just got a bonus check. $1500.00



after taxes and ss, the check was only $900.00



and the sad fact is that we all consider this normal. who do I have to vote for to get lower taxes?

11/14/2007 7:09:17 PM

you should move to some off shore Caribbean island

voting wont change anything

11/14/2007 7:14:51 PM

well for the most part i like it just fine here, thanks. i just want lower taxes.

11/14/2007 7:15:30 PM

Do some research and get creative with your tax returns. There is no reason you should pay any more than about 25% or so in taxes unless you make 6 figures.

11/14/2007 7:19:31 PM

The Libertarians.

So like jwb9984 said, voting won't change anything.

The Republicans and Democrats will consistently strive to get more power, and wanting more power means they control more purse strings, and controlling more purse strings means those purses have to be filled. If you want less taxes, you should not ask for less taxes, you should ask for less spending.

No politician has ever said "I have enough power, I don't want or need anymore." They can always start up a new think tank that is funded by the government, or file more pork barrel legislation to build a new museum back home that serves no purpose, or take care of their lobbyist buddies by giving them a billion-dollar contract in exchange for those lobbyists getting on their knees to give the politician a blowjob. That is why the politicians will never turn down more money.

That's my sarcastic answer. I'm sick of politics in this country. The real answer is you need to vote for the party that will devolve power away from the federal government, cause if the government has less power, they have less avenues to spend money on. The Republicans and Democrats when in power have increasingly centralized the role of federal government in this country. So neither one of them is interested in lessening the individual's burden for the costs of government. And normal people have no voice in our democracy, so voting does nothing. Millionaires and billionaires do have a voice just cause they can give a ton of money to politicians in soft money, so they can buy off politicians to set up tax laws beneficial to them to the detriment of the rest of us who are middle-class.

[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 7:50 PM. Reason : /]

11/14/2007 7:38:59 PM

three words:

Ron.

Motherfucking.

Paul.

[/thread]

11/14/2007 9:07:17 PM

Mitt Romney wants to get rid of capital gains taxes which is a start in the good direction.

But yes, you should be a libertarian.

Basically, repubs will stand pat until the actual conservatives make their voices heard enough to the point where they have to listen to reason instead of nutty religious people

11/14/2007 9:09:38 PM

I know the question is about lower taxes, so the details of what he was taxed isn't really the point, but I'm a little surprised you people failed to point out that he was most likely hit by the W2 calculation issue with most companies and bonus checks.

We also have no clue about his 401k contribution, the number of witholdings he has (probably 0 or 1), etc.

11/14/2007 9:36:03 PM

Ron.

Motherfucking.

Paul.

[/thread]

11/14/2007 9:43:19 PM

He makes more sense than anybody who's run in a long, long, time. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans are the same thing with a little different rhetoric.

11/14/2007 9:53:41 PM

Not that I favor it in the first place but I might be more accepting of Universal Health Care, and more social programs if we went to a Flat Tax.
The poor benefit the most from social and government programs yet pay the least % of their income.

Nothing burns me up more than people that will drink Hennessey every weekend, put 2K rims on their buick but lack the $$$ so thus living in tax-payer subsidized housing and get food stamps every week to buy groceries.

11/14/2007 10:04:39 PM

Quote :

"Nothing burns me up more than people that will drink Hennessey every weekend, put 2K rims on their buick but lack the $$$ so thus living in tax-payer subsidized housing and get food stamps every week to buy groceries."

Why don't you just say you hate black people? Because thats how I read that.

11/14/2007 10:18:45 PM

All poor people waste their money, not just black people. Sooooo...who is more racist?

11/14/2007 10:20:50 PM

I'm tired of these people always saying that all their tax dollars are going to lazy people who do nothing. People will overlook giving hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses in subsidies every years, but if few billion bucks are spent keeping people from starving to death or going homeless, all of a sudden government is the evil empire.

How about this: you people go do some research and look at policy, instead of pulling out fact-less anecdotes out of your ass.... or shut the hell up.

Quote :

"Not that I favor it in the first place but I might be more accepting of Universal Health Care, and more social programs if we went to a Flat Tax."

