This speaks volumes

[zimmy]

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

The economy also "imploded under" Clinton (the Dot Com Bubble). It "imploded" even further "under" Obama. It has had this bad habit of "imploding under" many presidents, and even "recovering under" those same presidents. It didn't recover under FDR though it wavered up and down in its deep doldrums. It "imploded under" high taxes on the rich and under moderately high taxes on the rich and under low taxes on the rich. The taxes on the rich, high or low, don't seem to have had much of an effect on whether the economy "imploded" or not, but may have created short term little shifts, and high taxes on the rich may have given the unrich some envious satisfaction or some illusion that paying their illusive "fair share" was just the tweek to get the economy healthy. Never mind that taxes on the productive rich eventually always get shifted to the unrich in higher prices or lost jobs. High taxes on the rich has certainly been a campaign policy that helped win elections--even though the promise never pans out.

So you say that "maybe" there is something to the Reagan and Bush II post-tax cut recessions. What would that be? Is there a discussion there, or only mystifying conjecture?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

Zimmy, you are absolutely correct, much of that $85 trillion would come from tax revenue on businesses.

Here is another thing that liberals cannot seem to grasp...ZIMMY, FROM WHERE DO YOU EXPECT THOSE BUSINESSES TO GET THOSE TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Do those businesses have the ability to print money? No, they take it from us.

Many liberals think tax increases on businesses are a way to "spare" the public from tax hikes. But businesses will obviously pass that on to their customers and employees, which is us. Please ask Johnny D how he would respond if his corporate tax rate doubled? It's amazing to me, this liberal notion that there is this giant ATM out there called "business" that we can raid whenever we want without any consequences...

During the 2008 Republican Nat'l Convention, Fred Thompson made a great analogy to this in his speech. He said something like this..."Liberals believe that raising taxes on buisiness doesn't effect individual people. That's like saying 'don't worry, I'm not taking water from your side of the pail, I'm taking it from my side of the pail'. Because if you buy anything from a business, or you happen to get your paycheck from a business, then you are impacted by tax hikes on that business".

Where am I wrong Zimmy?

"When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. "

Zimmy, when the economy comes back, tax revenues will increase, that is correct. But it would take decades (at least) of a booming economy for tax revenues to marginally increase by $85 trillion.

Do you understand the math? I'm not just saying we need a total of $85 trillion...I'm saying we're $85 trillion in the hole. What that means is, we need to come up with $85 trillion to pay back debt, and that's ON TOP of what we need to cover the everyday expenditures.

Zimmy, federal income tax revenue for this year will be around $2.2 trillion, and we're spending $3.8 trillion. Let's say the economy grows by 20% (which is an enormous surge) and stays there. That gets revenue to 2.64 trillion. That's still SHORT of what we need to cover our 2011 expenses of 3.8 trillion.

We cannot grow out of this debt, Zimmy. Not with our expenditures. Do the math...for 2011, we are spending 73% more than we are taking in (3.8 trillion vs 2.2 trillion). That means if revenues increased by 72% (which is imposible), we'd still only be breaking even for this year, leaving not one penny to address the debt of $85 trillion. If revenues DOUBLED to 4.4 T, we would have an annual surplus of 0.6 trillion (4.4 - 3.8 = 0.6). Ignoring interest, we would need that to continue, uninterrupted, for 142 years to pay down that $85 trillion. How can you possibly play with those numbers and come up with a realistic solution to this mess that doesn't involve huge cuts? Answer - you can't. And then when someone like Paul Ryan has the political courage to tell the truth, Obama responds by saying that Ryan wants disabled kids to whither and die on the street. Notice that Obama never said Ryan was WRONG, rather, he tried to demonize him. Is that change? Is that leadership?

Zimmy, the math is what the math is. It's not political, and I'm not saying that the Democrats are solely to blame. But we are in deep doo-doo here.

"the economy imploded under Bush"

First Zimmy, you explicitly stated that tax revenues under Bush drcereased after the tax cuts. I proved that's not true, will you admit that? Second, you're saying Bush's tax cuts caused this mess? Sorry, it was the subprime mortgage mess that did the damage. If you deny that, you are utterly brainwashed by political contempt for those you disagree with...

Also Zimmy, the economy grew like crazy when the GOP controlled Congress (from 1994 to 2006). The Dems took over in 2006. And in our system of gov't, the legislature, way more than the President, sets the legislative agenda...I'm sorry if that fact tends to suggest that the Dems messed up, but it's a fact nonetheless...

I love it when folks say the Bush tax cuts caused this. There is absolutely no rational way to say that with a straight face...

"you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues."

Why can't I say that? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, so why can't I say it? I can't prove that the Bush tax cuts caused the increased revenue...but I can prove that tax revenue increased for several years aftre the cuts went into place. So you can say that revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts...you can say that, even though it's irrefutably false. But I cannot say that revenues increased after the cuts, even though that's precisely what took place? In other words, you can make stuff up, but I can't state historical fact?!?! Wow. I mean, wow...

