Thanks for Commenting
If increased government spending is such a bad thing then why has the leader of your party, George W Bush, doubled the federal budget (with an additional $200B+/year in unbudgeted "emergency spending" for his various wars, because somehow once a quarter he's surprised that it actually costs money to occupy to countries at the same time) while tripling the federal debt? Why did he create the largest new entitlement program since FDR with his medicare prescription expansion?
Over the last week or so you've exposed yourself as either one of the stupidest people in the country or one of the biggest liars in the country. Which is it?
It seems to me that the undeserving predatory rich are taking from the shrinking middle class and working folk. Let them pay their share.
Dan,
I do think that the spending spree the Republicans went on when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency was a VERY bad thing. And, I think in 2006 that had a lot to do with the number of seats lost. With all that said, I can't even begin to fathom what spending will be like if the Democrats get the same opportunity.
On second thought, I know exactly what it will look like. We'll see poverty rates increase - just like in New Mexico.
Thank god you trade in unsupported opinion and not in fact Mario. Let me restate your argument for you:
"Man the GOP has been awful in every way possible but the Dems are going to be even worse because BOO THEY'RE SCARY BE SCARED OF THEM!"
Meanwhile the GOP is still rolling in their slop trough of earmarks. Build any new $100M bridges to nowhere lately Mario? Don't forget the kickbacks!
http://www.marioburgos.com/2005/...-to-
basics.html
I for one fully expect the DEMS to screw up some things.
It is just that the REPS have really failed the people allowing multi-national and big national corporations to write their own regulation with no restraint at all.
The REPS have started torturing people all over the globe and have an insane policy of pre-emptive war and nation building while neglecting the infrastructure at home.
They have given tax incentives to the corporations to transfer tooling, intellectual property and labor to China.
They have a grim environmental record catering to short term greed.
They have non-fact and non-science based idealogy rather expertise running our government agencies.
All the money spent going to the pockets of CEOs with very little to show. They have brought our economy to it's knees.
It just goes on.
It is time for a change of power for the good of the country.
Mario:
you write:
"Government spending has increased in New Mexico from $3.9 billion to over $6 billion in the last six years, and more children are living in poverty. Increased spending on government programs are not the answer to solving the poverty problem in America. It doesn't work in New Mexico, and it won't work nationally."
While the facts of what you write are correct (the first sentence), the conclusions you draw (second sentence) may or may not be true. It all depends. Denmark has a higher standard of living, higher productivity, than the US, and ALSO has a high level of government spending.
What it depends on is the productivity of public investment relative to private investment. Thus an investment in networks (pipelines, electrical transmission, roads, broadband) – generally a declining cost activity -usually lead to higher productivity, and a reduction of poverty. Ditto for investment in public goods, provided they are undersupplied (ie the cost of producing an extra unit is less than the value of that extra unit, as is clearly the case with health care (Did you ever read Samuelson’s article on that, or the Wikipedia entry on that ?)
The reason NM Federal investment shows such poor results is that those expenditures were essentially welfare payments, to keep the nuclear and other high tech weapons industry afloat. Even though we have overproduced these weapons and additional nuclear pits actually DECREASE our security, the vested interest (and general ignorance of the public and politicians) are such that the extremely high income structure of places such as LANL is maintained. Thus much of the $2billion plus that LANL receives pays a highly skilled work force to WITHDRAW their labor (and infrastructure) from productive use. While LANL income (welfare payments) remains high (the “hill” has the highest per capita millionaires in the US), it contributes NOTHING to GDP. Thus this budget should be seen as a COST to New Mexicans, as this “income” (welfare) they receive entitles them to a share of the goods and services YOU, Mario, and I, and the rest of New Mexicans doing useful work would otherwise be entitled to. See eg, the graph on page 12 in this LASG .pdf. , that supports your contention, that the more LANL receives, the poorer New Mexicans become. In that sense Domenici (and Bingaman and Udall, for that matter) have done, and are doing, New Mexicans a clear disservice. In fact, UNTIL, NM finds a way to “just say no” to federal military dollars New Mexico is certain to remain a poor state. And actually accepting federal dollars for a worthwhile project (the bridge to nowhere does point out the difficulties with federal investments, although the other industrial countries that recognize that health care is a public good (single payer please)likewise point out that doing federal expe
The bottomline is that Senator Obama wants to increase taxes, so that he can increase spending, ...
People who make more than $227,000 dollars a year would pay more taxes under the Obama plan.
People who make less than that nearly quarter-million dollars a year would pay less. It's true. My heart bleeds for those who make a quarter-million, or even a million dollars or more a year. They'd pay more under Obama. But my heart bleeds more for those families struggling on $25,000, or $50,000, or even $100,000 a year (these last may not even be struggling) all of whom would pay less under the Obama plan than under McCain.
see:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/p...t.cfm?
ID=411741
particularly tables 11 and 12 on pages 44 and 45.
As to whether these higher taxes on the very rich is intended to allow *more* government spending, I think that's a small lie. The first thing is to raise taxes to pay for the enormous debt that the wild Bush spending has left us with. Or, at least, that's how I read Obama's mind. Your reading may differ. Personally, I believe in paying one's debts, even if that requires higher taxes.
I believe Mr Schneider has presented the facts to you, MB. If you would like to see the same data in an easier to compare, truely 'nutshell,' format. look here: http://www.latimes.com/business/
...,962299.graphic
Or do the actual numbers have no effect on your thinking?
All the comments above point to the class warfare that Obama is preaching. Take from those who have and give to those who don't have. It is a horrible economic system.
We ought to celebrate people making lots of money and being successful but instead they are beat upon as being "successful".
Nobody wants to point out that Obama is a communist and history has shown that, that economic system fails.
Hail to Comrade Obama
Hey Frank, has it occurred to you that whats actually proposed is not to take from the rich and give to the poor but to take slightly less from the poor and slightly more from the rich?
Also, you're ignoring that under our current taxation system the bulk of the burden of taxation isn't on the rich (who tend to shelter a large proportion of their income anyway) or the poor (who for the most part don't pay income taxes) but the middle class, whose average real income has actually fallen $2000/year on average over the last seven years. Both Obama and McCain are proposing middle class tax cuts, but Obama's are larger.
By contrast, the Bush administration's tax policy is to take from the middle class and give to the rich in the form of no-bid contracts for the various things that Bechtel and Haliburton are taking money for but apparently not completing in Iraq.
Dan, please go to the IRS website and click on their stats page.
Your paragraphs above are incorrect. Look at the data, the rich are paying their fair share and the poor are paying their fair share. The EITC is refundable so those folks that don't make 20k per year(family of four) actually get a refundable tax credit.
The IRS has a wealth of information regarding tax burden. Dan, you may want to check it before you make stuff up.
Tax burden is not well expressed in percentages. Your use of the term "fair" is entirely subjective and I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that.
I don't feel it necessary to get into a long taxation argument with you, but I will agree that it is true that the top 1% of earners pay more in theory than the middle 40%. However that does not take into account that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate (10%) and many, many other factors. Warren Buffett himself has written about how he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his secretaries making 50k/year do, because of various loopholes income taxation.
If we're going to use subjective terms like "fair" can you agree that the middle class will "benefit" more from a tax cut than will the upper class? Does the top tier of earners somehow "need" the very large tax cuts that John McCain is proposing for them, and do they "need" them more than the middle class?
The fact is, under Obama's proposal anyone making under $600K/year will either pay the same average tax bill or somewhere between slightly and much less. There's a breakdown by income level at this page:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/
...sion=2008061111
Commenting by HaloScan
