Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes

Neal Boortz
June 21, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office released its latest analysis of federal tax rates. These figures come from 2007, the latest year available for analysis. Here are a few goodies they found:

* On average, in 2007 households paid federal taxes, either directly or indirectly, totaling about 20 percent of their income. (That percentage includes corporate income taxes and employers' share of payroll taxes, which are passed on to households in various ways.) Individual income taxes, the largest component, were 9.3 percent of household income. Payroll taxes for social insurance programs were the next largest source, with an average tax rate of 7.4 percent. Corporate income taxes and excise taxes were smaller, with average tax rates of 3.0 percent and 0.6 percent.

* The overall federal tax system is progressive--that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the bottom quintile (fifth) of the income distribution paid 4 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the middle quintile paid 14 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile, with the top 1 percent facing an average rate of close to 30 percent.

* Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. In 2007, the highest quintile earned 56 percent of pretax income and paid 69 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 19 percent of income and paid 28 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4 percent of income and paid less than 1 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13 percent of income and paid 9 percent of taxes.

Yeah... those damned rich people. They just won't pay "their fair share."

Nothing to see here, is there?

Well, I do think that higher earners should pay more tax if only for the fact that they can afford it. On the other hand, I think governments need to be as careful about how they tax the highest earners as they are with the lowest. Too much and they will either leave the country or move their money abroad.

I disagree wholeheartedly (as usual). I believe in an equal tax. Tax everyone the same except the very low earners.

It's been proven over and over here in the USA that the less you tax the wealthy, the more money (revenue) the fed gets. The problem we've had with that (tax cuts) is congress going on spending binges (Bush's Republican congress and Reagan's Democrat congress).

The chart above shows how much the top earners are paying already. Yet some want to tax them more. It's economic suicide right now with the recession ongoing.

What works in other countries doesn't always hold the same for others. Basically, most people here don't like it.

You know what? At first I was going to say something similar to The_Amber_Spyglass. I definitely think there is merit in a tax-scale. But actually I'm okay with what Tex said. But I'm only okay with it if everything truly does become equal. I don't want people or corporations to continually find (or be given) loopholes. If the scale is going to be equalized then it needs to be equalized for everyone.

It's like bailouts for me. In theory, I'm okay with them. Sometimes a corporation or whatever truly needs help. But whoever is doing the bailing out needs to make damn sure that they know exactly where the money is going. If they find the bailout money is being used for bonuses then the bailed-out corporation (or person) should not only be forced to give the money back, but they should also pay a hefty fine too.

This is where it gets interesting. I feel that we should have a flat tax of 17% or so. Or just a consumption tax (like state sales tax). A flat tax would work better though. Of course, one can't expect those making $10,000 a year to pay $1,700 in tax.

Where it gets interesting is business taxes. Many businesses use write-offs for improving/expanding business. I buy a new piece of equipment, then it's deducted off the tax. I buy new tires for my trucks and that's deductible. So, there's lots to work out in that aspect.

Also, with that flat tax comes no deductions for anyone on personal taxes. I feel that everyone will be better off in the end except the gov't. That's why they won't change it. Both parties love their trough.

Where i have a problem with bailout is a one-on-one issue. Big corporations that have tons of dough get a bailout but a small business doesn't get one. Again, fairness. Much of what happened in our meltdown is gov't created in some form. The same with the states running out of money. When times are good, they spent like crazy and now they're cutting back on many things which in turn hurts the cities because they've gotten their 'sate aid' for years. Now cities are cutting budgets.

All this free wheel spending is coming home to roost. None of this shit is over either.

Over there, was the bail out money considered to be a loan? It was here and not only are the government expecting it back, those banks we taxpayers bailed out made huge profits at the end of last year and have been hit with a big tax. Ye reap what ye sow.

Of course, one can't expect those making $10,000 a year to pay $1,700 in tax.

Over here, everybody gets a basic level in their wage that they will not pay tax on. It has just been raised to £7,475. So people earning £12,475 will only pay income tax and national insurance on the £5,000 they earn over that limit.

My taxable income is just over $7,000. If i make 20,000 that's all they can grab till i get to the next bracket.

TexasBlue wrote:Nothing to see here, is there?

