This just in

[CUDA]

I understand the perceived need for more revenue...
What I don't understand is?
Why the need to be discriminatory about it?
What legally justifies this discrimination?

No Justification. Just Pandering for Votes

And....
Why no talk/action of reducing spending,
which is the sole justification for the increase in revenue?

see my above comment

And then?
All of the above and No Budget?

because if you make a Budget then you need to stick to it and then that screws up our entire Government. because........ See my above comments

[Pudfark]

Yup Cuda.....Obama needs more money to buy votes....

Probably little chance?
Of a slicker response....

[callmeslick]

I understand the perceived need for more revenue...
What I don't understand is?
Why the need to be discriminatory about it?
What legally justifies this discrimination?

discriminatory? In what way. I mean, anything other than a flat fee per person could be perceived
as somehow discriminatory. What, more exactly, do you mean?

And....
Why no talk/action of reducing spending,
which is the sole justification for the increase in revenue?

the package on the table supposedly contains 3 Trillion dollars in spending reduction, coupled
with 1 trillion in revenue increase(apparently, mostly through slashing loopholes and subsidies,
which is fine, IMHO). What are you talking about? More importantly, who are you getting this
from?

What makes sense?
Just slap the taxes on...
Don't pass a budget...
Don't reduce spending...

I dunno, but I'm starting to see clearly WHO doesn't make sense.....