'Overtaxation': Our Phoniest Problem?

I guess we need some bounty hunters trained as forensic accountants. The IRS needs to hire as many people as it takes to collect the taxes due. The collectors need to work on a commission basis. Congress has never been willing to give the IRS the authority to hire as many tax collectors as would be justified by the amount unpaid. They don't like it when their well-heeled constituents complain about the highhanded tactics of the IRS so Congress turns a blind eye.

I would suggest commissions for taxes collected would end up with people that did not really owe having to pay more. Any financial interest in an outcome breeds corruption.

I wish all those who feel sorrow and empathy for the wealthy in this country who are shouldering so much of the tax burden (/sarc) would spend some time in a rich part of the country. Head out to the Hamptons. Check out the cars. Ask the 'summer people' how many other homes they own, if you can catch them while descending from their yachts on the way to their private planes.

There is a huge concentration of wealth in this country among too few individuals. History has shown that if you let a few people take it all, they will (remember the Guilded Age?).

The only way to regulate greed is via taxation. For some of these people, there is no such thing as 'enough'; only 'more'.

The only way to regulate greed is via taxation. For some of these people, there is no such thing as 'enough'; only 'more'.

It isn't your place to regulate what other people are 'allowed' to have.

It isn't your place to regulate what other people are 'allowed' to have.

I'm Ringo

It's every citizens place to ensure that wealthy people who benefit so exorbitantly pay a fair share for services which are over whelming paid for by the working poor.

It's every citizens place to ensure that wealthy people who benefit so exorbitantly pay a fair share for services which are over whelming paid for by the working poor.

Well congratulations on not having anything to say about the post to which you are replying. Do you have nothing else to add?

Your comment was removed (edited) for denigrating the character of a viner.

No, it was removed because you disagree with the concept. At least be honest about it. The rest of it wasn't ABOUT a specific person on newsvine, so how could it be denigrating their character?

The purpose of taxes is to pay for government programs. The purpose is NOT to enact vengeance on others to alleviate a person's own jealousy.

I'm Ringo,

As it seems to be the place of the wealthy to tell us all what to do, why isn't it our place to tell them what to do?

As it also seems to be the place of conservatives to tell all of us what we can and cannot do in our bedrooms and with whom, why is it not our place to be able to tell the wealthy just how much is enough?

While I agree that the purpose of taxation is not to exact vengence, you seem to forget that icnome taxation originally effected the wealthy; there was no income taxation for 90% of the population. So to expect that they pay now isn't really that different from its initial conception.

I guess we need some bounty hunters trained as forensic accountants. The IRS needs to hire as many people as it takes to collect the taxes due

actually the last admin increased the number of auditors for the middle class while it decreased the number of auditors for the wealthy.

This is false and you know it. The proof is the fact that you have edited your own comment.

No, I'm not sure exactly what the wording was of my previous post. I don't write them all down for later.

You have altered your original post. You are no longer directing a character attack at a viner, therefore I will allow your self altered comment to remain.

Again, there was no intention of any personal attack in the previous post. It's only 'altered' since you deleted it and I don't know the exact wording.

As it seems to be the place of the wealthy to tell us all what to do, why isn't it our place to tell them what to do?

It isn't anybody's place to tell others what to do.

As it also seems to be the place of conservatives to tell all of us what we can and cannot do in our bedrooms and with whom, why is it not our place to be able to tell the wealthy just how much is enough?

Okay, try to focus, TAXES. This has nothing to do with any of our bedrooms.

While I agree that the purpose of taxation is not to exact vengence, you seem to forget that icnome taxation originally effected the wealthy; there was no income taxation for 90% of the population. So to expect that they pay now isn't really that different from its initial conception.

You seem to forget that they already do pay. One way or another, they're going to keep paying. That isn't the topic.

That is fine. If the exact wording was re-posted...it would have been removed.

That is of course your prerogative as the seeder. All I ask for is honesty in the rationale.

I'm Ringo,

Actually, that is the topic: the question is are we overtaxed or is that a phony problem? The response from conservatives and economic libertarians is that if we are taxed at all we are overtaxed and the evidence used is look how the wealthy have to pay so much in taxes.

These are also the same people who have no issue with telling us what we can and cannot do as long as we are not imposing on the rihts of others. How can someone have no problem with being an economic libertarian (just another name for a corporatist) yet then demand we behave as they tell us to?

I'm not saying they all believe this or act this way, but the ones we see do.

So perhaps you should try to focus. It is appropriate to point out that income taxation was originally only placed on the wealthy. It is also appropriate to point out that those who say leave my money alone have no problem turning around and saying you cannot do that with your person.

Actually, that is the topic: the question is are we overtaxed or is that a phony problem

Yes, THAT is the topic, and not what you were talking about earlier. See how easy it is?

The response from conservatives and economic libertarians is that if we are taxed at all we are overtaxed

Now that isn't true at all. The Republican Party supports taxes. Libertarians support taxes. You may not agree with their views on taxes, but just making them up like this doesn't change the situation in any way or help improve the dialog.

If you want to discuss Republican social policies, we can do that somewhere. I am quite outspoken in my views of them as well, but I'd prefer to save that for when it is the topic.

The only way to regulate greed is via taxation. For some of these people, there is no such thing as 'enough'; only 'more'.

I'm Ringo:

It isn't your place to regulate what other people are 'allowed' to have.

But it is the place of all who choose to enjoy the benefits of a society to contribute to the cost of these benefits as defined by the majority.

The people who do not do this are the freeloaders.

Of course the people enjoying the benefits of our taxes should be paying into those taxes.

That has nothing to do with the statement to which you are replying. Taxes exist to fund government programs. They are not meant as a tool for vengeance.

You are simply wrong concerning support for taxation by Republicans or economic liberatrians. While they may support certain programs paid for by income tax, they do not support the income tax.

As for seeing how easy it is to see what the topic is; perhaps you should look in a mirror and quit acting like your position on anything is the only one worth listening to.

But I digress...

You are simply wrong concerning support for taxation by Republicans or economic liberatrians.

Both the Republican and Libertarian Parties support the idea of taxation. Independent libertarians (like myself) mostly support the idea of taxation. With that in mind, YOUR statement

The response from conservatives and economic libertarians is that if we are taxed at all we are overtaxed

is wrong. Now, many of the people you are talking about do not favor income taxes. But A) that is far from all of them, and B) NOT what you said.

gotta love that "earned income credit". /s

Wait, I'm unclear. It's somehow "unfair" that the tax codes recognize the increased financial responsibilities of those who have children?

Absolutely! Didn't you know she had those four kids just so she could get the tax break! /s

No, I am not saying she had those kids to get the tax break. But I do know people who live together, not married, one claims head of household and all the kids, gets the tax break and credit. No tax liability at all. Maybe the financial responsibilities of those who have children should rest with the parents. Not saying they should pay the same taxes as someone single with no kids, I wouldn't object to them having no tax liability at all, but the earned income credit is a joke. People know how to work the system, and take advantage of it. I personally have heard people bragging about how much they can get out of the "system".

That's really good tax planing for someone making those decisions age a teenager. Keep spreading the propaganda of the rich and just as they have kept telling you, when you work for their greed someday you will be rewarded by becoming one of those rich greedy --------.

Not to mention the massive increase on consumption taxes she pays by having to buy the taxable necessities of five people. Remember to consider total tax liability, not merely income tax.

Well, sherry, I happen to know a lot more people who work hard and have kids and pay their fair share.

BTW, anecdotal eveidnece isn't evidence. If you look at the facts, the great majority of those who receive the EIC need it to survive. They aren't gaming anything.

William - that is a good question but the better one is why are we subsidizing other people's children?

That is what the tax break amounts to

and don't forget the biggest tax break in terms of dollars lost to the treasury (several times more than that paltry 290 Billion) is the miortgage interest br4eak - over 75% of which goes to incomes above 250,000; number two at 566 Billion this year is the break for employers who provide healtyh insurance to middle class wage earners

So the crazy people are those who are for that 566 Billion subsidizing people who CAN afford insurance fighting against less than 100 Billion a year for those who can NOT afford it

Hate and Hypocrisy, they name is GOP

WmRAllen

Wait, I'm unclear. It's somehow "unfair" that the tax codes recognize the increased financial responsibilities of those who have children?

You're no a republican/rightist/libertarian/tea partier that's why you are unclear.

EIC is BS. I drive a Ford Conversion Van. I CHOOSE to drive a living room on wheels. Where in the tax code is help for me because I do not get as good mpg as a Saturn? People 'choose' to have kids.

WmRAllen: Wait, I'm unclear. It's somehow "unfair" that the tax codes recognize the increased financial responsibilities of those who have children?

Umm, it's not fiscal reponsibility when I am helping to pay........you can't pay? Don't play.

I think the point is don't use the tax system for all the social engineering ideas of the left. Let everyone pay some income tax, do away with EIC and provide support for the poor as welfare, but as charity not an entitlement. Whatever is given to the poor must be clearly labled as wefare or charitable contributions from other taxpayers.

Tubal ligation should be mandatory after the first or second welfare child. A stigma should be attached to all welfare payments to create an incentive to get off the dole. We do a grave disservice when we create families who have no incenive to work.

While charity is good, and Gates and Buffet could be doing more domestically rather than abroad, welfare can be devastating. There is something fundamentally wrong with taking from those have earned it and giving to those who have not.

the mortgage interest deduction isn't all it's cracked up to be and do you include property taxes paid in that analysis and for peaks sakes do you want 5000 more a year for 4 kids?

Ultima, please tell me you are being sarcastic, otherwise wow, you've got some major issues.