Besides the fact that the top 10% owns about 70% of the wealth, no there's nothing to see.

You can't seem to grasp how the bottom 50% pay only 2.5% in federal taxes here. The top 50 pay 97.5%. The top 10% pay 71.5% of the taxes. Yet that isn't enough.

Well obviously.... the more money you have, the more you pay. That's gonna be the same for an even tax rate as well. 17% of $1 mio. is more than 17% of $50,000, therefore the top will always pay the most percentage wise.

The highest percentage you have to pay is 35%, that's not a whole lot when you make millions of dollars.

Doesn't matter whatsoever. Your point is still moot. You're splitting straws. The wealthy more more because they earn more. They also pay more in state taxes if their state has one. My state has an income tax and a sales tax and fees for different things that you can't imagine. Then you can throw in payroll tax (which is static). Bill O'Reilly said one night that he makes 6 figures. He said between his fed tax, NY state tax, NYC city tax, his bourough (county) tax and state sales tax, over 60% of his check goes to taxes. But that ain't enough for some.

And then under Bush's tax cuts, the revenue was more than before under Clinton. By the end of his term, the 20% who made the most paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the gov't took in. This is according to Congressional Budget Office figures, not opinion or a talk show! That includes a staggering 86% of the income tax being paid by just the top 5th of earners. But liberals can't seem to get past that little tidbit. No, they want even more.

This is why i scoff at any argument on that. It's as if they want to keep a foot on the necks of the wealthy. Not to mention, why would i care since i'm just a little guy? I should want them to be taxed 90% like they were before Kennedy came along. This is why some conservatives call liberals Marxists. I won't go that far but i can understand where they're coming from. It's right out of the playbook.

TexasBlue wrote:Doesn't matter whatsoever. Your point is still moot. You're splitting straws. The wealthy more more because they earn more. They also pay more in state taxes if their state has one. My state has an income tax and a sales tax and fees for different things that you can't imagine. Then you can throw in payroll tax (which is static). Bill O'Reilly said one night that he makes 6 figures. He said between his fed tax, NY state tax, NYC city tax, his bourough (county) tax and state sales tax, over 60% of his check goes to taxes. But that ain't enough for
some.

I'm not gonna take O'Reilly by his word on that, especially when you figure in sales tax. How do you even figute sales tax into the 60%?

TexasBlue wrote:

And then under Bush's tax cuts, the revenue was more than before under Clinton. By the end of his term, the 20% who made the most paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the gov't took in. This is according to Congressional Budget Office figures, not opinion or a talk show! That includes a staggering 86% of the income tax being paid by just the top 5th of earners. But liberals can't seem to get past that little tidbit. No, they want even more.

Once again, it's always going to be like that because the more money they have, the more money they pay. But I don't understand why there are so many taxes that have to be paid anyways... I understand federal taxes and state taxes, but city taxes and county taxes are unnecessary. Instead of making a local police, make it just a statewide police, fund all local roads with state money, etc.

TexasBlue wrote:

This is why i scoff at any argument on that. It's as if they want to keep a foot on the necks of the wealthy. Not to mention, why would i care since i'm just a little guy? I should want them to be taxed 90% like they were before Kennedy came along. This is why some conservatives call liberals Marxists. I won't go that far but i can understand where they're coming from. It's right out of the playbook.

Well those Conservatives have no clue about Marxism or have ever read the Communist Manifesto. I'm not necessarily for increasing taxes on the rich, I think there's enough tax money being taken in right now, but it's spent unwisely. Politicians make way too much money, millions of dollars are wasted on military spending, tons of foreign aid that never actually reaches anybody, etc. If the US made their spending a bit more efficient, they could take care of their own people without having to increase taxes.

I'm not gonna take O'Reilly by his word on that, especially when you figure in sales tax. How do you even figute sales tax into the 60%?

You can't be serious! You say that to side-step the point! NY state has the highest state taxes in the country!

Once again, it's always going to be like that because the more money they have, the more money they pay. But I don't understand why there are so many taxes that have to be paid anyways... I understand federal taxes and state taxes, but city taxes and county taxes are unnecessary. Instead of making a local police, make it just a statewide police, fund all local roads with state money, etc.

