I'm sorry to say it but this is what Oregon represents as a whole thanks to the West side Valley beings. You can be certain Kitzhaber and the creep Wyden will be reelected.  What can we do?

yup, vote democrat.  the quicker it all goes to shit, the quicker everyone will get to fixing it, like in California.

Republicans and democrats are the issue. We can have one or the other and
we're still going to have majo issues. Michigan is full blow republican and look at it.


We need to boot EVERYONE including both parties, the two part system is the underliying issue.

Michigan still has Granholm as the governor,  and she's a democrat for sure.

However,  as a Libertarian,  I do agree that neither republicans or democrats seem to have the full grasp on anything.

One thing for sure you can do is not vote for a dem. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is.... How many years in a row has a dem had the governorship? Kitzhaber was gov for eight years already and he'll be the same partisan big lefty government hack once again, but then again that is what the leftists want. As for the only candidate that can beat Kitzhaber, IMHO the best thing Dudley has going for him is that he used to be a Trailblazer and even the libtards watch basketball.

I thought "progressives" were suppose to be the smart educated ones and the conservatives were the reactionary stubborn dinosaurs Why does the Oregon Valley people keep voting for the party that only digs the state in a deeper hole? Isnt that a sign of insanity? and they want to legalize drugs

What would be your alternative to the two party system?  Comrade Obama would like us all to be members of the party, the socialist party.  The Republicans are still a better choice than the Democrats, even with their faults.

I think many of the fiscal problems we're having in this state are the result of the anti-tax shenanigans of people like Bill Sizemore.  They've done a good job spreading this strange idea that paying taxes is somehow anti-American.  

Others have done a good job spreading the demonstrably false idea Obama is a socialist.  Michael Moore?  Okay, probably a socialist.  Obama, not so much.

I'm a registered Democrat, I honor and mourn those murdered on 09/11, and I support finding and killing those responsible.  I know my opinions aren't exactly mainstream here.  But don't think for a good golly Goddamn minute that Republicans have a monopoly on grief, memory, or patriotism.

That is all.

dirty, I can honestly say I never met a person in my time in the Army that admitted he/she was a Democrat. Many soliders dont even care to vote especially the innercity guys, but those that do vote all vote GOP.  Was it any wonder why Al Gore was trying to suppress the counting of military ballots oversea in the 2000 election?  I'm not saying all of Oregons problems stem from Democrats, but the vast majority of the issues are progressive policy and ideals as they control every part of state gubbermint. Ousting Gordon Smith for that creep Jeff Merkley really made me feel very ashamed to live in this state. Smith was so middle of the road and no threat to the lunatic fringe of the left. The folks rooted in this state for generations have become a minority over the past few decades thanks to the east coast nuts and california corruptors and degenerates that control this state today. So sad to be an Oregonian today.

Excessive taxation is anti-American because it is anti-freedom. The ability to keep what you earn and sped it how you see fit is essential to liberty. When Obama wants to make sure that tax cuts don't go to "those who don't need it" he demonstrates his belief in "to each according to his need" which is a socialist idea.

But Daniel, the only times top US marginal income tax rates have been lower over the preceding century were the five years which preceded the Great Depression, and GHW Bush's term, which preceded the recession at the start of the 90's (hmm...).  If Obama is able to repeal GW Bush's tax cuts, then the only times top US marginal income tax rates will have been lower over the preceding century will still be the five years which preceded the Great Depression, and GHW Bush's term.  Again, hmm.  

Tax rates under that liberal Eisenhower were in the 90's.  Tax rates under that liberal Nixon were in the 70's.  The top tax rate under that liberal Reagan was 50%.  So why does Obama's plan represent an excessive rate?

As for the tautology that saying some people don't need a tax cut somehow equates with the socialist precept "to each according to his need," all I can say is that looks like a heck of a stretch to me.  

I feel like people, in their rush to label and condemn Obama, have forgotten all the many, many benefits we reap by paying taxes.  By contrast, many of those same people turn a blind eye to the perils of putting two wars on the national credit card.  

I tell you man, I just don't get it.

