Rasmussen poll reminds me of the poll that predicted that Roosevelt would get his ass kicked in his first Presidential election. I think it was 3 to 1 against.

Problem was, the pollsters did a telephone poll. Back then the telephones was all but limited to the rich. So they polled the rich, who would, you guessed it, oppose Roosevelt, though surprised that 1 in 4 were FOR Roosevelt.

Today, you can have a poll tell you anything you want to hear, if you word the questions properly. And they do.

Whom did you ask about tax cuts? I doubt that a working class person, making 40 thou, would tell you that tax cuts would make for jobs, IF you also let them know that THEY won't be getting those tax cuts, nobody under 1/4 million would reply that cutting taxes on the rich even more would create jobs. Rich(er) and you would believe it.

"Maybe a bit of patriot act action might have helped?"

The Patriot Act is in full swing. Maybe it SHOULD have realized that the perp was dangerous. One was a Major in the Army. Some others are NYC cabdrivers, and THEY get nailed regularly.

Joe,

Tip O'Neil said once that "All politics is local." That is true today as it was then. You vote for them who can help you, at least to some extent. Next step up the ladder from local, if you don't bring home some bacon, you are outa here.

Under 2 million IN NM, they have at least 3 BILLION in stimulus funds allocated to them. 1500 bucks per person.

Look here: http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/NM

And here: http://newmexicoindependent.com/2847...ng-the-winners

That "bring home the bacon" bit is not all pork barrel. That is WHY we elect people TO the Federal Congress. We pay into the Federal Coffers, when it comes time to spend those funds, some has to come home. Robert Byrd is a master of it. Murtha, here, is pretty good at it. All of your Rep Representatives do all they can to get money back home, too.

Some states get less than what they pay in Fed taxes for in state projects. A few get more. Depends on whether the project is thought good and how effective your Congressional delegation is.

Funds to run the Gov are spent, what is left after spending billions on foreign entanglements, and that includes the "Charity" we give to most of the countries in the world, is spread among the States in the amounts that their Reps can talk the rest of the Reps into.

You can argue that we should just use State taxes to fund our State expenditures. There ARE states that are poorer than others. They might not even have paved roads, were they to have to pay for it all on their own.

Particularly if you take sparsely populated midwestern states. HUGE landowners, but little taxation, because they own the Gov.

Ted Turner owns MILLIONS of acres in Montana. Do you think he pays hundreds of millions in taxes? Dime an acre in property tax?

The country has been in redistribution since before we even became a Republic. NOW you bitch about it, after your ancestors became rich from it. YOU don't want to pay because it will take a nickle out of your pocket.

We still redistribute, today, but it is still from those on the lower rungs to those on the upper.

People in the workforce made 30 bucks per month, and Reps got elected. People today make 3 thou per month and they STILL vote Rep,thinking they will help Peons. People will never get smarter than those who con them.

Cheers,

George

That is for sure! Way too many people are attracted to radical islam. It would be too many if it were ONE person.
What in the hell is so attractive about it, I will never know. Control freaks, the likes of which have never been seen.

Jeff

From George;

"The country has been in redistribution since before we even became a Republic. NOW you bitch about it, after your ancestors became rich from it. YOU don't want to pay because it will take a nickle out of your pocket."

You have a hell of a sense of humor, George! And one hell of a lot of cheek, but not much of a brain.

I'm the first of my line to ever own 30 acres of land and house and outbuildings that are paid for. Matter of fact, paid for or not. My legacy from my parents was a carry-out dinner from KFC. There was more to be had, but I declined it since a sister had done most of the work of looking after them in their declining years, me being located 1600 miles away. Sorry, George, no "fmily money" here!

Your links are interesting.

"Among the winners are the Mescalero Apache Tribe and an Alaska firm, both of whom landed service contracts."

I can't speak to the alaska firm, but the mescalero apachies are already fantastically wealthy, from casios on their "reservation" near the mountain town of Ruidoso. Recently, they were trying to deal with the major landowner of a small town I used to live in and buy the guy's 9000 acres for another casino and related businesses. I daresay a fair amount of that contract will wind up as political donations.