You do realize that unless you, yourself are obscenely rich that this would shift a higher amount of tax burden onto yourself. Thus you are acting irrationally from an economic standpoint. The fair tax is unfair in that it punishes the low and middle incomes that have the least amount of disposable income and rewards those who need it the least.

[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 10:36 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2007 10:26:08 PM

Quote :

"I'm tired of these people always saying that all their tax dollars are going to lazy people who do nothing. People will overlook giving hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses in subsidies every years, but if few billion bucks are spent keeping people from starving to death or going homeless, all of a sudden government is the evil empire. "

Well, you know, we could always get rid of corporate welfare, too... I hardly see the two as being exclusive to one another.

11/14/2007 10:36:21 PM

The red States in the midwest would never allow their agricultural subsidy cash cow to be eliminated, no matter how "fiscally responsible" they claim to be. And the military industrial complex needs endless war to continue growing.

Economic special interest groups and lobbyists outnumber public interest groups 3 to 1 in Washington. If you want an end to big government spending, significant political reform must be enacted, particularly campaign finance. Only when you end the reciprocal role of money for contracting preference will we reduce wasteful spending.



[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/14/2007 10:43:37 PM

Here's the problem with the logic that "if we just got the money out of politics, everything would be okay." It takes money - gobs of it - to unseat incumbents. Generally it takes outspending an incumbent by large factors to have a chance at unseating them. And why? Because they can simply buy all the votes they need. They can bring home the bacon. They can buy off constituencies.

So, yes we need fundamental political reform. But campaign finance reform ain't going to cut it - if anything, it will make the incumbency problem even worse. (Already we have a 90+% incumbency rate.)

Instead... we may want to consider actually paring back the government such that there's no favors to be bought or dispensed. (Yes, I know, if only we had the right people in charge, we wouldn't have to worry about the powers of the government being abused. We never will. Deal with it.)

11/14/2007 11:04:07 PM

Quote :

"Instead... we may want to consider actually paring back the government such that there's no favors to be bought or dispensed."

That would actually be worse. By scaling back government, we are scaling back oversight.

The reason business interests want "less government" is that at lower levels of government (state and local) they wield significantly more influence and power and can heavily control the outcomes of political situations. The Federal government operates on a level that eliminates this advantage and allows public interest organizations a decent chance at advocating policy that represents the interests of the people.Public interest groups are significantly more organized and funded at the national level, while economic special interests are better funded and organized at the state and local levels.

The devolution of the federal government only serves to further enforce economic special interests influence over our lives. Its against democracy and against the public interest.

11/14/2007 11:20:08 PM

Huckabee is for the fair tax

Ron Paul is also against the income tax

11/14/2007 11:29:40 PM

Quote :

"The fair tax is unfair in that it punishes the low and middle incomes that have the least amount of disposable income and rewards those who need it the least."

Just a bit of correction here. Rep John Linder's FairTax legislation provides a monthly prebate to every taxpayer up to the poverty level. What this means is that the poor will still pay no federal taxes.

A family of 3 can spend up to $22,400 in a year before they pay a penny of federal tax.

11/14/2007 11:42:37 PM

^ then that's a concession to the fact that the Fairtax is regressive (ie punishes lower incomes). So the rich will pay less... the poor will pay nothing.... that means the middle class (that you and I will be a part of) will shoulder the increased tax burden. As someone who will never make over $500k a year, it would be irrational for me to support such a proposal. I would be supporting something that goes against my own interest. The whole issue definition of "FairTax" was a clever one, since it is not fair. It would be more appropriately defined as a "tax cut for the rich to the detriment of economic benefit of the working class".

[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ...]

11/14/2007 11:47:54 PM

Quote :

"That would actually be worse. By scaling back government, we are scaling back oversight."

That's not inherently true. For example, we get rid of farm subsidies - this has absolutely nothing to do with oversight. We get rid of other agencies which do nothing but hand out favors to well-connected interests and again, this does nothing to reduce oversight. Not even to mention the issue of how poorly the FedGov does exercise its oversight role, namely because of its excessive distance from those interests it is actually designed to serve...

Again, are you just waiting for the "right" people to take charge? Do you actually think everything would be peachy-keen if we just stopped putting the "wrong" people in office?