Except that those who did not earn the money but still use that money to make more money does. And there must be poor on welfare only because so many use money to make more money that they do not need. People are not poor by choice. They have only been denied the same opportunity to make money with money they did not earn and physical labor will never give them that opportunity. Your naivete on the causes of poverty speaks volumes about your belief in the propaganda of the rich that justifies their greed.

Sherry:

People know how to work the system, and take advantage of it. I personally have heard people bragging about how much they can get out of the "system".

Yes, people know how to game the system. Dishonesty is part of our tax-problem. The people who know how to game the system best, though, are the millionaires with offshore bank accounts.

Ultima #2.11

Tubal ligation should be mandatory after the first or second welfare child. A stigma should be attached to all welfare payments to create an incentive to get off the dole. We do a grave disservice when we create families who have no incenive to work.

Thank you, Dr. Goebbels.

Your kids are YOUR responsibility, not mine, and I don't want to have to pay for them, via the tax code... the government is NOT your ' Daddy ', and the sooner we recognize that, the better....

The fact is that if we live through the climate crisis, the next crisis will be that of overpopulation. Why are we paying for people to have more kids.

I still have a problem with that argument, folks, probably because I don't see it as "subsidizing" other people's children if those parents are recognized in the tax code for their greater financial responsibilities. It isn't like any of you with dependents, or at the point when you acquire dependents, will be refusing those same credits, is it? When you are in that situation you will be given the same consideration...

I don't have children (sadly), but I don't consider paying my taxes each year as a hardship because I can't take the dependent deductions. And, ultimately, I'd rather that children in families of limited means get some benefits, since a healthy and educated workforce in the future will only work to my benefit. After all, when I retire (or "if", which looks more likely to be the case every year as the effects of the policies and attitudes of the laissez-faire crowd continue to work against my personal economic best interests), today's children are the ones I'll be relying on...

After all, it was Adam Smith himself who wrote

"The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state... of which he is only a subordinate part. " (The Theory of Moral Sentiments)

and (in re: progressive taxation, which is the underlying issue in all of this)

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." (Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chap.2, Pt. 2)

Who am I to argue with the Capitalists' Patron Saint?

Can I simply point out that the initial reference wasn't to a woman collecting welfare. I assume that dave from iowa is middle-class. Simply because the woman has four children, she is no less middle class.

Not only that, but most of you seem to assume that she is simply promiscuous since she has four children. None of you seem to even entertain the notion that she could be a widow (not so hard to imagine considering most military families have multiple children) or that she is a divorcee.

No, the assumption was that she must be a slut and tax cheat. But dave in iowa stated she made as much as he did. Which means she is a productive member of society.

Which, btw, is the reality. Not the assumption of welare queen status (a belief which was not even true when Ronnie Rayguns used it to get elected) which most of you wish to place on those less fortunate than yourselves.

Ultima-858821

Tubal ligation should be mandatory after the first or second welfare child...

And you accuse the left of social engineering? Tsk.

George-369262

Your kids are YOUR responsibility, not mine, and I don't want to have to pay for them, via the tax code... the government is NOT your ' Daddy ', and the sooner we recognize that, the better....

You don't have to. Buy some land. Build a house. Raise or shoot your protein. Build an outhouse and dig a well. Keep that income down and your carbine loaded. But just stay the eff off of communal resources paid for with the taxes of others.

respect for our American history

In my opinion, those who stand so firm on the "respecting American history" meme often have a very limited and exclusionary view of the same...

I doubt that is any more the case for the rich than it is for others. Isn't it an age old practice to dodge the tax collector in every way one can? The more fundamental question is, "How much is enough?" At what rate do taxes become confiscatory? 40%, 50%, 90%? How much of tax and spend ideas of the left is more of a case of pure envy?

Of course according to you the spend and tax latter policies of the right are not the problem.

If your money brings in one million more and you are taxed 900 thousand you are not thrown into poverty. If yo make 20-30 thousand and you are taxed at all you can not put food on the table. The question is what is fair. If you are taxed 90% and still live in luxury what is your complaint. If you can not buy food and medicine you definitely have a legitimate complain. So the question is not at what rate you are taxed but is that rate going to mean poverty, starvation and early death not how much the already rich keep so they can use that excess to make more.

As long as there are people that can not survive for lack of money while others have more than they could possible spend in several lifetimes the tax system is broken and intentionally tilted to favor the privileged few.

Those who talk about American history would do well to remember the historical events of France in 1789 and Russia in 1917.

A fair tax system is far preferable to a bloody revolution, is it not?

Thanks, Gary. That was kinda scary, although very interesting.

We have such short memories. Those who rail against the Democrats and their perceived lavish 'welfare spending', forget their past. Forty years ago, those same people would have been working ten to twelve-hour days, six days a week, in factories. They'd be working alongside their wives and children for a pittance, no health coverage or help if they were injured on the job. The children of the poor did not attend schools, either.

Those rights for workers were not handed out by the republican elite, trust me. The changes which were implemented to enable workers to live decently were passed during Democratic Administrations, for the most part. The Republicans have rarely, if ever, been a friend to working people. Yet, the downtrodden middle class in places like 'red' states will vote against their own economic interests because they've been 'Goebbelized' - fed propaganda for so long that they think it's the truth.

It will be our downfall as a nation.

ULTIMA:

For comparison tell us, how much of the reduce taxes and raise spending ideas of the right is a case of pure envy?

Ultima-858821

I doubt that is any more the case for the rich than it is for others. Isn't it an age old practice to dodge the tax collector in every way one can?

For criminals, freeloaders and other parasites, yes.

8-[

Yep. The original justification for cutting taxes was the Laffer curve. And that it said was this (we can accurately summarize it here, as it was originally proposed on a cocktail napkin). At zero taxes, the government takes in zero income. At 100% taxes, the government takes in zero income as well, because all production has halted*. In between these two extremes, there is a curve connecting the points. At some point along the curve, tax revenue for the government is maximized.

Now, because this is a curve and government income does not simply increase as taxes increase, one may be on a point of negative curvature on the graph. In that case, cutting taxes will increase government revenue. Therefore, rather than simply raise taxes to raise revenue, one should also consider the effects of cutting taxes.

Setting aside the facile nature of this analysis, one thing is clear. If we are following the Laffer Curve model and we cut taxes and government income does not increase, we must be on a point of positive curvature and the Laffer Curve dictates that not only should the tax cuts be rescinded, but taxes should be increased. The point of the Curve is not to ease the tax burden on the rich (though that is what it has been used for), it is to maximize government income.

The Republicans, having used the argument to get what they want, have abandon any interest in real economic theory. The last few rounds of tax cuts, particularly the Bush tax cuts, have all resulted in unambiguous decreases in government income. Therefore, if applying the 'science' of the Laffer curve was our actual intent, we would rescind the tax cuts immediately.

Of course, maximizing government income was never the goal of the Republicans. It was all smoke and mirrors to justify a massive payout to their true base, the ultra wealthy. We can see that clearly in their actions, regardless of what they say.

_______

* A dubious claim contradicted by communist Russia - taxes on profits were 100%. The economy sucked, but it was not zero.

But that is why Reagan's priority was busting the unions. He was well aware that the people united would stop the shift of wealth to the top and stripping the safety net from beneath the workers. Giving unions a bad name leads to the people getting nothing and the rich getting richer. Connecting things like health insurance was just a way to limit options for the worker. You complain that your job is unsafe with no union to back you up you end up on the street without health care for your family. That is why the corporations were against the public option even though it increased their own costs.

What is needed is a union of workers not dependant on where you work. If the corporations want workers they would have to hire someone that already was a member of a union and make union busting impossible so the individual worker no longer had to compete with mega corporations just to survive or become a part of the mega corporation with no choice of being a part of the majority, people forming a union that equaled the power of the corporations. It should not be surprising that the main goal of the rich is to keep the people fighting amongst each other because as long as the can keep the people divided and only deal with individual workers instead or an organized work force they will always win.

The GOP, having realized that even when they are in power they can't withstand the political storm of cutting popular government programs, have instead chosen to strangle those programs by reducing the tax revenue taken in by the government. If the money isn't there to fund those programs they will have to be reduced or eliminated as a cost-saving measure. If those cuts can be forced to take place during a Democratic administration it's a win-win politically. If the Democratic administration is forced to raise taxes in order to fund those programs it is still a win for the GOP because they can point to the Democrats and call them "tax and spend" Democrats. In the meantime we have roads in bad need of repair, bridges in need of replacement, and apparently oil wells in need of inspection, but lack the money to adequately do those things.

Let's return the ratio between executive salaries and workers wages to the level that existed in the 1950s.

Ben and Jerry's... enlightened management for a healthy business and a healthy america.

Let's return the ratio between executive salaries and workers wages to the level that existed in the 1950s.

You're free to do that in your company any time you wish.

And if you do not you should be taxed for your destructive greed.

'cost of living has continue to out pace wages' Of course....what do you expect when there are millions of illegals driving down the wages of working people in the USA... the average wage in the meat-packing industry, for example, is lower than it was 20 years ago....

Have you checked out what our NAFTA did to Mexico? Charles Bowden on "Murder City: Ciudad Juárez and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields"
First Lady Michelle Obama arrived in Mexico City Tuesday night after making a stop in Haiti on her first official trip abroad without the president. Her trip to Mexico comes as a new report by the Mexican government has found the death toll from the so-called drug war is much higher than previously thought. Nearly 23,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since a US-backed military crackdown on cartels began more than three years ago. The report said 2009 was the deadliest year in the drug war, with over 9,600 people killed. The death toll is on track to be even higher in 2010. We speak to reporter Charles Bowden, author of Murder City: Ciudad Juárez and the Global Economy's New Killing Fields. [includes rush transcript]

Real wages in comparison to the cost of living have been decreasing since the 1970s. Wages have gone down but executive pay has gone up significantly. One could argue that a worker bringing home an extra $100 a week would do more good than an executive bringing home an extra $1 million a year but that's not how it's generally depicted. The worker bringing home an extra $100 a week will likely spend it locally (sales tax) while the executive bring home an extra $1 million a year invest it, which does nothing for the local economy.