So what if the highest income level of tax rates are lower, whose money is it? I'm really looking forward to that nationalized healthcare Obama and you dems shoved down the throat of the rest of us. In one of your posts you are all for finding the people responsible for 9/11 now you go on and criticize the cost of the war.

In the dems world you can never be taxed enough simply because what is yours isn't. Then to go blame Bill Sizemore for the fiscal problems that state is having under dem controlled government is ludicrous.

Loaded, man, I think you're missing the point.  The rate at which Obama wants to tax the wealthy is lower than the rate at which Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan taxed the wealthy.  Even if Obama gets his way and eliminates the tax cut GW Bush gave the wealthy, they will still be taxed at a lower rate than they have been except for two instances - the five years leading up to the Great Depression, and the tenure of GHW Bush, which lead to the recession at the beginning of the 90's.  Yet Obama is branded a socialist.  

As for healthcare, there is no nationalized plan shoved down your throat by Obama, me, or anybody else.  What nationalized plan are you talking about?

As for the wars, what I was specifically criticizing was putting them on the national credit card.  GW Bush started two wars at the same time he gave the wealthy, and the rest of us, a tax cut.  If you start two wars and cut taxes, you wind up owing a ShitPile of money to the Chinese.  But hey, what could go wrong there, right?  

And that's not even bringing up the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 09/11.  But I'm as tired of bringing that up as you are of not thinking about it.



I really don't understand how you can toss off something like Democrats think "you can never be taxed enough" when Obama's proposal, if passed, will mean the wealthy will pay less taxes than they did under Reagan.  How does that make Obama a socialist?  Why does Dutch get a pass?

As for Sizemore, he's directly responsible for any number of fiscal problems that any state government, be it Republican or Democrat, will have to face.  As a result of his work cutting property taxes, State government has had to shoulder a massively increased portion of the tab for education.  Before Sizemore, the State paid something like 30%.  After Sizemore, the state now pays 70%.  Even if Dudley is elected, he'll have a lot fewer dollars to spend on the rest of the State's responsibilities.

And at the end  of the day, that's the thing: we pay taxes to the government so it will do the things we ask it to.  Some people think it should do more, some people think it should do less.  But all of it takes money, which means paying taxes.

Democrats ............Republicrats.............Oregon

Dirty, The Bush tax cuts that Bush and rep CONgress put into place will expire thanks to Obama and the dem CONgress which will result in higher taxes to everyone not just the wealthy. Obama is a socialist, healthcare, government motors, student loans, more gov is his answer. Of course you probably think Obama is a hardcore evil Capitalist. Now you are worried about the debt? I agree that Bush allowed too much spending, but what party has been in control of the CONgress since 2007? Who has been in the White House since 2009? Who has been spending money like there's no tomorrow??? Fall back on Saddam and the WMDs , 9/11 was a inside job, and don't forget the surge failed. Lets see here Bush's policies were all failures according to the dems, but the wars are still going on, the spending has increased to record numbers, unemployment is higher, where are all those dems claiming failed policies now???

It's all Bill Sizemore's fault! Do you work for SEIU? OEA? NEA? How about AFSCME? Government spending too damn much wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it? Even with a private sector hurting what does gov do, lets spend more, brilliant! Yeah, you dems think that they can keep stealing more and more money in the form of taxes or the word they like to use fees it's an endless trough in your fantasy land.

If you don't think you're taxed enough write the gov a check.

Unfortunately that is what elections usually boil down to are the two parties. As far as I'm concerned there are no longer any dems I could ever vote for. As for the reps just because there's an R after their name doesn't mean they'll be fiscally responsible or for gun rights. You need to research the candidate and not go off the paid advertisements. Even though I have my doubts about Dudley I'll vote for him to get the dems the hell out of the governorship they've held onto for almost twenty four years.

Loaded, this is a pretty poor attempt at a rebuttal.  

I was hoping to hear, you know, actual answers from you in response to the questions I asked you.  Instead all I got was a series of ad hominem attacks.  I've reviewed my posts, and I don't see where I suggest 09/11 was an inside job, or that the surge failed.  I did point out Saddam Hussein was not responsible for 09/11, but that's about it.  

So, go ahead and talk past me if you want to, or need to.  But if you ever feel like trying to answer the questions I asked you, I'd really be interested to hear your thoughts.  