I'm sure New Mexico did very well in the stimulus department, because it is primarily a way for Obama to pay off his democratic base, here. Worked well in the last two presidential elections, too.

Also from George;

"Whom did you ask about tax cuts? I doubt that a working class person, making 40 thou, would tell you that tax cuts would make for jobs, IF you also let them know that THEY won't be getting those tax cuts, nobody under 1/4 million would reply that cutting taxes on the rich even more would create jobs. Rich(er) and you would believe it."

George, it's a natural fact. As taxes increase, business activity decreases. Beyond certain limits, growth stops altogether. You can easily see what just the THREAT of higher taxes does today. Cap and tax is lurking out there, undefeated and health care ditto. Tax cuts due to expire soon. None of these apply to the wealthy only, but to everyone.

The fact that most people BELIEVE that tax cuts would help more than phony stimulus makes it so, because it's an issue of perception. Even if they made no practical difference (not the case) tax cuts would send a signal that things were going to get better on the business front and promote business activity...More stimulus sends a signal that government is still paying off campain debts to it's supporters and buying votes for the next election.....antistimulus, just like we have now.....Joe

Jeff, I can't explain it, but I have long observed that any religion that grants God's permission to it's followers to kill people wholesale will always draw a following. I beleve that any group or person granting that permission as though they had the right to do so falls under the heading of "taking His name in vain".....Joe

Coloradoboy, Roger that, another bullshit adventure gone bad.

Another deal made with the devil.

By the way I like Louisiana and was born there from family going back to the late 1600's & early 1700's.

History doesn't support your 'natural facts'.

The greatest period of wealth creation in America were the 50's thru 70's. An era where business DID pay the majority of taxes and people who bought their products by choice paid a tax share business passed to them.

Today, you and I pay the majority of taxes and business pays squat. Today you pay higher taxes because business pays less even if you don't buy the product. The expenses of government don't go away. What a cool deal for business, did it make them thrive? I just choke driving past McDonalds or Wally knowing I now pay a higher share of their taxes since I don't shop at either one.

None the less, I'd prefer paying taxes than providing my own fire protection, police protection or paved highways, and benefit from a fed government that provides safety for American interests abroad. All of that would vanish without taxes.

If paying less taxes was so good for the economy and a 'natural' stimulus, just what happened the past decade? A decade of reduced taxes for all..................

Which business pays squat? Well some don't pay as much as they should going on what Warren Buffet says about him paying less than his receptionist. I think a lot of this is due to tax law being too complicated so that only wealthier people have the resources to negotiate it.

We all want to minimise our tax. Don't blame the rich if they want to reduce the percentage they pay. Some are crooks and deserve to be prosecuted for it others are just obeying the law.

My own preference is for tax to move away from income tax and move towards consumption taxes. I think it is best if they just put a consumption tax on everything so that the only question is did you spend money. If the answer is yes then you pay some percentage on top. No laws or accountants or funny lurks and it would even up the field a bit.

I don't think anyone argues that we need government. We need services you mentioned and we have to pay for them too. The question is only how much government, lots like Soviet Russia or almost none. I'd say somewhere in the sensible middle although I do prefer smaller government and lower taxes myself.
Stephen

To the absolute extreme of it, yes.

My corp. pays zero income tax. All profits are shifted to me and paid as individual income taxes at a lower rate after taxpayer deductions.

Each state varies somewhat but we already have a consumption tax here on most everything, *sales tax.* Buy goods for your own use and you are taxed. You are supposed to remit use tax (after purchase sales tax) on goods purchased in another state or city if sales tax was exempted there due to out of area sale. Looks to me as a consumer everything is taxed. The only thing I see not taxed here are AG farm expenses for equipment, crop production goods and AG fuel.

OK here in Australia we do have income tax on businesses and corporations. It is possible for a company to receive, "Franking Credits", when it pays income tax and so this means that shareholders do not pay income tax on their dividends as the Government decided that income tax had already been paid on that money.

I know we all pay all sorts of taxes on all sorts of things. Australia is just the same. Increasing taxes is a sure way to lose votes so politicians tend to introduces fees and charges in round about ways so that the tax is not so obvious to most people. These end up being a big cost to the economy, I believe, due to the costs of complying with them. Income tax is difficult to comply with and if you have the resources you can get around some of it. That is why I think it would be better to have more tax on consumption and less on income. Make it as simple as you possibly can.

