Why is FDA money in Iraq bill?

See Jeff....more pork. Katrina relief, money for Walter Reed,moneys to fight fires in drought stricken areas, and now womens health. When will it all end. Ahhhh, if we could only return to the days when there were no pork, like a $600,000 solar aquatic wastewater treatment demonstration project in Vermont; a $2 million Chena River dredging project in Fairbanks, Alaska, to benefit a single tour boat operator; a $1 million corporate welfare grant to the Carter County Montana Chamber of Commerce; $900,000 for a Veterans Administration cemetery the VA says it doesn't need; $1.9 million for dredging a Mississippi lake that primarily serves yachts and pleasure boats; $500,000 for the Neabsco Creek Project in Virginia for removal of creek debris; and other such absurdities. Things would be better.

Nice to rub it in their face,bill r.How quickly they forget,or admit,that their party just ran up a few trillion in debt for our children.

This is the problem with Billy/Jeff,Little johhny davola,Paulo,Brucie,Beany boy,Juanito,and all the other wannabes.They foolishly think their in the top 1 percent!

March 29, 2007
Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Prof. Emmanuel Saez, the University of California, Berkeley, economist who analyzed the Internal Revenue Service data with Prof. Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, said such growing disparities were significant in terms of social and political stability.

Again, Bill R., you are showing hypocrisy. Raving Loon is not even worth responding to.

The Dumbocrats campaigned on ending earmarks and bringing fiscal responsibility back to Congress (though while I fully acknowledge too many earmarks and pork were done by GOP Congress, the reality is that in 2004-2205 spending increases had fallen to 1 percent to 3 percent). They are not following through on their campaign promises.

In fact, can you guys name me one campaign promose they have accomplished so far?

It's laughable to see how fiscally responsible the democratic left becomes when the money isn't going to them.Where were you when your party was wasting over a trillion dollars on welfare programs that didn't work.
But now when the money is going to the military to defend our nation,all of a sudden the calculaters come out and you ask,where's mine?
Yours is spelled VETO.

Paulo

We are certainly divided politically as a nation and although I believe there is a certain amount of division on the Iraq war, I have faith in the fact that there is a position that we all ‘come together’ as a nation without consideration for party affiliation, Religion or race; that being our pocketbooks.

The American population is oblivious to what the politicians are stirring up and what the horrible fallout will be financially for all of us. If the American People were informed that by ‘cutting and running’ out of Iraq, they stand to endure some pretty hefty personal financial hardships, the debate over how long we spend in Iraq and how we continue to fund the effort would come to a quick end.

Stabilizing Iraq is now about oil and keeping the control of Iraq in the hands of the US, Iraq and its allies.

Pulling out of Iraq with a ‘cut and run’ approach would put our oil producing allies in the surrounding countries in turmoil. Our so-called oil producing allies, like Saudi Arabia, would be left with an Iraq at war with itself and an Iraq under siege by a nuclear seeking Iran able to expand its borders, capabilities and capture a country rich in oil. The Saudi’s reaction, along with Kuwait, Turkey and other OPEC nations would be at the very least, aggravated. Expect soaring oil prices, maybe even shortages.

Our current state of the economy is at the threshold of a recession. Any further damage to the US economy would be disastrous. Consequently, Americans will feel the affects of inflation and rising oil prices IMMEDIATELY.

At minimum, it equates to rising gas prices in the neighborhood of somewhere around $4.50 at the low end to somewhere around $7-10.00 at the high end per gallon of gas. That’s an increase of 50-100% per barrel of oil (based off historic figures see: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif ).

Imagine paying $7 a gallon for gas or $140 for a tank of gas for a 20 gallon tank.

Not possible? During the Iran/Iraq war in 1980-1990, prices of crude oil went from $35 dollars a barrel to $74 a barrel. A gas crisis, has always predicated a recession/depression. We are already steam-rolling to economic pain with complications brought on by the Fed’s housing/mortgage debacle where 2.2 Million People to Lose Homes Due to Foreclosure (see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/foreclosures_numbers.html ).

Historically, there is no question that an oil crisis would definitely bring on a recession and with complications already in the economy, the impact on the American way of life would be profound.