And no buddy, I'm not in any of the unions you mention.  Just a good American, trying to understand where his neighbor is coming from.

I've answered your questions and you can't accept them, because it puts your dem party in a position of blame. As for 9/11 I've heard it all before from the left and now you're trying to play the victim, how typical.

We need a successful 5 party system.  When I tell people I voted for Bob Barr last election,  they assume he was running for a local office.  Our current government gives money to two parties right now to advertise their platform,  and those two parties are the only two that people think about in American politics.  

This is America,  land of choices and freedom.  While we still have that choice,  99% of Americans don't even know who 6-8 of the candidates on the Presidential ballot are.

I would propose that rather than issuing tons of cash to the republicans and democrats to push their platform to the public,  we spend most of that money pushing independent parties to the spotlight,  so that people know that they have a choice,  and it's not just a donkey or an elephant.

When I first met my father in law, he said that we should shoot every politician then offer their jobs to whoever would want them.  Then shoot those people, too, because people who would want those jobs that bad probably have the same thing wrong with them that the first bunch did.  Then elect people to the empty seats as we see fit.  I thought he was an absolute kook back then.  Now, I'm thinking maybe not so much.

It seems to me more and more that we are moving to a system in this country where there are two classes.  The ruling class and everyone else.  Our elected officials at the state and national levels absolutely behave like they are thinking this way.  We are ruled by a bunch of rich people (not a swipe at Republicans; of the top ten richest congressmen in D.C., seven are democrats) who ignore the laws they expect us to follow.  They ignore what we tell them and their main motivation is not what is best for this country, but what will keep them in office or propel them to even greater levels of power.  And the Constitution?  Many on both sides of the aisle act like they've never heard of it, let alone read it.

And when you pay your taxes, remember that for each person who does nothing and receives something (i.e. welfare, healthcare, etc.), there is someone who worked and received nothing.  And with what is left over they are expected to provide their own.  


Blah, blah, blah, rant, rant, rant.

Sizemore was not directly responsible for anything, Oregon voters were and thank God for that. When you say that "the state" pays something you should be saying "taxpayers" pay for it. They can take it from income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, and a million others. Have you ever looked at your phone bill? The following are taxes on your landline:

Federal Excise tax
OR Universal Serivce Surcharge
E911 Emergency tax
Service Assistance Program
City tax
Federal Universal Service Fee

People who earn a living pay for government buildings, government workers and government services. The state has no source of income other than us. I for one think that the government takes too much money and then spends it on hiring people with job titles like Communities of Color Outreach Coordinator/Bilingual: English-Spanish and paying them $4,716 - $6,587 MONTHLY.

Dont forget Multnomah County a few years back consider hiring a translator for those within that county who love Star Trek and have chosen to speak "Kling-On" the rest of their adult or nonadult years.  Not sure if that ever came to fruition, but it was considered.  Thats a good reflection of how Oregon spends money, nonetheless.

Crazy, your father-in-law's idea reminds me of the theory for winning the war in Vietnam that was going around when my father was over there:

1) Evacuate the entire population of north and south Vietnam onto boats in the South China Sea.
2) Carpet bomb the country from one end to the other.
3) Sink the boats.

I agree with your statement that we're heading toward a two-class system.  My thinking along those lines lead me from the Republican party to, over the years, the Democratic party.  I wound up feeling like they do a better job of representing my interests as a definitive member of the non-elite.  

Hard to say if I'm really right though; I heard what Senator Kerry was worth on the radio the other day, and wow that's a lot of money.  

Still, I just don't mind paying my taxes.  I like stuff like being able to have the police come when I call, or making sure the dog food I buy won't kill my dog.  Oh, wait a minute...

Perhaps we need a taxation system at the state level like this.

You pay your taxes like you do now.  Certain percentage out of your check gets stolen away for state purposes.

But,  rather than it going to the general state fund,  you check off boxes of departments and programs funded by the state.
You write down the percentage of your money that you want going to each section,  or leave that unmarked for an even divide.

Any program with no funding at the end of the year gets closed off,  because obviously it wasn't important enough for people.

Then I could be slightly proud of where my tax money goes.  Rather than being spent on useless programs,  it could get spent on stuff that helps me.  Then I won't have to whine so much about my wasted tax dollars.

