That's kind of a sweeping statement, but obviously there have been some bailouts in the mortgage and investment banking businesses, and some very generous deals made with companies working for the gov't in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Raising taxes won't work. It never has. You cannot tax a nation into prosperity. Cutting taxes works every time. Why? Raising taxes, f'rinstance a windfall profit tax, causes those companies that are taxed more to produce less because they aren't going to do anything unless they make money. Jobs are going to be lost.

Does anybody remember the 70% taxes in the late 70's? It was so bad that the media came up with the 'Misery Index'. When the next president convinced the opposing party to cut the taxes the money going into the government almost tripled.

The last tax cut, which wasn't nearly enough, helped the economy.

Does anybody remember the Luxury Tax of 1990 and all of the jobs that were lost because the rich went to other countries to buy luxury items? Florida was dramatically hit and congress soon repealed the tax. Things got better very quickly.

I'm not talking about taxing a nation into prosperity. I'm talking about taxing a nation out of its record debt. We've already spent it, now we have to pay the bill.

Higher taxes won't do it. Tax cuts that excite companies (call them corporations, mom & pop etc...) to produce will create more taxable income which will lower the debt

as long as

the party that runs the House of Representatives, where ALL spending bills are created, act responsibly.

The latter being the real necessity.

Raising taxes is not going to help pay off the national debt. What many fail to realize is that rich will always be rich. For one reason, they know how to manage their money. They now how to avoid taxes and they plan for a rainy day. Do you think Boone Pickens gives out large sums of money because he is nice guy? The main reason he gives away so much money is for tax purposes. If he retains that money, he lose even more money to taxes. Do you think most celebrites really give a rats ass about charities? The motive is all behind the need to do money dump and it is always nice to have positive photo op.

The middle class is the one suffers tax increases. The rich lay off people from their businesses, and homes. They stop buying as often which leads to layoffs at retailers, manufactures and service oriented businesses.

Taxing the rich is a politicans cure all for every problem. Raising

If anything the US government needs to look at cutting spending. Every major company in the United States has restructured their organization. We need to look at combining agencies, I think the majority of goverment agencies could be turned over to the states with federal regulation and oversite. Trim down the government were it is a lean machine.

Exactly. Stop spending so much money.

__________________
ProjectOKC.com

WHOOOOOA DUDE! You're making WAY too much sense.

The Hollywood Celebs, who say they support charities, don't support them. If BS, barbara streisend, really cared about supporting charities she'd put far more of her 200 million + a year income toward them. Bill Cosby, Alec Baldwin and the Sheen's alone could support every major orchestra in the USA for years. But will they let it go? NO! They just talk the talk and expect us to do it all while they give the minimum possible.

Put all the other Hollywood Celebs into the picture there would be no need for the governments failure of wealth transference from the producers to the non-producers.

Cut the taxes. Cut them to the bone.

Does anybody know why BS and Baldwin didn't leave the USA after W won the election? They swore they would.

I recommend that the government stop spending 50% of its budget on defense. This country spends more money on defense than China, Russia, and the entire European community combined. We've spent 800 billion dollars in Iraq since the war began. All in the name of keep us safe. Meanwhile, our infrastructure crumbles (levees in New Orleans, I-35 in Minneapolis), our electrical grid is vulnerable, our public schools go wanting, we are not even close to energy dependent (we import 60% of our oil from unsavory countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela), and we rely on foreign credit to keep us afloat. Our military cannot solve any of these problems. I don't mind paying taxes, but I sure as hell mind where the government spends my money.

Not having a strong military is like securing your house with shoestrings instead of locks. If it were not for our military muscle, the United States would not exist today.

New Orleans and Minneapolis are city and state government issues.

The Federal Government is not supposed to be daddy who is there to bail out his children (city and state) every time a disaster strikes. The states and cities need to learn to take care of themselves. Just because you are a disaster victim, it does not mean you win the lottery or quality of life has to be restored.

Katrina victims should have got nothing more than food, water, and shelter. Two obvious lessons should have been learned. One the city and state needs to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. Nobody took charge when Katrina was on the way. Everybody shifted the blame and played it off. When things went down the commode, everybody wanted to take charge. Two the people of New Orleans behaved like stupid idiots. When the authorities tell you to leave town because danger is on the way you pack up and get out of town. You do not change the channel and watch Springer.

Minneapolis was a freak accident. If anything the state, the trucking company, and the construction company should be footing the bill not the feds. The state could have focused more on inspections and setting limits. The companies should have taken the time to learn the bridges, capacity, close lanes, or close the bridge entirely during construction.

The electrical grid problem is the result of companies not putting money back into the system. Not to mention in some states the tree huggers cry every time a power plant is planned. Then they complain when they do not have enough power to run their expensive coffee maker. We are fortunate for the fact that OGE plans for growth.

