[LWC]

I am very economically ignorant. IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO WITHOUT PARTY FLUFF/BLAME on this site ( ), someone help me understand exactly what is going on with the debt ceiling, tax increase/cuts, cut/raise spending, etc...

What it sounds like, and I am sure I am wrong, is the equivalent of America needing another credit card to buy stuff because they don't have the cash.

EVERYONE knows a new credit card is needed but the Reps are saying that the US needs a plan to reduce expenses because it will lead to more credit cards. The Dems are saying to find some more income (increase taxes) and not cut spending that much.

Am I anywhere near close? Am I right in thinking that everyone needs to suck up their pride and compromise? Taxes need to go up a little bit, and some spending has to be cut as well. Is it rational to think that taxes need to go up, spending needs to be cut AND the ceiling needs to be raised?

Doesn't everyone lose OR everyone win that way? As long as everyone has a mutual effect, isn't that enough? I am so confused, I need to learn more about this stuff, lol.

[LWC]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-press-statem...57502.html

A link that is not CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News (I am trying to be as non-partisan as can be)

[Hoot Gibson]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-press-statem...57502.html

A link that is not CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News (I am trying to be as non-partisan as can be)

Read the article link and pay close attention to the selective use of quotes from Obama and the paraphrasing of most of Speaker Boehner's words and carefully reconsider your opinion of Yahoo as a neutral source of news. Note in particular the repetition of words like "increasing tax revenue collected from the rich and wealthy corporations," which I will guarantee were not Boehner's words of choice.

Yahoo, Google, and most other online news sources are sharply tilted to the left and most people do not even notice how subtly the liberal media reinforces the liberal Democrats' message of the day.

Something that everybody needs to understand about this debate is that a large number of House Republicans were elected in large part because of their campaign promises to not raise taxes, to slash spending, and to reduce the size of the federal government. Attacking these people for doing exactly what they promised to do is unfair.

At the risk of sounding partisan, people who have not been paying attention to this debate until Obama decided to turn the issue into a crisis need to understand the following:

More than 810 days has passed since the US Senate passed its last budget. Federal law requires the Senate to pass an annual budget every year. Democrats controlled the Senate during this entire period and Harry Reid has stated publicly that they have no intention of passing a budget before the 2012 elections.

The last budget that Barack Obama sent to the Senate was defeated 97-0. That's right, Obama's proposed budget would have sharply increased spending and did not receive a single vote from his own Democratic Party.

When August 2nd arrives, President Obama has the power to prioritize federal spending to avoid defaulting on the debt. If Social Security recipients and our troops do not get paid, it will be because Obama decides not to make spending cuts that would have more broad based support. Obama is attempting to take Social Security recipients and military personnel hostage for political purposes.

Republicans need to continue to resist making the mistake that Reagan did in the 80s. Reagan agreed to tax increases in exchange for promised spending cuts. The spending cuts were never made and Reagan got the blame for increasing taxes and deficit spending.

The US Constitution grants the House of Representatives ultimate control over spending and the fiscal conservatives in the House are overwhelmingly doing what they were elected to do. The rest of the Republicans and nearly all the Democrats are playing a high stake political game of chicken.

[TheRealThing]

The republicans want to cut spending down to the point where we only spend money we actually have. The dems think it's ok to continue to borrow TWO MILLION dollars each and every minute, 24/7-365, over and above the money we have. (that's 33 thousand 333 dollars every second)

If I spend 500 dollars a month more than I make, at some point I can go to the Credit Union and borrow 5000 dollars on my signature and I'd be okay for 10 months. After that I either have to begin defaulting on my committments or hit the lottery. Not to mention the fact that now I have yet another payment due every month. so that when the borrowed money is gone things will be even worse than they were prior to the loan. The US doesn't have the lottery option so it's cut spending or default.

So, when the money is gone I try to go to the well again. But, this time my credit rating has been downgraded and my interest rate is higher. More likely though I would be denied another loan because it becomes obvious I'm borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. That's where we're at.