They already pay more because they make more. But it's not enough even though they pay the lion's share. Just admit it.... it isn't enough even though they pay more than than the bottom 50% do combined.

It's that way with city, county and states because we're independent of one another. We don't have a state police per se (FBI is an extension of that though). Each state has it's police. Each county has it's police. Each city has it's police. Each has it's jurisdiction. Been this way for a couple hundred years and it works just fine.

Well those Conservatives have no clue about Marxism or have ever read the Communist Manifesto. I'm not necessarily for increasing taxes on the rich, I think there's enough tax money being taken in right now, but it's spent unwisely. Politicians make way too much money, millions of dollars are wasted on military spending, tons of foreign aid that never actually reaches anybody, etc. If the US made their spending a bit more efficient, they could take care of their own people without having to increase taxes.

Now you're making sense. Many people spout off about Marxism and socialism without knowing what really is Marxist and socialist. Dbl does that a lot. You've never heard me call Obama a Marxist or socialist.... ever. He definitely leans towards the socialists in some respects and does it quite well.

But anyway, the problem with money is as you have said. Too many career politicians that have their hands in the coffers all the time. This is one of the reasons why the Tea Party exists... to get these lifers out of congress, to get rid of politicians that serve themselves and the lobby's they cater to.

[quote="TexasBlue"]

I'm not gonna take O'Reilly by his word on that, especially when you figure in sales tax. How do you even figute sales tax into the 60%?

You can't be serious! You say that to side-step the point! NY state has the highest state taxes in the country!

TexasBlue wrote:ow one can figure in sales tax into the taxes you pay. Sales tax depends on how much you buy and you can't really compare that to any kind of income tax.

[quote="TexasBlue"]

Once again, it's always going to be like that because the more money they have, the more money they pay. But I don't understand why there are so many taxes that have to be paid anyways... I understand federal taxes and state taxes, but city taxes and county taxes are unnecessary. Instead of making a local police, make it just a statewide police, fund all local roads with state money, etc.

They already pay more because they make more. But it's not enough even though they pay the lion's share. Just admit it.... it isn't enough even though they pay more than than the bottom 50% do combined.

Well obviously the top 50% pay more than the bottom 50%, that's only logical.

TexasBlue wrote:

It's that way with city, county and states because we're independent of one another. We don't have a state police per se (FBI is an extension of that though).

Federal Marshals, CIA, and even to an extent Homeland Security is what I would consider a federal police force. I mean, do you really need city cops, county sheriffs, state troopers, FBI, CIA, Fed. Marshals, etc.?
Why not just have state troopers, that way there's no jurisdiction issues and the state government can pay for it.
And then one can combine the FBI and the CIA to come and step in when intelligence work is needed.

TexasBlue wrote:

Each state has it's police. Each county has it's police. Each city has it's police. Each has it's jurisdiction. Been this way for a couple hundred years and it works just fine.

Yet it takes a big chunk of money out of your pocket in the form of taxes. And there are jurisdiction issues.

TexasBlue wrote:

Well those Conservatives have no clue about Marxism or have ever read the Communist Manifesto. I'm not necessarily for increasing taxes on the rich, I think there's enough tax money being taken in right now, but it's spent unwisely. Politicians make way too much money, millions of dollars are wasted on military spending, tons of foreign aid that never actually reaches anybody, etc. If the US made their spending a bit more efficient, they could take care of their own people without having to increase taxes.

Now you're making sense. Many people spout off about Marxism and socialism without knowing what really is Marxist and socialist. Dbl does that a lot. You've never heard me call Obama a Marxist or socialist.... ever. He definitely leans towards the socialists in some respects and does it quite well.

Saying Obama leans towards socialism is like saying Republicans lean towards nationalism. They're both far from it, in most cases at least, and to say either one leans towards that is only trying to hurt the image and making them look like extremists.

TexasBlue wrote:

But anyway, the problem with money is as you have said. Too many career politicians that have their hands in the coffers all the time. This is one of the reasons why the Tea Party exists... to get these lifers out of congress, to get rid of politicians that serve themselves and the lobby's they cater to.