The schools are hurting mainly because of money mismanagement and the lack of parental involvement. I attended school in Moore anytime we needed something the district could not provide the teachers and parents rallied together and found away to fund what we needed. Today's parents treat the schools like free daycare centers. The administrators want to spend money on everything but the school and the kids in the classroom. Meanwhile the teachers are stuck in the middle and stressed out. They are paid a crap wage and they have to buy their own supplies. The good ones leave for better pay in private schools or community colleges. The mediocre to worse teachers ride the teacher’s union bandwagon and bleed the district dry as a form of revenge on the parents and administrators. (IE: OK HB 1017)

It is time for the Feds to tell the city, county, and state to prepare for emergencies Find alternate sources of funding instead of taxes alone. Stop running to us every time you have a problem.

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals - washingtonpost.com

Obama and McCain Tax Proposals
According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

First of all.....excellent graphs, soonerliberal.

oneforone - taxing the rich is a political cure all for everything? Then explain this:



That's right. The top tax rate has plummeted from 90% in the sixties to 70%+ in the seventies to a 33% top rate today. Not coincidentally, the concentration of wealth (see graph below) has become almost as bad as the Gilded Age. In fact, many economists call this, "the new gilded age."



Notice the similarities? With higher taxes on the richest of the rich, the middle-class was at its height and wealth concentration at its lowest. The slashing of tax rates for the ultra-rich has brought on another huge gap in the concentration of wealth, a dissapearing middle-class --- and a new Gilded Age.

No, messing with the marginal top tax rates for the rich isn't anything the politicos want to deal with. Where do the campaign contributions come from?

Here's some interesting reading from Warren Buffet on this issue:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

The bootstraps method of solving all the world's problems is so freaking obvious and simple, why don't more people do it?

Really, why not?

Let us posit that you are born to a third generation crack addict in a family of crack addicts? All one has to do is pull up thier bootstraps and viola, everything changes.

I've never met a person who made the bootstraps argument who didn't have thier head so far up thier bootstraps they could even recognize how much help they had gotten in life.

The very few individuals I've known who actually did come from low birth to pull themselves out were generally humble enough to recognize all the help they got along the way.

I think anybody who accomplishes anything--even if it is something as ordinary as getting a college education a job and a middle class lifestyle--that person is still getting a lot of help. Much of that help will come from the government regardless of how much one pats themselves on their own golden back.

The lack of humility is an ugly byproduct of prosperity.

FWIW: understanding how fortunate one is--that is, humility--is not an appology for sloth. Also, sloth is not the deadly sin that eats most of our tax dollars. That would be greed. For some reason, probably because we worship wealth no matter how it is gained, it is easy to demonize poverty while wealth has it's hands in all our pockets. I have my own hand in my own pocket. One of these days, I'm gonna find a dollar there.

You can come up with every graph in the world and it will not disprove the fact that taxing the wealthy is not a method to grow the economy and lift more people out of poverty. I could not imagine spending my life despising a group people or group of corporations because they have worked hard, made good business decisions, and have been successful?? So anyone who has taken a risk, put everything they own on the line and make a profit, should be punished by the gov't. Socialist economies do not feed the world, protect the world, and bail them out every time a disaster comes along. Capitalism does. Socialism is a direct attack on personal freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Class warfare sounds appealing, it is easy to hate the successful of our society but really what does it get you? If someone succeeds and becomes wealthy does that directly cause another to become poor or live in poverty? Excessive taxation is a disincentive to produce. Why make more if the government is just going to confiscate it? Obama's desire to redistribute wealth will cripple our economy.

You'd think by now that we'd get the picture. Every time taxes go up the revenues go down. The money makers are just like everybody else. They're going to do whatever they can to pay as little tax as possible.

The redistribution of wealth doesn't work, either. On paper, the poverty level should have dropped since the Great Debacle (society). HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Instead the government has taken trillions of dollars from the producers (tax payers) and given it to the non-producers. The recipients numbers have increased dramatically every year.

Cut taxes and all non-constitutional spending to the bone and work with what you have.

"You can come up with every graph in the world..." In other words, ignore the facts.

Taxing the ultra-rich is not about "lifting people out of poverty." It's about the middle-class squeeze and the concentration of wealth.

It's not about "despising" anybody because people have worked hard. It's despising a system where people who don't do a damn thing get wealthier by accountants shuffling paper while the workers get less and less.

It's not about making a profit. It's about making obscene profits while offering the workers less and less, cutting benefits to allow for greater compensation to the suits at the top.

Class warfare? The warfare is being conducted on the working class (not just blue-collar either - that's you too if you work in an office and receive a salary). They are waging the war - don't kill the messenger.

Nobody said when a person becomes wealthy, another becomes poor. However, when the wealthy get greedy and tens of millions isn't enough and they want hundreds of millions - and they get it by paying workers less and cutting benefits, yes, that's wrong. It's hardly what this country is about.

