Ryan for revenue increases again

[ugonow]

Is the Norquist pledge over? First he was for cutting subsidies and loopholes,then against any revenue increases such as these,now is ok with them again? This kind of sounds like the proposal Obama made and republicans had a fit over---- WALLACE: If you were on that committee, and you get a deal — let’s say $3 or $4 dollars in spending cuts and entitlement cuts for every $1 in revenue increases, and the revenue increases came from tax reform [...] — would you be open minded to including some of that revenue as part of a debt deal?

RYAN: It all depends on the spending side of the ledger. … If we’re convincingly restructuring these entitlement programs and getting that spending line down to meet that revenue line, then can you have higher revenue growth through more economic growth and tax reform? Yes, the answer is yes.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Republicans never said they were against revenue increases, just believe it is possible to do without tax increases. Whether that is true or not can be debated, but if you watched the whole thing, you would have also seen Ryan saying it. Will tax increases be part of any deal in the future, along with substantial cuts in spending...only time will tell.

[safeharbor37]

This issue is consistently distorted: Generally, those in favor of closing loopholes, etc. are in favor of them to make the tax code more consistent, not to increase revenue. On the other hand, if closing loopholes does result in some revenue increase, it won't hurt ~ the idea was to be "revenue neutral," to simplify the tax code without regard to revenue, but possibly simultaneously lowering the marginal rates to account for any increased revenues from closing loopholes, etc.
The logic behind this is that lower marginal tax rates stimulate the economy. Now, we can't get an agreement on this, but the idea is that if lower taxes puts more money in the pockets of consumers, they'll spend or invest invest it whereas, if the government collects more taxes they then pass out the money with the same expectation [after the government has taken its share of course] there would be less net money to distribute than if the tax rate were simply reduced.
There are of course political considerations involved with whatever politicians do and sometimes politicians try to cover their real motives and support or oppose a proposition with their political careers in mind. That is one of the things I admire about the "tea party" candidates. They tend to be "what you see is what you get" for the time being ~ until they, like their predecessors, are corrupted. Let's hope they can get some results before then.

[privateinvestor]

Revenue increases without tax increases are going to be on the agenda as part of the first phase of the debt reduction along with spending cuts. But we need to see the detail for all of the @$1 Trillion cuts.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

He's calling Obama and the Democrat's bluff. TEA Partiers should settle down, and get some popcorn and watch.