Does anyone remember gas lines, rationing and gas stations with no gas? Our suburban lifestyle, with two, three and four-car families, constant trips to work, school and the grocery store would not only become very uncomfortable, but very unaffordable.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that OPEC could/would boycott America, which they did in 1973 when OPEC boycotted countries for simply supporting Israel during the Yom Kipper war.

If gas prices soar, hyper-inflation follows(10-20%) and all goods, products and services would escalate in dramatic proliferation. The Fed is already concerned with inflation.

If Americans were told that what Congress is doing, with their arrogant and injudicious behavior, will most likely push this Country and the globe into a recession/depression, and ruining their financial way of life for some time, Congress would get an ear-full from just about everyone.

Try again, porkies. How about $100 million for the national party conventions in 2008? Tell me that's not some bipartisan pork?

And if you think $4 billion for “emergency farm relief" (it's in there, read the bill) is anything but big agribusiness subsidies then you're kidding yourself.

Oh, and the $50 million for each party convention? That's included under the “Katrina recovery, veterans’ care and for other purposes" section. So don't pat yourself too hard on the back about that Katrina recovery, okay Bill r.? Other purposes, indeed.

While David tries to make things nice for the Democrats there are some reporters actually reading what's earmarked in those "Katrina recovery" and "women's health" sections of the bill. $20 billion of this bill are pork. Nothing to do with troops or funding women's clinics. Just plain pork.

http://www.examiner.com/a-640957~Senate__emergency__war_bill_has_almost__20_billion_in_domestic_spending_tacked_onto_it.html

Oh, and don't forget the $20 million in the bill that's earmarked for "insect removal in Nevada." I'll bet that somehow finds its way to Harry Reid's land. No pork here. No way.

John D...I could name several but I'll stick to the most important..a new direction in Iraq. Unlike many will say from the right, they never promised to "end" the war, no one can promise that with Bush in the driver seat, however I think most will agree there has been a great deal of effort and a feeling that atlast someone is putting an end to the rubber stamp days.

Paulo....If you wish to claim that republicans are fiscally responsible, all one needs do is look at the last republican house and senate to dispel that myth.

There's some pork in the bill because they have to make some people happy in order to get them to vote to end the lockstep Republicans phony War in Iraq,...you know,pork for Katrina relief,pork for Walter Reed hospital so our wounded warrior's are treated with dignity and respect when they come home from Iraq burned,maimed,blind,braindamaged etc....the kind of things that the war mongering Repubs don't care about....

Bill R., actually the last Congress, run by the Republicans, did cut down on spending and pork. The 2006 budget only increased by 1 percent over 2005.

Anyway, regarding your "new direction in Iraq" claim. How is that? What is the direction? Setting an arbitrary deadeline? Undercutting the mission of Gen. Pentreaus, who the Senate unanimouosly voted for just 2 months ago? That's a direction?

So far, there is no minimum wage increase, a Democratic plan. The House approved one set, the Senate another. It still has to be worked out between the House and Senate before going to the president.

So far, no accopmplishments by the Democrats, other than putting corrupt and under investigation Congressman on committees they shouldn't be on.

Paul O & John D.,

Your hand wringing concern for the troops in Iraq would be laughable were it not your pathethic opining.

Join up tough guys! Yeah that's right, you're all talk and no action.

You and the chickenhawks in D.C. deserve each other.

Bill r., I don't think anyone can promise to "end the war." That's really up to the Iraqis, not us. To promise such a thing would be foolish. We can promise to leave by a certain date, as the Democrats in congress, already have, but that comes with no guarantee that the situation won't get worse, the region won't get destabilized and we'd just be dragged back in when the UN can't do anything about it.

billr.
Where in my post did I claim anything about the Republicans being fiscally responsible?
You proved my point though,you're crying now because the balls not in your court and out come the calculaters,but when the ball was in your court the calculater went out the window and government waste was accepted.
Hey! What ever happened to that minimum wage increase? Impeachment? Gasoline prices falling???

Paulo

John e., enlighten me as to how $50 million each for the national party conventions and $20 million for "insect removal in Nevada (inserted by Harry Reid, himself)" helps the victims of Katrina, the war wounded, or anyone other than politicians? Expound, please.

I can't believe that you're defending the lockstep,do-nothing Republican Congress,Dyslin.
They did such a great job while they were in charge of things that they lost their SOLID majorities in the house and even lost control of the Senate.