Yeah, but those Tea Party candidates aren't gonna vote for a salary cut once their in office either. They might wanna cut spending, but not the kind that goes into their pockets!

Well obviously the top 50% pay more than the bottom 50%, that's only logical.

So, what's the problem?????

Federal Marshals, CIA, and even to an extent Homeland Security is what I would consider a federal police force. I mean, do you really need city cops, county sheriffs, state troopers, FBI, CIA, Fed. Marshals, etc.?
Why not just have state troopers, that way there's no jurisdiction issues and the state government can pay for it.
And then one can combine the FBI and the CIA to come and step in when intelligence work is needed.

CIA isn't a police force. By law, they can't operate in this country. They can only operate in foreign lands. Yeah, they have a headquarters here but they can't do surveillance or anything of that nature here. Only the FBI.

We're a constitutional republic. Each state has it's rights. We're not Germany. You have a different system than we do. Even the Canadians have a police system similar to ours as far as cities, counties, etc, goes. What i'm trying to say is that we prefer to have things done on local levels and not rely on state r federal gov'ts. Been that way for decades and it works quite well. What you're talking about is almost a statist view.

Yet it takes a big chunk of money out of your pocket in the form of taxes. And there are jurisdiction issues.

Not really. City taxes aren't that high where i am. People don't have to live in a high tax city. They don't have to live in a high taxing state either. Jurisdiction issues is the point. The state troopers don't get involved with issues like wife beaters. The city does. The state and the county mostly (at least here) concentrate on drugs, speeders and the like. We're an independent 50 state country. You have to remember this. You don't have to like it but nobody in this country makes an issue of it like you just did.

Saying Obama leans towards socialism is like saying Republicans lean towards nationalism. They're both far from it, in most cases at least, and to say either one leans towards that is only trying to hurt the image and making them look like extremists.

Redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet. What else do you wan me to say?

Yeah, but those Tea Party candidates aren't gonna vote for a salary cut once their in office either. They might wanna cut spending, but not the kind that goes into their pockets!

You have to realize that they may want to cut spending (like salaries) but we have to go thru the process. It has to be voted on. If the Dems (for instance) want to give congressmen raises, they can pass it since they have the majorities.

But you're making a big deal out of the TP as if they're a party. They're not. They just scare the liberals in this country because people have had enuff of the bullshit in DC. Plain and simple.

TexasBlue wrote:

Well obviously the top 50% pay more than the bottom 50%, that's only logical.

So, what's the problem?????

You tell me, you're the one that has a problem with that fact.

TexasBlue wrote:

Federal Marshals, CIA, and even to an extent Homeland Security is what I would consider a federal police force. I mean, do you really need city cops, county sheriffs, state troopers, FBI, CIA, Fed. Marshals, etc.?
Why not just have state troopers, that way there's no jurisdiction issues and the state government can pay for it.
And then one can combine the FBI and the CIA to come and step in when intelligence work is needed.

CIA isn't a police force. By law, they can't operate in this country. They can only operate in foreign lands. Yeah, they have a headquarters here but they can't do surveillance or anything of that nature here. Only the FBI.

Yet if they get intelligence of any sort and they have to intervene here, the FBI gets sent in... hence a combination of the both would make sense.

TexasBlue wrote:

We're a constitutional republic. Each state has it's rights. We're not Germany. You have a different system than we do. Even the Canadians have a police system similar to ours as far as cities, counties, etc, goes. What i'm trying to say is that we prefer to have things done on local levels and not rely on state r federal gov'ts. Been that way for decades and it works quite well. What you're talking about is almost a statist view.

Well then don't complain about your taxes totaling up to so much. The Federal government needs more money than all other type of governments combined.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yet it takes a big chunk of money out of your pocket in the form of taxes. And there are jurisdiction issues.

Not really. City taxes aren't that high where i am. People don't have to live in a high tax city. They don't have to live in a high taxing state either.

So O'Reilly could move instead of complaining about his taxes...

TexasBlue wrote:

Jurisdiction issues is the point. The state troopers don't get involved with issues like wife beaters. The city does. The state and the county mostly (at least here) concentrate on drugs, speeders and the like. We're an independent 50 state country. You have to remember this. You don't have to like it but nobody in this country makes an issue of it like you just did.