Quote :

"The reason business interests want "less government" is that at lower levels of government (state and local) they wield significantly more influence and power and can heavily control the outcomes of political situations. The Federal government operates on a level that eliminates this advantage and allows public interest organizations a decent chance at advocating policy that represents the interests of the people.Public interest groups are significantly more organized and funded at the national level, while economic special interests are better funded and organized at the state and local levels."

Uh... your evidence of this would be, what?

Here's a notion - governments are also far more accountable at the local level - it's far easier to unseat a city council member or a state legislator than it is a national legislator. It's far easier for a concerned group of citizens to exert pressure on local officials than national-level legislators. (Seriously, are you actually arguing the converse? Do we need to go through the utter litany of counterexamples to how utterly unresponsive the federal government is to citizen interests compared to local legislatures?)

Quote :

"The devolution of the federal government only serves to further enforce economic special interests influence over our lives. Its against democracy and against the public interest."

Because the status quo does sooooo much to advance the public good.

[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 11:57 PM. Reason : Finishing out a point]

11/14/2007 11:53:08 PM

Quote :

"Do some research and get creative with your tax returns. There is no reason you should pay any more than about 25% or so in taxes unless you make 6 figures."

I pay about 30% in income tax but I usually end up getting well over $1000 from tax returns. sucks seeing such a huge chunk of my salary going to uncle asshole every 2 weeks

11/14/2007 11:53:40 PM

Quote :

"It's far easier for a concerned group of citizens to exert pressure on local officials than national-level legislators. (Seriously, are you actually arguing the converse? Do we need to go through the utter litany of counterexamples to how utterly unresponsive the federal government is to citizen interests compared to local legislatures?)"

Citizens are outmatched in local governments because of collective action problems and lack of organizational funding. Johnny SixPack cannot go to a board of commissioners meeting and fight the engineers, lawyers, developers and real estate people who want to put subdivisions up. They dont know the laws and dont have the money or time to go to all the meetings, whereas the professionals are paid to attend every meeting and have seen every detail from inception.

Individual citizens are not supposed to have influence at the national level, they are mildly successful at the state level. It takes a truly significant issue to get a citizen group mobilized to oppose a measure at the local level. Most proposals are passed before boards with little concerted opposition.

Quote :

"Uh... your evidence of this would be, what? "

E.E. Schattschneider's The SemiSoverign People; A Realists Guide to Democracy in America(1975). Its a defining work on which much of our contemporary political conflict and public mobilization theories have been based.

11/15/2007 12:06:39 AM

Quote :

"Citizens are outmatched in local governments because of collective action problems and lack of organizational funding. Johnny SixPack cannot go to a board of commissioners meeting and fight the engineers, lawyers, developers and real estate people who want to put subdivisions up. They dont know the laws and dont have the money or time to go to all the meetings, whereas the professionals are paid to attend every meeting and have seen every detail from inception."

As opposed to the FedGov... oh, wait. Right. There, the lobbyists even write the laws - even the lawmakers don't have the time to go to every meeting and know every law, etc. Hell, they don't even read what they vote on half the time. This is somehow superior?

Quote :

"Individual citizens are not supposed to have influence at the national level, they are mildly successful at the state level. It takes a truly significant issue to get a citizen group mobilized to oppose a measure at the local level. Most proposals are passed before boards with little concerted opposition."

And this is supposed to be a good thing? Why even bother with representative democracy at all? Why not just appoint a government of technocrats and cut down on all the bother will elections and lobbying?

And impact on the local level happens all the time. City councils are routinely turned out for being unresponsive to citizens - see, Raleigh, Cary, etc. Ditto with state governments - see, Virginia. Try doing that at a national level. When they do something people don't like, they routinely pay for it. Again, you really trying to argue that the Federal Government comes anywhere close to this?

11/15/2007 12:21:17 AM

Quote :

"And this is supposed to be a good thing? Why even bother with representative democracy at all? Why not just appoint a government of technocrats and cut down on all the bother will elections and lobbying?"

The process favors the economic interests at lower levels of government. The bureaucracy might be slow and inefficient, but complete efficiency would be undesirable. Efficiency lets bad people do bad things very quickly. (see the Patriot Act)

Quote :

"And impact on the local level happens all the time. City councils are routinely turned out for being unresponsive to citizens - see, Raleigh, Cary, etc. "

Its easy to point to larger cities to see this happen. Thats because they operate on an almost state like level with their degree of conflict, organizational capacity and resources. This is not true for a majority of the thousands of towns and cities in NC.