The unions are going to continue to suck this state dry and the Democrats will spend every single penny, and then some, they will ever, ever get their hands on.  Beside death and taxes those are two certainties you can add to the list...

Actually loadedoperator, you didn't answer his questions.  As charged, you responded with a series of ad hominem attacks and straw men.

As I read things, the crux of dirtybird's argument was that tax rates right now are actually amongst the lowest they've been in history.  If Obama let's the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest 3% of Americans, those tax rates will STILL be amongst the lowest in modern U.S. history.  And yet, when Obama suggests repealing those rates on the richest Americans, the narrative is..."Why, we can't do that...that's socialist!"

By this "logic", Reagan was even more of a "socialist", and Eisenhower...well, Eisenhower might as well have changed his last name to Mao.  If you think a 39% marginal tax rate is high (which, again, is lower than it was under Reagan), try 90%.

I have not seen you, nor anyone else, respond to this very reasonable point.

If this country was running a budget surplus right now, and didn't have so many current and future liabilities, I would be the first person championing a tax cut.  But that isn't the reality.  Politicians of BOTH parties have spent like drunken sailors the past 30 years, and those bills have to be paid.

But our political system ensures that what needs to happen, won't happen.  That's because any politician who tells the truth, and says "I need to raise your taxes AND cut government spending", will not be electable.  Half of all Americans won't vote for that candidate based on the tax comment, and the other half won't vote for that politician based on the spending comment.

As American citizens, most of us want to have our cake, and eat it to.  I have little hope that this dynamic will change, until there is literally no choice but for it to change.

It would be a hell of a lot easier for me to swallow a tax hike if I actually believed that even a fraction of the people proposing the hike were not cheating on their taxes, or flat out evading them.  

And if you believe that any politician, Democrat or Republican, gives two shits about the "little guy" beyond the little guy's vote and his tax dollars, you're fooling yourself.  They may not go to Washington with that type of behavior as their intention, but it sure seems like more than about six months' exposure to that place ruins a man.

Reagan lowered the highest tax bracket, how is that socialist? Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, what don't you understand??? Why isn't this Country running a surplus, was it because we aren't taxed enough? Lets raise taxes so the dems can even spend more, is that your answer? History anyone??? Lets tax everyone even more so they'll have less money to spend to get this economy going.

Oh boy.  Where to even start.

1.  When Reagan came into office in 1980, the top marginal tax rate was 70%.  He lowered that tax rate to 50%, where it stood for 7 of his 8 years.  In other words, Reagan was perfectly fine with a 50% top marginal tax rate.  Obama wants to raise the top marginal tax rate back to 39.5%, where it was for most of the 1990's.  From this, we get this odd narrative:

-  Reagan OK with 50% top tax rate  = Great American.  
- Obama OK with 39.5% top tax rate = Ohs the Noes...he's a socialist taking all our money!

In other words, if Obama is a "socialist" because he thinks a top rate of 39.5% is fair, then Reagan was an uber-socialist for thinking 50% was ok. (All this notwithstanding the fact that the term "socialism" has nothing to do with taxes.  "Socialism" is a theory that describes the means of production.  It has little to do with taxation.)

2.  You ask, "Why isn't this Country running a surplus, was it because we aren't taxed enough?"  Well, technically speaking, the answer is..."sort of".  We had a deep recession for one thing. $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan might have something to do with it, too.  But yes, the back-loaded loss of revenue from the Bush tax cuts has a lot to do with our current financial state...just like the CBO said it would ten years ago.

3.  You also ask, "Lets raise taxes so the dems can even spend more, is that your answer?"  No, that's not my answer. (Although it IS another one of your straw man arguments, since I voiced no desire whatsoever to spend more money.  In fact, I clearly stated we need to cut spending.  Maybe you missed that?)  Yes, I do think we need to increase the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.5%.  If we do this, the wealthiest in America will STILL enjoy historically low tax rates.  And I think it's especially important we do this now, since the wealthiest people in America currently own a larger slice of America than they ever have.  In the last several decades we've had "wealth redistribution" alright.  But the vast majority of it has been re-distributed UPWARDS.  As a simple matter of economics, that's not good.  If you don't have a vibrant middle class...you have a third world economy.