And you have to pay for all of that. County Sheriffs make more than city cops and state cops make more than county sheriffs. One police force with different headquarters and division would get the job done just the same, but if you're satisfied with it, don't complain about having to pay for it.

TexasBlue wrote:

Saying Obama leans towards socialism is like saying Republicans lean towards nationalism. They're both far from it, in most cases at least, and to say either one leans towards that is only trying to hurt the image and making them look like extremists.

Redistribution of wealth is a socialist tenet. What else do you wan me to say?

So the Founding Fathers also leaned towards Socialism because they advocated taxes. Everybody technically leans towards one extreme.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yeah, but those Tea Party candidates aren't gonna vote for a salary cut once their in office either. They might wanna cut spending, but not the kind that goes into their pockets!

You have to realize that they may want to cut spending (like salaries) but we have to go thru the process. It has to be voted on. If the Dems (for instance) want to give congressmen raises, they can pass it since they have the majorities.

So do all other politicians... for not having a lot of faith in the government, the Tea Party is putting a lot of faith into these relatively unknown candidates. Everybody can get drunk with power and drunker with money. Sure, they'll cut the government back but only as long as people will continue to vote for them and guarantee them that nice congress salary and benefits!

TexasBlue wrote:

But you're making a big deal out of the TP as if they're a party. They're not. They just scare the liberals in this country because people have had enuff of the bullshit in DC. Plain and simple.

How am I making it a big deal?
Well you always say how the people support the TP cause they're fed up with "the bullshit in DC", so it obviously is a big deal, isn't it?

You tell me, you're the one that has a problem with that fact.

No, i've already proven how the wealthy pay far more than their "fair share." That's what i was saying what's the problem for. I can post government statistics till i'm blue in the face and you're still not getting it for some reason.

Yet if they get intelligence of any sort and they have to intervene here, the FBI gets sent in... hence a combination of the both would make sense.

No, it's against the law. It's an act passed back in 1947 and amended numerous times since then. That logic would make us a police state.

Well then don't complain about your taxes totaling up to so much. The Federal government needs more money than all other type of governments combined.

Yeah, for stupid wasteful programs and failed stimulus.

So O'Reilly could move instead of complaining about his taxes...

No, you're putting words into his mouth. He never (and i never) said he complained. He was stating what he pays. He said (if you would look it up) that he doesn't mind paying the tax that he does but there comes a point to where it's too much. He says that the money he says the state is enormous and the part that pisses him off is that he sees nothing in return. The roads are still fucked up and the state wastes a ton of money on piddly shit. He wants his money's worth.

And you have to pay for all of that. County Sheriffs make more than city cops and state cops make more than county sheriffs. One police force with different headquarters and division would get the job done just the same, but if you're satisfied with it, don't complain about having to pay for it.

Yeah, we pay for it in county taxes. Nobody complains about it. I don't know what your point is. Nobody ever complains about paying taxes for fire and police protection except those that don't like the police (criminals). And i never complained about it. You're putting words in my mouth.

So the Founding Fathers also leaned towards Socialism because they advocated taxes. Everybody technically leans towards one extreme.

Yeah, the founding fathers were socialists that wanted tax on everyone. That's why the income tax wasn't added till 1913.

So do all other politicians... for not having a lot of faith in the government, the Tea Party is putting a lot of faith into these relatively unknown candidates. Everybody can get drunk with power and drunker with money. Sure, they'll cut the government back but only as long as people will continue to vote for them and guarantee them that nice congress salary and benefits!

You ever stop to think that these "unknown" politicians are people like me? Fed up with the status quo? And since we're on this... how come a few Dem incumbents met the same fates as GOP'rs in the last couple of primaries? Because people are fed up with the status quo. You make fun of the TP and their supporters but the last laugh will be on you and those who complain about them.

TexasBlue wrote:

You tell me, you're the one that has a problem with that fact.

No, i've already proven how the wealthy pay far more than their "fair share." That's what i was saying what's the problem for. I can post government statistics till i'm blue in the face and you're still not getting it for some reason.

I never said they weren't paying their fair share, I was simply saying that they'll ALWAYS pay more than the lower 50%.

