hehe...new taxes for everyone....

[Brian Roth]

Although the lowering of the SS withholdings were alleged to be temporary when enacted a few years ago....

I wonder how "Joe Six-pack"  will react in a few weeks when he...along with everyone else...sees a lower amount in his take-home pay...

As for further taxes, I suggest.... take away 99.999999% of EVERYONE'S paycheck...which is the current objective in Washington, DC.  According to our leader and friends, no one ever had any success without help from the the Government, so EVERYONE  has to pay....everything.

Let's now be fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bri

 

[abechap024]

Yea. Nobody seems to really care till it affects THEM. I'm fed up with the whole tax run around. Sad thing is its getting harder and harder to even justify were the money goes. I'm 100% for community upkeep: roads, schools, general benefit of mankind. But signing that check knowing its going to feed the hideous bureaucracy. You know the one thats using 1 Million dollar a pop computer lazer guided heat tracking missiles to kill people living in mud huts. At least I still have the right to say that.

 

[JohnRoberts]

One famous economist (Milton Friedman?) once said it is impossible to identify and manage the massive waste and fraud in government spending, so the only prudent alternative is to only give the federal government the minimum revenue it needs to cover essential services (border security, international diplomacy, etc).  For years after we were founded our federal government was able to live comfortably of the fees generated by permits and trade duties.

The more of our economy that gets managed by the federal government, the less we get for our money, and less economic growth we can expect.

=====
I'm shocked    that this tax bill was passed just barely hours into 2013. This way the republicans can claim it was a tax reduction (cough). I think I mentioned this strategy several weeks ago. All this recent drama was just political theater for face saving, but I suspect the sheeple bought it hook, line, and sinker.   

We only need to look at Europe to see how we can end up, when the bond vigilantes stop lending us money to spend on all these entitlements. Bernanke has distorted the free market pricing of US sovereign debt by buying up so much of it with freshly printed dollars so boycotting it by private buyers has less impact. If that isn't a sham transaction (clearly not arms length or unrelated parties) I don't know what one looks like. If a private business tried to do something like that, they would end up in jail.

Arguably this ongoing monetary expansion is keeping deflation at bay but I still don't see an easy exit plan... With $16T+ of debt and little promise of reduced spending, just wait until interest rates rise. It will take several $T just to service that still expanding public debt. I understand Bernanke keeping his pedal to the metal, as long as congress and the administration don't act like adults about taxation and spending.

We are just seeing the beginning of this (borrowing  and spending) fight, and I can't be very optimistic. While the headlines now will report a tax cut on paper, in reality it is a tax increase on one of the more productive sectors of our economy, and many stealth taxes related to Obama-care, kick in this year and next. These tax increases will not put a significant dent in debt and deficits, but can damp GDP growth. Every time a politician talks about reducing deficits or balancing a budget ten years in the future, they are lying.... They always say that about everything, knowing that they may not be around to account for their promises.  We may not need severe austerity right now, but we need to reverse this trend. The Titanic sank despite promises it couldn't. 

Happy new year everybody...

JR

PS: I dislike this argument that American voters chose their short term self-interest over the long term good of the nation, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck, certainly fowl. I heard about the state of PA issuing a study where a working single mother got more money by keeping her wage rate low. I forget the exact numbers, but to actually net more revenue without the entitlements she had to increase her earned income from $20,000s  to $50,000s. Yet another unintended consequence of negative incentives from government help. I think many of these politicians are well intentioned but they do not understand economics and human behavior. We are helping everybody deeper into dependance on the government. The cynic in me could easily interpret this as buying votes.  Again I don't see that ending well in the long term. The flaw in that plan is that you eventually run out of rich people. They are fleeing France right now over confiscatory tax rates, and their supreme court just ruled the 75% tax rate was not "fair".  8) 8) 

[edit] for perspective, the taxes raised by the recent increase on the top couple percent is about equal to the pending federal government relief bill to help NY/NJ after the recent hurricane. So all that "new" revenue is already spent.  [/edit]

 

[Spiritworks]

Entitlements and pork are the two most dangerous words in our economic lexicon. Nothing will ever get better while everyone wants "their fair share". I saw a great bumper sticker the other day that read: "Your fair share is not in my wallet".
I fear the tax man more than I fear any international terrorist.

 

[rob_gould]

pork ...... most dangerous words in our economic lexicon.

