Sure. His point was the revenue part of that equation. It is inadequate, unless you want to cut Medicare and SS (which is the ONLY way you could balance the budget given current revenues). - 1pg

------------------------

I agree with you in the abstract. But in the real world, the two items you mention being so huge, that all other form of profligate spending don't matter. However, we can't let that become an excuse for more spending.

Another observation is that politicians will spend 110% of whatever revenue is collected. So my position is that more revenue should be opposed until and unless politicians demonstrate some fiscal restraint. If politicians would guarantee and then lived up to their promises to freeze spending at current levels or even plus a small inflation adjustment and all new revenue above that would go to debt reduction, then I would support more taxes. There is even some low hanging fruit, eg the carried interest exclusion, but what is the point of collecting that extra $100B when the politicians will then spend an extra $110B.

And by politicians, I direct my contempt to both sides of the isle. Perhaps even more so on the Republicans since they claim to be for fiscal restraint but never get around to it. At least the democrats are open about their free spending ideology because so many needy people and they "care" so very much. You know what will help with the masses of needy people, bring in two million more poor people every year over our southern border.