Thank you for that, kb.

We don't stand a chance as a modern state with a government not interested in the public. We have had a government, via our politicians, interested in the accumulating money and power for themselves and their cronies. The public interest and national welfare has been subverted along the way. "The Greatest Good For the Greatest Number" still defines a vision for a proper and just government. We're a long way from there. We're so far from there that some even publically thump their chests with pride in having subverted the public interest and our nation!

P--

No problem. Just see so many short sighted people its funny. Very few seem to realize that other countries see us as Americans, not single mom or CEO. The sooner people realize that the better. We only seem to be keeping score on ourselves.

Yep, we have no one to blame but ourselves. I say vote every incumbent out every year until they get the message. In the meantime, freeze the entire federal budget including entitlements. If Congress granted those entitlements, they can certainly refuse to increase them in any way until our financial house is in order. That may not be enough. If so, we need to slash spending and raise taxes until the budget is not only balanced but there is enough surplus each year to pay down the national debt to the point where it is not more than 35% of the GDP.

We need to listen to Ron Paul on how to cut down our military commitments abroad. We have done the best we can in Iraq. Afghanistan is in doubt. We need to pull back until we are solvent again. Some departments of government need to disappear, like the Department of Education. We got along without it earlier and our educational system has been going downhill ever since the department was organized with a bunch of PhDs and EdDs who are highly paid but can't figure out how to fix our schools. I wonder how much the availability of reverse income taxes and welfare interfere with students incentives to learn?

But of course do not under any circumstance touch the military budget that take 50% of the budget and hides most of the waste.

Let's be clear about entitlements. I've been paying into Social Security, Medicare, and Un-employment Insurance funds for decades. That is MY money. I am ENTITLED to it. That money doesn't belong to our politicians to do with as they please. It's not their money, it's MINE and OURS, we are ENTITLED to it. Is that clear?

Our politicians have used our money, our entitlements, to pay for pet projects and to pay for tax decreases, especially on the rich. As a result, the trust funds holding MY/OUR money have been depleted. The solution, according to some, is to finish the chore, take all MY/OUR money and put it in the general fund, to keep taxes on the rich low and to underwrite expensive discretionary spending on pet projects and objects of war.

The real solution is to tax the rich. We, the middle-class, have been subsidizing the rich for decades. Even in a contracting economy, the rich get richer, due to their ownership of our elected "representatives." Tell those representatives to keep their filthy hands off MY/OUR money, our entitlements. We've been taking care of them and their rich friends far too long.

'I've been paying into Social Security, Medicare, and Un-employment Insurance funds for decades. That is MY money.' Sorry, but you are wrong....the moment you allowed these taxes to be taken from you, it ceased to be your money, and became the government's money....anyone who believes the promises of politicians are going to come out sadder and wiser.... it is excessively hopeful that you will ever see 'your money' again...the demographics are completely against it.....let's be honest, shall we, and admit that those of us who paid into these funds for 40 years, like myself, were chumps who got taken for a ride...the question now is : 'What do we do now ' ?

George--Simple. We do what Gore wanted: the lockbox. SSI moneycollected goes to that. Gas taxes go to the Highway Trust fund. Basically, money goes to whatever its for.

Forget gov't slush funds. That way if a politican comes up with a new program, he has to explain how he's gonna pay for it. No "throw it in the pot, and I slide a few billion out". Real tangible proposals. If the gov't was run this was for 10 years, we'd shore up our programs, eliminate waste, and make a huge dent in the debt. Because this way they can't hide money.

Actaully, military takes up 65% of discretionary spending. It is greater than SS and medicare spending as well, even though those are funded separately.

Gore was right about the lockbox, btw, which is why he lost. Those who voted for Bush wanted what we got. Spend lavishly without having any way to pay for any of it.

You want to bring spending into line: cut the defense budget by half. We would still outspend all of the industrialized nations combined.

Oh deary me, we spend a grand total of 1/7 of our tax income on defense....one of the most basic and original purposes of even having a government.

Of course, discretionary spending is rapidly decreasing due to the increase in entitlement spending. That's not a partisan comment, that's just math. The military is essentially falling apart due to the fact that all the spending is going towards current operations and personnel costs, with significant cuts to infrastructure, research & development, modernization, etc.

That's a value-neutral statement. I realize that for the bulk of the posters on this thread, a weaker military is probably a desirable outcome. That's a largely inevitable trend at this point.

There will be very, very little discretionary cash for defense, education, infrastructure, etc as the years go by without a substantial change in either the tax code or social security/medicare/medicaid etc (or changes in both). Obviously, the national debt is also a huge time bomb.

Random--

That means the gov't will need more revenue. ie tax increases, eliminating waste and taking a hard look at everything that is not necessary. The times of low taxes are essentially over.

Oh, deary me, Ringo, your math skills stink. Defense spending is 65% of discretionary Federal income - or what the Federal government gets from income taxes! It is not 1/7 of income taxes as you imply.

Obviously, you do not know the difference between Federal Discretionary Income i.e. income taxes and non-discretionary taxation, which, btw, the wealthy pay less of.

RM,

Your statement about military spending is incorrect. How is the military falling apart since none of the spendin for current operations were part of the budget in the first place?

Also, were we to use a lock-box fo SS and medicare as originally intended, SS would not be in trouble and medicare would be less problematic.

Oh, deary me, Ringo, your math skills stink.

Ah, blaming your lack of reading comprehension on me? That's just sad.

Defense spending is 65% of discretionary Federal income - or what the Federal government gets from income taxes!

1) The federal government gets more in taxes than just those allotted to discretionary spending. 2) The taxes collected by the federal government are only a fraction of those collected in the United States.

It is not 1/7 of income taxes as you imply.

It is 1/7....according to the government numbers anyway. If you want to dispute that, then feel free to mention your independent sources.

Obviously, you do not know the difference between Federal Discretionary Income i.e. income taxes and non-discretionary taxation, which, btw, the wealthy pay less of.

I know the differences between different types of taxation in the US. Obviously your ability to make sensible assumptions ranks right down there with your ability to read my post.

re: KB in NC in 6.11

I think you're correct. Military spending aside, the long term budget projections are simply ugly. I have a hard time seeing how the country can function with the current tax structure. And, yes, I rolled my eyes when Bush did the tax cuts rather than pay down the debt as soon as he got into office; that was my first major ideological break with his administration.

Orwell in 6.13: There's been an annual supplemental each year or current operations, but we've already been cannibalizing from the rest of the budget for years. The Air Force fired 30,000 people to try to pay for aircraft recapitalization in 2006/2007, for example, and we're in the midst of cutting another 20,000-30,000. We're flying bombers and tankers built in the 1950s/early 60s, with no replacements in sight, for example (well, we may finally get a new tanker in the next decade, if the stars are right).

At the same time, the military is being hit by the same trends that are a factor in the rest of society. Health care costs are rising for the services, as are the costs of retirement and other personnel-related issues. Frankly, the all-volunteer system is simply much more costly than a system which depended on a draft (not advocating a draft, just explaining the math). As you cut people and quality of life declines, that means more deployments for those who are left, so you have to pay them more to stay, which hits your budgetary bottom line, so you have to cut more people and quality of life issues. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So you will simply pull in whatever you choose to and not deal with what I actually said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Is my original statement incorrect? No. Is your statement incorrect: in relation to what I stated, yes, as I was very specific about where those taxes came from and you simply decided to use different numbers. But as most of the conversation has been about income taxes, perhaps we should remain with that topic.

Otherwise, your implication that there are people who do not pay taxes is incorrect.

RM,

Your concern isn't with the amount of money, it's with it's allocation. On that we agree as allocation is as much politics as need.

If you are paying 50% of your personal income in taxes, then you are either not filing your tax forms correctly or have a really bad accountant. Either way, I don't see how this can be blamed on anyone but you...

I assume a tax rate that high includes all taxes: sales tax, excise tax; property tax; income tax, etc. Maybe Mathew needs a little remedial reading and an accountant to help him add up the numbers.

I live in Southern California and pay 35% federal income tax, 10% state income tax, 9.75% sales tax, plus property tax, Mello-Roos tax, garbage collection tax (even though I pay for garbage pickup out of my own pocket), utilities taxes, gasoline taxes (on top of regular sales taxes) god knows what other hiddend taxes and soon there will be an 8 cent tax on every bag I use at the gorcery story. By the time you add all that up and subtract deductions close to 50% of my income goes to some for of tax.

assume a tax rate that high includes all taxes: sales tax, excise tax; property tax; income tax, etc. Maybe Mathew needs a little remedial reading and an accountant to help him add up the numbers.

Correct, but it is much easier for some people to ignore reality and call me an idiot instead.

Then, again, either you are not filing your tax forms correctly or you have a really bad accountant... (or you make an obscene amount of money). By the way, Naftel. You are not required to pay property taxes. If you are upset about that, just sell your property and those taxes won't be an issue for you anymore. Also, you can bring your own bags to the grocery store, so don't sweat that tax...

Finally, I doubt that your rate of taxation has gone up dramatically since Nov of 2008, so your whining is directed at whom???

Then, again, either you are not filing your tax forms correctly or you have a really bad accountant... (or you make an obscene amount of money).