Het Detbuch, no hyperbole here, right? Just simple, irrefutable (except to liberals) child-level math.

OK liberals, where am I wrong exactly? Believe me, I want to be wrong on this issue...but I don't suspect I am...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, you are absolutely correct, much of that $85 trillion would come from tax revenue on businesses.

Here is another thing that liberals cannot seem to grasp...ZIMMY, FROM WHERE DO YOU EXPECT THOSE BUSINESSES TO GET THOSE TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Do those businesses have the ability to print money? No, they take it from us.

Many liberals think tax increases on businesses are a way to "spare" the public from tax hikes. But businesses will obviously pass that on to their customers and employees, which is us. Please ask Johnny D how he would respond if his corporate tax rate doubled? It's amazing to me, this liberal notion that there is this giant ATM out there called "business" that we can raid whenever we want without any consequences...

During the 2008 Republican Nat'l Convention, Fred Thompson made a great analogy to this in his speech. He said something like this..."Liberals believe that raising taxes on buisiness doesn't effect individual people. That's like saying 'don't worry, I'm not taking water from your side of the pail, I'm taking it from my side of the pail'. Because if you buy anything from a business, or you happen to get your paycheck from a business, then you are impacted by tax hikes on that business".

Where am I wrong Zimmy?

"When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. "

Zimmy, when the economy comes back, tax revenues will increase, that is correct. But it would take decades (at least) of a booming economy for tax revenues to marginally increase by $85 trillion.

Do you understand the math? I'm not just saying we need a total of $85 trillion...I'm saying we're $85 trillion in the hole. What that means is, we need to come up with $85 trillion to pay back debt, and that's ON TOP of what we need to cover the everyday expenditures.

Zimmy, federal income tax revenue for this year will be around $2.2 trillion, and we're spending $3.8 trillion. Let's say the economy grows by 20% (which is an enormous surge) and stays there. That gets revenue to 2.64 trillion. That's still SHORT of what we need to cover our 2011 expenses of 3.8 trillion.

We cannot grow out of this debt, Zimmy. Not with our expenditures. Do the math...for 2011, we are spending 73% more than we are taking in (3.8 trillion vs 2.2 trillion). That means if revenues increased by 72% (which is imposible), we'd still only be breaking even for this year, leaving not one penny to address the debt of $85 trillion. If revenues DOUBLED to 4.4 T, we would have an annual surplus of 0.6 trillion (4.4 - 3.8 = 0.6). Ignoring interest, we would need that to continue, uninterrupted, for 142 years to pay down that $85 trillion. How can you possibly play with those numbers and come up with a realistic solution to this mess that doesn't involve huge cuts? Answer - you can't. And then when someone like Paul Ryan has the political courage to tell the truth, Obama responds by saying that Ryan wants disabled kids to whither and die on the street. Notice that Obama never said Ryan was WRONG, rather, he tried to demonize him. Is that change? Is that leadership?

Zimmy, the math is what the math is. It's not political, and I'm not saying that the Democrats are solely to blame. But we are in deep doo-doo here.

"the economy imploded under Bush"

First Zimmy, you explicitly stated that tax revenues under Bush drcereased after the tax cuts. I proved that's not true, will you admit that? Second, you're saying Bush's tax cuts caused this mess? Sorry, it was the subprime mortgage mess that did the damage. If you deny that, you are utterly brainwashed by political contempt for those you disagree with...

Also Zimmy, the economy grew like crazy when the GOP controlled Congress (from 1994 to 2006). The Dems took over in 2006. And in our system of gov't, the legislature, way more than the President, sets the legislative agenda...I'm sorry if that fact tends to suggest that the Dems messed up, but it's a fact nonetheless...

I love it when folks say the Bush tax cuts caused this. There is absolutely no rational way to say that with a straight face...

"you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues."

Why can't I say that? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, so why can't I say it? I can't prove that the Bush tax cuts caused the increased revenue...but I can prove that tax revenue increased for several years aftre the cuts went into place. So you can say that revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts...you can say that, even though it's irrefutably false. But I cannot say that revenues increased after the cuts, even though that's precisely what took place? In other words, you can make stuff up, but I can't state historical fact?!?! Wow. I mean, wow...

Het Detbuch, no hyperbole here, right? Just simple, irrefutable (except to liberals) child-level math.

OK liberals, where am I wrong exactly? Believe me, I want to be wrong on this issue...but I don't suspect I am...

I likes it mucho. Maybe a slightly careless "absolutely" or "utterly" thrown in, but lots of direct, to the point, hard hitting Jim in CT stuff.

