on this forum many times, a deficit roticduen plan could be structured to reduce spending incrementally over a period of years so as to provide fiscal responsibility and certainty without throwing the economy into recession.But he's at most only half the problem. Perhaps the biggest problem is that nobody wants to take responsibility for actually paying for what we are currently buying much less paying off our existing debt. The T-Party is far more concerned about lower taxes than they are about actually balancing the budget, much less paying off some of the debt. They'd rather strategically default on current government obligations than actually tax people to pay FOR WHAT THEY (conservatives and liberals) ALREADY SPENT.The would-be T-Party is a fraud. The real Tea Party was over Taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The would-be T-Pary is against taxation to pay for what they and the rest of us, THROUGH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES already spent. The cliche liberals may have been tax and spend, but the cliche conservatives merely changed that to borrow and spend by selling the country on the myth of a balanced budget thru supply side tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy without ever truly decreasing spending.Last week, in response to a question from me as to what the terms of Cut, Cap and Balance really were, Scotsman stated that the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan would cap spending at about the historic average of the last 50 years of about 19% to 20% of GDP. I have no problem with cutting from our current 24% spending rate to the long term average. I also have no problem with generally having that 20% spending cut spread equally among all programs (subject to some exceptions). But our current federal revenues are running at about 2.2 Trillion which is closer to 15% of GDP. At that rate, you can't even balance the budget, much less pay off any of the principal on the existing debt without agreeing to Increase Revenue.And don't give me that rich people won't invest if taxes are higher crap. History probably doesn't bear that out. I'm pretty sure peopel still invested in the 1950 s. International competition probably requires that we move to a consumption based tax system (a sales tax). But a few percent increase in rich peoples income taxes isn't going to cause an exodus to other countries or an unwillingness to invest. There might be a very small marginal affect on peoples willingness to invest but investors are far more worried about whether they will have any ROI rather than if the government takes another 1/20th of the actual ROI as a tax increase. The idea that capital will dry up if taxes on the rich are increased by 5% is the big lie that the T-Party is either too dumb to understand or too gullible to see through. The irony is that most T-Party members like Joe the Plumber, and pre-book sales Palin, aren't even smart enough to know that. If I believed in a god I'd ask her for help, but unfortunately its probably up to congress and I don't think many of us would describe them as a heavenly body. Rate this comment: 0 0