Charlie Rose

robdverity  07/20/2011 03:22 PM Report

Shark - may it be so; or Amen (in some venues).

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/20/2011 03:03 AM Report

So the no new taxes dogma expands to no revenue increase at all. Then we have to start asking well what about this loop-hole and that subsidy. Please House Republicans throw us a revenue bone.

How about this? The rich are about $42 billion richer this year because they were re-gifted in December. Now how much will they lose when their investments crater on August 2nd without an agreement? Seems like if I were rich I would be willing to see revenue increases because if August 2nd comes without something done then that $42 billion in savings may not even come close to the loss I would experience in my investments.

So let's see some numbers--August 2nd comes with nothing substantial--how many billions will the rich lose?

robdverity  07/19/2011 01:19 PM Report

In our plutocracy loopholes closed will be repurchased within a year.

REMant  07/19/2011 11:38 AM Report

First we had the president talking about doing something big, then we had a balanced budget amendment proposed, and now Sen Coburn has offered a $9 trillion plan. Beginning to look like a Potlach, but, of course, it's not entirely about giving. As Coburn remarked as well getting rid of tax expenditures can't be considered simply as a tax increase. The Keynesians are up in arms about balancing the budget, since according to them it is the equivalent of getting rid of fractional reserve and interest rate manipulation. But if your budget is balanced you certainly have a better chance of not needing such "counter-cyclical" fixes in the first place, tho they'll never believe that. A balanced budget amendment unless carefully crafted would likely invite evasion, however, putting things "off-budget" or creating independent quasi-governmental agencies like Fannie Mae.