The argument is cut spending or keep borrowing. What makes it even more scary than the unseverable link to the Lay Awake At Night Loan Company, is that the lender is China. Might as well be Satan.

[TheRealThing]

:Clap: ^Great post Hoot

[Hoot Gibson]

Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

I would add that when socialists run out of money, they borrow until their creditors finally cancel their accounts. That has already happened in parts of Europe and the American "ruling class" has learned no lessons from the self-inflicted misery of the Greeks, Icelanders, and Portuguese - who had learned no lessons from the failed socialist states that fell before them.

It seems that human beings are condemned to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors and neighbors, as their descendants will be doomed to repeat the mistakes that we are witnessing today.

If I seem pessimistic about the future of this nation, it is only because I am.

[Hoot Gibson]

:Clap: ^Great post Hoot

I was about to say the same about your last post. You touched upon the fact that interest rates to finance the debt will rise, and that rise is not reflected in budget and deficit projections being made today.

The increased interest paid on government bonds will be accompanied by a jump in the inflation rate.

Our future will likely be much, much more miserable than the political class will ever dare to publicly predict.

I want to see what cuts Obama is willing to make now and during his remaining time in office. If he wants to fantasize about a second term, those proposed cuts would be of some interest as well. Projected spending cuts in the "out years" that span 10 to 12 years (well beyond Barack Obama's watch) are simply not credible, no matter which party makes such projections.

[LWC]

So will there not be a major problem if they don't raise the debt ceiling by a certain date? That is what I kept hearing.

Also, if Yahoo is a biased source, what is the most unbiased? I know everyone and everything leans, at least a little, but what is the most non-partisan news source?

[Hoot Gibson]

So will there not be a major problem if they don't raise the debt ceiling by a certain date? That is what I kept hearing.

Also, if Yahoo is a biased source, what is the most unbiased? I know everyone and everything leans, at least a little, but what is the most non-partisan news source?

Believe it or not, the Drudge Report has consistently rated among the more neutral sources. Drudge will report news that will generate visits to his website, no matter which party generates the news and no matter whether the news is good or bad. Of the three major broadcast networks, I believe that ABC rates nearest the middle, with the LA Time, NY Times, and MSNBC furthest left. Fox News rates to the right of Drudge and ABC News. This is all from memory but I have a pretty good memory. :biggrin:

There will be a problem if the debt ceiling is not raised soon. There will also be a problem if the debt ceiling is raised without real, credible tax cuts - not the phony baloney cuts that Obama is proposing 6 to 10 or 12 years into the future.

Economic growth is slowing and there are signs that unemployment is poised to resume its slow rise. If Obama and the Democrats get their way and Republicans help them raise taxes, there is an even greater chance that our economy will slip into recession and unemployment will skyrocket.

The way that I see it, the media singles out fiscal conservative Republicans for doing exactly what they promised their constituents that they would do if elected. The same media generally does not criticize liberal Democrats for the exploding public debt, who are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do (hand out "free" money).

The Congress members who are most deserving of criticism (generally the moderates) are those who make firm promises to get elected and then compromise away what they claimed were their core principles. Instead, the biased mainstream media praises these liars for being willing to "compromise," which is actually nothing but a euphemism for delaying the day of reckoning when the Chinese and others refuse to lend us money and our house of cards collapses upon itself.

I disagree with honest liberals but I respect the fact that they are doing nothing but pander to the moocher class which elects them. They are acting faithfully to fulfill the wishes of their constituents.

I have no respect for people like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other moderates in both parties who run to the left and run to the right to get elected and then betray the trust of the voters who either believe their bogus promises or who are so cynical and misinformed as to believe that all politicians are liars.

[Hoot Gibson]

What often happens when a country continues to borrow money at an ever increasing rate is that the point comes where a decision is made to intentionally inflate the nation's currency to repay debt with "cheap" money. However, this also allows private individuals with savings to repay debts with money that is worth far less than it was when debts were incurred.