The Democrats have only been in charge of Congress for barely three months now and the Neocons are already complaining.

Because of their complete incompetence it's going to be awhile before the children of the GOP are back in charge.

We're not totally ignoring the people like the Repubs did, crying Jeff.

Iraq is the endgame and the sooner you yuppie young Republicans figure that out the sooner you won't be on the outside looking in.

The party of (R)Jack Abramoff needs to do some soul searching.....if that's possible.

John E., you would so damn hysterical if you weren't so damn sick and demented.

John e., which "people" does the ridiculous sum of $50 million each for the party conventions (other than politicians) help? Enlighten me, please. Why not just cut that pork out if the rest of the bill is so great? Why does Pelosi/Reid add the pork that they were against back in October?

It's funny you mention Jack Abramoff (D S.D), too, because he raised a bunch of money for Reid, who's getting $20 million for insect removal, and Tom Daschle.

Not only have the Democrats porked up spending bills since taking over, they've eliminated the agency that tracks pork-barrel spending. These Democrats are really changing things!

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070329-121558-7254r.htm

Coming to a Republican trailer park soon.!

By Kyle Almond
CNN
(CNN) -- He has recently made stops in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, giving speeches and holding town hall meetings. But he's not seeking the presidency.

David M. Walker, the nation's top accountant, is instead touring the country to warn Americans about the consequences of a federal debt he says is on an unsustainable course.

Walker, who heads the General Accountability Office (GAO), has visited college campuses, spoken to lawmakers in Washington and toured 19 states in the last year and a half.

He plans to continue through next year and is focusing on states that could affect the 2008 presidential race, in hopes that candidates will heed his message.

"If [the candidates] don't make [the debt] one of their top three priorities, in my opinion, they don't deserve to be president and we can't afford for them to be president," he told CNN.

The federal debt has soared during the last two decades -- from $2.13 trillion in 1986 to $5.22 trillion in 1996 and $8.51 trillion in 2006.

The federal debt now stands near $9 trillion.

The way programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are structured, the government will incur an additional debt of $50 trillion during the next 20 years, according to GAO figures.

The $50 trillion total amounts to about $440,000 per American household, Walker said.

The primary drivers behind the additional rise in spending are the baby boomers, who start becoming eligible for Social Security in 2008 and Medicare in 2011.

"We are talking about an unprecedented change in the demographic landscape of America," Walker said. "And we are not prepared for this oncoming wave."

The consequences of federal debt
The federal debt increases every time there is a budget deficit at the end of the fiscal year. A budget deficit occurs when the government spends more than it receives in revenue, as it has for the past five fiscal years and 16 of the past 20, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

The causes for such deficits range from tax cuts and spending increases to congressional earmarks in appropriations bills, costs associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and catastrophes like the 9/11 terror attacks and Hurricane Katrina.

The government makes up the difference by printing and selling Treasury bills and bonds, which are increasingly being bought by overseas investors looking to profit from the interest.

More than three-quarters of the federal budget deficit from March 2001 through September 2006 was underwritten by overseas investors, according to Christian Weller, the senior economist at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based, left-of-center think tank.

Such financing is not necessarily a bad thing for the average American because it has helped keep interest rates relatively low, Weller said.

"The budget deficit brought in all of this foreign cash, and that foreign cash basically washed into the credit market, [making] it easier for homeowners and for others to borrow money," Weller said.

Observers are concerned, however, that interest rates could rise if the federal government doesn't show more fiscal responsibility.

For example, a country that typically lends money to the United States could begin charging higher interests rates on the loan out of concern for what it sees as an uncertain U.S. financial future, said Bill Beach, an economist associated with The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

"So we [would] all end up paying more for mortgages, more for cars and so forth," Beach said.

Beyond interest rates
In the worst-case scenario, other countries -- instead of just charging higher interest rates -- could decide to take their money elsewhere, which could spur inflation and increase financial uncertainty.

However, several things would need to happen -- such as a series of international crises or a collapse in U.S. home values -- for countries to move their investment out of the United States, according to Beach.

Meanwhile, as a result of existing debt, the United States has less money to spend on infrastructure, technology and education -- improvements needed for the country to remain competitive in the global market, Weller said.