I don't understand? what's dangerous about pork if you don't mind explaining?!

 

[pucho812]

Let me tell you how it will be. There's one for you nineteen for me.

 

[pucho812]

pork ...... most dangerous words in our economic lexicon.

I don't understand? what's dangerous about pork if you don't mind explaining?!

Pork is short for pork barrel. It's become part of the American lexicon and I am not sure who started it but it is often used by the media.



Pork barrel is the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district.  In election campaigns, the term is used in derogatory fashion to attack opponents. Scholars, however, use it as a technical term regarding legislative control of local appropriations.

 

[dmp]

I just read an article pointing out that the vilification of pork barrel spending has caused it to decline significantly - the negative consequence being the current constipation of government in the US. When legislators could be bribed with spending for their district, they could see a reason to vote for something they find less than ideal.

I know we all like to complain about taxes but seriously - don't you or someone you know benefit from SS, medicare, etc? My grandma is on medicare. My parents planned their retirement considering SS payments. Over half of our taxes go to the demonized 'entitlements' - but the money is actually considered very efficient in that the benefits go directly to people. Very little is wasted on administration.

Taxes are currently at historic lows. Even though we hate taxes, maybe we should consider whether economic instability leading to social instability will really be better.

 

[JohnRoberts]

pork ...... most dangerous words in our economic lexicon.

I don't understand? what's dangerous about pork if you don't mind explaining?!

Pork= unrelated earmarks (add-ons) to spending bills that congress uses to fund pet projects and reward their home state constituents, completely unrelated to the intent of the bill. Piggy backed on some legistation that is very popular, to fund things that are not of general benefit.

While we could even debate about when it became the federal government's responsibility to make people whole for natural disasters (I don't recall reading that in the constitution), since we have to borrow the money, maybe it wouldn't be crazy for citizens to owe us back for direct aid, but ignoring that for now, we are a generous people and the NY/NJ citizens took a pounding so they need some help.

Added onto this direct aid bill are things like:

•$2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, D.C., while many in Hurricane Sandy’s path still have no roof over their own heads.

•$150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm’s path as Alaska.

•$125 million for the Department of Agriculture’s Emergency Watershed Protection program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and drought.

•$20 million for a nationwide Water Resources Priorities Study.

•$15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane ‘minimal.’

•$50 million in subsidies for tree planting on private properties.

•$336 million for taxpayer-supported AMTRAK without any detailed plan for how the money will be spent.

•$5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers – more than the Corps’ annual budget – with no statement of priorities about how to spend the money.

•$12.9 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it.

In the context of a $50-60B spending bill a few million dollars here or there is just a rounding error, but looking at that list suggests to me a complete lack of discipline about the big lumps in that bill...  $12B for undefined disaster mitigation?  Doubling the Army core of engineers budget.

Hell with the pork, the real meat of this bill smells bad. 

Speaker Boehner got slammed by Gov Christie for postponing the vote on the pork laden bill, moments after getting reamed by tax rate increases on top earners. Not hard to imagine why he didn't want that visual minutes apart. Now it looks like the Sandy bill will be broken up into two parts so the kabuki theater that is congress allows them to vote for it before voting against the second half. (I hope they put the BS pork in the second half, but knowing them they will see this as two opportunities to pile it on) and may pass both.

As entertaining as it is to howl at the moon about these pork laden earmarks, they really aren't the significant spending problem we have. The vast expansion of entitlements with no credible path to fund them will consume us in debt and interest rates will not stay this cheap forever. I find it ironic how much the young kids embrace the current politicians who are borrowing and spending like crazy, only to leave those young people saddled with the debt to pay off later. 

I am kind of glad I will be dead and will escape the end game from the spending trajectory being laid in over the last several years with more coming.

JR

PS: I sure hope I am wrong....

PPS: and now for some comic relief Gerard Depardieu (wealthy actor) was just granted Russin citizenship by Putin to escape confiscatory French taxes. Now that's entertainment. I wonder how much he studied history before making that move. We used to get the tax expatriates from Europe moving here, not these days.

 

[rob_gould]

Thanks for clearing that up. That's an expression that hasn't made it to these shores yet (as far as I know!)