LOL... I'll let you guess which it is. Either way, whatever I pay it will never be enough for those who need me to support them.

Finally, I doubt that your rate of taxation has gone up dramatically since Nov of 2008

Wrong... Here in California it is nothing but one new tax after another to the point of an absurd grocery bag tax because there is nothing left to tax. And no matter how many new taxes are imposed, the spending increases faster and the deficit grows. It doesn't take a math wiz to figure out why the state is so close to bankruptcy and, no, it is not because Naftel is undertaxed. I long for the day that the state goes bankrupt. I can't wait. It will be the greatest day in California history.

Hey, that's what happens when you elect a GOP governor... well done. Looks like he really save your a$$es. Now you want to do that to the rest of the country in '12... no thanks.

How about telling me what percent of your taxes goes to things you think are worthwhile?

Maybe they need you to support them because you are getting the money they would have earned had their job not been canceled to pay you so much. But that could not possibly be the case since people choose to live in poverty because its so much fun to live without food and medicine.

Naftel, as a refugee from California as well as two other high-tax states, I feel your pain. It is very frustrating to pay so much and get back so little although in CT and NY we had great schools, at least. California is a unique state with unique problems.

I would say that you could use some more deductions. Either that or you are making truckloads of money. Is the high tax causing you personal hardship? If so then do some looking around for better advice or move, if possible. We left CA for OR because of the financial chaos.

Kathleen... don't californicate Oregon.... ;)

Hey, that's what happens when you elect a GOP governor...

LOL... It is clear you know nothing about California politics. It goes back to Democrat Gray Davis, who was recalled by voters for sheer incompetence and whoring himself out to the unions. Arnold is definitely part of the problem, but he is not THE problem. And remember, he sleeps with a Kennedy, so how Republican can he really be?

Maybe they need you to support them because you are getting the money they would have earned had their job not been canceled to pay you so much.

LOL... What ridiculous logic. If I have a job that pays well it's not because of my own effort or hard work, it's because I have stolen someone elses job. Seriously, is that how you view the world??? I'm guessing you are not very successful. And if you are, you are as much a part of the problem as I am, because by your own logic, you have stolen someone elses job. That makes you either a failure or a hypocrite. Either way, your statement is laughable.

If so then do some looking around for better advice or move,

My tax structure is the best it can be under the circumstances. If I made more money, less would go to taxes percentage wise, because many of the taxes I pay are not necessarily proportional to income. If I made less, I would have to move anyway because I couldn't afford to stay. When my kids go to college (7 more years), my primary residence will be in Nevada and my taxes will go down dramatically.

Matthew, lol!

Nope, we wouldn't change a thing about our newly-adopted state. We could use a Trader Joe's, but who am I to complain? :D

According to the National Tax Foundation, the 'break even' date was June 6, for 2009....the time the average person had to work to pay the costs imposed by government, both direct, and indirect.....it all comes out of our pockets.....and we we have all stood by like twits, and allowed that burden to be dramatically increased by the current Administration....it appears that the American people are viewed as sheep to be sheared, by the elites...

@Naftel

How many jobs would a CEO money pay for? you can not believe they actually earn that much, nearly 500 or 600 times more than the typical worker. If that is not stealing jobs when they pay them that much and lay people off because they can not afford to pay them. It is your lack of logic that one person could be worth that much.

How many jobs would a CEO money pay for?

Irrelevant question. Business hire the number of workers needed. To suggest they should cut CEO pay in half and pay for workers they don't need to stand around and do nothing makes no sense. Public companies can pay their CEOs whatever they want. If you don't like it, don't buy their stock and don't buy their products.

It is your lack of logic that one person could be worth that much.

You are the one making judgements about people's worth. What logic do you use that leads you to the delusions that you get to determine someones worth?

Naftel that was true years ago but today many companies are not hiring enough for the workload and are in fact using tricks like unpaid interns, doubling or more workloads on current employees, and other such ways. There doing this because it is a way to fatten the profit margins which equals higher executive pay.

One of the reason so many jobs were lost and are not back is because these people were fired to fake profits and to hire them again would threaten such a scheme.

Actually, I largely agree Neo. There is no doubt that companies are afraid to hire and, as business improves, employers are asking current employees to do more rather than hire more workers. However, this does not negate the fact that everyone is free not to do business with companies if they disagree with their payment plan.

One of the reason so many jobs were lost and are not back is because these people were fired to fake profits

Businesses can't loose money and survive. Of course, you know that. As a former business owner, the hardest thing I had to ever do was lay off workers that I liked. But the alternative was closing the doors and laying off everyone. Would that have been better? Of course not but it really was my only other choice, because I could not feed my family if my business was loosing money. Would you say that I was creating fake profits by cutting expenses? I agree that CEO compensation is an issue that needs to be addressed by individual companies, but it should not be regulated by the government, except for companies that received federal funds to stay afloat.

Hey Kathleen... I left SoCal in the '80s and the thing I missed most was Trader Joes (OK maybe the beach too). They moved to Atlanta a few years ago and it is so nice to have them down the street again...

@naftel

Irrelevant question

How is the question irrelavant since worker income, not CEO income, supports the economy.

What logic do you use that leads you to the delusions that you get to determine someones worth?

The same logic that kept CEO salaries at about 35-40 times the typical workers wage until until corporations started to destroy their own consumer base. The same logic used by ford when he said his workers must be able to buy the product they made. When workers pay is 1/400th to 1/1000th of CEO salary and can not buy the product he/she make but the CEO can You no longer have a customer base to support production since there are so few CEOs and so many workers. If you make a product only a CEO can buy the time you will remain in business is limited to the saturation of that market so you will soon be out of business.

The same logic that kept CEO salaries at about 35-40 times the typical workers wage until until corporations started to destroy their own consumer base.

If you make a product only a CEO can buy the time you will remain in business is limited to the saturation of that market so you will soon be out of business.

I agree. Can you then admit that for the sake of self preservation, the corporation will be forced by the marketplace to change their pay policies and no government internevtion will be necessary?

Naftel:

Why must we suffer until they realize?

exactly pt... why not use our one greatest adaptation to its best advantage. we are supposed to be SMART!!! Why go with cro magnon rules when we have such a sophisticated brain??? Its like this whole anti-globalist crap. Anyone who doesn't realize that we are ALL on the same boat (called earth) is just being selfish and shortsighted about the future. It will be unstable for one country to continue to consume most of the world's resources and have a high standard of living while the rest of the earth suffers... How do you think this kind of instability will end???

Globalization will come. I hope that one day the US will be just another state in the World. Irresponsible people need to be weeded out of all nations, and that will take a long time for some.

Why must we suffer until they realize?

Sorry, PT... I didn't realize you are suffering. Perhaps you could do something more productive than posting to Newsvine to help ease your own suffering. Just a thought.

Naftel:

Are you a CEO of a major corporation? Probably not or you would be waaay to busy yourself to post on newsvine.

I speak for more than myself? I can speak for anyone who was laid off in the last 2 years.

I can speak for anyone who was laid off in the last 2 years.

The people who were laid off (myself included) are going through some difficult times, no doubt. The people in North Korean prison camps are suffering. That's my perspective, which I'm sure you will dismiss. The problem is you have it so good and yet complain that you are "suffering". I just don't get why you think you life is so horrible when I know there are people in other countries going through much worse. Look at what is happening in Iran. Hundreds of thousands who whan freedon gunned down and you complain you are suffering. Pardon me if I don't feel YOUR pain.

yea, its the nimby thing. No one suffering in my home or my yard, so I guess everyone has it as good as I do... Yea I'm incredulous enough to think that there is no suffering on earth... What really gets me, is that we are the god-fearing 'christian' nation and yet we don't seem to care about the principles of Xtianity... we prefer hypocrisy to responsibility because, hey, we're the USA and we are the best...

There is plenty of suffering on Earth. Look what is happening in Iran and North Korea, where people really are siffering. And we try to do something about it and you rally against our imperialism, while whining about your own suffering. If you want to talk about the people who are really suffering, great... Lets do that. But stop pretending it's you.

Who is rallying against helping the people of Iran and N Korea? I am against helping them by dropping munitions on them, like we helped the folks in Iraq... Does help always take the form of warlike aggression?

There is always time set aside for other nations problems. There are problems here that some nations would be ashamed of though.

Naftel:

If your car had a cracked engine block would you worry about your neighbors flat tires?

Does help always take the form of warlike aggression?

Absolutely not. To claim that America only helps in the form of war like aggression is patently false and if that is what you believe it explains you skewed views. But sometimes help absolutely must take the form of war-like aggression. Perhaps we should talk to Iran a little more or try to "understand" why North Korea sank the South Korean ship. Yeah... lets do a little more of that, because it works so well with fanatical religious zealots and two-bit despots. Maybe if we had done that with Hitler and Hirihito, WWII never would have happened??? Ask yourself this, if you someone shooting at kids on a school yard and you could stop them by running them over with your car, would you choose peaceful understanding and watch with passive indifference or react with war-like aggression and take them out??? So, yes... sometimes aggression is the right answer... if fact sometimes it is an obligation.

If your car had a cracked engine block would you worry about your neighbors flat tires?

Well that depends on whether I had the means to help with the tires or not. What I absolutely would not do is find someone with a good engine and good tires and tell them how unfair life is and demand they buy me an engine and my neighbor some tires or face some implied threat to their well being.

@naftel
No. as has been demonstrated the corporations are willing to destroy the earth for profit. They are fully aware that the climate crisis is real, they just don't care. Admitting that they are destroying the earth would cost them profits. They will continue the same business practices to the day the earth no longer will support life and with great pride point to how much money they made and paid their investors as they take their last breathe. Greed trumps logic. A for profit corporation exists for only one reason, the creation of profit regardless of cost, as long as that cost does not show up in their bottom line. The idea is to conceal the cost or shift it onto others. And we are the others paying that cost.

