Originally Posted by pjohns

(1) I do not believe it is a calumny to refer to David Brooks as an ex-conservative, anymore than it would be to ferer to Garry Wills in the same way.

(2) The article, rather predictably, speaks in the antiseptic wording of "revenue increases"--not higher taxes.

(3) If an agreement is not reached by August 2, there will be no immediate "default" upon our debt. This will be a chance for government to prioritize, and payback our creditors first.
That comes from a fantastic analysis of the situation.
The worry (and it is a quite reasonable one, in my opinion) is that the Democrats will do all they can to cause as much pain as possible--perhaps by shutting down the meat industry, through the temporary elimination of meat inspections; or even by postponing of the delivery of Social Security checks--so as to be able to demonize Those Mean and Heartless Republicans...

Originally Posted by saltwn

Actually stupid would be more to the point. Their brains have fallen by the wayside here and the American people will suffer greatly for this error.
closing tax loop holes in exchange for drastic cuts. It IS a no brainer.

Originally Posted by saltwn

Good find.
It about sums up the way a lot of us 'swing' voters are feeling I think. This stuff in congress isn't happening in a vacuum chamber on the moon but in a very glassy house where CSpan shines its light daily.

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Pray tell what are these "drastic" cuts. The Dimocrat plan is raise a few billion in taxes over a decade to justify trillions more in deficit spending. Obama's budget proposal, rejected by the Senate, calls for $13 trillion in new deficit spending while the corporate jet tax increase might yield as much as $3 billion during the same decade. But don't worry, tax and trust Dimocrates to deal with the spending induced fiscal crisis.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Ha ha ha, Here come the attacks on Brooks. Geez it is just like clockwork. You should address his point. It has merit.

Originally Posted by saltwn

Originally Posted by saltwn

Originally Posted by saltwn

Originally Posted by pjohns

The elimination of, say, the subsidy for corporate jets might very well prompt a feelgood moment; but it would do very little to balance the budget. In short, it would amount to the certain triumph of symbolism over substance.

Originally Posted by Coyote

So what exactly is wrong with closing tax loopholes and ending corporate subsidies?

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The request was to detail the Dimocrat proposals for spending cuts. Which you ignored in your response.

Closing tax loopholes and ending corporate subsidies with no specificity is classic meaningless populist rhetoric. It is meant only to distract from the real problem, out of control spending. There is no way to tax our way out of Obama's mess so let's conjure up more taxes for the twin demons according to Dimocrats, corporations and the rich.