"With the government running massive deficits and spending large amounts on debt service, we have less money available to address those concerns, to really face the challenges of the future," he said.

Though economists of different political persuasions agree the federal debt is a growing problem, the solutions they recommend differ. Some ideas include caps on government spending and repealing certain tax cuts.

The GAO's Walker believes reforms of health care and programs like Social Security are the most important steps.

"The fact is that we could eliminate the Iraq war tomorrow. We could eliminate every dime of pork-barrel spending. And we wouldn't come close to solving our problem," he said.

Walker said it is necessary to balance the budget within the next five years, make a down payment on the $50 trillion imbalance and begin reforming government programs.

"It's going to take us probably 20 years to do all the things that need to be done, " he said. "But we need to get started now because the clock is ticking and time is working against us."

Loon, you seem to have missed David Walker's point that the country needs LESS entitlement programs now more than ever. That's right, less medicare/medicaid, since people are living longer, less welfare, less social universal healthcare. What makes you think the Democrats in congress will be accepting of these ideas?

That's right, less medicare/medicaid, since people are living longer, less welfare, less social universal healthcare.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 29, 2007 4:23:26 PM

Jeff...Why do think people are living longer? It's not genetics, it's health care. How about we try to oversee these programs better than we do now. A good idea done poorly gives you bad results but does not change the fact it is still a good idea.

"Loon, you seem to have missed David Walker's point that the country needs LESS entitlement programs now more than ever. That's right, less medicare/medicaid, since people are living longer, less welfare, less social universal healthcare"

Less medicare/Medicaid, less universal health care, less social security will certainly take care of the problem of people living longer won't it? Well, the poor people living longer at least. But they don't matter, do they? Let them die and decrease the surplus population, right Jeff?

It's not a day in the swamp if Tony doesn't put words in my mouth, is it?

Guys, I'm not saying anything that the article raving loon posted already didn't say. Here, I'll cut and paste for you since it seems like your communication method of choice. Although, sorry, I have to break from decorum since I've actually READ what I'm pasting:

The GAO's Walker believes reforms of health care and programs like Social Security are the most important steps.

"The fact is that we could eliminate the Iraq war tomorrow. We could eliminate every dime of pork-barrel spending. And we wouldn't come close to solving our problem," he said.

THIS is the problem? Don't you see? It's simple numbers. The baby boom generation is bigger than Ganeration X. The first of them will be retiring soon and collecting social security, medicare and other government entitlements. There is NO SUCH THING as a social security trust fund. It's been raided by politicans of both stripes so many times that it couldn't exist if it wanted to. The way government entitlement programs are funded is by taking payroll taxes from current workers and then using them to fund the entitlements of retired workers. What happens when there are more people retired than working?

Class envy and other politically-motivated arguments won't help you against that kind of math!

Bill R., your idea of fixing healthcare is the right, but I have trouble understanding how universal healthcare will be cheaper or of equal quality to what we have now.

I don't have the answers to fixing all our entitlement problems, but I certainly think more money that's going to pork today being set aside for tomorrow would help. I can't see how MORE choice for investment opportunities in these programs can hurt, either. There are so many millionaires collecting social security today that don't need it, who would have loved to have had the opportunity to reinvest that money back when they were in their 40s.

Crazy Duck,

Those rich people (the top 1%) also pay the 35% of the federal income taxes. See WSJ this week.

Also, there is a study (came out this week also) that the rich (this time just over $90K) pay more in taxes than receive in gov't benefits.

Some of that farm pork also goes to farmers who are in Raving Loons top 1% and have their residence listed on their tax returns in DC. I've been to DC a few times, but I don't remember seeeing too many farms.

Duck - Glad to see you are quoting people from the intellgent profession.

John E. - Here in Chicago we call that a bribe.

It is time to get the gov't out of businesses they are no good at: education, health insurance, retirement, ...

I love it!

The George W. Bush administration comes into office in 2000 with a solid REPUBLICAN Congress and together these "CONSERVATIVES" take a $5 trillion dept. that took over 100 years to develope and nearly double it to $9.5 trillion in a little over 6 yrs and little Jeffy Napolian Dynamite is trying to pass off the Dems as the extravigant spenders??

How much does the GOP pay you to spread their #*&*$*&% for 8-12 hrs everyday, Jeff?