4.  You state, "Lets tax everyone even more so they'll have less money to spend to get this economy going".  Here we have yet ANOTHER straw man argument from you, as I did not state that I think we should tax everyone more.  (What's with you and all your straw man arguments, anyway?)  I think we should only let the tax cuts expire on the top marginal rate.  I think the remaining 97% of Americans should be able to keep their tax cuts.  Read that again:  "I think 97% of Americans should be able to keep their tax cuts."  How on Earth did you come up with the notion that I want "everyone" to pay more taxes, when in fact I only want the wealthiest 3% to pay more?  Oh, I forgot...you just made it up.

You know, "Your Father's Republicans" would be shocked that we're even having this debate.  They would have just assumed it was their patriotic duty to pay their fair share (which was MUCH higher than 39.5%).  Somewhere along the line though (around 1980), the "greed ethos" overtook America (and particularly conservative thought), and those who make the vast majority of the money (often on the backs of the middle class) lost touch with the value of their fathers, and their fathers.  It's a real shame how as a society we've become so morally bankrupt like this.      

1)Has it ever occurred to you that may be that's the best Reagan could get with a dem controlled CONgress and Reagan was far from perfect. Still it was 20% lower, not higher. Obama wants higher. How high is enough for you, back to 50%, 70%, how about 90%?

2)Back again blaming the wars, but not more social spending, and its always Bush's fault not that CONgress (reps and dems) had anything to do with it.

3) You missed the fact that the more gov takes the more they spend, history lesson again? A cut in the gov world is instead of growing 12% they will grow 8%, is that a cut? Then you go and play the class warfare card bashing the so called rich, what playbook is that out of?

4)Strawman argumnet, huh? The less money people have to spend, INVEST, always helps the economy.

The fair share BS! Do those so called rich people that don't pay enough taxes also take in food stamps, low income housing, etc, etc... Stealing more from others that most have busted their asses working eighty hours plus a week to get there instead putting in only forty hours(if that) is real moral.

What is greed?

1.  Looking at it in terms of "higher" or "lower" is not useful, because the words "higher" and "lower", by themselves, lack context.  And that context is important here, because it tells us this:  Even if the tax cuts are allowed to expire for the wealthiest 3% of Americans, those rates will STILL be signifcantly lower than they were under Reagan.  You can't ignore this bottom-line, end result simply because it's inconvenient to your argument.  As for your question of "How high enough should tax rates be for the wealthy", that's a fair question.  And I think it has to depend on the state of the economy.  Right now, I think the proposed 39.5 is fair.  Actually, I think it's more than fair since the overwhelming majority of national income gains in the last decade have gone to this very small group of wealthy Americans.

And if we had a budget surplus, I would be in favor of again lowering that 39.5% figure.  In fact, philosophically speaking, I think it would be nice if no American had to pay more than 25% of their income in federal taxes. (And rest assured, most Americans do in fact pay less than that now.  The effective tax rate for most Americans is significantly lower than their respective marginal rate.)  But since we have bills to pay as a nation, we have to raise revenue.  And this is where conservatives start speaking out of both sides of their mouths: While they bemoan our huge deficits and warn us of the dangers of not paying our debt, when a reasonable proposal is put on the table to start tackling that problem, they won't hear anything of it.  Like I said in my last post...they want to have their cake, and eat it too.

2.  Well, when it comes to our deficit, a lot of it IS Bush's fault due to his ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy.  It is a fact (and not simply my opinion) that the Bush tax cuts drained $2.3 trillion from federal coffers.  And we didn't even get the economic growth out of it that supply-siders always promise.  (Economic growth during the entire Bush tenure was quite low.)  And keep in mind, this was all done at a time when we were starting an expensive war (another $1 trillion+), and when the Congress and White House were going on a massive spending spree.  There is nothing "conservative" about that.  So yes, I place blame where it is due.