It's not about "making more." The ultra-wealthy, the top 1%, are not "making" anything -- except more money. When is enough enough? Unearned concentration of wealth brings down countries.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
- Former Justice of the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis

Feel free to ignore the facts and the graphs that clearly show a new gilded age is upon us. But the silly 3rd grade propaganda about "freedom" and "socialism" and trying to wrap huge gaps in wealth inequality in the American flag is embarrassing. That's not what our democracy is all about. Political democracy and economic democracy cannot be separated in any country - and expect it to survive.

Solitude,
To quote you...

It's not about "making more." The ultra-wealthy, the top 1%, are not "making" anything -- except more money. When is enough enough? Unearned concentration of wealth brings down countries.

When you say that your missing one vital FACT.
They are making something.
They are making the job for the people employed by their idea.
What should the fair compensation be?
5% over costs? 10%.
Maybe actors and professional sports should have ceilings on how much they can make. To be fair.
What do they make?
their product is not something you can eat?
Who decides what the amount of profit should be?

No question that jobs are created by healthy companies. I'm not talking about companies turning a healthy profit. In fact, I am not even talking about companies! (Except many privately owned companies - ala Wal-Mart - where the wealth concentration into the hands of 4 or 5 people is just beyond crazy.) I'm talking about the insane, ludicrous salaries of the top executives in American corporations today. They are the people who made an average of 50 times the average wage of those in their company in the seventies and now routinely take in 500 - 1000 times the average wage of their workers.

I am talking about CEOs who make more in ONE HOUR than many of their base workers do in a YEAR. Think on that one. Some of the most "successful" CEOs have been the worst performing and get golden parachute deals just to leave the company. What happened to - "You're outta here!"

The economic questions you asked regarding percentages can be answered, but not in a single post here.

Solitude,
Who does decide what a CEO of a corporations makes?
The stockholders? or the Government?

What is the value of a CEO vs that of Miley Cyrus (Hanna Montana)
or Jess. Simpson? Should we complain of the huge profits these two women make compared to the workers who buy their stuff for their children?
Professional Sports makes huge profits.
The guy bouncing a ball's salary compared to the security guard or vending gal at the Ford center.
Not every CEO is corrupt.
A corporation needs executive management.
Is it not up to what the market will pay and what that company will pay?

Silly.
Isolated.
Examples.

No, it should NOT be what the market will pay. Companies don't run on the management and paper shuffling of capital alone. It also requires LABOR. When the labor is short-changed with low wages and no benefits, while capital and their cronies make hundreds of millions of dollars, platitudes about what, "the market will pay," just doesn't compute.

Yes, actors and basketball players are overpaid. But, usually, there are not tens of thousands of people beneath them being exploited that brings their wealth to fruition. (There are exceptions and I'm going to write about that soon.)

I.
Guess.
That's.
All.
For.
Now.

Just messing with you. You have an interesting posting style.

Solitude,
You will soon see the thousands exploited by the professional sports franchise.
The first time there is a hold out, ticket prices go up, What about all of the clean up crew and the parking lot people and the guy who cuts the power forwards lawn, the people at the practice facility, trainers and ushers. They will not care that the players making millions to bounce the ball for OKC pride, are holding out for more millions.
I currently live in a city with multiple professional teams.
It will happen.

I see it this way: clearly the current way of thinking that has been predominant since the Reagan era has not been a huge success. I am talking about the higher income brackets having a much less tax burden on percentage basis than the middle incomes. The Obama plan of a more equal taxation for all levels seems like something we should at least try, because frankly it has never been done. I swear to God if you try to make some FDR comparison, I'm going to slap you through the computer screen.

Can't reach me.
Thanks for making it for us.
(the comparison)
Here is the problem with most elected politicians who tout they created jobs.
Those jobs are not private sector. They are usually government jobs. If everyone is out of the private sector and we are taxing the higher incomes more, eventually you run out of high incomes to tax. Corporations pass on tax increases to the consumer anyway.
Low incomes don't pay taxes, so who gets squeezed again.
I will always lean to the person who will protect small business.
Raised in a family of Democrats from OK. I watched my grandfather cross parties against McGovern and again for Reagan.
I see The Dem. Nominee (presumed) very close to McGovern.
That is why I am leaning McCain yet not thrilled by the choice.

US Budget Allocation

21% Social Security
21% Medicare/Medicaid
20% Defense
18% Discretionary
11% Other Mandatory
09% Interest

Did I miss something? If it has to do with spending by the US on the military, the budget does not include the off-the-book items -- CIA, WAR IN IRAQ. If you include war-related spending that is off-budget, we're talking closer to 34%.

How does that compare to the rest of the world?

Dismayed, Your figures are always used by the government, and the political right, to show how "little" in percentage we pay toward defense.

There's just one problem...



Here's what it REALLY looks like:



The deception in using trust money outlays is deceptive - but typical.