Friday, January 4, 2013
posted by Spencerblog at
It looks to me that we have to either (a) raise revenue or (b) decrease spending. [Duh] So how about if we increase the tax rates on every person paying taxes by about 50% so we can (1) offset the deficit and (2) increase the amount spent on welfare and food stamps and extended unemployment benefits. Whoops---If we go for (1) it still won't abate the deficit. Does that mean we can't afford (2)? Or does it meant that we'll have to raise tax rates further on the remaining few who are working? Perhaps we should look to Greece to see what the solution might be?
No thank you on austerity. For a more real picture of revenue vs. spending:http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/05/deficit-chart-republicans-hateThe IMF has reformed itself on austerity as a solution for economic issues:http://www.salon.com/2013/01/04/imf_economists_apologize_for_austerity_forecasts/There is a great deal of revenue out there via comprehensive immigration reform. I must credit George W. Bush for having the smarts to attempt. The Obama version of this is really the Bush II version of this.http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307561/top-10-reasons-why-the-us-needs-comprehensive-immigration-reform-that-includes-a-path-to-citizenship/?mobile=ncAnd you can all spare me your fallacy of argument by attacking the sources.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Create a Link
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]