And who is to decide what their "fair share" really is anyways.

TexasBlue wrote:

Yet if they get intelligence of any sort and they have to intervene here, the FBI gets sent in... hence a combination of the both would make sense.

No, it's against the law. It's an act passed back in 1947 and amended numerous times since then. That logic would make us a police state.

I'm not arguing about the law, I'm arguing about costs.
How would it make you a police state? You put CIA and FBI under the same roof and call them either one or the other. Nothing would change but the name and the headquarter.

TexasBlue wrote:

Well then don't complain about your taxes totaling up to so much. The Federal government needs more money than all other type of governments combined.

Yeah, for stupid wasteful programs and failed stimulus.

Has nothing to do with your state, county, city and sales tax.

TexasBlue wrote:

So O'Reilly could move instead of complaining about his taxes...

No, you're putting words into his mouth. He never (and i never) said he complained. He was stating what he pays. He said (if you would look it up) that he doesn't mind paying the tax that he does but there comes a point to where it's too much. He says that the money he says the state is enormous and the part that pisses him off is that he sees nothing in return. The roads are still fucked up and the state wastes a ton of money on piddly shit. He wants his money's worth.

So, if he's not getting his money's worth then he is complaining.
Regardless, the problem is government efficiency. Too much spending on the same things and useless things!

TexasBlue wrote:

And you have to pay for all of that. County Sheriffs make more than city cops and state cops make more than county sheriffs. One police force with different headquarters and division would get the job done just the same, but if you're satisfied with it, don't complain about having to pay for it.

Yeah, we pay for it in county taxes. Nobody complains about it. I don't know what your point is. Nobody ever complains about paying taxes for fire and police protection except those that don't like the police (criminals). And i never complained about it. You're putting words in my mouth.

No, but when conservatives bring up the whole tax argument, they always say that on top of the federal tax, they have property tax, county tax, state tax, etc. It's not about what the money is spent on, it's about the people who complain that they have to pay too much taxes in general.

TexasBlue wrote:

So the Founding Fathers also leaned towards Socialism because they advocated taxes. Everybody technically leans towards one extreme.

Yeah, the founding fathers were socialists that wanted tax on everyone. That's why the income tax wasn't added till 1913.

Every kind of tax is a redistribution of wealth because it goes towards roads, schools, etc. so one could argue that those who came up with that system, the Founding Fathers, leaned towards Socialism because of that.

TexasBlue wrote:

So do all other politicians... for not having a lot of faith in the government, the Tea Party is putting a lot of faith into these relatively unknown candidates. Everybody can get drunk with power and drunker with money. Sure, they'll cut the government back but only as long as people will continue to vote for them and guarantee them that nice congress salary and benefits!

You ever stop to think that these "unknown" politicians are people like me?

No. Look how much these people spend on their campaigns and you'll see why somebody like you or me will probably never get elected to office.

TexasBlue wrote:
Fed up with the status quo?

Yes.

TexasBlue wrote:

And since we're on this... how come a few Dem incumbents met the same fates as GOP'rs in the last couple of primaries? Because people are fed up with the status quo. You make fun of the TP and their supporters but the last laugh will be on you and those who complain about them.

Doesn't matter to me. If the US wants to have another go at Regaen style policies and have another 30 years of financial growth but no growth to the income of the Middle Class, go for it.

What I find laughable is that people who voted for Obama are turning around the other way and are endorsing right wing Tea Partiers, instead of putting up a candidate who will make the government more efficient and bring the "Change" they wanted in an efficient way. It's never good to vote for somebody out of anger.

And I make fun of the TPers just like every Conservative makes fun of the left. The extremists, the lunatics, and the plain up dumbasses. Just that Conservatives tend to group everybody that even remotely agrees with Obama into that category.

I'm not arguing about the law, I'm arguing about costs.
How would it make you a police state? You put CIA and FBI under the same roof and call them either one or the other. Nothing would change but the name and the headquarter.

I swear, i think you do this to try to irritate me. I just explained to you that the CIA isn't law enforcement. I just explained to you that there's a law that forbids the CIA from operating on our own soil (other than administrative at their HQ). The CIA is a spy agency! The FBI is a law enforcement agency! Got it now?

