You know this, you have to.

As recently as the year 2000 (the last year of Clinton’s term), only 25% of workers escaped paying federal income taxes. Today 47% do. This isn’t a consequence of workers suddenly becoming massively poorer, as wages for workers have remained largely flat. It’s a consequence of Bush-era tax cuts (which were applied across the board, not just for the rich), additional Obama-era tax cuts, and an ever-increasing number of credits, exemptions, and deductions.

[And yes, I know that many of the 47% still pay payroll taxes. They paid those same payroll taxes back in Clinton's term, and a great many of them paid income taxes also. And yet life was considered better back then.]

A growing tax base & the multiplier effect of increased economic activity.

It has nothing to do with “trickle down” or any of your worn out political cliches.

Are you denying that a growing economy increases the tax base? Are you denying an increased tax base increases tax revenue?

Why do you oppose an increased tax base? Why do you prefer tax increases which will slow the economy and said base? Do you fundamentally oppose economic growth?

Increased taxes only slow the economy (and reduce the tax base).

Regardless of how one “feels” about tax rates socially or politically, regardless of rates, increased tax base is the economic answer.

This Congress cannot fathom working with him so I expect he is doing all he can behind the scenes so as not to just be a target, that is a sad indictment on the political climate but it is the reality.

You, nor I will have any say or input on what is cut, how much etc so I am not going to sit here and sweat it. I think we will soon know the bargain and whether it is grand or pitiful but his name on it only waves a red flag at the bulls right now.

Many were more than willing to elect Romney with scant information and details so again, I am not overly concerned with what I cannot affect. I believe there will be “public vetting”. And kvetching too.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

Is this true ignorance and stupidity, or is it a dishonest political tactic? Hard to say. Neither is acceptable in my opinion.

I don’t know why you find it acceptable for Obama to hide his lists. Did you defend for his secret meetings with energy leaders? If Democrats have good ideas for spending cuts, they should be revealed so that the public can pressure the Republicans to relent.

Also, public vetting of ideas would greatly increase the “openness and transparency” of the government: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment. Or have the Bloomberg guys correctly condemned Obama’s “open government” efforts as a major failure: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html? We were promised better than this.

He has taken nothing off the table and is willing to deal on overhauling the tax code, and reforming entitlements. He says: “There’s a package to be shaped and I’m confident that the … goodwill of both parties can make that happen.”

I hope he is right but folks looking for a list to pick apart is not a good sign and this Congress has one awful track record.

I believe we will gain more tax revenue and have to accept spending cuts. There is no other way and they all know it. Or do they?