I guess I'm just a visionary.

Seriously, I don't think it's ever too early to lay out the rough framework of the debate. As we head into the discussion of Bush's second-term agenda, we should keep four things in mind:

1. Economic growth isn't going to solve our budget problems.

2. A serious effort to reform Social Security is going to cost a mountain of money.

3. Making Bush's tax cuts permanent is going to cost a mountain of lost revenue.

4. There's no way to reconcile the first three without tax increases.

__________________
Man up.

Splitting hairs maybe, but that is not actual "spending." That is a change in the payment paradigm. They were going to be paid either way, the difference is now they won't be robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's time to get the government off the heroin. This is much like companies in the 80's and 90's that used increases in the values of their pension plans due to a strong stock market to cover up for actual business losses and an unhealthy operating entity. Time to change that.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I'm betting money, marbles, and chalk that you are in a low tax bracket and have no problem with the "rich" getting taxed more. Am I right? But are you advocating higher taxes for yourself?

I happen to be in the lowest tax bracket right now. But I've been in all the brackets before. During the last few years where we were both working and at the top of our careers, we paid at the 39.6% marginal tax rate. But just because I've dropped back down in the 15% tax bracket, doesn't mean I think the top income earners should pay more in taxes than they do already. I know what it's like to work (*)(*)(*)(*)ed hard for your money and to have the federal gov't take 40% of it. Don't get me wrong.....I happen to believe in the progressive tax system. I appreciate the fact that when I was starting out in life and now that I'm retired, I get to pay the lower rates. But that doesn't mean I need to demonize those in the top brackets and act as if they are not paying their fair share. They are paying MORE than their fair share.

Bottom line is....the more money we give to the federal gov't in the form of taxes, the more ways they'll find to spend it. Have you ever looked at the list of some of the things they spend it on? Ridiculous crap. I know that families know better how to spend their own money and can do so more efficiently than the federal gov't. And the way to bring in more revenues to the gov't is to make the economy more robust. That's where we got all the revenues and the ultimate surplus of the late 90's.

It's amazing to me how many people like you think they are not paying enough in taxes. So how much are YOU willing to have YOUR personal taxes go up?

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

That's not being a "visionary" at all. That's a "can't be done" attitude. With that attitude, we would have NEVER gone to the moon. There's a solution to EVERY problem. To say "it can't be done"....."its too costly".....etc. will not solve the problem. And I think EVERYBODY agrees...and has agreed for many years now....that SS is a problem. It's eventually going to go broke....as there are fewer and fewer workers to pay the retirees benefits. Doing nothing is not a solution.

Keep in mind the proposal is to let the younger workers put only a portion of their SS into a private fund. The required SS deduction is 7.65%....and Bush's proposal was to let them take 2% of that and put it in a private fund. That will come from a list of approved, fairly conservative and safe instruments. In other words, they won't be able to put it in a speculative individual stock. Almost anything they put it in will beat the return that the SS fund has made through the years. Even a Certificate of Deposit would beat it. So.....the younger workers will ultimately have more money when they are able to retire. And if they have more retirement funds of their own....then the workers at that time won't have such a burden on them. It's one way to ease out from underneath this SS burden that workers are asked to pay.

At least Bush has a plan....a proposal.....a possible solution. We've seen nothing from the Democrats.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

I make almost exactly $80,000 a year, and am the sole source of income for my family. I also live in Minnesota, a relatively high tax state. But with two kids and a mortgage, I take 9 deductions, and I contribute 10% to my 401(k). Work it all out, and about 15.5% of my paycheck disappears into tax withholding. I'm not the highest bracket, but I'm not the lowest either.

But yes, I am advocating higher taxes for myself. Nowhere in my post will you find any reference to different income levels. This is a problem affecting ALL taxpayers.

Fabulous, but irrelevant.

Be that as it may, we have an obligation to pay for what we spend. I'm not talking about funding new spending and new pork. I'm talking about simply paying for what we've already bought, and not sticking our kids with the bill.

A spurious point. Families don't buy things like roads, or food inspectors, or soldiers, or trade negotiators, or any of the other things that government does. Government is necessary; the only discussion is how much government are we willing to pay for, and what should it do.

But if you look at my calculations above, I've already shown that economic growth is not going to solve this problem. Nor is cutting discretionary spending.

It's amazing to me that you're perfectly fine with foisting a multitrillion-dollar tax bill on to our kids so long as your taxes stay low. What ever happened to civic responsibility?

I consider paying my taxes a responsibility as a citizen. I'm willing to fork over quite a lot if it's necessary or the goal is worthy. But at minimum I am willing to pay for my government now so that my kids don't have to pay for their government AND the excesses of mine.

__________________
Man up.

Er, 'twas a joke.

Um, no it's not. I was simply pointing out that tax increases are a necessary part of any realistic solution. I wasn't saying SS reform was impossible or a bad idea. Just an expensive one.

Agreed. But Bush's plan is more of a Band-aid than anything else. It's not going to solve the problem. Doesn't mean it's not worth a try, but we need to be realistic about the costs and expected benefits.

Personally, I think privatization should be combined with raising the retirement age, reducing COLA payments and adding a means test so that wealthy retirees who don't need the money aren't helping drain the pot. But what I'd really like to see is the President laying out the options and the costs, and starting a national conversation on what option we should choose.

__________________
Man up.

I agree, and I wish more people thought like that. We're already one of the lowest-taxed developed nation in the world. And yet people STILL complain about their tax burden.

I agree with the sentiment, especially on the pork. But as far as foreign aid, I disagree. We already give a relatively paltry amount of aid, and I think more aid, not less, would be a very useful tool both diplomatically (you CAN buy friends) and security wise (targeted aid to help remove the conditions that give rise to terrorists). And you're still not talking about a significant amount of money in the scheme of things.

I think the social effects would be catastrophic, and the amount saved still wouldn't be anywhere near close to what we need. The federal budget is $2.4 trillion; 5% of that is a mere $120 billion. Face it; we have to do more than just cut spending.

I actually don't have a huge problem with property taxes if they are applied fairly. Yes, it screws people whose income doesn't keep up with the value of the land their house sits on, and that's a problem. But overall, property value is a reasonable, easy-to-apply proxy for wealth. However, when government and church buildings are exempt, companies get special breaks and the burden falls increasingly on homeowners, there's a problem. When I lived in New Jersey, there were county seats where 80 percent of the town was tax-exempt. Those cities were financial disasters.

I think Social Security needs a good hard look, with the options laid out. I think you'd eventually find broad support for reforming it. I think the big stumbling block here is trust; many people think "privatizing" is code for "get rid of the social safety net." Prove to them that it is not, and I think we'd find a consensus.

__________________
Man up.

So Raytri.....I have a few questions for you regarding taxes and surpluses and deficits.

What do you think caused the 1999 surplus we had? Do you think it was a result of the Clinton tax increase that occurred 6 years earlier? Or do you think it was a result of the Republicans taking over in 1995 and promising to balance the budget? Remember when they submitted a budget that would balance the budget by 2002....and Clinton's budget that year showed deficits as far as the eye could see? And remember how the differences between the two budgets resulted in a government shut-down? Well, that resulted in forcing Clinton to finally agree to the budget that guaranteed the surplus....cutting the budget some $650 billion. And we ended up getting that surplus in 1999......3 years ahead of the estimate.

It's NOT tax increases that result in surpluses.....it's tax cuts. And it's growing the economy.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."