John E., do you even care if anything you post has any truth to it? I'm not being paid by anybody. Engaging you in a debate straight from Mommy's basement is reward enough.

I've never once stood up for the Denny Hastert/Bill Frist Congress. They screwed this thing up royally. But, in fairness the did have a war and the economic mess after 9/11 to clean up.

While their failure to defuse the entitlement bomb is shameful, they really don't concern me right now, because they no longer have the power to fix the problem. Only the Democrats do. The size and scope of our federal government is so big and out of whack that it can't possibly be effective at all the things it's trying to do.

At least with the GOP there was hope to get the problem fixed. This Congress, however, won't even address the issue. I hope they prove me wrong and figure out a way to fix the entitlement mess, but with their typical Democrat rhetoric (universal healthcare, higher social security payments) I'm not holding my breath.

Jeff,

"There are so many millionaires collecting social security today that don't need it, who would have loved to have had the opportunity to reinvest that money back when they were in their 40s."

You come close to hitting this nail on the head. Its simpler than new investment plans: stop paying social security benefits to millionaires. At a certain level, and I'm willing to be overly generous with this, say, income of $1,000,000 or more PER YEAR, no one should be collecting from entitlement programs at all. No medicaid, no social security. Keep in mind, those with extremely high incomes only pay into FICA based on their first $90,000. Rework the system as a safety net instead of an "entitlement." But somehow methinks you wouldn't be so keen on that concept, either.

Terry,

Thank you for promoting one of the right-wing's greatest canards:

"Those rich people (the top 1%) also pay the 35% of the federal income taxes. See WSJ this week."

Well, the percentage of wealth controlled by the Top 1% is, drumroll please, 35%! There is no inequity or injustice here, in fact it seems pretty fair (I'd tax myself more).

"As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%."
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Read the fine print, Terry. The top 1% should be paying at least 35% of the federal income tax because they control around 35% of the wealth. I also remember reading that the top 20% pays around 80% of federal income taxes, ALSO precisely commensurate with their financial holdings vis a vis the rest of the economy. In other words, the system is more fair than you give it credit for. I'd personally still like to see the system more progressive, but for supply-siders such as yourself, you should at least admit that "the rich" are not paying more than their fair share.

Bryan, don't you thin 35% taxation is ridiculously high? No matter what the person is making? One-third of ANYONE's take home pay should not be allowed to be confiscated by the government. Excessive taxation is, after all, one of the reasons our forefathers broke with Britain. We should never, ever let it get that out of hand. But we do.

The problem with just soaking the rich and taking away their social security money is that they are every bit as entitled to it as anyone else who put money into the system (through payroll taxes) for their entire lives. I think your idea would be okay if it were voluntary. Allowing the wealthy to opt out would certainly help, but simply denying them the benefits they've paid for all their lives is downright Unamerican. That's why an investment system is better. It allows people to make decisions for themselves about their money and takes control away from the government, which should always be our goal.

You've gotta love big money and big govt, Jeffy.

His Republican Tinfoil Soldiers run on a platform that big govt doesn't work,and then they get elected and prove it.

John e., we're the people who believe gov't is inefficient and when we were in power we proved it! No argument there.

Jeff,

"Bryan, don't you thin(k) 35% taxation is ridiculously high? No matter what the person is making?"

Jeff, why do you keep asking me this same question when I have already answered it? Your only rebuttal to my candor seems to be to attempt to shout me down with your inane rhetorical questions.

The answer, once again, even though it is the thesis of the post you are responding to is: Nooo! It is not ridiculously high!! The top 1% controls 35% of the wealth and pays 35% of the taxes, so what exactly is the problem? You can make the argument until you are blue in the face that 35% is "confiscatory," but historical data and economic numbers from competitive countries beg to differ with you. Also, over the last 100 years, the periods of highest growth have come at the same time as periods of the highest taxation, so these taxes clearly did not damage the country's economic output.

And Jeff, where do YOU get the idea that 35% is ridiculously high? Its historically low for America, and the lowest in the industrialized world. Note this chart: http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Since the end of WWI in 1917, the top marginal rate was below 35% only 12 of those years. Most were in the Roaring '20's, and 3 correspond with the Bush I recession. If the top 1% makes 35% of the nation's income, how much should they pay in taxes? The rich are not being "soaked," Jeff. We are simply being asked to pay our fair share.