3.  Yes, I'm aware that the government is addicted to spending.  And I'm accutely aware that it isn't one party only that's responsible for it.  Which is why I think we need intelligent legislation that governs spending.  Simply adding a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget won't work, simply because economics doesn't work that way.  But yes, we do need to reign in spending.  Just as I've said all along.  As for the "class warfare" comment...you're sort of playing right out of the playbook yourself by even mentioning it.  Only in the mixed-up, bizarro world of the anti-tax zealot does asking the rich to pay a tax rate amongst the lowest it's ever been, become "class warfare".  Moreover, since I'm much closer to that "class" than not, it's reasonable to ask what knowledge you have of me and my own economic circumstances, that would even warrant an allegation of "class warfare".  Fact is, you have no such knowledge.  You simply allege "class warfare!", and hope nobody notices that the only person actually playing the "class warfare" card, is you.

4.  Yes, strawman argument.  For some reason, you're quite fond of them.  As for the spending and investing habits of the wealthiest 3%, I've got bad news for your argumment.  A recent study by Moody's shows that spending habits of the wealthiest Americans (which, remember, is who we're talking about here, since I have already said I want the tax cuts to remain for the other 97%) are far more influenced by the business cycle and the stock market, as opposed to tax policy.  Which makes complete sense, both empirically and intuitively.  Moreover, we already know that the Bush tax cuts, which disproportionately targeted the wealthy, did NOT spur economic growth.  By historical standards, economic growth during the Bush years was rather anemic.

As for greed, your video was slightly off topic.  Nobody in this thread argued that capitalism is an inferior system of economic organization. That was what Friedman was responding to, if you heard Donahue's question at the beginning of the video.  Friedman was correct in explaining that all functioning economies operate on some principle of rational self-interest.  But "rational self-interest" and "greed", are not the same thing.  For example, "rational self-interest" might be me buying the majority stake in a company, and then investing in that company to grow it and realize long-term gains.  "Greed", on the other hand, might be me buying a majority stake in a company, laying off 1,000 workers tomorrow, and then flipping the company two months later after realizing a $3/share gain in the stock price.  

In other words, there are qualitative differences in levels of rational self-interest, such that at some point that rational self-interest turns into greed.  When we reach an apex where flat-out greed replaces rational self-interest, as I believe this country did back in the early 1980's, it has a destabilizing effect on the economy as a whole, which in turn has a destabilizing effect on society as a whole.  Previous generations of conservatives understood this.  The current crop?  Not so much.

BTW, here's a great article that concisely explains much of what I've written about here.  The article, "Raise My Taxes, Mr. President", explains the dynamics of the Bush tax cuts over the last decade, and why it is simply poor economic policy to not let the top marginal tax rate expire.

Who is not paying their fair share?

You're the one wanting to steal more from the rich and that's class warfare.

Society as a whole? Is that the it takes a village mentaility?

As for government reining in spending, what a joke?

THAT's your response???

OK, I guess.  

No way in hell I would vote democrat unless they reincarnated Larry McDonald otherwise they all can FOAD and take the RINOs with them.  I have no love for pinkos, and that's about as politely as I can say it.

Tax Cuts

I can post links to articles all day long too which back up my views.  Unfortunately, posting a link, alone, is not a substitute for actual debate.  It's intellectually lazy.

In this case, even your link contains errors of fact.  Take this paragraph, for instance:

"Though there is some disagreement about where the Laffer Curve bends, most agree that higher rates can and do reduce tax revenue and that the Curve allows for a point at which further tax rate reductions won't stimulate economic activity and create a corresponding increase in Treasury receipts. The United States hasn't found the latter point yet. Unfortunately, Democrats controlling Washington are unwilling to seek it.

Both of those points I highlighted are false.

In the first instance, the author doesn't tell us who these mysterious "most" are, but his contention is flat-out, empirically wrong.  The higher marginal tax rates that started in 1993 did help to increase tax receipts during the Clinton years.  As this chart from the conservative Heritage Foundation shows, tax receipts increased rather dramatically after the top marginal tax rate was increased to 39.5%.  Just like one would expect. (And remember, when this tax hike was proposed in 1992, the GOP warned us that the hikes would crash the economy...much like they're arguing now.  They couldn't have been more wrong.)  

The second part of that sentence (italicized) is true.  When the Bush tax cuts were inacted, federal tax receipts fell, and economic growth was weak.  Also just as one would expect.  That Heritage Foundation chart shows this, too.  This is why the second bolded statement is just factually incorrect.

