I should imagine that the so-called "loopholes" only benefit fairly rich people who can hire CPAs to tell them how to use the system to save a bundle on taxes. Close those loopholes and more revenue should be generated. The only problem for the democ rats is that all the entertainers as well as other rich democ rat supporters use these loopholes.

$1 trillion, BS. It might generate enough revenue to run the country for another few days or a week or two. It´s a no brainer/no workee bunch of road apples!

So now they want to eliminate donations, home interest, investment credit, and the like. Uh, lemme see? Isn´t that more taxes except they apply to everyone? DC Dingbats could mess up slice of bread.

For once and for all, his goal is not more revenue. If it was he would be doing things a lot different. His goal is redistribution of wealth. It is part of his class warfare program, part of the divide the nation. He knows the wealthy have ways of sheltering their taxes, sure he uses them, so it more of a grand show.

90 years of failure. Why feed the beast more.

Starve the beast.

Cutting taxes does not add to the deficit. Spending does.

How about some real spending cuts and theoretical tax increases, just to mix things up.

It is even simpler than all that. You increase tax revenue by letting "the rich" make a profit. When you eliminate the profit for business, you not only eliminate the tax on the profit but you also create loss carry-back which means tax money flows back to these tax payers. It is a double-whammy. You want more revenue? Help the business owner make a profit. It´s that simple. There is NO need to mess with rates or deductions.

I presume the projections are spread over the 10-year budgeting and not based on 1 year since the wealthy paying an extra 3% tax wouldn´t seem to generate anywhere near the $$ they´re stating in the article.

I read the other day that the top 100 net-worth individuals in the U.S. total about $1 trillion.
Which means, if you took all their money today it wouldn´t even cover the current deficit year. (and then there wouldn´t be any more $$ to contribute ever again since they´d have given it all).

And why this type of simple illustration isn´t used by Republicans against the tax and spend Democrats?

It´s the stupid spending, stupid.

I´m on the road, otherwise I´d quickly search out the budget [ha,, ha, ha, ha, ha] differences between GWB and Stinky.

Let´s first take the $5 trillion of deficit spending out of it [a big chunk of Stinky´s new spending]. Then let´s look at what´s left, and start cutting anything not specifically delegated to the Feds under the Constitution. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that´s no excuse to not fight this usurping tyrant every step.

And start lining up replacements for the too, too many spine-donor Republicans in office.

#8: Remember, Obama said raising taxes on "the rich" wasn´t about raising revenue, but about "fairness" [read -- revenge and reparations].

"Raise Taxes on the Rich"

Totally incorrect. The tax is on income, not wealth. This is not a tax on the wealthy. It is a tax on high earners. There is a difference. We must not allow the big libs to change the meaning of words or use words incorrectly.