Quote :

"Again, you really trying to argue that the Federal Government comes anywhere close to this?"

Not at all. I think that measures should be introduced to reduce the effect of incumbency and increase competition. A viable third party would do wonders.

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 12:36 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2007 12:35:03 AM

Quote :

"and the sad fact is that we all consider this normal."

Well ... flypaper and all that. I still think companies just pay more to compensate for taxes; i.e. people work for net wages at the end of the day, not gross.

Having said that -- there are tremendous tax advantages that we enjoy as citizens. Home ownership is a big one. You can sell your home for up to $250,000 in gain without paying any taxes. You can deduct large amounts of interest from your gross income.

Here in California very many people play this game -- they buy a home for a large sum of money and pay so much interest that the income tax is practically a wash.

For better or worse our tax system rewards risk. It's not even a remotely fair system. But it's not linear, either.

Translation: consider hiring a tax advisor. And don't count on taxes going down anytime soon. This Congress can't even fix AMT.

11/15/2007 12:43:58 AM

Quote :

"The process favors the economic interests at lower levels of government. The bureaucracy might be slow and inefficient, but complete efficiency would be undesirable. Efficiency lets bad people do bad things very quickly. (see the Patriot Act)"

I believe that you have missed my point. The issue is not efficiency so much as responsiveness. If representatives aren't "supposed" to be influenced by the concerns of individuals, why have elected representatives? What mechanism do you propose for accountability?

Besides which, the bureaucracy clearly favors larger, entrenched interests even more at the federal level. What small player has the resources to navigate the labyrinth of federal regulations? Why do you think large players lobby to make the regulatory framework? (See, for instance, the Master Settlement Agreement with the major tobacco companies). It's not just for terms favorable to their own terms, but for regulations that only they can possibly comply with on an economically competitive level. Again, only the federal government has the vast and sweeping power to accomplish this kind of end - it's the ultimate honeypot.

Quote :

"Its easy to point to larger cities to see this happen. Thats because they operate on an almost state like level with their degree of conflict, organizational capacity and resources. This is not true for a majority of the thousands of towns and cities in NC."

The point is, it's still much easier to unseat an incumbent at a local level than at a national level - the money required for a successful campaign is orders of magnitude lower. It is entirely possible to run a shoe leather campaign at a local and state level - it's unthinkable for a national office.

Quote :

"Not at all. I think that measures should be introduced to reduce the effect of incumbency and increase competition. A viable third party would do wonders."

Well, at least we agree on something. But what would you propose to reduce the effect of incumbency? Again, most campaign finance restrictions have the opposite of the intended effect, magnifying the advantages of incumbents. Name recognition and "bringing home the bacon" become even more important advantages when challengers are unable to "out-raise" the seated incumbent.

(There are options like alternative voting methods, such as IRV and approval voting, but these at best act on the margins by including more players - they don't fundamentally change the equation of incumbency.)

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 12:51 AM. Reason : Further clarification]

11/15/2007 12:48:31 AM

Quote :

"then that's a concession to the fact that the Fairtax is regressive (ie punishes lower incomes). So the rich will pay less... the poor will pay nothing.... that means the middle class (that you and I will be a part of) will shoulder the increased tax burden"

Gosh..hard to believe..but wrong some more.

Many of the rich no longer earn any more income. They live off their acquired wealth. While young families who are working their way up get hit the hardest by the progressive income tax. The FairTax only taxes consumption. So for the first time, the actual wealth of the rich will be taxed as they buy their expensive goodies.

The middle class working joe now gets a paycheck that has no federal tax component ...no withholding, no social security, no medicare. And every taxpayer gets the monthly prebate...not just the poor.

11/15/2007 1:15:55 AM

if you want to pay a shitload for gas elect a republican president

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 1:23 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2007 1:23:15 AM

^^ surely you must concede that would create a huge black market within the US, and large luxury items could simply be acquired overseas in places with more favorable tax policies. Its unlikely the tariffs would be comparable to the taxes they would have avoided paying.

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2007 1:26:55 AM

Which effect do you suppose is larger - tax avoidance in the current scheme (hiding income, under-the-table transactions, illegal transactions...), or tax avoidance through black market purchasing?