Stephen

\

U.S. TARIFF HISTORY 1821-2000

YEARS……………..AVERAGE EFFECTIVE TARIFF (% tax on all imports)
1821-1830………….46.6%
1831-1840………….24.9%
1841-1850………….24.0%
1851-186……………20.8%
1861-1870………….36.2%
1871-1880………….31.3%
1881-1890………….30.1%
1891-1900………….23.7%

1821-1900………….29.7%

1901-1910………….25.0%
1911-1920………….11.8%
1921-1930………….13.8%
1931-1940………….16.8%
1941-1950………….9.0%

1901-1950………….15.3%

1951-1960………….5.9%
1961-1970………….7.3%
1971-1980………….4.0%
1981-1990………….3.5%
1991-2000………….2.5%

Federal Receipts As Percentage Of GDP

1945..........20.4%
1950..........14.4
1955..........16.6
1960..........17.9
1965..........17.0
1970..........19.0
1975..........17.9
1980..........19.0
1985..........17.7
1990..........18.0
1995..........18.5
2000..........20.9
2007..........18.5


The entire U.S. economy now suffers under a 30% effective tax rate.

Imports as a percent of U.S. GDP are now a staggering 16.9% of GDP yet only pay 1.0% effective tax rate.

Imports are the businesses who don't pay squat.

It is we who now pay the tariff and the result has been catastrophic.

Take a look at the ruin that has become America since "Free Trade"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn1jw7l2ZRw&NR=1

This is a Canadian (CBC) news piece on the conditions in Detroit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_YdRxBhzI

Detroit alone has about 78,000 abandoned buildings and 120 square kilometers of vacant property.

They have found beaver and pheasant in Detroit city limits since this disaster has been rammed down our throats.

Steve

Yes, what DID happen?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

You can trace when tax cuts came around just by looking at reduced unemployment. Things went to hell after 9-11 and stayed that way until Bush's 2003 tax cuts. Dropped after Kennedy's cuts. Dropped after Reagan's cuts.

Other factors make it come back up, sure. Bubbles burst, etc.

If you want to make something go away, you tax it. Smoking has beeen cut in half since they started taxing it heavily. Fuel taxes cause us to drive less when they get too high.
When you heavily tax and regulate business, less people engage in it or expand operations. The wealthy have options. They can invest in tax-free munis and other things that protect them from taxes and regulation.

Of course, taxes are a fact of life. They have to be, to run the country. You can list all the stuff like law enforcement and the military, and nobody that I know thinks those things should go away. They are the job of government. Always have been.

The things the government is trying to engage in now, however, are NOT the job of government. Says so in the Constitution. You start looking like you are inclined to throw away the constitution, people get worried. Without the constitution, government can do whatever it wants to do. No time to expand a business when all the rules are out the door. They want to tell you how much money you can make and how you will run the place. Wipe out right-to-work laws. No0body knows what's next. BIG energy cost increases if the cap and tax bill passes. co2 is now a "poison gas" Maybe oxygen is next? .... Health care will take aq big bite if it passes.

Want to know what just the THREAT of high taxes will do? Just take a look around. You are living in it...Joe

The constitution is a living document which is why amendments have been added to the original of 200 years ago. The federal legal process determines what our government can and cannot do and provides binding interpetation of constitutional issues; not someone or a group that feels constitutional fundamentalism is the answer and provides their version of how things should be.

So you believe that this government is not restricted in any way by the constitution from doing as it sees fit and that the bill of rights is out-moded? If not, a constitutional amendment would be required to make changes, not simply legislation.

The "living document" argument is a very old one, and laughed at by a lot better minds than yours or mine.

Yes, there is a system to test laws for constitutionality (worked great for Dred Scott) but the enumeration of powers is quite clear and you either believe that the constitution means what it says or you do not. If you do not, then understand that you no longer HAVE any rights except what government allows you.

I know what the founders believed, but if Obama is smarter than the founders in your mind, so be it....Joe

Joe,

"If not, a constitutional amendment would be required to make changes, not simply legislation."