I do agree with that author, and I've said it three or four times now, that yes...spending needs to decrease.  If spending decreases, and the top marginal rate is raised to a still historically low 39.5%, federal tax receipts will increase.  And by a far amount, too.  This happened in 1918, it happened in 1942, it happened in 1952, and it happened in 1993. (What was that Mr. Shenk was saying about higher tax rates decreasing federal revenue?!?)  Conversely, when tax rates have declined, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP has also declined.  With the Bush tax cuts, federal revenue as a percentage of GDP fell to a historically low 15.4%...thus thoroughly debunking the argument that federal tax rates are too high.

The rest of this article is filled with numerous other factual errors.  Poor Mr. Shenk would do well to crack open an economics history book.

For those that don't want to click:

.

Federal Spending

Debt and Deficits

Entitlements

Obviously a spending problem, not a higher tax problem.

There are some errors here, too.

If I respond to those loadedoperator, are you actually going to address my response, or just ignore everything I've written as has been your tendency in this thread?

The only errors is in the way you think. Do you spend more than the income you take in every month? Has our state and federal government shown any fiscal restraints lately? And yet you think by stealing more from others somehow that will change.

Oh, I see.  So those facts I posted, backed by documentation of why those facts are indeed facts, are just fictions of my imagination?  When I pointed out that author's error in saying that tax hikes correspond to declines in federal revenue, and showed how that is demonstrably false, I wasn't factually correct...I was just "thinking" wrong?

As the saying goes loadedoperator, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."  While I was interested in having a discussion with you, it's somewhat impossible to have a discussion with someone who - when confronted with a fact they don't like - will just conveniently ignore the fact, and tell the other person "you're just thinking wrong."

How appropiate then, that you predictably ended this discussion with yet one more straw man argument, just for good measure.

I'll tell you what...learn how to properly construct a logical argument and debate, and then come back and see me...

Do you spend more than the income you take in every month? Has our state and federal government shown any fiscal restraints lately? And yet you think by stealing more from others somehow that will change.

The Top 10 Percent of Income Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Tax

Seven Myths About Taxing the Rich

StephenNW, I couldn't agree with you more. This was an excellent discussion. My hat goes off to DirtyBird as well.

You framed an intelligent argument based on facts and you were met with nothing more than conjecture and typical right wing rhetoric. That being said, I think this discussion has highlighted a number of things that I have observed on the national stage.

The responses made by loadedoperator are the kind that I have seen made by some conservative talk show hosts, pundits, and activists. Too often is reasonable and intelligent discussion met with an emotional response that ignores facts in order to support an ideology - for reference see loadedoperators posts. I'm not sure why there are so many people that think they are going to be paying higher taxes if the Bush tax cuts for the top 3% are not renewed. I'm not sure why those same individuals think Obama is a socialist and/or a muslim. I tend to wonder if all of this crazy conservative media is to blame for much of this.

When you observe how guys like Glenn Beck frame their arguments, they use emotion inducing rhetoric. They try to create outrage, fear, and anger. But offer little fact to support their arguments. They attack the same part of your brain that a road rage inducing driver does, and it illicits a very emotional response. It's primal, not intellectual. And that is becoming a problem.

I hope more people read this discussion, check the facts for themselves, and maybe even gain a new perspective on the issues discussed.

Also remember that most of us arfcommers can agree on one thing: We're all supporters of the Second Amendment.

well its too bad WE THE PEOPLE can't just vote for who is best (or least evil) with out having to think we have to vote parties

Personally I think we should do away with parties but i know some would nut up at that idea so ok have parties for the people running but voters should no longer be part of a party that way they will not vote dem or rep because it their party and they hate the other but rather vote out the zombies and put some  people with a brain and actually want what is best for the country and not their own self interest into office.

Don't get me wrong many will still want to be  part of a party like sheep in a heard but there would be less pressure and maybe open up the playing field for better people in office .

I hope the readers look into the facts as well instead of thinking government doesn't have enough of our money already. I figure most of the posters on this forum have enough common sense unlike you.

That's the way the system is set up for now. You can always vote for a third party and I've voted Libertarian several times.