[0abdd0e66h]

I'm talking about taxes on the top earners, not 'middle class' taxes. It's "practical" in the sense that it would help reduce the deficit which a certain group of people seem to be so outraged at. Of course, we can cut benefits, which I'm assuming is your preferred mechanism for balancing the budget. The problem is that cutting benefits seems to negatively affect a higher percentage of the population who are not top earners vs. scraping some bucks from the top of the incomprehensibly rich. Whether or not private enterprise is actually more "efficient" at spending money is something I would also like to see proven.

[isaacagarcia]

"Raising taxes on the top 2% of households, as Mr. Obama proposes, would bring in $34 billion next year: enough to cover nine days’ worth of the deficit,"

http://www.economist.com/node/17043472?story_id=17043472

This conversation is a waste of time and is pure political rhetoric for election season. $34 billion is insignificant and simply a means to incite class warfare.

[blasdel]

Letting these cuts expire is the lowest-hanging fruit for boosting revenue — there are a lot of others above it, like expanding the estate tax before the boomers all die. They're just doing the simplest thing first.