Observe, if you will the Goldman-Sachs business model of intentionally selling, in their own words, sh*t to their own clients knowing only that Goldman-Sachs would make a profit doing so and their clients would suffer a great lose and that it would inevitably break the economy. They did not care that the entire world would suffer, they just made their bets to profit off of the collapse,too. Goldman-Sachs and its share holders are laughing all the way to the bank. They don't care that they are financing the destruction of the climate as long as they get their profit now and can live a life of luxury before nature seeks retribution and kills off most of the life on the planet. It is all about me getting mine now and to heck with the cost after I'm gone. Do you think they should really have free rein to do what ever they want regardless of the cost. The invisible hand on the market is a myth generated by these very people so they could get away with raping the world for their own temporary gain. As long as they can convince people like you that the cost for future generations for their high living now is inconsequential and betting you will be gone too before the true cost is revealed they get to continue their wholesale destruction and profits from it. I just do not see that the cost to the people today, even leaving out the cost in the future, is worth them living better than others by using trickery and dirty dealing. That is why they are looked upon as elitist. They think they should live off of the lives of others. They think that because they have money they need not get their hands dirty contributing something to the world like the sweat of a workers brow does, but they are privileged to continue taking more and more out of the economy for their own benefit even if in the end they destroy all around them as long as someone else pays the cost.

The present ideology of these people is cost shifting. Shift the cost of their gain onto others now and the yet unborn as long as their greed is satisfied. But then we both know that greed is never satisfied, when they get what they want today they just want more tomorrow. It will never end as long as they are not forced to end it. It will only get worse for everybody but them. Indeed the very premise of this seed is that they are shifting the taxes that they owe onto those that actually produce their wealth and refuse to pay themselves. Is that really your idea of what is fair, that the majority should pay for the life of luxury of a few.

Observe, if you will the Goldman-Sachs business model of intentionally selling, in their own words, sh*t to their own clients knowing only that Goldman-Sachs

There should most definately be criminal charges in this matter.

Do you think they should really have free rein to do what ever they want regardless of the cost.

No there should be consequences. BP, for example should pay a hefty price for the gulf, particularly since it looks like saftey guidelines were ignored.

As long as they can convince people like you that the cost for future generations for their high living now is inconsequential and betting you will be gone too before the true cost is revealed they get to continue their wholesale destruction and profits from it.

I am not convinced of this... I hate the deficits we are running. But I think moderation and modification are preferential to revolution. The "workers revolution" route has been tried several times and it never works out well.

It will never end as long as they are not forced to end it.

I can see that you are determined for the revolution against them. Just remember, when you take them down, you will do down with them. You will not benefit. I understand why you think you will benefit, but you will not.

Is that really your idea of what is fair, that the majority should pay for the life of luxury of a few.

No, that is not fair. I wish you the best of luck in enforcing your concept of fairness on the rest of the world. I mean that sincerely. But remember, someone has less than you and that is not fair either. So it will never be fair until everyone is on the bottom.

The "workers revolution" route has been tried several times and it never works out well.

So you prefer the option of do nothing and suffer on. What does that get you but more of the same at your own insistence. As history shows again and again revolt is a better option than slavery and was forced on the people repeatedly. It can also be said that repeated attempts to enslave the people does not work out well so you are really talking about a lose-lose cycle.

I can see that you are determined for the revolution against them. Just remember, when you take them down, you will do down with them. You will not benefit. I understand why you think you will benefit, but you will not.

Not necessarily. It is the greed of a self proclaimed elitist ownership that is the problem. The people have learned that they can not simply return the greedy to a position to continue business as usual. Worker owned and operated is a viable option to ownership by the privileged few who do not contribute other than temporary use of their money but insist of most of the benefits for their lack of work. As for the revolt you insist is necessary, I disagree. It is not a 'revolt' for workers to organize before employment so the corporations can not break or prevent formation of that union later. They must either hire someone already a union members or or do without workers, hardly a 'revolt'.

But remember, someone has less than you and that is not fair either. So it will never be fair until everyone is on the bottom.

Which belies the fallacy of your argument, That what is good for all or at least most is a race to the bottom. Would you say the period between 1946 and Reagan's union busting was the worst period in the country's history. You will get considerable disagreement with that delusion of how bad unions were for the people then. By contrast the present situation with corporations holding all the power has been pretty sh*ty for the average worker. History has pretty much concluded that this period of unionized protection for the worker was the epitome of our prosperity for the vast majority of people.

But remember, someone has less than you and that is not fair either.

Again the fallacy of your thinking. That some are worse off than I and I must give up what little I have to lift them up is misdirection of the discussion. It is that 1% that has everything, not I. It is the wide difference between the haves and the have nots regardless of where I fall in that continuum. That is the fallacy of most that see fairness as something bad because they immediately assume that they are so high up in the feeding chain that they will lose when most people getting less than 100k if not more would in fact improve their life and prosperity. It is the misunderstanding of most what the median wealth is and how far short they fall in it. They think that their present income is that median. But with 1% holding most of the wealth were it divided more equitable or if you prefer fairly most workers would be far better off. The average person, including I have no idea how much each person would have if the money were divided equally among all. But the multi trillions that the 1% has and controls would provide a rather luxurious living if it were actually applied to living instead of the greed of accumulating even more. What you claim with this statement is that the total wealth of the entire country could not be spread thin enough for any one individual to rub to coins together. Demonstrably false given the wealth of the average person even as most wealth is being hoarded by 1% now. Your statement is, in a word, rediculous.

GDP per capita $46,442 (2009)[1] (nominal; 17th) $46,442 (2009)[1] (PPP; 6th)
Main data source: CIA World Fact Book
All values, unless otherwise stated, are in US dollars

In other words if the GDP were divided equally in 2009 every person, man woman and child should have received $46,442 dollars for goods and services produced in the U.S. which does not include wealth already held. That would be $46,442 for a single person, $92,884 for a couple with no children, $139,326 for a family of three, and $185,768 for the proverbial family of four. Hardly to little far the average worker not to have two coins to rub together that you claim.

So you prefer the option of do nothing and suffer on.

There you go claiming you are suffering again. You make some good points and I admitted that reform and moderation should be the way of the future. But when you start from a position of trying to convince me how unfairly the world has treated you, I loose interest. The world doesn't owe you a damn thing. You and I are cut from different cloth. I do wish you all the best, but you won't get pity from me.

Only you assume that I was referring to only myself. There are people staving all over the world because of U.S. policies driven by corporate greed. They don't count either? Seems the only one that you think counts is you and what you want. I would say that you lost interest in whether anyone but you was treated fairly before you began, otherwise you would show some concern that anyone is starving because of that a few are obscenely rich and have every right to becoming richer regardless of cost to anyone else. 35% (banks and credit cards) to 400% (pay day lenders) is still usury and can not be defended regardless of who is the one staving is. Loans by the world bank that require the land by opened up to rapacious corporations can not be defended when the people starve and their land polluted as a result can not be defended. That people who used to get and share water resources must without cost now have to pay a private foreign corporation to get water today can not be defended. Sorry, But you are not interested in discussing reality. You are only interested in attacking those who disagree with you if only with the twisted notion that I was only referring only to myself and looking for pity and creating an argument just for the sake of creating controversy without substance. Your fake protestation are not worth my time.

naftel,

Your entire argument is a strawman. When we discuss job creation or lack thereof, your response is to state that we are waiting for the President to create jobs for us. This is a purposeful misreading of what is meant by job creation - No one is arguing that the President gop out and create a job for us - singular.

What we are arguing is that job creation as a part of the economy is an indicator of economic health for the country. If there are no jobs being created, then the economy is not healthy and all of us suffer.

Your remarks concerning suffering are also a strawman. Again, we are not here to compare the level of suffering throughout the world, as you seem to have decided to do, but what is and is not the effective economic health of the US. Negative job creation in the US is not effective economic health. You have again chosen to purposely misunderstand what is being argued.

Finally, you state that the world owes you nothing and you owe the world nothing. That is patently false. You may feel that you have accomplished all you have simply by your own personal labor, but let's start with the fact that you were born in the US, giving you an edge over nearly everyone in the rest of the world. Add to that that you probably used and continue to use certain public services simply proves the absurdity of your statement.

You do not live outside of society.

exactly and the reason that there are not more private sector jobs is because of just that and the fact that the fat cats want this administration to fail, they control everything and want this country to have only two classes- Them and everybody else...............

czar of Russia....oh wait...damn.

Those people were dictators, not corporations. Are you suggesting that same thing will happen to CEOs?

On a side note. How do you expect your children to make their way in the word if you teach them to hate capitalism? What structure are you teaching them to embrace as the model for a good future?

garyray is making a good point.

An Oligarchy is the term that describes the direction we seem to be headed in.

Corporatism has to be held in check. They are forgetting what is most valuable to them, their workers. Workers control all means of capital. When you start seeing them replace people with machines because its cheaper, they are really cheapening The American Worker. A machine cannot take a paycheck and circulate it into the economy. When they have all of the money and will not employ anyone then its time for them to fall.

A machine cannot take a paycheck and circulate it into the economy.

No, but machines can do things that people can not do and people are still needed to to design, build, operate and repair the machines. When machines start designing and buiulding other machines I will be worried.

I only have a problem with a machine if it does something that a good worker could do. Some things people can't do though, I agree.

@naftel

When machines start designing and buiulding other machines I will be worried.

To late. Computers are designing and building machines already. The last step left is getting rid of the computer programmer.

Computers are designing and building machines already.