The Constitution is not changed simply by legislation. All Amendments have been approved by 1 more than 3/4 of the States.

Laws, "legislation", can be written for whatever you dream up. If challenged, as even some of Bush's laws under the Patriot Act, have been challenged and found to be unconstitutional. Null and void. Back to the drawing board, and with all 3 under Rep rule, rewrite to get rid of those pesky parts the Supremes don't like.

I don't think Obama thinks he is smarter. More learned, perhaps, it is 200 plus years later, there is more to know, including the added Amendments.

The Constitution is not Moses Ten Commandments, writ in stone. If the Framers had not thought that there would ever be a need to Amend the Constitution, they would not have written INTO it the RULES TO change or amend it. It is not "This is IT. You cannot change this."

"you either believe that the constitution means what it says or you do not. If you do not, then understand that you no longer HAVE any rights except what government allows you."

You have few rights, regardless. Prohibition was passed by "Drys" over the wishes of the rest of the country. Legislators, prodded by people with an agenda. It was probably intentionally written badly to make manufacture, transportation and sale of alcohol illegal, though not the consumption of it. People by the multi-millions were rousted out of the speakeasies, not fined or imprisoned, while the owners went to court.

Multimillionaire rumrunners were created. Gangsters. Was not repealed until the States complained so loudly that they were going broke for lack of the alcohol taxes they had learned to live on and the expense of trying to police the unenforceable.

Stephen,

I WISH people would understand the Buffett thing. You apparently ignore all written about it.

Point 1: Buffet said something is wrong with a tax system which makes his secretary pays a higher effective tax that he does.

Point 2: Buffett takes 100 thou per year in salary, earnings, his secretary has earnings of 100 thou per year. So on their EARNINGS, they are both subject to 28% tax on the margin, the money over the next lower "bracket". That is fair. I make 100 thou, I pay this. You make 100 thou, you should also pay this.

Where he says it is wrong is that she makes 100 thou, period. He makes 100 thou AND, being worth 35 BILLION in stock of his company, if he sells a BILLION bucks of his stock, he pays Long Term Capital Gains tax rate on the growth in the value of the stock. Since he has held the stock since the inception of his company, probably 999,999,000 bucks Capital Gain. Taxed at 15%.

Total effective tax rate. About 15.000001%, earned income + Capital Gains tax paid.

She pays, and I don't have a table to verify this now, say, 18,000 in tax on her 100 thou. He pays 18,000 tax on "Ordinary Income" plus just under 150 million on his Capital Gains. About 13% less EFFECTIVE rate than she does.

I wish some of you would see this, rather than just say "Why doesn't he pay her MORE?" If he paid her enough more, he would move her into yet another, higher, tax bracket, where she would pay even MORE on the margin, 35%, which, I think, is our highest.

You wish for a "Consumption Tax". You have super rich people. Murdoch, multibillionaire, how much does he spend in your country for your production? If he takes in a billion per year, do YOU think he spends a billion per year in your country? Do YOU think he pays 200 million per year in consumption tax in your country, at 20% consumption tax rate, or VAT or whatever the hell you want to call it?

You have to SPEND the billion to pay 200 million in consumption taxes. Who SPENDS a billion bucks per year of his income OF a billion bucks a year? So they really go overboard, spend a 100 million, pay 20% on that in consumption, bank 900 million tax free, which grows interest which is also tax free unless they spend it.

You, you poor sap, make 100 thou and spend 95 thou to live on, pay 19 thou in taxes. If you are NOT in the multi millions in earnings category, I don't know how in hell you can support that scheme. The rich get richer and you go to bankruptcy.

Joe,

"Fuel taxes cause us to drive less when they get too high. " Fuel taxes had not gone up a whit when gas got to 4 bucks a gallon. I will call bullshit on you on that. If you read anything at all about the use of fuel when it WAS 4 bucks per gallon, you would learn that consumption either did not fall at all, or the Gov and the API lied when they told us that inventories were, one week, drastically low, the next week, WAY more than we can realistically hold in our limited storage.