 

[sodderboy]

dms,
The benefits do not go "directly" in that at least 25% is absorbed by the the machine collecting the dough and printing the checks.
Don't confuse SS and Medicare with gubment transfer payments.  Most people receiving retirement payments paid into the system, and are receiving their end of the deal they had no choice in making.  There are new naturalized citizens of retirement age and the disabled in their middle age receiving SS and SSI that did not pay, but most did.  I did some checking and in the 40's the life expectancy of white women was 65, the age of SS eligibility.  Now it is over 80, and obviously the system has not adjusted benefit eligibility age properly.  Plus, you can claim at 62 now if you want. 

The $$ that grandpa paid into SS was taken by Congress and spent in the present past.  Now there are only T-Bills in place; paper bought with paper.  The completely unfunded liability is well into the double digit trillions- a number like $40,000,000,000,000.

"Making the rich pay their fair share" will never work because the rich, the "2%", employ professionals that will find tax efficient ways to protect income earned and "unearned".  All the "Buffet Tax" talk is BS.  Buffet is a hypocrite with a Presidential medal investing in the Prez' pet projects and shifting his fortune one step ahead of legislation.  Same with a Tereza Heintz Kerry or any Kennedy.  It's fake manna for the stupid masses.  Even if you confiscate all their wealth you run the gubment debt-free for a couple of months and then what?

The only way out is to actually decrease the size of government.  Decreasing the increases is smoke and mirrors.  It can all be balanced in 10-12 years using a 1% year over year across the board reduction of the current budget (which is actually George Bush's final year budget!!!  The current Nomenklatura in charge never had the ability or guts to do anything different).
Mike

 

[pucho812]

Ron paul had this to say on his facebook page

Statement on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 8

We Are Already Over the Fiscal Cliff

2 January 2013

Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.

While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.

Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.

Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.

While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.

While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the “rich,” most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.

The arguments against the automatic “cuts” in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?

Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic “stimulus” created by militarism.

As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, “It’s easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere.”

While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve’s policies do impose an “inflation” tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.

I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.

 

[JohnRoberts]

but what do you think? Ron Paul's opinions are pretty well known.

If an increasing number of americans were really alarmed about the growth in spending the election would have turned out differently. And Ron Paul would be more than a libertarian spokesman and perennial presidential primary candidate. While I hope the tea party continues to gain momentum in future elections, and Paul's message needs airing.

The President did a pretty good job splitting the Republicans against themselves by rejecting Boehner's offer of the same revenue from deduction modification, as he got from the rate increases on the very top earners. So this wasn't really about the revenue math as much as class warfare. Boehner couldn't even pass his own plan B in the house he has the majority in. 

Lets see if the House can get their puppies back in the pen since this is still just round one of this ongoing fiscal conflict. The debt ceiling is probably the next act in this kabuki play. Another imaginary crisis since we will always pay our bills, at least for now while we still actually can. But this will be the next point of conflict. I expect yet another can kicking exercise with little long term improvement. 

I am not sure if Bernanke is overtly enabling the congressional malfeasance, or just trying to keep the ship afloat, despite their lack of adult behavior. He surely doesn't want to be blamed for a complete economic collapse, so he is pumping tons of liquidity into the economy.

One dirty little secret is that every other country's central bank is doing the exact same thing. So instead of the dollar falling in value to help US exports it has actually gained some relative strength against other currencies recently. I bought some gold a few months ago and it is down 11% in dollar terms :'( :'(  But I have faith that with all this debt, inflation will surely take care of my modest holding of gold when they try to monetize the debt (can't say what it will do to my cash)...

I don't see much hope of growing our way out of all this debt, as they keep raising taxes and increasing regulation. So inflation and monetizing the debt seems indicated. (We are not the only nation with so much debt, but we are a relatively recent joiner of this 100% of GDP sovereign debt club).

JR

PS: Al Gore just sold his Current TV to Al jazera for $300M... hmmm good for him... Al Jazera might have some more interesting programs. Maybe even slightly more US friendly than it was.  : I still won't watch, while the original Al Jazera broadcast out of Dubai had some interesting stuff.. Al Jazera US will be about as interesting as BBC America. Pure agenda driven broadcasting but this can be informative if you understand the game at play.  As compared to the "agenda free" US networks.  ;D ;D ;D

 

[dmp]

The benefits do not go "directly" in that at least 25% is absorbed by the the machine collecting the dough and printing the checks.

What? Where does that number come from?
I just looked up Social Security is 0.9% administrative, Medicare is 6-10%.