So, if he's not getting his money's worth then he is complaining.
Regardless, the problem is government efficiency. Too much spending on the same things and useless things!

Hello? I've been telling you this for over a year now. It's the major problem with our gov't here. Yet, you seem to want to add to it and then say what you just said. It's hypocritical. The gov't can't run shit. They don't produce. They take.

No, but when conservatives bring up the whole tax argument, they always say that on top of the federal tax, they have property tax, county tax, state tax, etc. It's not about what the money is spent on, it's about the people who complain that they have to pay too much taxes in general.

Backpedal. We talk about massive waste in federal taxes. The fed has it's responsibilities to uphold certain aspects of this nation. The extra shit is what galls most people. You'll see in 4 months on how pissed people are.

Every kind of tax is a redistribution of wealth because it goes towards roads, schools, etc. so one could argue that those who came up with that system, the Founding Fathers, leaned towards Socialism because of that.

That isn't redistribution of wealth. That's part of what the constitution upholds as function of govt. Quit trying to paint roads as social programs. Schools are a part of the local politics, not federal. The DEA is not a constitutional part of gov't. Sine the fed made schools under the DEA, the quality of education has taken a huge shit. Again, gov't meddling in things it has no right to be in. It's a state and city issue and that alone.

Doesn't matter to me. If the US wants to have another go at Regaen style policies and have another 30 years of financial growth but no growth to the income of the Middle Class, go for it.

Ho, ho, ho. Now we go back to Reagan (when you weren't even alive. I lived during those years. He had a Dem House for his 8 years that appropriated spending. Don't make me get into that in detail. We had massive economic growth 2 years after he became president. 49 states were carried by him in 1984 versus a tax and spend liberal (Minnesota's Mondale).

What I find laughable is that people who voted for Obama are turning around the other way and are endorsing right wing Tea Partiers, instead of putting up a candidate who will make the government more efficient and bring the "Change" they wanted in an efficient way. It's never good to vote for somebody out of anger.

It's because Obama has failed to bring much of what he campaigned on. He campaigned a centrist and has governed as a liberal. This country is not liberal. It's center-right. People are seeing right thru Obama and his bullshit. But you don't see it. It's like standing on an island in the middle of the Pacific. From that viewpoint, the world is nothing but water. Quit with your silly analysis and try to look at it objectively. I'm seeing many independent minded people turning on this moron like i've never seen ion my entire life. The only ones who hang on are committed liberals. People want efficient gov't because they aren't getting it. They're going to try to put people in who will bring back efficiency to the gov't.

And I make fun of the TPers just like every Conservative makes fun of the left. The extremists, the lunatics, and the plain up dumbasses. Just that Conservatives tend to group everybody that even remotely agrees with Obama into that category.

Just like all of you lump conservatives into right-wing religious nuts, gun fanatics, war mongers and abortion bombers.

TexasBlue wrote:

I'm not arguing about the law, I'm arguing about costs.
How would it make you a police state? You put CIA and FBI under the same roof and call them either one or the other. Nothing would change but the name and the headquarter.

I swear, i think you do this to try to irritate me. I just explained to you that the CIA isn't law enforcement. I just explained to you that there's a law that forbids the CIA from operating on our own soil (other than administrative at their HQ). The CIA is a spy agency! The FBI is a law enforcement agency! Got it now?

I'm not arguing the law, I'm arguing about the efficiency. If one would combine FBI and the CIA, you wouldn't have problems like having the FBI intervene when the CIA has intelligence of somebody on US soil, etc. It would be 2 different branches under the same roof.... one gathers intelligence and carries out those kind of missions abroad, and the other one enforces federal laws and can act upon the intelligence gathered by the other branch if it's located on US soil.

TexasBlue wrote:

So, if he's not getting his money's worth then he is complaining.
Regardless, the problem is government efficiency. Too much spending on the same things and useless things!

Hello? I've been telling you this for over a year now. It's the major problem with our gov't here. Yet, you seem to want to add to it and then say what you just said. It's hypocritical. The gov't can't run shit. They don't produce. They take.

And they give back, or did you not receive a salary working at the Post Office?

