Gallup: Plurality now supports “balanced approach” of tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce deficit

A “plurality” doesn’t even understand the issue.

The real game is how to create the facade of deficit reduction progress while maintaining Trillion Dollar deficits until the Frankeneconomy comes back to life. That’s what all the fiscal cliff panic really is – concern of a 5% drop in GDP if we actually erase $700 Billion from the deficit.

Obama can demand that the millionaresandbillionares pay an additional $40 Billion, $50 Billion or even $80 Billion in new taxes. It’s all good, because with so small a tax increase and with as little spending cuts as we’ll ultimately see, we will maintain our $Trillion in borrow-and-spend economic stimulus.

Best of all, any new revenue will serve ONLY to support GREATER borrowing. The Federal Government collects about $2.3 Trillion in revenue against $16 Trillion in Debt. That’s like a Boomer with a $50,000 salary sporting $350,000 in unsecured debt. What does that Boomer do with every raise? He spends even more and gets further into debt. So does our government.

Uncle Sugar will take every penny it can from the millionareasandbillionares while driving Corporate America out of profitability altogether (preferring their role as a modern-day WPA instead of for wealth production), and will leverage every dollar of new revenue into seven of new debt.

Who then will pay off that debt? Look in the mirror.

It’s nonsense. The proposed tax hikes on the rich yield $80 billion a year. The deficit is $1500 billion a year. So what’s this BS about “balancing”? $80 billion in tax hikes, and $1420 billion in spending cuts? OK, I’ll go for that.

Paul-Cincy on November 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Stop trying to use logic to win your argument. We tried that already, and failed. The majority of the public don’t want to hear your well reasoned, and logical argument. They won’t be ready to even consider your point of view until they have felt the crushing, overwhelming weight of leftist policies.

Tax rate increases. Eliminate loopholes. No budget cuts. Pain.

I don’t suppose supporters of the “balanced” approach realize it’s going to be all tax, and no cuts. They probably won’t care anyway.

littleguy on November 16, 2012 at 8:18 AM

That’s why the GOP should abandon spending cuts if they are going to agree to raising rates. When the tax rate increases fail to bring any additional revenue to the treasury, and the economy slows down, the left will frame the debate by blaming cuts to government spending as the cause of the problem.

How about this: why doesn’t someone just show the numbers on tax hikes that demonstrate how little the effect wold be on the debt/deficit if we raised taxes on all households with a $200K+ income by, say, 25% – or some number well above whatever has been proposed by either side. I expect the change to the debt/deficit will be extremely small.

Then show the effect of cutting spending – this should have a significant effect.

Show the two examples side-by-side ALL THE TIME.

sultanp on November 16, 2012 at 7:54 AM

It doesn’t matter, the rich must pay their fair share, and fair share just means more. There is no endpoint on how much more. It has nothing to do with reducing the deficit, and everything to do with envy.

The majority of American people transition from dumb to utterly stupid by the seconds.

It must be in the air.

Schadenfreude on November 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Actually it’s in the water. Blue counties if you will are nearly all adjacent to major waterways; Oceans, or the Great Lakes, or major rivers. It is definitely the water.

Then show the effect of cutting spending – this should have a significant effect.

Show the two examples side-by-side ALL THE TIME.

We can endlessly debate on whether people making above some set income threhold are paying their “fair share” – the point is to get the economy and the debt/deficit under control. If raising taxes has only a small effect, then why are we wasting all this time arguing over whether or not the threshold should be $200K or $300K or $1 million, and whether the increase should be 2% or 3% or 10%? IT ALL WILL NOT MATTER. It is like a doctor telling the nurse to wash her hands so as not to infect the patient afte the patient has died.

Braveheart on November 15, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I 100% agree!! I really do. Well said.

And

teejk on November 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

-Yep. Most irritating that so many people are so gullible and selfish. Ugh.