Jeff,

"Allowing the wealthy to opt out would certainly help, but simply denying them the benefits they've paid for all their lives is downright Unamerican."

I thought that's what you wanted to do, reform entitlements. If the wealthiest Americans aren't willing to give up their "entitlements," how on earth do you expect people who actually need them to give it up?
Maybe we should just take one for the team that has given us so much instead of fighting for every last penny. If its unAmerican (I beg to differ) to give up "entitlements," how on earth do you think we are going to EVER solve this mess?

All of the "market-based" reforms of entitlements dramatically favor the wealthy. This is not reasonable. Social Security and Medicare should be a floor beneath which no one falls. Personally, I'd be more intrigued with your argument if you also promoted raising the FICA cap so that the truly wealthy are putting more into the system.

Bryan,

Once again, in over your head. In this country, we have an income tax, not a wealth tax - quite a difference.

The top 20% in income pay about 95% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay only 1% of income taxes. Sounds fair.

Here in Illinois, we have a pretty decent tax system. It's fair, its easy, its FLAT.

Unlike you Bryan, I feel that Americans are overtaxed. The average American will be done paying all their taxes (fed, state, and local) on April 30, 2007 this year. Therefore, the average American pays 1/3 of their earnings to various gov't bodies. Sound fair Bryan?

As far as solving entitlements, that's not hard - phase them out over a long period of time. Those that are in their 60's get their share, 50's a little less, etc.... That money that would pay into the gov't ponzi scheme, they get to keep in their own retirment fund and watch their own wealth grow.

Bryan, I hope you aren't dealing in finance everyday for a living.

Terry,

Its safe to say that we have diametrically opposed visions of "fairness." I'll leave your question of whether progressive taxation is less "fair" than supply-side economics to another day.

"The top 20% in income pay about 95% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% pay only 1% of income taxes."

I would love to take a look at this data. Where can I find it? Furthermore, I believe the total tax burden is the only one that really matters. (FICA, of course, is a regressive tax and one of the largest sources of government revenue as well as the largest portion of most middle class tax obligations)

"Therefore, the average American pays 1/3 of their earnings to various gov't bodies. Sound fair Bryan?" Again, YES YES YES!! You and Jeff keep coming back to 1/3 and asking me if I think that 1/3 is outrageous and my answer is still NOOO! Riddle me this, why is a third such an "outrageous" percentage to pay? How does that compare to other industrialized nations? How does that compare historically to the taxation level in America? How are we supposed to pay for this empire that we are overseeing if even the wealthiest citizens are contributing less than 1/3 of the fortunes we earn each year?

"I hope you aren't dealing in finance everyday for a living." Terry, I assure you that you are wasting your time worrying about my finances. I and the people I love will be just fine. I'll refrain from waxing sarcastically about your own lack of common sense. (woops)

Look at the Tax Foundation website www.taxfoundation.org.

To more accurately state that statistics:

Top 1% pay 37% of all Federal income taxes
Top 25% pay 85% of all FIT
Bottom 50% pay 3%.

Sorry for inaccuracies in the data, but the point is still the same.

You are correct in stating that social security taxes are regressive, but remember that social security is supposed to come back as benefits in proportion (somewhat) to what is paid in. That is one of the reasons that politicians don't lift the income limit of SS. If they did, this would be considered just another welfare program.

You see, I believe if one labors or invests that they should receive more than 2/3 of the fruit from that labor or investment. I don't believe that someone that sits on the sidelines and does nothing to assist with the labor or investment (takes no risk) should be able to reap 1/3 of the reward.

It sounds like you have plenty of money - do you give extra to the gov't or have your CPA/attorney minimize your tax bill?

You choose to misrepresent your case until I call you on it, and then spin it as if the difference is trivial. The difference between the top 20% paying 95% of taxes and the top 25% paying 85% is significant. Nonetheless, if you simply look back up this thread you will see that the numbers that you site, in terms of the share that individual income levels pay towards federal taxes, is very close to the share of wealth each group holds. The top 1% has 34% of the wealth, and they are taxed at roughly 37%. Would you be content if the top rate was brought down to 34%? Also, from above, the bottom 80% control a mere 16% of the wealth, so it is not anacronistic that the bottom 50% would pay 3% of income taxes. It is simply emblematic of the obscene wealth and income disparities in this country.

