raising federal taxes will be inevitable n be the most responsible thing to do

I brought up the deficit because you did. And with the US owing Japan and China 2.4 trillion, I found it important to say that. And I'd be happy to tell you why the deficit matter, it matters because our country relies on investors who currently find us as a viable option. But if we get to much debt that people end up putting timelines on, why China and Japan mattered, then they won't invest anymore, and our economy will spiral, as with Greece, Spain, and Portugal, so you can see why that wold have a lot to do with how we spend our money, and yes, our economy is stronger than theirs, but we aren't invisible. I however apologize for any confusion and admit that I should have explained why I brought it up, I do see why you thought of them as pointless rambling. Now, while the 1981 ERTA would stop revenue for a short time, after the rich realize that the use of their money would be taxed so much they would feel free to use it. Please refer to the chart on page 2 which is based on IRS and JEC research. http://tinyurl.com... ow, when a wealthy business owner is using their money and is giving more to gov't, this means that they have done something to expand the business they own, so they AND their workers are having more income flow, that of which the government can tax. Also, I think that it is agreeable for the government to try to raise taxes on something other than income, which as I stated potentially hurts the economy. How about a 33 cent tax on each phone call made? Some would be in opposition to this but it would be a viable source of money, with an average of 3 billion phone calls made each day this would bring in nearly 1.0 billion dollars a day. This would of course be a viable source of income, and it would be far less harmful than taxing ones income, which discourages work effort. Also, a recent study on the effects of taxes and revenue done by Christina and David Romer, two highly respected professors at the University of California, recently stated that the curve is actually somewhere around the 33% mark. Also, Christina Romer was an important person on President Obamas boar of economic advisors, so despite her liberal leanings, she made this conclusion. Now, you claim that government owned land isn't valuable, but when you include mineral rights our land is worth $128 trillion. This is 6.7X our entire debt. Of course I don't support selling an entire seventh of that, but at some point we need to consider spending it, because the fact we own these assets is probably what keeps investors coming. And if we are to headset on not losing potential revenue from these lands, thus making them mean less to investors, which might make then not want to put money into America anymore, which as I said would destroy economy. You see, Greece had assets, but wasn't willing to risk utilizing them accordingly, so investors lost interest. Also, privatizing healthcare works. When you introduce the people who used to not be available to the private sector one from the public sector, because the companies will recognize them as valuable to win over, and unlike gov't programs which don't have to compete and whose budgets don't matter as much, the companies will compete to give the best prices and quality to the new group of people. Its simple economics, and this would also free up a lot of our budget.