A debt analogy

So, instead of amassing another $10 trillion in debt over the next decade, we will amass only $7.5 trillion more? As Ron Paul said, whoopee.
My son's analogy: So instead of crashing the plane into the tarmac at a 90 degree angle, we will just crash it at a 70 degree angle instead.

And instead of addressing the spending problem that adds another $trillion to the debt every year, we will whine and threaten and demagogue to no end tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for the richest corporations (picking winners and losers again) which, if we went ahead and did what is suggested, would result in only several billion more in revenue. Why? Because the really wealthy people that are constantly being demonized don't earn the money from income. Therefore income tax increases don't increase affect them. And most people who would be affected aren't pulling wages in the $200,000+ brackets, they are business owners. If the government isn't taking their income (not wages), then it is available to reinvest in the business, thereby improving the economy, increasing the number of wage-earners and therefore income tax revenue. The millionaires and billionaires are not going to be paying any more in income tax - it isn't earned income to begin with. So much for fair share, so much for the "protecting the wealthy" argument, they are all protecting the wealthy by keeping capital gains taxes low and keeping capital expensing and amortization periods favorable. No one pays attention to how the rich are taxed except for the rich, so no one knows it is a completely different system.

Loved these articles from Reason spending-cuts, taxes and revenue
Page 2, taxes and spending
Percent of taxes by income share