I'm not defending fiscal irresponsibility, just everybody in the room complaining about 'freeloaders' or slandering government employees as the problem.
Nobody here is getting money from the Uncle Sam? Social Security? Unemployment?

The only time the budget was balanced was under GW Bush, for a few months. Then they cut taxes so we're in the red again. Why cut revenue to drive the country into fiscal ruin?
Why not cut spending? If it weren't political suicide, we might be able to get somewhere. When so many Americans spend more in a year than they make, why would they vote to have their gov be any different?

PPS: and now for some comic relief Gerard Depardieu (wealthy actor) was just granted Russin citizenship by Putin to escape confiscatory French taxes. Now that's entertainment. I wonder how much he studied history before making that move. We used to get the tax expatriates from Europe moving here, not these days.

PS: Al Gore just sold his Current TV to Al jazera for $300M... hmmm good for him... Al Jazera might have some more interesting programs. Maybe even slightly more US friendly than it was.  : I still won't watch, while the original Al Jazera broadcast out of Dubai had some interesting stuff.. Al Jazera US will be about as interesting as BBC America. Pure agenda driven broadcasting but this can be informative if you understand the game at play.  As compared to the "agenda free" US networks.

Think I saw both these stories on the Drudge Report this morning. Talk about agenda driven news. I hope you get your news from other sources as well

 

[ruffrecords]

The bottom line is the only people who really contribute are the workers. These same people vote in a bunch of people to govern them, set laws and provide social services like roads, police and possibly healthcare. The government invariably abuses this power and uses it to line its own pockets. the result is that corrupt practices in certain business areas are allowed to occur so long as it makes money for those in power.

When the pack of cards thus created falls flat on its face, the only people who can actually do anything about the resulting bottomless pit of debt is the workers. Like the really smart people they are, they allow the same corrupt government people to tax them even more to pay for the mistakes made by the people they voted for.

The bottom line is the workers are lazy idiots. If they had half an ounce of sense they would get up off their backsides and get themselves voted in to government and make sure it never happens again.

In a democracy there's no one to blame but yourself.

Cheers

Ian

 

[sodderboy]

The benefits do not go "directly" in that at least 25% is absorbed by the the machine collecting the dough and printing the checks.

What? Where does that number come from?
I just looked up Social Security is 0.9% administrative, Medicare is 6-10%.

That is as a percentage of expenditures not income to the "trust fund", and does not include SSI program costs, which went up big time this year alone.  More new people on SSI than found a job actually.  Relate it to income, add in SSI and your number goes up.  I will look where I found the 25% number.  Needless to say that if it were privately administered the costs would be much less.  There is a built-in negative incentive for government agencies to control costs.  The bigger their budget the more important they look, the more power they wield.  It's counter-intuitive to anyone working in the private sector.

Just got my property tax bill and see that my county, town, school, and highways got $307 million in "state aid".  It's just our share of federal and state taxes paid, and it would be much more if it were not filtered through DC and/or Albany first.

The place to start is to get all foliticians in the same boat as their constituents- same SS, Medicare, taxation, access to healthcare, etc.  Why should they be exempt from their legislation?
Mike
PS: net payee into the mess. . .

 

[pucho812]

but what do you think? Ron Paul's opinions are pretty well known.

Well in a very simplified response,
I think you can't get blood out of a turnip, that adding more taxes on everybody is just going to make things worse. I am with the 76% of Americans who feel the government spends too much.  Without any sort of major budget management raising taxes in an attempt to close the gap of what the government takes in versus what it spends out will never work.  Government is the only business where you can continually run in the red and still function.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The benefits do not go "directly" in that at least 25% is absorbed by the the machine collecting the dough and printing the checks.

What? Where does that number come from?
I just looked up Social Security is 0.9% administrative, Medicare is 6-10%.

I'm not defending fiscal irresponsibility, just everybody in the room complaining about 'freeloaders' or slandering government employees as the problem.

I don't recall making such comments specifically, but since you raise the subject, I have many criticisms of government administrata but the growth of government is just the symptom, the problem is from a systematic expansion of government, by the politicians in congress. 

Fraud is rampart in many government program, so while the government administrators are not generally participating in the fraud, they are not a diligent as private industry at rooting it out.

I would wholeheartedly approve of expanding fraud detection in government programs. I suspect we would easily recover more money than this stepped up enforcement would cost. If it stops returning more money than it costs, then reduce it again. 