This is where you really are off the deep-end on your concept of what government does:

"I don't believe that someone that sits on the sidelines and does nothing to assist with the labor or investment (takes no risk) should be able to reap 1/3 of the reward."

What in G-d's name is America doing in Iraq? They are either attempting to protect the interests of the American public or they are seeking to expand the reach of American markets and open up doors for business. You don't call that risky and investment-intensive? I think the value of that investment is at the moment $500 billion and 3200+ American lives lost.

That is simply one of a myriad of examples of the way in which YOU, TERRY, YOU, benefit from "that guy sitting on the sidelines." Gimme a break. Of course there's also education, infrastructure, scientific research (who do you think paid for the advancements that led to the Internet?), homeland security, financial safeguards, courts and law enforcement to maintain law and order so that no guy with an AK-47 comes knocking on your door to take everything you own.

Terry, you can rail against government until you are blue in the face. But you need it, I need it, everyone needs it or else we run the risk of anarchy. AND ANARCHY AIN'T GOOD FOR BUSINESS. Just look at Iraq.

Again, Terry, since you keep ignoring the obvious question, what data do you have to support the notion that a top taxation rate of 35% is A) a historical anomaly, and B) detrimental to economic growth? I've heard all of your excuses as to why the 90's were basically just a fluke even though, gasp!, the top rate was 39%. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, the opposite of the supply-side orthodoxy you promote, did not stifle economic growth in the 1990's. Why weren't the 1990's a period of stalled economic growth and increased deficits as the pundits on your side had us believe?

Oh, I know, its computers, its luck, its black magic... Terry, its the business cycle. In this business cycle the housing market has been overinflated as a result of irrational exuberance and sub-prime credit, pumping billions into the economy. The chances are, a lot of that paper wealth will appear to not exist, just as it did at the end of the DotCom Boom. The growth of the Bush years has been far more modest and paid for with debt. And my concern is that it will end in a bigger bang than the dot com boom did. Hopefully that is not the case.

You choose to misrepresent your case until I call you on it, and then spin it as if the difference is trivial. The difference between the top 20% paying 95% of taxes and the top 25% paying 85% is significant. Nonetheless, if you simply look back up this thread you will see that the numbers that you site, in terms of the share that individual income levels pay towards federal taxes, is very close to the share of wealth each group holds. The top 1% has 34% of the wealth, and they are taxed at roughly 37%. Would you be content if the top rate was brought down to 34%? Also, from above, the bottom 80% control a mere 16% of the wealth, so it is not anacronistic that the bottom 50% would pay 3% of income taxes. It is simply emblematic of the obscene wealth and income disparities in this country.

This is where you really are off the deep-end on your concept of what government does:

"I don't believe that someone that sits on the sidelines and does nothing to assist with the labor or investment (takes no risk) should be able to reap 1/3 of the reward."

What in G-d's name is America doing in Iraq? They are either attempting to protect the interests of the American public or they are seeking to expand the reach of American markets and open up doors for business. You don't call that risky and investment-intensive? I think the value of that investment is at the moment $500 billion and 3200+ American lives lost.

That is simply one of a myriad of examples of the way in which YOU, TERRY, YOU, benefit from "that guy sitting on the sidelines." Gimme a break. Of course there's also education, infrastructure, scientific research (who do you think paid for the advancements that led to the Internet?), homeland security, financial safeguards, courts and law enforcement to maintain law and order so that no guy with an AK-47 comes knocking on your door to take everything you own.

Terry, you can rail against government until you are blue in the face. But you need it, I need it, everyone needs it or else we run the risk of anarchy. AND ANARCHY AIN'T GOOD FOR BUSINESS. Just look at Iraq.

Again, Terry, since you keep ignoring the obvious question, what data do you have to support the notion that a top taxation rate of 35% is A) a historical anomaly, and B) detrimental to economic growth? I've heard all of your excuses as to why the 90's were basically just a fluke even though, gasp!, the top rate was 39%. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, the opposite of the supply-side orthodoxy you promote, did not stifle economic growth in the 1990's. Why weren't the 1990's a period of stalled economic growth and increased deficits as the pundits on your side had us believe?