For a time, short while, inflation is great for people paying off homes and cars but not so great for people who loaned the money with the expectation that they would be repaid with interest. Businesses begin to fail and people lose confidence in the currency and prices start skyrocketing. Everybody becomes fearful of extending credit to anybody else, not because the borrower is not trustworthy but because they no longer trust their own government and currency.

Once hyperinflation kicks in, black markets emerge and barter begins replacing currency for major purchases. Sellers also begin demanding payment in gold, silver, etc. or in a more stable currency. Ironically, for several decades, the currency of choice for international trading and black markets has been the US dollar. When that stops being the case, life as we know it will change drastically for the worse. There are early signs that this move away from the dollar has already begun.

[TheRealThing]

Herman Cain just said that Obama is using the debt ceililng crisis to FORCE conservatives to go along with his efforts to raise taxes. Scaring people about not getting social security checks and threatening the military. While blaming the republicans for causing the very crisis he engineered with all the rhetoric and foot dragging over the past year. Everybody is frankly scared about this budget mess and the president knows those doing right by the country, republicans, will be made to look bad in some groups eyes, and constituents will pressure them to cave to the liberal machine on the hill. Obama has absolutely no class even though he is swimming in an ocean of narcissism.

Cain says Obama "owns" this crisis.

What happened to common sense in this country?

[TheRealVille]

Tax the rich and more money will be there.

[Bob Seger]

Tax the rich and more money will be there.

Yeah, but that would be a great idea. Kill the geese that lay the golden eggs in this country. Just who is it you think that creates jobs and wealth in this country anyways. Oh, I forgot, it's the trade unions.:eyeroll:

How about getting some of the worthless freeloaders off the government check programs as a start.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yeah, but that would be a great idea. Kill the geese that lay the golden eggs in this country. Just who is it you think that creates jobs and wealth in this country anyways. Oh, I forgot, it's the trade unions.:eyeroll:

How about getting some of the worthless freeloaders off the government check programs as a start.

:Thumbs: If every American belonged to a union, we would all be making great wages, have super benefits, and enjoying total job security. Some fat cat rich white guy banker type wants to lay his workers off? Just send a band of roving pickets to his place of business, his home, and of course to his country and yacht clubs and he would be singing a different tune in no time. Yeah, that would be pure Utopia for some people.

Isn't it sad that is the warped image that so many people have of people who have managed to be far more successful than themselves?

[TheRealVille]

Yeah, but that would be a great idea. Kill the geese that lay the golden eggs in this country. Just who is it you think that creates jobs and wealth in this country anyways. Oh, I forgot, it's the trade unions.:eyeroll:

How about getting some of the worthless freeloaders off the government check programs as a start.

That, and taxing the rich freeloaders.

[Bob Seger]

That, and taxing the rich freeloaders.

Would you fall in that category RV? I remember you mentioning one time that you were pretty secure financially. If that is indeed the case should your tax burden increase substantially?


By the way, that small % of rich peiople are already paying the bulk of the taxes in this country to begin with. The way I see it we should tax those that have the kahunas to make themselves lpersonally liable for multi-millions os dollars at about a 90% rate, and let them make as much money as they would working in a C store. That would be a real incentive to create jobs , wouldn't it?

You are making no sense whatsoever. Think about what you are saying.

I just cant understand why some people get so jealous over those who invest wisely and are responsible for putting bread on millions of people's tables. And that is what it all boils down to. Sheer jealousy. But then again, that is the union mentality, is it not?

[Hoot Gibson]

Modern American liberalism is indistinguishable from socialism. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, it is all about spending other people's money. They take it behind the barrel of a gun, pocket their "fair share," and buy votes with what is left. If liberals believed half of what they say they do, then there would be no wealthy liberals. But looking at the millionaires occupying the White House and considering the fact that most of the wealthiest members in Congress are liberal Democrats, it is obvious that they are playing their supporters for suckers.

