While I don’t disagree with alot of what he says, nonetheless, this article looks at the problem from the liberal/socialist end of the scale—more taxation won’t be a burden.  But those of us more to the right think the problem is over spending not under taxation. This is, or ought to be, what the election of 2012 is about.

I love sentences that begin “The truth is that most households probably” - uh-huh. “Most” and “probably” - words loved by ideologues of every stripe. The “clear” statistic is also open to challenge.

I think most Americans believe there is overspending.  The disagreement is over what we are overspending on, and how much we are overspending. I agree with David Stockman.  We need more revenue to pay our debts and maintain necessary government functions.  There appears no viable way to pay the debt without more revenue, the complete elimination of Social Security and Medicare, or an unacceptable reduction in defense spending.  In short we need both cuts in spending and additional revenue to get us back to were we were in 2000. 

I understand there is a contingent of the right that believes we should eliminate Social Security and Medicare, but I do not think that is anywhere near 25% of the country, and I don’t think you will have a candidate proposing that.  You may have someone propose a disguised elimination of Medicare, like Ryan did; but not before the election.

On thing that would have helped in this debate is if we had paid for the wars with a war tax, instead of borrowing.

The “complete elimination of Social Security and Medicare” is not necessary to pay the debt.  The majority of “the right” does not favor any such thing, nor does the Ryan plan propose a “disguised elimination of Medicare.”  These programs are fiscally unsustainable in their current forms.  Modifications for younger workers are necessary and could both serve the needs of retired people in decades to come and reduce the burden on the public purse.  President Obama’s own Debt Commission made significant systemic proposals to reduce the debt, and so did the Republican House when it passed the Ryan budget.  President Obama rejected the Debt Commission, and the Democratic Senate leadership has rejected the Ryan budget while declining to propose its own.

High earners might very well accept higher marginal tax rates for a time if real spending cuts and systemic reforms were also enacted.

#3—If we merely went back to the spending levels of 2006, when no one was exactly starving, we could start to fix the budget mess today.  Also, creating private sector jobs by eliminating regulations, and government oversite would increase revenues. We could have 20,000 high paying jobs immediately if the President would approve teh Nebraska pipeline!  Reducing the size of government will also put more capital in the private sector, because the government wouldn’t be sucking so much out of available capital, thus improving employment and, again increasing revenue. Then we can start to seriously fix entitlement programs, which as noted by Katherine, are unsustainable at current levels. You may be right about the “war tax”, but that is water over the dam. We didn’t do that so now we have to solve the problem.

reading the nytimes is like reading a Where’s Waldo book, except you’re not looking for a man in a striped hat; you’re looking for the truth. And sometimes it’s not even there.

Katherine, both sides of the aisle were ready to reject the Debt Commission, so let’s not over-simplify here.  However, I do sincerely wish the president had taken it as a springboard.  I even thought he had another chance to do so after the debt ceiling debacle. Unfortunately he chose not to pick it up then either.  I can only imagine how hard it is to work with a party so utterly hamstrung by ideology.  If only Republicans would listen to *you*! 

The article misses the point ... what outrages people about Romney’s effective tax rate is not that it’s less that most Americans’, but that it seems unnecessarily low for someone making $24 million a year for doing nothing.  It’s not socialism to ask why someone should be taxed disproportionately less than those “earning” 1/100th as much.

Skeptic, I doubt that Romney’s effective tax rate is less than most Americans’.  On capital gains and dividends, he pays 15% on every dime.  On interest, he pays whatever his marginal tax rate is, which would be the highest one for the most part.  So he pays, probably, somewhere between 15% - 20% of his total income in income taxes.  Most taxpayers pay less, most considerably less, than 20% in total, whatever their top marginal rate may be.

I am a conservative, and so is Rep. Paul Ryan.  We’re not unreasonable nor heartless people.