Oh, I know, its computers, its luck, its black magic... Terry, its the business cycle. In this business cycle the housing market has been overinflated as a result of irrational exuberance and sub-prime credit, pumping billions into the economy. The chances are, a lot of that paper wealth will appear to not exist, just as it did at the end of the DotCom Boom. The growth of the Bush years has been far more modest and paid for with debt. And my concern is that it will end in a bigger bang than the dot com boom did. Hopefully that is not the case.

No misrepresentation - just didn't have exact statistics. My point is still the same, the rich pay the majority of income tax in this country.

I find it amazing that all the functions you list that the gov't s/b involved in, with the exception of education, are those that a conservative would say the gov't should provide: defense, law & order, and infrastructure. Where is retirement planning, health insurance, workers compensation, funding of the arts, and all those other things the left loves gov't to do?

I, and everyone else, does need the gov't. We just need a much smaller gov't.

Where I come from is that smaller federal gov't, something in the 12-15% of GDP would be much more ideal. In order to fund that, you don't need the highest incremental tax rate of 35%.

Your "statistical" evidence is the top tax rate in the 90's was 39% and we had the longest economic growth period on record, that must be the correct tax rate. That statement is based upon the flawed assumption that our economy is dependent on a one variable (tax rate) and it has no lagging or leading component to it.

As far as the 90's economy and why it wasn't a period of stalled economic growth and increased deficits?

The stalled economic growth did not occur due to the takeoff of the technology economy.

As far as deficits go, I guess you beloved President Clinton was a true believer in his deficit reduction package:

"In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."

What changed between January 1995 and the end of his term?

Will the housing bust be like the dot-com bust, probably not, since the housing industry has tangible assets behind unlike the dot-com economy which was a lot of paper economy. Case-in point, how could a company have a market-cap of over $1 billion dollars whose greatest asset was a scok puppet? Hosuing will be OK, since if a housing bust does lead to an economic slowdown, this can be remedied by interest rate or tax rate cuts. Also, the housing industry is very regional. The economies on the coasts will be hit harder than the economies of flyover country.

"My point is still the same, the rich pay the majority of income tax in this country."

Whose arguing the counter-point? What you appear to be arguing is that this is somehow not fair or reasonable. The reality, though, is that those of us in the top brackets earn most of the income and control most of the wealth. A situation where we were NOT paying the majority of the income tax in this country would be absurd.

I'll ask again, though I assume you will ignore it again, what leads YOU to believe that a top tax rate of greater than 35% is A) a historical anomaly (in America or the industrialized world) and B) detrimental to the economy?

I was not using the example of the 90's as a "statistical" guide; if you look back you will see that I have already explained that over only 12 of the years since WWI has the top tax rate been below 35%, and we seem to have done just fine throughout those years. And no, Terry, I also was not assuming the economy is based on one variable, but I am noting the overall tax burden as a highly relevent data point.

Just wondering, when was the last time the federal government spent only 12% of GDP? That, Terry, is a fantasy and it is more fantastic in light of the utter failure of your dream team of "conservatives" to even attempt to modestly reduce the size of government. In fact, they expanded it like drunken sailors and have finally, now that the Democrats control Congress, found their hypocritical "zeal" for small government.

Bryan,

Never ignored the "35% tax bracket question". See 4th paragraph above. In our current economy with the gov't taking about 20% of GDP, I would lower highest rate to 30% - my ideal rate in this economy.

Is it fantasy that the federal gov't account for only 12% - 15% of GDP. Yes it is, but it is my fantasy. :) WIth this kind of expenditure, the highest rate would not need to be higher than 25%.

Our economy has done fine with the lower tax rates, even 39%, as compared to other economies. One reason for that may be that many other developed economies havfe higher tax rates - see European mainland. For a good economy with good tax structure see Ireland. Also, many of the old eastern bloc countries have very low incremental tax rates becuase they know it will draw investment and economic growth will follow.

There have only been 12 years where the highest tax bracket has been 35% or lower and look at the economic growth during those years. Once again, there is more to the economy than tax rates. I guess one must change the pigs at the trough on a regular basis.

I know the Republicans, they were not conservatives, ran up the spending, even accounting for the expenditures of the war on Terror.