[bixlewlyimila]

It's not so much a political gamble as an opportunity that they can either seize or squander. If the Republicans cut mainly Democratic constituency programs, and cut them so deeply that enough people howl, and they do this without adequately preparing the public, they'll lose.

However, if they cut across the board so that the public perceives the cuts as fair, if they cut in ways that most people won't even notice the spending cuts personally, and if they make a strong case to the public, they'll win.

[tobia]

It's not so much a political gamble as an opportunity that they can either seize or squander. If the Republicans cut mainly Democratic constituency programs, and cut them so deeply that enough people howl, and they do this without adequately preparing the public, they'll lose.

However, if they cut across the board so that the public perceives the cuts as fair, if they cut in ways that most people won't even notice the spending cuts personally, and if they make a strong case to the public, they'll win.

As long as the Republicans refuse to look at raising tax rate on the top 1%, but are willing to make deep cuts in programs for the poor, the elderlies and the sick. . .they will have a difficult time getting any person who can do some math to make sense of their policies!

[bitymnmictada]

I wish someone could find a reliable poll among the rich to see how they felt about extending their tax cuts. I know several of the wealthy have said the idea was ridiculous.

Warren Buffet's comment was that there is something wrong with a system where his secretary's taxes are higher than his.

[bixlewlyimila]

As long as the Republicans refuse to look at raising tax rate on the top 1%, but are willing to make deep cuts in programs for the poor, the elderlies and the sick. . .they will have a difficult time getting any person who can do some math to make sense of their policies!

Republicans favor tax reform, and tax reform will see the rich pay more because of fewer deductions. But the top rate on the rich is already 35% I believe. Raising the rate won't bring in much money, it will only increase the use of existing loopholes, and in addition, create pressure for more loopholes, which Democrats will gladly give up to shield taxpayers in blue states.

But the real issue is that spending is 25% of GDP. Revenues are currently 15%. Historically, revenues are 18% and spending is 21%. Revenues will naturally rise back to 18% once the temporary stimulus tax breaks and the economic recovery is entrenched. Spending, however, has to drop from 25% back down to historical levels. And that can't be done without cuts.

[bixlewlyimila]

I wish someone could find a reliable poll among the rich to see how they felt about extending their tax cuts. I know several of the wealthy have said the idea was ridiculous.

Warren Buffet's comment was that there is something wrong with a system where his secretary's taxes are higher than his.

I'm quite certain that the megarich have no problem with higher taxes. If you taxed Buffett at 75% with no deductions he'd still have more money than he could imagine spending. Tax a mere millionaire at 35% and he's got some choices to make.

I bet you that if you asked Buffett if he'd favor a special billionaires tax of 50%, he'd object. Simply because the revenue would be negligible because there aren't enough billionaires. The only way to get the big money is to tax the rich making $250,000 or more, because that $250,000-$5 million range is a pretty large group. Lots of money there. Not so much above $5 million.

[en-druzhba]

Does mainstream America really even consider what 'cutting government spending levels to 2006 levels' mean? Will they still want to drive on pot-filled interstate where the posted speed limit is 10 to 20 miles higher than the safe speeds, because of loose cement and potholes? Will they want to give up the 'pre-existing conditions' on health care? Or, allow manufacturing companies to again dump toxic wastes into landfills, streams and lakes and the air?.

These questions may or may not be hyperbole but asking them apparently reflects what you expect to happen should conservative Republicans plan to roll back government spending.

To pose answers from my side may be just as frivolous. However:

"Potholes" - interstates in some states already suffer un-repaired or poorly fixed potholes. There could be more of it, yes, but how much does the actually fed spend on potholes. Is that a lot? Perhaps drivers will have to be more careful or could they perhaps demand that the highway trust fund actually be spent on highways instead of extortion?

"Pre-existing Conditions" - Obamacare insists that insurance companies cover pre-existing condition cost, paid for by government-enforced private insurance coverage purchases. I'm supposed to believe that the government won't spend a dime here. Oh, right, the fines that are taxes...that'll pay for it across this fair land.

"Toxic-waste" - Not likely to be affected by the EPA having its budget cut by even 10%. Regulations are in place, whistle-blowers abound, and the bureaucracy that enforces the reg's is, like all bureaucracy, bloated.

Overall, these three you mention, even if they happened, amount to very little of federal expenditure. Come back when cost-cutters have to/attempt to tackle entitlements. Then we can read your book reviews on how many old people will lie in the gutters eating from open cat food cans or dying of starvation, rickets and untreated open wounds.

[Bounce]

Although what you say is true, I merely mentioned what I thought would be of concern to the average person. Simply saying we are going to cut everything to any pre-existing level, or cut everything by the same percentage is quite a ridicules way to proceed.

Every department, every agency and every candidature certainly needs to be examined, some cut entirely, some by 50%, some not at all, and some could actually help the economy by having more money. That is why their plan so far, is a political gamble. A gamble that no one will notice by 2012 for example.

To think that the public will get really feeling great about worse roads, air quality, water quality, more bad medicines getting out to the public, less police/EMS/Firemen/other infrastructure is a big gamble, as my first post indicates.

Go ahead and bitch, moan and complain about who posted the thread, do you silly name calling and trying to steal the thread, it will something your party has to deal with in 2012 and afterward. I think the American public is about fed up with politicians half and untruths, and are beginning to see them for what they truly are.