[zimmy]

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

[scottw]

if you Google those quotes individually...the results are pretty funny...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

The "problem" that these quotes talk about is the Federal budget (deficit and debt) and Federal revenues, not the private sector economy and private sector profits. Whether tax cuts bring in more revenue or pay for themselves may be debatable. There are certainly a host of quotes than can be given to support that. There is the Laffer curve theory that supports a level of taxation as being optimal and above which taxation is counterproductive. Those who view the "economy" as dynamic favor that view. Those who view the economy in a more static fashion think it is obvious that the higher the tax, the higher the federal income. When we speak of the "economy," however, most, I think, are referring to the private sector. That the Government has amassed a huge debt and is unable to balance a budget is a different matter. Your list of quotes don't address the "economy" that most of us think of and which has to pay for the "problem."

The first quote is very telling . . . "in the absence of such legislation, the NATION would have a surplus this year . . . tax cuts account for allmost half . . . of this $539 billion in increased costs." The nation he speaks of is the Federal Government, not the States, the businesses, and the individuals who pay for this overarching Government. And, to me, a cost is outlay, purchase, spending, not income. Not being an economist or accountant, I am not aware of this definition of a cost being income. Government economists seem to think it is. In my simplistic view, government costs are government programs--things that cost money, not the money that is used to pay for those costs. If the money, the revenue, is a cost, then logic would dictate that to reduce that cost (tax revenue), you would reduce the tax. And it is a bit laughable to trot out quotes by the very government apparatichiks who helped to spend the Federal Government into its debt as if they know the answer to getting out of that debt.

I'm not sure--are you implying with these quotes and your previous comments in this thread that balancing the Federal Budget and Paying down the debt will create a booming economy, one that will not "implode." And that raising taxes is the way to do it?--"Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bushs II post -tax cut recession."

And that the resulting fiscally responsible Government will then give the private economy the "confidence" to flourish?--"Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy . . ."--whose confidence and which economy?

As Milton Friedman once asked--where are these angels (that would govern so responsibly)?

So, then, if the Government had not been so profligate in the first place--as it has been for the past century--the "economy" would never have imploded?

Perhaps such thinking is backwards. The "economy" is not driven by the Government. The Government is fed by the "economy" as you almost correctly stated--"When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases." Except it hasn't worked that way because angels were not at the Government helm, and they sqaundered the wealth given to them (more accurately--that they confiscated), and to think that taxing the rich, raising taxes, blah, blah, will contribute to a balanced budget and a paid National debt is a fiction devoutly to be wished. There is nothing short of a balanced budget amendment that will stop the devils from spending any increased "revenue," as the Federal Government has always done since it wrested powers from State and local governments and from individuals to spend in the manner it does. The chance of such an amendment passing is . . .? Or of returning powers to the States is . . . ? Only the Tea Partiers have the passion for it, and they are being demonized and ridiculed.

[Jim in CT]

Zimmy, first off I apologize if I tee'd you off to the point of wanting to ignore me, that wasn't my intention, but my wife always tell sme my emails are more inflammatory than I intend them to be...

"pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. "

I wasn't trying to prove that the tax cuts increased revenue (although I believe that to be true, because the same thing also happened when Bill Clinton slashed tax rates). I was trying to prove you were wrong when you said that the tax cuts decreased revenue. After the tax cuts were put in place, revenue went up and stayed up until the subprime mortgage crisis hit. Then revenues went down. If I can't say that the cuts caused the revenues to go up, why is it OK for you to say that the cuts caused them to go down?

Zimmy, you may be right that if it wasn't for those cuts, the deficit would be less. I can also say that if it wasn't for liberals pushing home ownership for poor people who can't aford it, the economy would not have collapsed, and therefore the deficit wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Again, I'm not saying either side is at fault. What I'm saying is this...the previous generation of career politicians over-spent by at least $283,000 per person, and that is irrefutable fact. In my opinion, a group of politicians has to be pretty incompetent to do that, which is why I think we need a new breed who actually know how life works.

Zimmy, for every quote you post from someone bashiong the tax cuts, I can post 50 quotes from folks blaming liberals for spending too much and for pushing subprime mortgages (which you have not once mentioned as a culprit in all this).

Zimmy, you also completely ignored my irrefutable (I think) math that showed how impossible it will be to grow out of this mess with tax revenue, unless we have massive spending cuts.

Look at the numbers from my previous post. Even if tax revenues doubled (which is impossible) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on our debt (which we do), it would take over 140 years to raise an additional $85 trillion. That's 4 generations from now, our great-great-grandkids, who will still be paying this debt off, and that's IF tax revenues double and with no interest!!!!! So Zimmy, are you telling me that tax revenues will more than double? Or are you OK with taking hundreds of years to pay off this debt? Which is it? WHICH IS IT?

How do you respond to that? Please don't tell me what MSNBC or the New York Times tells you to think...don't post quotes from some mouthpiece...what do you think about that?

If my math is wrong (and I pray that it is), please tell me. If not, please tell me how we raise an additional $85 trillion?

You keep saying "business". Again, many liberals seem to believe that they have an unlimited ATM machine out there called "business" that they can raid whenever they like, and that it's free money with no consequences. It's not true...