I've got a real simple plan--and it actually will work. No, it's not "just cut." I'm not being coy, but I physically cannot post it (time-wise) until Monday.

So, what's your plan? Do you agree with Freeman that what we need is a massive dose of government spending so that we can enjoy the "multiplier effect?"

Other things we could do that perhaps could appeal to the right-wing as well;

(1) Tax breaks for companies that hire new workers
(2)Temporary write-off of interest paid on credit card debt
(3) Tax breaks for building of new plants that employ at least 500 or workers
(4) Don't collect security tax for one year

1. Encourage repatriation of US-based corporations currently holding up to $2T overseas to avoid US corporate taxes by: a) permanently lowering the corporate tax rate; b) offer a window for bringing home profits tax-free if some fixed percentage is spent on hiring or buying new equipment, expansion, etc. In other words, find a way to get a good piece of the money infused into the American economy.

2. End ethanol/corn subsidies, oil subsidies, remove many deductions, flatten tax rates.

3. Reform Medicare and Social Security--raise age, means test, put more responsibility on patient (not financial, but in terms of shopping wisely--one of the problems is that Medicare is like a blank check, so no shopping/research is done).

4. Repeal Affordable Care Act. It's not affordable--and the tax increases, mandates, and other burdens are just beginning.

5. Pull in the reins on the EPA, NLRB and other regulatory agencies that are creating great uncertainty.

6. Modify or repeal Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank.

Overall diagnosis: too much spending, too much "change," and too many regulations are stifling economic growth. Get government's boot off the neck of business and watch what happens.

Using Steve's 1st 6 as a starting point:

7. Approve three outstanding free trade agreements.
8. Reduce regulation of offshore drilling.
9. Lower tax rates across the board and remove most, preferences, deductions and credits.
10. Require all regulations to perform a cost benefit analysis.

Ray Jay wrote:Using Steve's 1st 6 as a starting point:

7. Approve three outstanding free trade agreements.
8. Reduce regulation of offshore drilling.
9. Lower tax rates across the board and remove most, preferences, deductions and credits.
10. Require all regulations to perform a cost benefit analysis.

11. (related to reining in EPA) re-examine increased regulation on coal plants--especially in Texas. Some will close next year as a direct result of higher regs. How will that help Texas? Imagine less electricity in a State where people die every year from the heat.

12. Look at ways to increase use of natural gas--particularly in the northeast.

14. Legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. We can create a new $100 billion industry within 6 months, and billions in tax receipts in the process.

We might as well legalize Prostitution as well. It is an industry that would make large amounts of revenue, give many unemployed women a job, and promote heart healthy exercise as well!

Touche. More heart healthy, but more risky in other ways.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice

Warren Buffet
he also said

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

The notion that higher taxes is going to stop invesors from making money, the only wy they know how, does seem quaint when explained this way... Adn ywet the idea that the "job creating class" needs protection seems to be prevcalent on the no taxes side...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto

Buffet should put up or shut up, as Buchanan notes:

“I’m a little fed up with these people who come on, you know, their big op-eds, all these admonitions. Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion. You know, you had a plan up there, I talked to Howie Carr at Boston where the super-rich could contribute an extra amount. It was something like one-tenth of one percent did it. You get all this noise from these big rich folks. Let them send checks and set an example instead of writing op-eds.”

What's stopping Buffet?

Something similar happened in New Jersey that made me lose all respect for Bruce Springteen. He complained in print about Christie not taxing him enough. Then it was reported that he takes advantage on a loophole in the NJ tax code to avoid paying property taxes. Can we say hypocrite?

Hypocrite? Warren Buffet is giving away 99% of his wealth before he dies...
From his open letter,

My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well. I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate's distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.

His whole letter and the pledges from other billionares here:
http://givingpledge.org/#warren_buffett

Its reasonable to assume that if that are willing to give it a way, they'd be willing that some go in tax, no?

No, RIckyP. One is a choice, and the other is many taken by the government. If Mr. Buffet chooses to give some to the government, that would be his decision.

b

No, RIckyP. One is a choice, and the other is many taken by the government. If Mr. Buffet chooses to give some to the government, that would be his decision.

How does this address the issue of the label "hypocrit" Ray and Steve throw down? The man is demonstrating his willingness to part with his own money by parting with his own money.

Besides that ...I'll point out that the three of you are focussing on calling Buffett a hypocrit but haven't ventured to address the central theme of his remarks. And that theme is that the increased taxation of the wealthy (returning to the levels before 2001) will have no effect on them investing or "creating jobs".
Not only is his arguement made by someone who is personnally familiar with the motivations and actions of the wealthy but he ponts to the actual experience of job creation by the economy when wealthy people gained tax breaks, versus the track record before the tax breaks.

And the single reason that you make the arguement that "we can't raise taxes on the wealthy" is that it would strangle investment and tax creation. If it clearly doesn't as Mr. Buffett offers expert testimony and evidence towards, why would one continue to support them whilst the deficit grows and the middle class is shattered?
It is hypocritical of billionares like the Koch bros., through their various surrogate organizations, , to demand that sacrifices be made by American tax payers to rein in the deficit, but to protect the pockets of the very wealthy.
It is not hypocrituical of Buffett to examine the issue of taxation, whilst being more than willing to part with his wealth voluntarily. To an extent, Buffett is being self serving in that he knows that if the economy is to be saved his businesses will benefit, and for that it will depend upon the middle class making a resurgence. And that means the wealthy will have to sacrifice some of their taxation gains of the last decade.

Ricky,
I've never called Buffett a hypocrite. You are despicable.