[Bob Seger]

Modern American liberalism is indistinguishable from socialism. To paraphrase Lady Thatcher, it is all about spending other people's money. They take it behind the barrel of a gun, pocket their "fair share," and buy votes with what is left. If liberals believed half of what they say they do, then there would be no wealthy liberals. But looking at the millionaires occupying the White House and considering the fact that most of the wealthiest members in Congress are liberal Democrats, it is obvious that they are playing their supporters for suckers.

Lady Thatcher also stated that when you spend other peoples money, it eventualy runs out.

Ironic that Nancy Peolsi is one of the wealthiest of them all, isn't it. Then you have Hillary, and hey what about the ketchup guy....lol

[LWC]

It is a tough tightrope to walk. While many people abuse government checks, many people truly need them. Also, many well-intentioned government programs are taken advantage of.

Also, for every good-hearted business owner that would pay a fair salary, offer good working conditions, etc... there are probably twice as many that would pay little, make people work often, etc...

In the last century there were major reforms that had to happen with businesses because people were wage-slaves, and greedy business owners were lining their pockets.

Also in the last century, government programs were started to help people that were hurting and in need and they have been taken advantage by some/most but not all.

What I am trying to say, is that government programs are needed but reform has to happen. Also, those that have, have to be taxed harder, not taxed to death as some may say, but to whom much is given, much is required. (Yes, I took that quote out of context, please don't take that religiously)

For every greedy business owner, there is a lazy check-drawer. Those two ends of the spectrum make the honest businessman and the truly hurting/needy look bad.

[Hoot Gibson]

It is a tough tightrope to walk. While many people abuse government checks, many people truly need them. Also, many well-intentioned government programs are taken advantage of.

Also, for every good-hearted business owner that would pay a fair salary, offer good working conditions, etc... there are probably twice as many that would pay little, make people work often, etc...

In the last century there were major reforms that had to happen with businesses because people were wage-slaves, and greedy business owners were lining their pockets.

Also in the last century, government programs were started to help people that were hurting and in need and they have been taken advantage by some/most but not all.

What I am trying to say, is that government programs are needed but reform has to happen. Also, those that have, have to be taxed harder, not taxed to death as some may say, but to whom much is given, much is required. (Yes, I took that quote out of context, please don't take that religiously)

For every greedy business owner, there is a lazy check-drawer. Those two ends of the spectrum make the honest businessman and the truly hurting/needy look bad.

I disagree with most of what you said above. Despite many abuses by some employers in the 20th century, the average worker's standard of living was much higher than it was during any period of history that preceded it. The key for workers getting higher wages and better working conditions is not organized labor but full employment. When a worker can quit one job and be confident that two more jobs are waiting for him, employers (capital) competes for labor with higher wages and better working conditions and benefits. Unions would have gotten nowhere in the last century if they had not had something that was in demand.

When employers enjoy monopolies, the unemployment rate is high, or in special cases such as coal mining during the early 20th century (where geography an transportation issues created an almost captive work force), I agree that there will always be employers who will exploit the situation by offering low wages, company owned stores, etc.

However, one needs only look to modern day China to see that as the demand for workers rises, wages naturally rise, and living conditions improve. While it is true that most people living in China are still very poor, even compared to American welfare recipients, skilled labor is in great demand and the plight of many workers has drastically improved without the benefit of trade unions.

I work in a profession that has never been unionized but I have skills for which the demand is still strong, as long as I am willing to relocate to where work is available. I compete for jobs with computer programmers from India, the Middle East, South Korea, and elsewhere who are in this country to meet the demand for labor. If and when there is a surplus of programmers available, then my salary will plummet and no union could prevent that from happening.

The problem in this country is that social engineering has created a disincentive for poor people to work and placed an ever increasing financial burden on businesses through high taxes and a ridiculous number of unnecessary regulations. Not content to saddle American businesses with the burden of supporting our growing welfare state, our elected representatives are borrowing money at an unprecedented rate.

The longer that these problems remain unresolved and as long as we put foxes like Barack Obama in charge of the hen house, the more likely that our entire economic system will collapse under the weight of state and federal bureaucracies.