Please provide links to show me where this is happening with no human involvement in the process.

As I said, the next step is to get rid of the programmer (and computer operator, IE the person that turns the computer on). Twisting words and meaning and statements out of context is not an argument.

I guess Im a tea-bagger then and Im an independent. Cause Im already paying almost 50% of my wages to support baby farmers

baby farmers like Michelle Bachmann who gets federal subsidies for foster farming? Yea, I hate it when socialist low-lifes like GOP congresswomen are living off of my tax dollars...

Matthew argees ...just because you earn money deosnt mean you have the right to keep it...

p.s.....David... I pay more in taxes than you...remeber there are more important thing than feeding your family such as paying for Obama's agenda

If you really are foolish enough to believe that your money belongs to you...then you are a teabagger.

Sarcasm, right???

oops my bad ...I just realized how off the mark I was .....I get it now...

'Overtaxation': Our Phoniest Problem?

With Obama's 22 new or proposed taxes...or is it 25 ...that would make him the phoniest....I get it now!

Billy, oh, Billy -- It is not teabagger - it is the Patriot Party!

If you really believe that, in the long run, you own anything, you are completely deluded. Ownership is a thin veneer that some people cling to because it so hard to face the harsh reality of existence without the comforts of 'things'. Think in the long term and you will see just how foolish the idea of ownership is.

Matthew-480753

Who is Michelle Bauchman and what does that have to do with taxes?

David:

MIchelle Bachmann is a congesswoman from the great state of MN who rails against socialist takeover and govt handouts (since BO took office), yet takes federal farm subsidies (her family is paid NOT to farm) AND takes federal subsidies to run a foster child farm.

She is the poster child for GOP talking point hypocrisy.

Im an Independent so I dont look at either side as good. Most Independents hate both sides.

because it so hard to face the harsh reality of existence without the comforts of 'things'

Actually, I can live on very little. But yes, I take comfort that my kids have things like a house, beds, food to eat, books to read, games to play and other things that I bought for them through my work. Now, I suppose if you can show me that ownerhip is "folly" by taking those things from me by force, but where I grew up we called that stealing. My bet is you call it, what... justice??? But you are not the judge of me, so there can be no justice in such a solution.

Think in the long term and you will see just how foolish the idea of ownership is.

Yes. Someday I will be dead and then the ownership will pass to someone else. But the concept of ownership will remain.

The concept of legal ownership has been around for a remarkably short period of time considering how long life has been around on earth. Moreover, life on earth will go happily along if all legal ownership disappeared. The land you currently own has only been 'owned' for a small fraction of its existence and any real long term ownership of that land (or house for that matter) is a delusion. What are the odds that someone in your family will own that house in 1000 years? Get real. We are here now and we are selfish now and that is enough for SOME of us...

David, even if you 'hate both sides' don't you want to know about who you are hating and why? I mean its not just irrational hate of both sides, is it?

I think Giving half of my pay is pretty friggin generous personally.

I don't understand that last post. Was that in response to 11.13?

Soory no to 11.12

On the hate both sides thing..... I think its more the far left and the far right..... People in the middle or that lean left or right are sick of the fringes of both. And those are the people that come november need to be kicked out. Indie voters are the most important vote in an election and from every Indie ive talked to is planning to clean house

What are the odds that someone in your family will own that house in 1000 years?

What do I care. I'll be here for another 50 years at best. I tend not to worry about what will happen 1,000 years from now.

Get real. We are here now and we are selfish now and that is enough for SOME

There is a big difference between being selfish and taking care of yourself. But lets do it your way... how many people should I invite to live for free in the house I pay for? How many do you pay for?

What do I care. I'll be here for another 50 years at best. I tend not to worry about what will happen 1,000 years from now.

Exactly my point. That is the essence of capitalistic america... What do I care what the land or seas or air are like in 50 years... I'll be gone so, what the heck.

Hey, every other living thing on earth cares...

Thank you for being so open and honest. It is rare to see someone who will so clearly express their selfishness, and I do appreciate it... but it still makes me sad...

The most intelligent people in history new that taxes were the only way to build an advanced society.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s........." ~Jesus, according to the Bible, Matthew 22:21

Being secular myself I see the wisdom of Christ in this statement. He knew that Rome took care of its citizens to a certain extent.

I would not be opposed to raising Federal Income Taxes, it usually goes to things that we need. I like the highways or the railroad before that. Our trip to the moon was not funded privately. Our country cannot remain the greatest in the world without proper funds.

Wow PT, very reasonable post. That is so refreshing. Especially the part where you suggest that we cannot be the greatest without good government that is well funded. I can't believe the RWNJ haven't descended on you yet...

Give it time they will. Unless I'm lucky.

Thank you for being so open and honest. It is rare to see someone who will so clearly express their selfishness, and I do appreciate it... but it still makes me sad...

My statement was in relation to property ownership and who owns my house in 1,000 years, not what happens to the environment. But good try at taking my statement out of context and trying to use it against me.

Our trip to the moon was not funded privately.

The next one will be.

Our country cannot remain the greatest in the world without proper funds.

Government and industry worked to gether to make this country great. It will not remain great with only one of the two in tact.

Your statement speaks for itself.

What do I care. I'll be here for another 50 years at best. I tend not to worry about what will happen 1,000 years from now.

I really don't see any other interpretation... and I'm confident that this philosophy pervades all that is you. It shines through in your earlier posts.

Just look at the sentence. It is all 'I this' and 'I that'. If its not about you, you don't care. Hey, don't run away from your philosophy, have the cojones to embrace it proudly.

I in no way stated that industry should be dismantled. Just that it should not be in control. Your engine does not decide where you drive. You are the admin of your automobile, you govern every function and decide whats best. Lets just hope you don't drive drunk, or run out of Gas.

Your Federal tax percentage is the lowest its ever been in the last 40 years9.7%. What your state does to you is a different consideration.

Remember, it was angry Cali voters who gave themselves prop 13, so now nothing gets done there except referendums. You brought it upon yourselves.

Especially the part where you suggest that we cannot be the greatest without good government that is well funded

We are a well finded government ...but this governement under the, dare I say" leadership of Obama, or lack there of, has decided that what was constitutionally left to the states should be mandated by Obama himself...such as healthcare...Last year our federal Govt spent 3.5 trillion on 2.1 trillion in revenue...Creating non governement jobs and industry creates a well funded Government...a well funded governement is one that does not have to feed itself , it lets the prosperity of its citizens provide the necessary nutrients that the governement needs. When a governement gets is revenue form those who work for the govt it can never make more money, if you tax at 100 percent you only get what you originally had back, there fore the Governemnt cannot sustain itself, only the enemy of the democrat...err socialist....Industry and wealth can create a sustainable growth that we need to combat the spiraling deficit that caused inflation started by FDR...The policies of this administration to attack wealth will dom any chance of socialized medicine ever having a chance to be successful....Never as socialized medicine been successful for 308 million people in one country, neither will it now under these policies of over taxation

Until this administration will listen to an accountant on spending and how tax credits can be used to spur job growth and create revenue...this govt will lose more revenue and create more debt. Creating wealth and more taxpayers off the govt payroll is the answer. Unfortunately it is not the gaol of the Obama administration.

And...once again fiscal responsibility talk from someone who couldn't be bothered when the GOP ran things.

Now, when we need to somehow restart the economy, all the GOP fiscal conservatives come back out.

Amen George. If our biggest economic challenge is job production, then here is our choice come Nov. We can go with the GOP who created ZERO net jobs in 8 years under W OR we can go with the current admin. that has reversed this trend in less than two years and during one of the worst economic crises in history. Now, if the GOP had some new proposals, maybe I could get on board, but they have offered nothing that hasn't failed them in the past.

Insanity, doing the same thing and expecting a different result...

Not only was there 0 net jobs, there was negative net jobs. 8 years under W and we actually lost jobs. Yet the GOP wants to play politics because they care more about getting back into power than actually fixing anything.

Not that the Dems are much better.

Not that the Dems are much better

I really don't see it this way. I am not saying the Dems are our saviors (I leave that to the rwnjs), but obama had a clear platform that I agreed was best for America, and he and the dems are working hard to achieve those programs. Is the production of legislation perfect. NO, and this has never been the case. However, are the dems trying to make things better? YES. The only effort I have seen by the loyal opposition is to criticize without offering any alternatives...

Just look at the sentence. It is all 'I this' and 'I that'. If its not about you, you don't care. Hey, don't run away from your philosophy, have the cojones to embrace it proudly.

I take care of MYSELF and my family and I work damn hard to do it. You want to condemn me for that, go ahead. Do you honestly think I care??? You want Obama to create a job for you, good luck with that. Well I guess if you can knock on doors an count to 20 he might have something for you. I have created my own jobs by "reinventing" myself many times over and I'll do it again if I have to. I'm certainly not going to wait for some two-bit politician to do it for me. So, yes, I am all about me, because in the end, nobody else is, nor do I want them to be. It's called independence and it is not a sin. The world owes me nothing and I owe the world nothing.

Naftel, I have a job, TYVM. This is about looking forward and acting so that the future is assured, not your present. Independence does not equal selfish. I am also quite independent, but I am more concerned about the impact of my species on the earth and its inhabitants than I am about my own selfish needs. This whole ownership thing arises from your assumption that this is 'your' earth. It is not. Your desire to see it that way is either arrogance or selfishness or both.

Mathew, I wish you all the best. Have a great day.

And...once again fiscal responsibility talk from someone who couldn't be bothered when the GOP ran things....

Way to go Eric Holder on that statement Orwell...clearly you have no clue

What clue would that be, billy? Suddenly you care about fiscal responsibility. I've heard this tune thousands of times here on the 'vine from conservatives and economic libertarians - that now we have to be fiscally responsible.