I am not privy to the truth. I think there was mucho manipulation of the numbers, and some from the API and more from the Gov that allowed us to be whipsawed by the traders. They took billions out of our economy. Goldman Sachs made 39 BILLION in profits in the last year after we hauled their ashes for them, trading in oil futures, bringing the cost of crude up from the 30+ that it fell to after the near bankruptcy of the country and 165 BILLION in TARP funds.

Politically astute, this board isn't.

Joe,

DOWAGERS of great fortunes invest in tax free bonds. They have such large endowments that they can live on 20 or 30 or 50 million a year. Truly rich men have something, maybe testosterone, that makes them keep their money in the market when they should go to cash. What else can explain why so many have been displaced on the Forbes 500 List in the last couple years?

I wish I could be sure some of you were actually rich enough to benefit from what you champion. You, for one, tell us that you are the first in your family to have more than 2 nickles to rub together. Yet you begrudge paying one of those nickles for what you DO get from the Gov.

YOU can drive across the border, "offshore" your dental work. And you can bitch about those who buy a tool made offshore. "Buy MY stuff, so I can go offshore to get my teeth fixed."

That is about as hypocritic as I can imagine.

Cheers,

George

From George;

"Joe,

DOWAGERS of great fortunes invest in tax free bonds. They have such large endowments that they can live on 20 or 30 or 50 million a year. Truly rich men have something, maybe testosterone, that makes them keep their money in the market when they should go to cash. What else can explain why so many have been displaced on the Forbes 500 List in the last couple years?

I wish I could be sure some of you were actually rich enough to benefit from what you champion. You, for one, tell us that you are the first in your family to have more than 2 nickles to rub together. Yet you begrudge paying one of those nickles for what you DO get from the Gov.

YOU can drive across the border, "offshore" your dental work. And you can bitch about those who buy a tool made offshore. "Buy MY stuff, so I can go offshore to get my teeth fixed."

That is about as hypocritic as I can imagine.

Cheers,

George"

Well, cheers to you, too George!

Once again, you misquote and falsey charactize me.

In the fist place, noplace did I ever say I went across the border for dental work. I DID say thaqt many others around here do, and that if the current monstrosity of a health care bull passes, I may go there for medical and dental work. So far I have only gone there for antibiotics because it takes less time to go there once a year than to make a 200 mile round trip to the north to the doctor (50 miles) and on to the drug store (another 50 miles).

As to the taxes, I have explained time after time that lower taxes benifit the country at large. Me included, but those who are looking for jobs ALSO inluded. You know, also, that if "cap and tax" passes and if "health care" passes and when the next "stimulus" gets let loose, it won't just be the million dollar club that pays. It will be all of us.

You are correct that the constitution is not changed by legislation. There is, however, a tendency to IGNORE the constitution when writing legislation and hope that the supremes will be in a mood to allow it. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not. Bush was relying on the supremes to stop Mccain-Fiengold and they let it go through after he screwed up and signed it.

Both parties are guilty of violating the constitution in their legislative efforts, and it seems to me that it is very nearly always worng, regardless of who does it. The popularity of many measures at the time they are taken seems to make the violation irresistable, but that does not make it right. If they were forced to clear an ammendment beofre they could pass unconstitutional legislation, clearer heads might prevail.

As to the founders, their aversion to intrusive big government from afar is shared by me and about half the country. If that does not include you, so be it. There is, however, no way for you to surrender YOUR rights over to big government without surrendering MINE along the way. I truly believe that those rights were "endowed by my creator" and make me not only a better citizen, but a better man. They are the essence of being an American. Without them, I am owned by government. You may think that worked out well for the soviets, but I don't. How many people do you see risking their lives to sail an inner tube TO Cuba?......Joe

And by the way, Goerge, When did I ever chastise anyone for buying tools overseas? You can tear my posts apart and I don't think you'll find a word out there anywhere. Another misquote on your part. I don't have to lay a guilt trip on anybody to sell my tools. They sell themjselves....Joe

Probably a greater stimulus to the economy the past decade was the Fed lowering the interest rate from 6% starting in 2000 and going to 1 percent by 2003. That created a bonanza of consumer borrowiing & spending lasting until the economic collapse of 2008.

http://www.bankrate.com/rates/intere...rime-rate.aspx

Doesn't seem to be helping much today. Pretty much giving it away, now..Joe