Congress Must Pass Emergency Tax Increase

We don't need an emergency tax increase.

What we need is an immediate spending FREEZE. EVERYTHING off the table, and then one item at a time replaced, until we've run out of money.

If you cut ALL non defense discretionary spending to ZERO, you still would not come close to balancing the budget. You would only save $610 billion on a $1.4 trillion budget deficit.

Only by reducing the defense budget to ZERO would you balance the budget in the absence of tax increases.

OR ...

We could keep a modest defense budget while cutting all the other bullshit giveaways that have absolutely nothing to do with the core mission of federal government, which is to protect the land and its citizens.

Cutting funding to NPR was a good start.

"Only by reducing the defense budget to ZERO would you balance the budget in the absence of tax increases. "

Incorrect, as usual.

Entitlements cost BY FAR more than defense.

If only we had a third unwinnable protracted war to help us fix our budgetary problems.

If we sent some senior citizens to the front line, it sure would!

"Entitlements cost BY FAR more than defense."

Social Security costs NOTHING. It is entirely self funded and does not add a penny to the deficit.

"Cutting funding to NPR was a good start."

Cutting funding to NPR does not save a single penny.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted “present.” Amash opposes taxpayer funding for NPR, but explained his opposition in a statement to Fox News by noting that the bill voted on yesterday would not save a dime of taxpayer money:

The federal government does not subsidize NPR directly. Instead, the government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a government entity, which has discretion to provide funding to whichever private radio producers it chooses. H R 1076 does not actually save taxpayer dollars; it merely blocks CPB from exercising its discretion to send funding to NPR. The funds CPB does not send to NPR under the bill are returned to CPB to be spent subsidizing other private radio producers. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to require that any funds not sent to NPR be redirected to pay down the deficit, but the amendment was ruled out of order. Therefore, public broadcasting will not see any reduction in federal funding even if this bill becomes law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/18/gop-rep-npr-defunding-does-not-save-money/#

Socialist:

1. you sound like you need a vacation
2. can I pay for a plane ticket for you Benghazi, Libya
3. and a tee-shirt that says "I moo for Muammar"

socialist, again, you need to stop with your fantasies. Your comment that social security costs nothing is idiotic. The government does not keep social security taxes tucked away to handle future expenses. Those taxes go to the general government budget and the Treasury issues the Social Security fund IOUs. Which means it needs to borrow money to pay back the IOUs. Which means it adds to government spending and the deficit.

Of course, fiscal responsibility, limited government and spending within your means are not liberal strong points.

"Those taxes go to the general government budget and the Treasury issues the Social Security fund IOUs."

This only happens when social security runs a surplus. Which kind of proves Socialist's point, I suppose.

Not in the least jordyn. Assets that should be backing future social security obligations are not there, replaced with government borrowing.

So in the short term Socialist is right but in the long term you will be?

Social Security has a $2.5 trillion SURPLUS and can pay 100% of benefits until 2037. Fear mongerers like LICC spread nonsense about Social Security being bankrupt to justify privatizing it.

And on the subject of entitlements, under Paul Ryan's Roadmap to Nowhere, Medicare would be replaced with a vouncher system. However, the voucher amount would remain the same while health care costs will increase. So essentially, it basically sentences virtually every senior citizen in America to bankruptcy.

Last year the Treasury started borrowing to pay its obligations to Social Security. This increases the debt and the deficit. Today.

How many facts can Socialist misconstrue? Either that or you have no clue how this works.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080905559.html

Social Security is solvent until 2037. Nothing you write can change that fact.

Socialist, you are a moron and there is nothing you write that can change that fact. Social Security Trust (funds) are not hard assets. They are soft IOU's that are nothing more than a tax on future generations. I'm not sure that you'll ever be able to reproduce, but if you do, this will be a tax on your future children. (I hope that if you do have kids, that they are adopted).