Here's an idea... it solves everything. I even mentioned it earlier.
ABOLISH THE TAX CODE!
I would agree that our tax code does indeed require simplification. I do not agree with your suggestions however.
FYI, I was a hardcore conservative libertarian beginning in 1995 and beginning to end around 2004 as I continued to verify that much of that political thought process was flawed in many ways as I educated myself as to how the world actually works. And how the world actually works is often 180 degrees opposite the conservative libertarian position.
Everyone who is not a conservative or a libertarian is not automatically a liberal either. There is truth on both sides as well as massive amounts of bullshit. I refuse to drink the Koolaide of either side and put everything either side says to the truth, fact, reason and logic test.
Move to the FairTax system. Problem solved. There are no more loopholes, the "rich" and the "poor" pay the same percentage in taxes as everyone else. It's a consumption tax, I suggest you go read up on it and see just how fair it is.
I started listening to Neal Boortz in 1994. I lived in Atlanta Georgia when Hannity and Boortz were the local right wing radio talent. I can tell you 100% of his positions from memory. I read his books, including this one:
I know as much about the "Fair Tax" as you do, and I'm not a fan. It has some reasonable points, but it still taxes the middle class and lower working taxes far harder than it does the upper income brackets. It is a tax designed to benefit mainly the upper income brackets. While I like the idea of eliminating the IRS, I do not like the idea of increasing taxes on the lower income class.
It isn't fair to tax the "rich" upwards of 90% in their top bracket in order to fund bullshit wars or equally bullshit entitlement programs.
Which "bullshit entitlement programs" are you referring to? Oil company subsidies? Subsidies to big agriculture? Corporate subsidies? Lots of corporate welfare going on here in our capitalist utopia called America. Or are you only referring to the welfare checks that go to the single mom with the disabled child? Or the Social Security and Medicare benefits going to your grand parents?
I wonder who recieves more entitlement payments? Big business? Or the single mom, grandma and grandpa? Here's what John Stossel (not exactly a liberal) has to say about it:
Corporate Welfare
By John Stossel
In America today, the biggest recipients of handouts are not poor people. They're corporations.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/23/corporate_welfare_109316.html
As far as the wars go... I thought we were getting done with them, and then Obama goes and gets us involved in a third one. Iraq and Libya were both completely unconstitutional incursions.... while Afghanistan was justifiable under the War Powers Act.
It is good to see you note that Bush's invasion of Iraq was illigitimate. Obama is doing the best that he can. He has made mistakes and probably will make more. He is owned by the same monied interests that owned Reagan, both Bush's and our federal legislature. Even Afghanistan has spiraled out of control and we have become mired in it, fighting the Taliban we essentially created to be a thorn in the side of the Soviet Union.
One thing is certain - you cannot fund two massive ongoing wars while decreasing taxes on the wealthy and the corporations that benefit most from the profits generated by the war machine.
The middle class is also hording as much money as they're able to as well... because they don't know what the future holds for them.
Is it logical to suggest that the middle class is hoarding as much money as the top 1%? I know you did not say exactly those words, but that is what you seem to be suggesting. What is left of the ever-shrinking middle class spends most of it's income making the monthly bills. They have been forced to cut back on the credit spending and have little discretionary income. This discrestionary income pales in comparison to that of the top 1%.
The Fed's answer to everything is to simply print more money. We need to move away from a fiat currency system if at all possible, but at this point we've probably passed the point of no return in being able to do that.
You do know the Federal Reserve is a private corporation don't you? Many people think it is a federal agency, but it is not. I've often wondered why we are paying a private corporation interest to loan us our own money.
Fiat currency in itself is not the problem. A fiat system works well with sound monetary policy. I have yet to have anyone explain how a gold, silver or whatever "backed" system has any less flaws than a fiat currency system. If you can explain it, I'll listen. But neither system will work if it is not managed soundly.
We're heading for economic ruin, and the government can't seem to understand the simple concept of reducing spending in order to get the economy a little bit under control. If you cut spending (like the middle class is expected to do, like you said), then it's going to eliminate the need for increased taxes, as we'll experience increased revenue simply through lowering the spending... that is to say that we'll have more money because we're not spending as much.
OK, what do we cut that actually will make a dent in the trillions we owe? These little penny ante cuts both sides are suggesting are a joke. They are "soft targets" designed to not upset either sides voter base. The fact is taxes must be raised at least back to Clinton era levels in conjunction with an increase in the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Right now, no Social Security taxes are paid on income earned over $106,800. This must be increased to keep SS solvent. SS is NOT an entitlement program. It is an old age income suppliment that millions of elderly Americans would starve without. That leaves the military, which is an enormous financial strain on taxpayers. We need to pull out of all 3 wars and close 100% of foriegn military bases. Simply "cutting spending" will not get our financial house in order. It is going to take massive change and like it or not, the wealthy and corporations are going to have to step up to the plate and sacrifice riight alongside the working classes.
This country experienced it's largest period of economic growth during Reagan's terms as President... wouldn't it make sense to reduce spending and then move towards those types of economic policies? Combined with a loophole free tax system? That seems to make a whole helluva lot more sense than raising taxes on the so-called rich.
I have heard this fallacy so many times. It is NOT true. I do, however stand in awe of those who have worked so hard on this myth that so many simply believe it without investigating the facts for themselves. We are where we are now, largely as a result of supply side economics. Why do you think the middle class has been so steadily shrinking? It did not happen overnight.
So where has all this supply side left us? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, are you better off than you were 25 years ago?
Here is what has happened since Reagan:
The traditional pension, an employee benefit that was widely available until the early 1980's has been vanishing from the American workplace ever since. More than two-thirds of older households - those headed by people 47 to 64 - had someone earning a pension in 1983. By 2001, fewer than half did.
In the 1980s about two-thirds of corporations included health care benefits with their pensions. Today only about a third do.
In April 2004, the nation's trade gap hit a record $48 billion, precisely the sort of thing extreme capitalism, free trade, and globalization was supposed to prevent.
The Congressional Budget Office says the income gap in the United States is now the widest in 75 years. While the richest one percent of the U.S. population saw its financial wealth grow 109 percent from 1983 to 2001, the bottom two-fifths watched as its wealth fell 46 percent.
Meanwhile, for households of all ages, between 1983 and 1998 the average household net worth of the poorest 40% in the U.S. declined 76%.
The top one percent's share of household wealth had dropped from 1929 to 1981 from 44% to 27%. By 1998 it was back up to 39%.
And here's a biggie.......In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most of the news media in America. By 2002, six corporations did.
Feel free to challenge any of my information. Like your favored author and talk show host says:
"Don't believe anything I say unless you verify it" The funny thing is, Boortz KNOWS 90% of his will never check the facts and will take his word at face value.
Know this: there is but one political party in the United States today - it is the party of big business. It has two faces -Republican and Democrat. Neither side is concened with the interests of small business or the working class. 