As for unions, they have their place but IMO, they have no place in any level of government. If state and federal employees do not like their wages and benefits, then the ballot box offers an effective remedy for them. Politicians should never be in position to buy votes by negotiating generous contracts with somebody else's money.

[real_change]

Am I anywhere near close? Am I right in thinking that everyone needs to suck up their pride and compromise? Taxes need to go up a little bit, and some spending has to be cut as well. Is it rational to think that taxes need to go up, spending needs to be cut AND the ceiling needs to be raised?

Doesn't everyone lose OR everyone win that way? As long as everyone has a mutual effect, isn't that enough? I am so confused, I need to learn more about this stuff, lol.

Rational yes, but necessary, no.

In fact, the budget can be balanced and during this decade without either tax hikes or spending cuts. A simple cap on non-entitlement spending would balance the budget in 2017, without raising taxes one dime. Allowing a 1% rate of growth, would balance it in 2019. 2% would be in 2021. Yet Obama projects WITH the bush tax cuts expiring, his budget will produce nearly a trillion a year in the same timeframe as mentioned above. Now, whats the problem? I think its clear.

Raising the debt limit is unavoidable. But in doing so, it must be tied to a larger plan.

-Stop all stimulus spending from the 2009 stimulus bill.
-Return spending back to FY 2008.
-1 year tax holiday on payroll taxes for employee and employer.
-End the wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
-Assemble a blue-ribbon panel to study every dime in the budget, program that it funds, and regulation that exists. Force congress to vote up or down on its recommendations.
-Reform Medicare and Social Security to give people more power over their future, and provide solvency indefinetely.
-Suspend all foreign aid immediately and review relations across the world.
-Move towards the FairTax, and abolish the IRS.

Just my two cents.

[jetpilot]

That, and taxing the rich freeloaders.

You can't be this stupid. Or can you?

[LWC]

I disagree with most of what you said above. Despite many abuses by some employers in the 20th century, the average worker's standard of living was much higher than it was during any period of history that preceded it. The key for workers getting higher wages and better working conditions is not organized labor but full employment. When a worker can quit one job and be confident that two more jobs are waiting for him, employers (capital) competes for labor with higher wages and better working conditions and benefits. Unions would have gotten nowhere in the last century if they had not had something that was in demand.

When employers enjoy monopolies, the unemployment rate is high, or in special cases such as coal mining during the early 20th century (where geography an transportation issues created an almost captive work force), I agree that there will always be employers who will exploit the situation by offering low wages, company owned stores, etc.

However, one needs only look to modern day China to see that as the demand for workers rises, wages naturally rise, and living conditions improve. While it is true that most people living in China are still very poor, even compared to American welfare recipients, skilled labor is in great demand and the plight of many workers has drastically improved without the benefit of trade unions.

I work in a profession that has never been unionized but I have skills for which the demand is still strong, as long as I am willing to relocate to where work is available. I compete for jobs with computer programmers from India, the Middle East, South Korea, and elsewhere who are in this country to meet the demand for labor. If and when there is a surplus of programmers available, then my salary will plummet and no union could prevent that from happening.

The problem in this country is that social engineering has created a disincentive for poor people to work and placed an ever increasing financial burden on businesses through high taxes and a ridiculous number of unnecessary regulations. Not content to saddle American businesses with the burden of supporting our growing welfare state, our elected representatives are borrowing money at an unprecedented rate.

The longer that these problems remain unresolved and as long as we put foxes like Barack Obama in charge of the hen house, the more likely that our entire economic system will collapse under the weight of state and federal bureaucracies.

As for unions, they have their place but IMO, they have no place in any level of government. If state and federal employees do not like their wages and benefits, then the ballot box offers an effective remedy for them. Politicians should never be in position to buy votes by negotiating generous contracts with somebody else's money.

I agree with what you are saying, but what you are referring to is a Utopia. We will never have a perfect economy. 100% of the country will never have a job. There are disabled people, injured workers, home-makers, etc...

