I got my hands back on my copy of Steyn's [i]After America[/i]. Steyn is a conservative, but he's also a realist when it comes to U.S. debt. Too often (granted, not always), discussions over the budget conclude like this - [b]Liberals[/b] (progressives, but I'm nice) - "We ought to expand social spending. We can close the spending deficit [note - the deficit is [i]not[/i] the national debt] by adding layers to the tax code - layers that will prevent "the wealthy" from avoiding paying their fair share." [b]Conservatives[/b] - "Social spending is out of control. However, we need to "rebuild" the military, and it's of the utmost importance to 1) crush enemies in the Middle East, and 2) continue social regulation like the War on Drugs." Then Congress bickers over the placement of a few billion dollars, and the electorate treats the U.S. Presidential election as if it's nominating a Supreme Ideological Overlord. All the while, the debt clock ticks steadily upwards. Republicans might save us a few billion dollars here and there. Great, but it just gets borrowed and spent again within the week. The next day, they rubber stamp a bill that increases spending. Back to square one. They're no better than the Democrats. Both parties are spending the money of generations that have yet to be born. Let's get one thing straightened out, progressives. "The wealthy" don't have enough gold bars under their Emperor-sized mattresses to bail us out of this mess. Steyn's words... [quote]The somebody who has our money is the government. They waste it on self-aggrandizing ideologue nitwits like Van Jones and his "green jobs" racket. Every day these guys burn through so much that they can never bridge the gap. Under the 2011 budget, the government of the United States spent $188 million every hour that it didn't have. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, including Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Ramadan. So how many of "the rich" would you require to cover that shortfall? ... According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obama's "Buffet Rule" [referring to billionaire Warren Buffet] will raise -- stand back -- $3.2 billion per year. Which is what the United States government currently borrows every seventeen hours. ... A nation that takes seriously the Buffet Rule and the other mangy and emaciated rabbits the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper is certainly in need of having its awareness of basic arithmetic raised. For what Big Government is spending, there aren't enough of "the rich," and there never will be. There is only one Warren Buffet. He is the third wealthiest person on the planet. The first is a Mexican, and beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Buffet is worth $44 billion. If he donated the entire lot to the government of the United States, they would blow through it within four and a half days. Okay, so who's the fourth richest guy? He's French. And the fifth guy's a Spaniard. Number six is Larry Ellison. He's American, but that loser is only worth $36 billion. So he and Buffet between them could keep the United States government going for a week. The next richest American is Christy Walton of Walmart, and she's barely a semi-Buffet. So her $25 billion will see you a couple of days of the second week. There aren't a lot of other semi-Buffets, but, if you scrounge around you can rustle up some hemi-demi-semi-Buffets: if you confiscate the total wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans, it comes to $1.5 trillion, which is a little less than the federal shortfall in just one year of Obama-sized budgets. 2011 deficit - $1.56 trillion.[/quote] Now just apply the "millionaire's tax" to anybody who takes home more than... a quarter million a year (so much sense). How much are we coming up with? Enough to raise $19.3 trillion within a reasonable time frame? Don't forget interest payments, and don't forget that we've already [i]confiscated 100% of the wealth of the top 400 wealthiest Americans.[/i] So they're no longer paying into the system. It isn't about increasing revenue. It's about cutting costs. We spend [i]far[/i] too much, and shuffling around a few billion dollars in funding once a year isn't going to change anything, [i]Republicans.[/i] Programs need to get axed, and fast. So, what are your thoughts? Can we survive with current spending levels, or do we need a spending decrease? Or do you [i]honestly[/i] believe that a few extra layers on the tax code will rope us in enough income to deal with it?