Government efficiency and cutting government to the bones isn't the same thing either.

TexasBlue wrote:

No, but when conservatives bring up the whole tax argument, they always say that on top of the federal tax, they have property tax, county tax, state tax, etc. It's not about what the money is spent on, it's about the people who complain that they have to pay too much taxes in general.

Backpedal. We talk about massive waste in federal taxes. The fed has it's responsibilities to uphold certain aspects of this nation. The extra shit is what galls most people. You'll see in 4 months on how pissed people are.

What I was saying is that people always complain about federal taxes even though other local taxes go to waste just as much as federal taxes do, just on a smaller scale.

TexasBlue wrote:

Every kind of tax is a redistribution of wealth because it goes towards roads, schools, etc. so one could argue that those who came up with that system, the Founding Fathers, leaned towards Socialism because of that.

That isn't redistribution of wealth. That's part of what the constitution upholds as function of govt. Quit trying to paint roads as social programs. Schools are a part of the local politics, not federal. The DEA is not a constitutional part of gov't. Sine the fed made schools under the DEA, the quality of education has taken a huge shit. Again, gov't meddling in things it has no right to be in. It's a state and city issue and that alone.

So the government takes in taxes and REDISTRIBUTES them by paying for things such as roads, unemployment, etc. and that's not a redistribution of wealth because it's in the Constitution?

My whole point is that you can always say somebody leans towards an extreme, like conservatives like to do, even though they're still far from it.

TexasBlue wrote:

Doesn't matter to me. If the US wants to have another go at Regaen style policies and have another 30 years of financial growth but no growth to the income of the Middle Class, go for it.

Ho, ho, ho. Now we go back to Reagan (when you weren't even alive. I lived during those years. He had a Dem House for his 8 years that appropriated spending. Don't make me get into that in detail. We had massive economic growth 2 years after he became president. 49 states were carried by him in 1984 versus a tax and spend liberal (Minnesota's Mondale).

Yup, and over 90% of that growth went to the top 2% of all Americans. That's why the average income for a middle class family hasn't changed since then even though the cost of living got more expensive. That's why a lot of wives had to go to work as well.

Economic growth is nice and well, but it doesn't do the country as a whole any good if it only goes to those that already have more than enough money.

TexasBlue wrote:

What I find laughable is that people who voted for Obama are turning around the other way and are endorsing right wing Tea Partiers, instead of putting up a candidate who will make the government more efficient and bring the "Change" they wanted in an efficient way. It's never good to vote for somebody out of anger.

It's because Obama has failed to bring much of what he campaigned on. He campaigned a centrist and has governed as a liberal. This country is not liberal. It's center-right. People are seeing right thru Obama and his bullshit. But you don't see it. It's like standing on an island in the middle of the Pacific. From that viewpoint, the world is nothing but water. Quit with your silly analysis and try to look at it objectively. I'm seeing many independent minded people turning on this moron like i've never seen ion my entire life. The only ones who hang on are committed liberals. People want efficient gov't because they aren't getting it. They're going to try to put people in who will bring back efficiency to the gov't.

Efficiency of the government doesn't mean stripping it bare.

Obama campaigned for Health Reform, renewable energy, more student aid, improving America's schools, etc. and that's what the people voted for. If somebody would campaign for that while saying he will make those programs efficient and not waste any tax dollars, he/she would win the election because that's clearly what the people want.
But right now nobody is doing that, and the Tea Party candidates don't adress any of those problems, they only talk about lowering taxes and cutting government spending. That won't solve any of America's problems, and once the US sees that, they'll be voting Democrat again... one party messes up and doesn't give the people what they went, so the people vote for the opposite site, then they don't satisfy, and so on and so forth.

TexasBlue wrote:

And I make fun of the TPers just like every Conservative makes fun of the left. The extremists, the lunatics, and the plain up dumbasses. Just that Conservatives tend to group everybody that even remotely agrees with Obama into that category.

Just like all of you lump conservatives into right-wing religious nuts, gun fanatics, war mongers and abortion bombers.

Most Republican candidates are pro-life, pro-gun and are religious (even though most politicians play that card in one war or another) whereas not every democratic candidate is a socialist.