Nobody here is getting money from the Uncle Sam? Social Security? Unemployment?

I'm not but at 64 YO I will probably start taking social security at some point. i did pay into it all my life.

The only time the budget was balanced was under GW Bush, for a few months. Then they cut taxes so we're in the red again. Why cut revenue to drive the country into fiscal ruin?

The math isn't quite that simple. and i'm not sure I have the energy right now to explain it all..  One simplification I heard repeated today by some talking head that is worth repeating was laking about the US government as if it was a family budget...

The prototypical family earns $22k a year but spends $38k a year, the credit card debt is around $140k...

Now if the government could raise 60% more revenue from a simple tax rate increase that would still just break them even.

While both sides are unhappy with the recent tax deal, it is worth considering that the Sandy relief bill, at as much as $50-60B when/if both parts are passed , that does not have any offsetting spending cuts somewhere else, will pretty much absorb the entire tax increase on the wealthiest earners.

The only way out of this hole is to get the economy growing again at even mid single digits (4-5% growth). We will not get this kind of growth by increasing taxes on business people. Increasing regulation, slowing down energy development, etc etc. 

Why not cut spending? If it weren't political suicide, we might be able to get somewhere. When so many Americans spend more in a year than they make, why would they vote to have their gov be any different?

Cutting spending worked for Reagan. The growth of government under Clinton slowed dramatically in his second term. A popular request is to return to Clinton era tax rates... I would say OK to that if we could have (Bill not Hillary) Clinton back. He is not so violently anti-business and understands economics.

PPS: and now for some comic relief Gerard Depardieu (wealthy actor) was just granted Russin citizenship by Putin to escape confiscatory French taxes. Now that's entertainment. I wonder how much he studied history before making that move. We used to get the tax expatriates from Europe moving here, not these days.

PS: Al Gore just sold his Current TV to Al jazera for $300M... hmmm good for him... Al Jazera might have some more interesting programs. Maybe even slightly more US friendly than it was.  : I still won't watch, while the original Al Jazera broadcast out of Dubai had some interesting stuff.. Al Jazera US will be about as interesting as BBC America. Pure agenda driven broadcasting but this can be informative if you understand the game at play.  As compared to the "agenda free" US networks.

Think I saw both these stories on the Drudge Report this morning. Talk about agenda driven news. I hope you get your news from other sources as well

I recognize the name "Drudge Report". That is some internet blogger, right? Sorry to disappoint you but the Depardieu story has been in the news for weeks. First he was going to re-settle in Belgium, the Putin story sounds like some publicity play by Putin to get some extra attention, I don't think Depardieu is that stupid but he is an actor. The Current TV story has also been in the business news for a couple days... I googled it just to confirm the sale date was literally right after the tax rate went up.  8) Additional news on that story is that Comcast already announced they will drop Current TV now that it is associated with Al Jazera. Sopme gossip that may be more Putin-like self promotion was that Glen Beck was trying to bid on Current TV but they refused to deal with him... I suspect if they'll take Al Jazera money they'd take GB money (as if he had $300M handy).

Sorry if this is somehow disappointing, but no I get my news from more credible sources and manage to form my own opinions.

JR     

 

[JohnRoberts]

but what do you think? Ron Paul's opinions are pretty well known.

Well in a very simplified response,
I think you can't get blood out of a turnip, that adding more taxes on everybody is just going to make things worse. I am with the 76% of Americans who feel the government spends too much.  Without any sort of major budget management raising taxes in an attempt to close the gap of what the government takes in versus what it spends out will never work.  Government is the only business where you can continually run in the red and still function.

Thank you... I care more about what you guys think than a politician, even though Ron Paul has a better philosophy than 99% of all politicians.

JR

 

[pucho812]

but what do you think? Ron Paul's opinions are pretty well known.

Well in a very simplified response,
I think you can't get blood out of a turnip, that adding more taxes on everybody is just going to make things worse. I am with the 76% of Americans who feel the government spends too much.  Without any sort of major budget management raising taxes in an attempt to close the gap of what the government takes in versus what it spends out will never work.  Government is the only business where you can continually run in the red and still function.

Thank you... I care more about what you guys think than a politician, even though Ron Paul has a better philosophy than 99% of all politicians.

JR

Same to you. I learn quite a lot from you kind sir.  As for Ron Paul I like him and thinks he makes a lot of sense.