Yet those same voices were silent when the GOP ran the show and ran up the deficit and basically blew up the economy. Was it you personally - perhaps, perhaps not. I don't really care whether or not it was.

I'm simply pointing out that now you seem to have found your interest in fiscal responsibility. I've been on here for a few years, I don't remember you making any of these noises when the GOP was in charge. Admittedly, I haven't read every comment you've ever made, but people have patterns about what they talk about and what they say.

Not in my lifetime, I hope. The only people who criticize the wealthy are the ones are aren't. Yes, they sure do give us jobs and pay their share. What a socialist attitude and I might add, a bit Robin Hoodish - take from the rich and give to the poor! Except for the "silver spoon" people, we all have basically the same opportunities to succeed. And, don't go off on a toot - I work as a senior citizen making $8.25 per hour and am doggone glad to have the job. Sure, we worked very hard throughout our lives and enjoyed the good things, but everything changed in the Fall of 2008 when the chit hit the fan in the stock market. Stop whining! Yes, and I do believe some can get off their butts and work and stop draining the welfare system.

Believe me, it's not the poor and powerless I'm afraid of. It's the rich and powerful I'm watching.

Most jobs in the USA today are in large corporations. Any rich shareholders in those corporation benefit from hiring cheap labor offshore, and so those corporations do hire, but not Americans. Americans are put out of work.

Most small business owners are not rich. They supply the largest share of jobs not supplied by large corporations. It's a myth that the rich support the American labor market and American labor. We're nothing but a necessary evil.

I'm sorry, there wasn't time to include the link supporting job/employer distribution. Here it is now:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

Being well-informed is its own reward. Comment on that data if you like.

Yes, it is the small business owner. They put people to work like me - senior citizen who must supplement one's income. My heart broke when I read of so many young people (college educated) who were put to pasture because corporations were sending their jobs overseas. And, why, does China infiltrate our market in every conceivable fashion? Cheap Labor! In spite of everything I have said above, I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE FROM THE RICH AND GIVE TO THE POOR! I want the U.S. of America to begin taking care of its own. I don't see any fundraisers or TV news raising money for the devastation taking place on the Gulf Coast. Oh, no, but we sure do it for any other part of the world! And, I want to protect our borders with our men and women and bring back our Armed Forces home where they belong. I am weary of it all, particularly, Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, et al.

The only people who criticize the wealthy are the ones are aren't.

Raising taxes on people who make more money is not criticism of the wealthy. They have paid more in taxes in the past, and were still exceedingly successful, so it;s not going to destroy them if we do so again. We should not however, worship them as moral and social betters and use that as an excuse to lower their taxes.

Yes, they sure do give us jobs

Another myth. The wealthy are wealthy because they make money off the jobs done by the non-wealthy. If you didn't pay the CEO millions in bonuses, even when he runs a company into the ground, you could spend that money raising salaries or creating new jobs. Otherwise, it just goes into the pockets of the mega-rich.

and pay their share

A matter of debate. What tax rate is fair for what income and ownership levels? It's an open question that we are always asking.

I work as a senior citizen making $8.25 per hour and am doggone glad to have the job. Sure, we worked very hard throughout our lives and enjoyed the good things,

So, are you glad then that there is at lest some level of a social safety net, like SS and Medicare, to aid you in your struggle after a lifetime of hard work?

but everything changed in the Fall of 2008 when the chit hit the fan in the stock market. Stop whining!

So the poor should just suffer the abuses of the wealthy, like the recent financial meltdown, in silence? Just suck it up and don't expect to get any help from the government like the moneyed perpetrators got?

Yes, and I do believe some can get off their butts and work and stop draining the welfare system.

Another myth. The vast majority of people who benefit from social programs work for a living, they pay taxes too. Screeching "welfare!" is not an argument.

1. No Myth - Give me a job and I am so glad you are able to do so. And, if you are wealthy, good for you.

2. Absolutely! And, we paid into it for 50 years or so.

3. Suffer at whose hands? We were and are intelligent people who were not smart enough to "get out of Dodge" when we saw the handwriting on the walls. Shame on us, but I don't whine about it. We got up off our butts and got jobs!

4. No myth. Show me 'cause you live on another planet than I.

Don't forget that those soldiers have a plane/tank/ship to function with.
Our Gov. is required to provide the safety of this nation. So let's dump all the social and entitlement programs and foreign free hand-outs. That alone could cut the Fed. expenses in half.

"sense of entitlement" I love that because I feel the same way! PLEASE stop doing for others and do for us - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I do my darnest to check where "made in......." And, thank goodness, I didn't get the Shrek glass for my grandchildren. Is China trying to poison us? First jewelry and now this. I remember when Wal-Mart first opened and the American Flag was draped on the front of their stores - only made in America was their slogan. Look at it now! It is almost sinful what we have allowed to happen to this great Country.

The PAYGO compels new spending or tax changes to not add to the federal deficit. Not to be confused with pay-as-you-go financing, which is when a government saves up money to fund a specific project. Under the PAYGO rules a new proposal must either be "budget neutral" or offset with savings derived from existing funds. The goal of this is to require those in control of the budget to engage in the diligence of prioritizing expenses and exercising fiscal restraint.

This was something that was in play in the 90's but was repealed by "Guess Who"

The amount of money the Government spends is no longer an issue. The only issue now is What they spend it on, and what has to be cut to spend it.

First off, the very fact we have been running deficits, even during times of growth, says a lot about this country. PAYGO is also another bogus concept which will never do what we need it to do, stop the out-of-control government spending. Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare reform, these are just some of the "funds" that are not part of the budget equation. Yet these have added such a burden, the country cannot meet its obligations. The amount of money the government spends is always an issue.

Oh damn am I about to quote Reagan? I think I am.

"The deficit doesn't matter if the economy is growing" ~Ronald Reagan

I am a big fan of Reagan; his deficit-spending came during recessionary times. When he took office, the country was hurting big time. The problem is all of the deficit-spending during times of growth. During these times, a surplus must be created and we never get to that point. We keep spending and spending, whether the country is growing or contracting.

The way that I rationalize that is that it is fine to spend money even during a record deficit or during a recession if the spending is to increase economic growth, and hence bring down the deficit over time and set up for surplus mode in the future.

Reagan's recessionary times came because of Reagan's own policies. Not only that but he ended up laying the seeds for the current economic crisis.

Proves that deregulation of wall street can never work in the long term.

of course it works, on all time scales... but only for the wealthy... That was the original plan and it worked perfectly. Huge amounts of wealth was shifted from the middle class to the rich and now we have the greatest disparity between the haves and have nots in US history. The problem here are the many voters that continue to think that making the rich even richer will somehow help them...

I think it's funny how everyone wants freedom, but then choose to become economic slaves of the government. I have worked for both the government and for private industry and there isn't any comparison between the efficiencies of these two groups. If you want it to take longer, cost more, fail, and the program to continue on, choose government. If you want it to take less time, cost less, succeed or for the program to stop, choose private industry. The problem is when we believe in the "too big to fail" concept. Private industry not only performs better and cheaper, it can still generate a return to the investor. So I don't have a problem with the wealthy getting richer - I'll take this over the government anytime. In private industry, I never worked for a poor person.

As to Reagan's deficits; he specifically ran based upon building the military and based upon turning the economy around. So during a recessionary time period, he increased spending and lowered taxes on the wealthiest citizens. He knew, as JFK knew before him, private industry would perform better when results were not penalized. And he knew the theory of recessionary deficit-spending. It took a while, but reducing government influenced the economy and brought along the positive times in the 90s. I know many won't agree or be willing to give credit to Reagan, but he did the right things at the right time. The 70s were such a bad time for the economy.

The problem was we didn't create surpluses in the 90's. No one, and this means both Democrat and Republicans, were willing to do what was necessary. Basic macroeconomic theory states:

1. During recessionary times, the govenment must be willing to do deficit-spending.

Nowhere does this theory state that during times of growth should deficit-spending continue.

So, we are in recessionary times and therefore you support the deficit spending suggested by Obama, right?

Up to a point, yes I agree with some deficit-spending. But what Obama is doing, and Bush did before him, is insane. Adding on debt like there's no tomorrow is just crazy. Plus what happens when the economy does bounce back to a growth mode? Will the government stop deficit-spending? When we add in the additional programs such as healthcare, I'm sorry I just see a disaster coming.

Yes, Obama has also seen that disaster coming. That is why he established a bipartisan study group to put all options on the table and examine our best way forward with regard to both revenue generation (e.g., taxes) and spending cuts, so as to get our budget and deficit under control. I look forward to hearing what they come up with.

I absolutely agree with spending cuts, but increasing taxes now will stunt any economic growth. In fact I suggest additional tax cuts, but with these cuts must come spending cuts and we know that isn't going to happen.

Tax cuts will do nothing during a period of economic uncertainty like this one. You need only look to the Great depression and what happened when Morganthau managed to persuade FDR that tax cuts were the appropriate method for boosting the economy. They didn't.

As for tax cuts in general - the mantra that somehow lower taxes leads to economic prosperity simply isn't borne out by the evidence. Taxes in the US were much higher in the 50's and 60's; we are presently at the lowest percentage of federal taxation in the last 40 years, which would put us back before Ronnie Rayguns; and the nations of the world with the highest standards of living all have higher taxes than ours.

Every president who cut taxes, including JFK, saw growth come from this action. As long as the market is allowed to be efficient, there is nothing government can do as effectively or as efficiently. I know; I've worked for both government and private industry. As to FDR, let's not get into a discussion about his policies. Many blame the length of the depression of his policies. I also don't care what other nations do or don't do. Our economy is based upon having wealth available for stimulation. I know you believe in "Big Brother," but I don't.