Also, as much as I want to believe that if all government regulations were taken off of owners/business, they would be fair, I just can't. Even if geography has nothing to do with it, greed plays a large part. There are too many employers today that take factories away from skilled workers and ship them overseas to .25 cents per hour workers, make an inferior product and pocket the rest. Why would they employ U.S. citizens that want $12 per hour, medical care and vacation days?

As I mentioned in my post, I do not think the entire burden of government income should rest on the filthy rich and I do not think people that CAN work should sit on their behinds.

So much can get done when compromise happens, not when two sides cross their arms and ignore each other. Even Baptists and Methodists can agree on KFC after church, lol. The US government should not cut off nose, despite the face.

[TheRealVille]

Would you fall in that category RV? I remember you mentioning one time that you were pretty secure financially. If that is indeed the case should your tax burden increase substantially?


By the way, that small % of rich peiople are already paying the bulk of the taxes in this country to begin with. The way I see it we should tax those that have the kahunas to make themselves lpersonally liable for multi-millions os dollars at about a 90% rate, and let them make as much money as they would working in a C store. That would be a real incentive to create jobs , wouldn't it?

You are making no sense whatsoever. Think about what you are saying.

I just cant understand why some people get so jealous over those who invest wisely and are responsible for putting bread on millions of people's tables. And that is what it all boils down to. Sheer jealousy. But then again, that is the union mentality, is it not?

Yes, and I pay tons of tax.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yes, and I pay tons of tax.

So do the rich. The top 1 percent of wage earners earn approximately 20 percent of the income in this country but pay 38 percent of all federal income taxes. The sad fact is that many liberal Democrats in Congress are unaware of those statistics. The rest just don't care as they engage in class warfare to win the votes of the poor, who by the way are much less likely to vote for them when and if they become taxpayers.

BTW, in Clinton's last year in office, the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 36.18 percent of all federal income taxes. That's right, the rich were paying a smaller share of the tax burden when Bush entered office than when he left office. Link

The notion that the "Bush tax cuts" are letting wealthy tax payers off easy is just one in a long list of lies that liberal Democrats spread each and every day in this country.

Democrats claim to represent the "working man," but in fact a more honest description of the party is that it more often represents the non-working men and women. Working people who are smart enough to see through the fog of Democratic deception usually reach the same conclusion as me. There is no good reason for any federal taxpayer (and those who get refunds that exceed their federal income tax withholding are not taxpayers) to vote for a Democrat to fill any position in Washington.

[Image: http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-conte...ptaxes.jpg]

[vector]

i would like to see a flat tax rate do away with all the

deducations like you do with sales tax that would

be the only way you could make it fair

[vector]

2010 tax rate for top earners was 35%

1980 tax rate for top earners was 70%

in the thirty years the top earners have gotten

a good tax rate with 20 years of republican presidents

by the time they take there deducations and all the loop holes

the 35% is probally a lot lower

[Hoot Gibson]

I agree with what you are saying, but what you are referring to is a Utopia. We will never have a perfect economy. 100% of the country will never have a job. There are disabled people, injured workers, home-makers, etc...

Agreed, but with our current system we have one political party who is benefiting politically by having millions of able-body workers on the public payroll either working as bureaucrats or drawing checks for bogus claims. The fewer people who are gainfully employed, the further we will drift from an ideal economy. Compromises between Republicans and Democrats that do nothing but delay an economic collapse are not in anybody's best interest except the politicians who are cutting the deals.

Also, as much as I want to believe that if all government regulations were taken off of owners/business, they would be fair, I just can't. Even if geography has nothing to do with it, greed plays a large part. There are too many employers today that take factories away from skilled workers and ship them overseas to .25 cents per hour workers, make an inferior product and pocket the rest. Why would they employ U.S. citizens that want $12 per hour, medical care and vacation days?

