The Reagan taxcuts were overturned by Reagan himself when he discovered that his own spending goals exceeded his revenues. What he failed to do was to raise revenues to meet his increased spending. That was left up to Bush Sr and he increased revenues with what was then the largest tax increase in the history of the nation and he was subsequently punished by the right for doing so. (Although he was correct that spending did need to be increased to cover both GW1 and the larger Defense budget.)
Clinton then passed an even larger Tax increase and with the support of the Republican congress they effectively reduced spending as well. These 2 tax increases did not stop "job creators" from investing heavily and the largest economic boom this nation has ever seen occurred during the WJC administration. Not only was deficit spending eliminated but the national debt was being reduced under those revenue and spending policies. Please note that they included funding for additional teachers and policemen.
The current mess started when the revenues were slashed and spending skyrocketed (largely off the books) under the following administration. The measly $300 pa that the average taxpayer received was a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that ended up in the pockets of the top 1%. Those tax cuts threw the whole system out of balance and the unfunded spending spree increase set the path for the current $17 trillion in debt.
If you want to "live within a budget" then you must be willing to cut defense spending levels back to below where they were before Reagan took office. Are you willing to reduce Defense spending to that level? Because if you aren't then you are going to have to find the revenues to pay for it. Please note that SS and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes and only a minor tweak is needed to keep them solvent. Defense spending, and that includes all of the corporate welfare and veterans benefits, is the big issue that needs to be addressed. How much are you willing to cut and how do you intend to address the shortfall?
You can stick with that 1% er stuff all you like.
The problem is too much spending on a lot of nonsense.
You said so yourself....Revenue cannot keep up with current spending levels..
Here's an idea..Cut discretionary spending....It's real easy.
Look, your side is not fooling anyone. You people could not care less about revenue. You despise people who you view as 'having more than they need'. Combining that with your faux compassion for the less fortunate.
The left has always believed the poor can be enriched by making the rich poorer.
An example of this is illustrated in what would happen if a person of limited means was given a certain amount of money over and above their income level. Invariably, that person would end up spending the money unwisely and ending right back where they started. Or worse.
Contrary to lefty popular belief, taxation is not intended to be a means to punish or satisfy your desire to 'get even'.
