do not appear to pay for themselves, we're supposed to be happy???"

I may as well talk to a brick wall. How did Clinton manage to leave a surplus if what you claim is true?

And no, I manage to scrape by without shopping at Wal-Mart, I buy union and American products as much as I possibly can. I search for the green alternatives, I drive only to work and I buy local products when I can. I do this because I care enough about my country and the environment to live deliberately. That's something feckless cons all across the country ought to think about doing instead of grousing and giving up, accepting the status quo and doing what they're told by economic royalists. Take some of that personal responsibility you guys like to mouth, but rarely practice.

When Barry Hussey O'bama admits that he is giving out more in tax cuts than he is receiving in tax increases, that is a deficit.  Clinton did not buy votes by cutting taxes on the lower or middle income brackets.  He also realized, the good politician he was/is, that he had to go along with Congress and rein in some spending. Or is BHO pulling kind of a shell game here, where the tax cuts of Bush will expire and then he will recommend cuts that will, for example, cut the 15% bracket to 12% (currently 10%)? That way he gives the lower and middleclass tax cuts but increases revenue. As far as your purported life style, it ain't much different than mine, rarely shop at Wal-Mart (about the only place to buy guns and ammo, locally), drive under 3000 miles/year and except for maybe two yearly trips to Costco, shop almost exclusively locally. That I believe is a conservative principle (at least to me), although not practiced by the big mouths pretending to be conservative.

A 3 trillion shortfall in infrastructure is a pox on the country, but one that can be solved over time if we demand accountability from our elected officials.

I see I've been wasting my time.  You don't even know that deficits are hundreds of billions rather than tens of billions.

70-90% would work fine, but is not necessary.  If 40% isn't enough, 50% will be.

Whoops, post isn't in the right place.  Oh well.

I made an error with the excess zeroes trying to do the math on a 10 digit calculator. But 20 Billion is 20 Billion and just because it is a minor part of the budget doesn't mean we shouldn't go after it as wasteful spending in a time of deficits. Again, buy holding spending to a point or two below inflation for a relatively short period of time, instead of setting at a point or two above, the deficiets could be turned into surpluses.  If the government would show a little restraint, I would be more open to revenue enhancements, but show the discipline first.