I have never advocated, nor will I ever advocate removing all government regulations on business. Employers are moving factories overseas and they are doing so for many reasons, not the least of which is over regulation and high corporate tax rates in this country. Americans' image of factory workers in China, India, and other developing countries as low paid, unskilled, ignorant peasants is in most cases wildly inaccurate. For example, the two top programmers in my office were both trained in India (and are the two most talented programmers with whom I have ever worked). However, there are thousands of Indians with similar backgrounds performing the same type of jobs remotely in India. On my project team alone, there are 3 Indians, one South Korean, and two Americans. As much as I like and enjoy working with my foreign colleagues, I believe that if the American public education system was doing its job, those four jobs would be filled by American workers. However, my friends do not have those jobs because they work for low wages. They are smart, very well trained, they have a great work ethic, and they are paid at least as much as I am, and in some cases more.

Japanese factory workers' wages rose steadily until they reached the point that Japanese companies began building factories elsewhere, including here in the United States. At one time, Japanese companies paid low wages and their workers worked in less than pleasant environments but that has not been true for many years. When innovative electronic devices are developed, they are almost always released in Japan before they reach our market because Japanese workers are among the most technologically savvy in the world and they carry even more gadgets with them than we do.

Global trade is a positive thing, IMO, but this country's politicians (mostly liberal Democrats) are working very hard to make American companies less competitive with other countries. They are putting all of us into a deep hole by saddling future generations with a massive public debt, a deteriorating public education system, and mountains of new federal regulations every year.

As I mentioned in my post, I do not think the entire burden of government income should rest on the filthy rich and I do not think people that CAN work should sit on their behinds.

The burden on the "filthy rich" grew under George W. Bush's watch. See the information that I posted above.

The problem is that when people are dependent on the government, they vote in great majorities for liberal Democratic politicians. There is no incentive for the national Democratic Party to pursue economic policies that lead to full employment at high wages. Federal spending has sharply increased 24 under Barack Obama and any spending cuts that he proposes will be little more than smoke and mirrors, with the exception of national defense, space exploration, and a few other traditional targets of the liberals.

So much can get done when compromise happens, not when two sides cross their arms and ignore each other. Even Baptists and Methodists can agree on KFC after church, lol. The US government should not cut off nose, despite the face.

This is where we have a strong disagreement. Nothing good will come of a compromise that includes increasing taxes in a sluggish economy. Democrats are insistent on raising taxes, which will further cripple the economy and do little or nothing to cut the deficit, because a huge number of House Republicans have pledged to their constituents to oppose any new taxes proposed by Democrats. Democrats are salivating at the prospect of running liberals against opponents who have reneged on a "read my lips" no new tax pledge.

Until the 2010 elections, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. The question that everybody needs to be asking is where was the concern about budget deficits and taxes when the Democrats had the votes to take action themselves?

The only compromises that Republicans should consider involve the specific areas and the timing of spending cuts. If Democrats want to raise taxes, then let them peel off enough Republican votes to get it done but stop portraying fiscally conservative Republicans who were elected in large part for their stance on taxes and spending as being unreasonable in this stand-off. They are the only ones who are behaving rationally, IMO.

[Hoot Gibson]

2010 tax rate for top earners was 35%

1980 tax rate for top earners was 70%

in the thirty years the top earners have gotten

a good tax rate with 20 years of republican presidents

by the time they take there deducations and all the loop holes

the 35% is probally a lot lower

The top earners paid a higher share of federal income taxes for the last year of Clinton's presidency than they did under George W. Bush. You might also want to compare the average unemployment rate during those 20 years to what we have now under President Carter II and to what we had in 1980 during the Carter I administration.

Unemployment is rising, inflation is rising, and if Democrats get their way, taxes will also soon rise. Interest rates will soon follow suit. We will soon start seeing periodic comparisons between the misery indexes during the Jimmy Carter years to now. Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids.

[Hoot Gibson]

i would like to see a flat tax rate do away with all the

deducations like you do with sales tax that would

be the only way you could make it fair

We agree on this but in your very next post you seem to be implying that we need to soak the rich with a 70 percent top marginal federal income tax rate. If you look at the table that I posted in a previous post, you will see that the top 1 percent of earners currently make 20 percent of income but pay 38 percent of all federal income taxes. Do you agree that they are paying their "fair share," or do you agree with Obama that they should be paying even more?