Republicans Agree To Revenue Increases In Deficit Talks

VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions,Nexstar Broadcasting,OzarksFirst.com ^ | July 06 2011 | VERTEXNews/Newsroom Solutions,Nexstar Broadcasting,OzarksFirst.com

[familyop]

(Washington, DC) -- Republican congressional leaders are reportedly agreeing to billions of dollars in revenue increases as federal deficit discussions continue.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl announced the move today saying revenue increases don't necessarily mean tax hikes.

On the Senate floor Kyl said, quote, "If the government sells something and gets revenue from it, that's revenue."

He also suggested user fees for government services could provide additional revenue.

He says all the revenue increases Republicans have agreed to amount to between 150 billion and 200 billion dollars.

[HarleyD]

I suppose $3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per year isn’t enough.

[Arkinsaw]

Come on folks...you knew this was coming. Surely you didn’t actually think that the Republicans were not going to crack in the end.

[Vermont Lt]

They own 80% of Nevada. We can start there.

[rabscuttle385]

and we need a woman in the whitehouse to CLEAN UP THIS MESS

You sound like the conservative version of an O-bot crying that America needs a black man to clean up the mess.

[Arkinsaw]

Come on folks...you knew this was coming. Surely you didn’t actually think that the Republicans were not going to crack in the end.

[calcowgirl]

Republican Senator Jon Kyl announced the move today saying revenue increases don't necessarily mean tax hikes. On the Senate floor Kyl said, quote, "If the government sells something and gets revenue from it, that's revenue."

Woohoo! Free money!

Probably more assets handed over to foreign interests. When they put the Statue of Liberty on the sales block, will people begin to wake up?

[Raycpa]

17:47:32 But if i could talk about something broadly as waste, fraud and abuse…17:47:47 In terms of revenue increases on that side of the ledger (mandatory spending) – i would point out b/n $153b & $200b – actually comes from increased revenues

17:48:06 So when WH says need revenue increases — revenue has been on table.

17:48:16 We’re not talking increasing taxes

17:48:20 But if govt sells something- that’s revenue

17:48:26 If add up revenues agreed to — it’s b/n $150 & $200b

17:48:39 So it’s simply false to say we havent agreed to revenue

[advance_copy]

T.E.A.

Taxed Enough Already!

[almost done by half]

Great! Sell the Post Office!

[Numbers Guy]

Well, if they agree to sell off a few huge tracts of federal land

"She's got huge . . . tracts of land"

[cripplecreek]

Hot damn, fees to pay for services we’re already taxed for.

I think they’re possessed by the spirit of Jenny Ganholm.

[is_is]

TEA PARTY!!!

I USED TO BE A PROUD REPUBLICAN......no longer

[bruinbirdman]

Now, revenue from a 20% tariff increase on ChiCom imports I can agree with.

yitbos

[driftdiver]

Courtesy of Tea Party Patriots

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The bastards still don’t get it.

[ecomcon]

See how government always grows? No matter what, it grows until it dies, like a shark.

[Oceander]

There is nothing particularly noxious in anything that was reported; then again, the details weren't reported, either. However, to say that the government receives revenue when it sells something is to state the blatantly obvious. If the government decides to auction off part of its fleet of vehicles, the proceeds from that auction are "revenues".

In terms of increasing user fees; that all depends. If the government already charges user-fees for certain services, such as entering a national park, then those fees should be adjusted to the current fair market value of the service being supplied - in precisely the same way that a private business would adjust its prices.

For example, according to the national park service's website, the entrance fees for Yellowstone are as follows:

The entrance fee is $25 for a private, noncommercial vehicle; $20 for each snowmobile or motorcycle; or $12 for each visitor 16 and older entering by foot, bike, ski, etc. This fee provides the visitor with a 7-day entrance permit for both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Remember to keep your admission receipt in order to re-enter the parks. Snowmobile operators must possess a valid motor vehicle operator's license.

$25 for a 7-day pass for my private auto to Yellowstone national park! That is a bargain by any stretch of the imagination. For a rough comparison, if you want to drive your car into the parking lot at Crab Meadow Beach in Huntington, LI, and you're not a resident of Huntington, you'll pay $15 a day just to park your car there. For seven days, that'd cost you $105. And that's just for a measly Long Island beach on the Sound.

That user fee could certainly stand to be increased, and that increase would generate additional revenues for the government.

Finally, that's not the same thing as a tax increase because (a) you're only being asked to pay fair market value for the benefit you're getting - an even swap - and (b) if you don't want to pay it, you don't have to go to the park.

That doesn't sound like such an insane idea in principle.

[piytar]

You know how to increase revenues? CUT TAXES!!!

See GW, Reagan, and the lib icon JFK for PROOF!!!!!!

[upchuck]

Let the

begin

[cripplecreek]

If they could eliminate one federal agency they would be amazed at the support they could gain.

I would start with the EPA.

Unfortunately we’re dealing with corrupt morons.