Yes, many conservatives who would like to dismantle SS and any of the other New Deal programs still around argue that FDR's policies lengthened the Great Depression.

However, honest economists, both liberal and conservative, dispute that.

You have no idea what I believe in.

As for your statement about cutting taxes; it is completely without context. Tax rates in the US are at the lowest they have ever been on average, with Federal taxes being 9.7%. What shall we cut them to? Nothing? And who will pay for the miltary then? The position that tax cuts by themselves lead to growth is absurd.

Our economy is based on competition and innovation within the marketplace - both of which are being driven out of the marketplace by corporatism. The wealthy do not build wealth for others for the most part. They simply try to maintain theirs.

Social Security is the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world. It is a failure of such magnitude, only the government could get away with this scheme.

Just as many honest economists also agree with my statements. It really depends on their political affiliation and their need to be right. You do realize the government stopped using economists to predict the economy? After so many were wrong, it turned out many forecasts were biased. The government turned to mathematicians for economic modeling - they are substantially less biased.

I was joking about your name, Mr. Orwell, when I mentioned "Big Brother."

And tax rates will have to continue to drop to stimulate the economy. If the problem was only the military, we could easily solve the budget situation. Tax cuts lead to more money being available either for investment or for spending, there is nothing else people can do with their money. Now I'm a bigger proponent of investment. The greatest of ideas cannot come to fruition without investment. If the extra funds are used for consumption, the businesses receiving these funds also have an incentive to invest, but as long as we get investment, we have the chance to generate wealth. When people save, what do they do with their money? Let's say they invest into a 401K, which is then invested into different funds. The pressure is on for those funds to grow. So these funds constantly look for investment options based upon certain criteria. Can government also help the economy grow? Yes, but less efficiently.

Competition and innovation equals increasing wealth. Being the best in the area of competition and innovation requires investment - yours and my investments and we can invest more by paying less in taxes.

Should we pay taxes? Absolutely, we need the military, the police, fire protections, the courts, etc. But should we be subsidizing failed programs? Absolutely not.

SS is such a failure that just about everyone agrees that it has made life better for retirees. I assume you believe that is SS' fault and that you should simply be allowed the privilege of suffering through your old age if you were not fortunate enough to have a pension plan or a 401K (all fairly modern financial investments, btw).

Tax rates do not have to fall for the economy to get better. Look at the 90's. Tax rates were higher, yet we had economic growth and innovation.

I do not disagree that when people save, that money goes into areas that may create greater investment. But you obviously have a rather optimistic view of what people do with their money. All you need do is look at the last decade as to what people do with their money when told to go to it.

By subsidized failed programs I assume you mean those that help the poor. Yet those programs take up less of our budget than corporate subsidies. We could spend hours discussing just which programs should be cut., including the military, btw, which takes up over 64% of our discretionary budget income and is larger than the total spent by the next 10 developed nations combined.

SS may be better for the retirees, but it comes at a massive cost - one which your children and grandchildren will pay with higher and higher taxes. Question: when is a Ponzi scheme legal? Answer: when the government runs the scheme. People need to be responsible for themselves.

The 90s were a product of the tax cuts in the 80s. For both of you, the current economic downfall started as long ago as the 70s, but picked up speed with the bonehead government regulation in the 90s. If people cannot afford homes, financial institutions should not be forced to finance these homes. And government should not have interfered with the market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are huge reasons for this mess.

Corporations aren't responsible to give people raises. I bet you guys loved it when your investments went way up in value. Where did this increase in value come from? Oh yeah, corporate profits. And deregulation had nothing to do with the oil spill. This is an example of government's failure to enforce regulations. You know, just like government's failure to protect our borders. I wonder if we would have as many homeless if government actually reduced the number of people coming into this country illegally?

I wonder how many programs for the poor we would have if we regulated the population in this country to make sure legal immigration occurred at a rate that expansion could cover? I also don't have a problem with the amount spent on the military, except for making sure we aren't overcharged. This is what government's role is supposed to be. And as far as discretionary, it's all discretionary - we just don't elect people who understand this concept. Maybe our infrastructure would be in better shape, if we stopped wasting money on the wrong programs.

We are rich - just visit other countries. I have numerous times and I always kiss the ground when I get back.

As I suspected, you would trot out the canard that Social Security is insolvent. That is not true. The problem is that Social Security is quite solvent. So solvent, in fact, that it gets raided to pay for pet projects such as the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and a whole host of other corporate subsidies.

You make the mistake of assuming Socila Security is funded by disrcetionary tax income. It is not. If the social security funds collected had been place into a separate account instead of used to get Georgie Boy out of his economic doldrums, there would be no problem with Socila Security. As always, fiscal conservatives find problems with programs they have done their best to destroy.

Fannie and Freddie are not huge reasons for this mess. This is simply another rightwing talking point which is trying to blame the destruction of our economy on the economically weakest members of our society. It's not even logical. There is no question Fannie and Freddie have their problems, but blaming the bank meltdown on them is simply ignoring reality for ideology. You should be proud you can keep a straight face and say something this stupid.

And again, you are simply talking out of your hat. Deregulation had plenty to do with the oil spill, not to mention letting the foxes watch the hen house. The MMS under Bush was made up of industry insiders who not only were friends with the very industries they were supposed to regulate, but also had cocaine parties and all kind of shinanigans going on with them.

I had thought you intended to make a legitimate argument for your claims, but you simply parrot GOP stupidity. There really is not point to argue as you are simply recycling arguments already discredited.

Bye.

Boy, do you have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you. If you were to ask, you would find out I'm not a Republican.

Yes, SS is bankrupt. I know you struggle with the concept that such a beloved program is poorly constructed, but the accounting definition of bankrupt is when liabilities exceed assets. With SS, the calculation needs to be based upon how much should be invested at whatever rate to cover future obligations. Based upon this calculation, this fund is woefully short, even when we take into account the amounts other funds have borrowed from this fund. And W wasn't the first and isn't the last president to "borrow" from SS. You really need to get a life - everything is all about Bush. The problem with SS started from day one when FDR's administration created the fund. As to "discretionary" funds, I've already told you nothing is discretionary when it comes to government. The amount collected from everyone, on top of what is owed by other funds, is falling shorter and shorter every day of what is needed based upon the current value of the obligations.

Fannie and Freddie were forced by regulations to open up home ownership to people who did not qualify. I know you struggle with this concept, but financial meltdown is directly tied to these risky loans. This is what happens when we override the market's efficiency with government regulation. The basic concept of risk was in the lending model, but then government overrode this concept and forced institutions to loan to customers who did not qualify for loans under the old model. Guess who else took advantage of this regulation - speculators. And they also have taken the hit. Don't go making this into a class warfare just because I state a fact. Home ownership is not a right; it has to be earned like everything else in life.

I'm talking out of my hat? There are plenty of regulations already in place to make sure what happened in the Gulf didn't take place. But they have to be enforced - something Obama's selections for the authority positions did not do. Hey, do you think I thought it was a great idea for Bush to put a horse person in charge of FEMA? Let's get real and see the problem with government. We can increase regulations 1000%, but what good will that do? Let's start by enforcing what we have in place now. I'm just so tired of the call for more and more regulations and laws.

One of the funniest things you wrote was about the cocaine parties. I think it's funny because I know so many people who complain about this behavior, yet also participate in similar, if not the same behavior. Have you ever done illegal narcotics? If so, why is it okay for you to engage in this behavior, but not others?

I'm not surprised you are quitting this discussion. Anytime posters like you come across someone who can match them word for word, they quit. If you aren't willing to open your ears and mind, you're probably right in quitting. But I'm not one of those GOP talking heads; I read everything, look at everything, then logically draw conclusions. You, on the other hand, are a "sheeple."

I know that the VAT tax is used in many places in Europe.

Can some one name a European economy that is strong right now.

Now of course there are many factors when it comes to if an economy is going in the right direction but I just thought of this when I was reminded of the VAT tax.

And what exactly is the money from the VAT taxed used for. I really don't know the answer to this. Is the money collected used for something specific or used for just about anything.

The other was a bumper sticker I saw that said 86% of this countries wealth was in the hands of 14% of it's citizens.

The Pareto Principle hard at work. The farther a society departs from 80/20 on either side, the more unrest can be expected.

Thank You, I'll look at that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

It's also a prevalent theory in quality assurance. 80% of the problems/failures are caused by 20% of the defect types. It is best known as an economic phenomenon.

No, the republicans decrease taxes and increase spending.

Why is it when one person mentions a wrong, others mention another wrong as an excuse? The logic of two wrongs not making a right is learned at such a young age. Why do so many forget this lesson?

That is such a wonderful, er, bleak scenario of prosperity you painted for us there, Johnt. That should take us to third world status quicker. Maybe that's the true intent of this admin.

Correction: by cities i meant to say Los Angeles and Chicago

Which just goes to show, you have no idea what you're talking about. Lowest rate of overall taxation in 40 years. But those who don't like this admin will just keep sticking to their untrue statements about taxation.

"Everything the government does to make your life better, they could not do without your money."

Police, fire department, roads, social security, medicare,...

If we could get the american people to opt our of any government benefits, we could easily balance the budget. The issue is what to cut... I would be happy to stop fighting wars and drug kingpins, but will the rest of the country agree? If I were 20 right now, I would vote to get rid of social security and medicare...

We always come out of recession. Debt always eventually gets paid. I'm not saying someone won't just screw it up again, but we've been budget neutral or in surplus mode quite a few times this century.

fear, doom, fear... Paul, just how does this approach help us?