Also, which do you suppose would be easier to enforce?

11/15/2007 1:29:06 AM

If it is a 20+% sales tax then the black market created will be uncontrollable, to the point of corrupting local political institutions for protection. Federal revenue officers will find themselves harassed by local law enforcement, perhaps even to the point of violence.

Now, a Value Added Tax can be implimented up to 40+% before it engenders a black market, but it collects the same money per percentage tax (more, in fact, by preventing black markets).

My ideal tax scheme at the federal level would be thus:
1. A Visible Value Added Tax of 10% (V-VAT, the estimated tax paid is reported on all receipts after purchase)
2. An income tax that is 0% until the $100k income level, rising to 25% above $200k
3. A flat carbon tax applied to all mines, wells, and import terminals.
4. End the separate payroll tax for SS and Medicaid

I suspect these rates are high enough that my scheme would be revenue neutral.

11/15/2007 3:03:06 AM

Funny on the gas comment. I thought the democrats were going to get us 1 dollar gas as promised. haha


For those argueing agaisnt the fair tax, why I have no idea, please refer to what mike huckabee said about the current tax structure.

"Its time for our government to stop penalizing the productive, to subsidize the irresponsible"

^best quote and summary of the current income tax.

11/15/2007 7:59:24 AM

Quote :

"surely you must concede that would create a huge black market within the US,"

It's hard to avoid corruption and cheating with any tax system. The amount of cheating on the income tax system is huge. One thing to keep in mind is that the cost of goods and services will pretty much remain the same.

There is about an ave. 20% fed tax component included in every good and service you currently purchase. These are taxes for payroll, social security etc that producers build into the price of their products. The FairTax would eliminate this component, so prices would tend to go down through competition.

But yes, there would still be cheating. But instead of having to watch individual taxpayers, you would only have to keep an eye on retailers which is a much smaller group and more easily controlled since they all need gov't licensing of some type to exist.

Quote :

"My ideal tax scheme at the federal level would be thus:"

LoneSnark and I have gone round and round about the FairTax. The new thing I see to your ideal scheme is a carbon tax. I don't think taxes should be used for social engineering. They should collect money to run the gov't and that is all.

A VAT tax is pretty hidden and thus too easy for politicians to manipulate. The FairTax is much more visible and easy to understand. Your plan combines with a Income Tax...this is a dangerous combination.

The FairTax would not go into effect until the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid the temptation of just what you are suggesting. A consumption or VAT tax combined with an income tax would be asking for disaster.

11/15/2007 10:57:29 AM

What? My V-VAT is completely visible, no room for maneuver. Look, make it an amendment stating that it must be applied to all producers equally.

That said, your statement is wrong: a Value Added Tax makes corruption and cheating not worth it to most people.

This is because while the tax may be 20%, each individual in the chain is only paying around 6%, which is well below the inflection point of 10% (which countries with sales taxes quickly learned was the point the sales-tax system break down, collecting less revenue as good transition to the black market as the tax increases).

And don't pretend your scheme is not just as much social engineering as a carbon tax. You are taxing consumption, so people will apply effort to avoid the tax by minimizing their consumption. This will include keeping durable goods around longer, repairing old houses instead of bulldozing to build new houses, repairing used cars to keep them on the road longer.

At least a carbon tax would social engineer in a possitive way by reducing CO2 emissions.

And my "ideal tax scheme" was ideal from an economic standpoint by minimizing social engineering, otherwise known as tax avoidance. No one is going to change what or how they do to avoid a 10% VAT tax. Similarly, an income tax that only applies to 15% of Americans would raise a lot of revenue without any of the current dislocations currently found in labor markets (employer provided healthcare, for example).

You cannot have just one source of revenue without dramatic levels of economic distruction created by tax avoidance behavior. If you want, make the tax rates explicit in the amendment.

11/15/2007 12:12:22 PM

An income tax is simply not a fair tax. Esp when it is scaled.

A consumption tax is fair, bc now YOU have the choice on what you want to consume. The money you make is the money you keep.

11/15/2007 12:24:23 PM

So suppose there was a 20% consumption tax on all goods. I'm rich, so I think I'm gonna buy a $5 million yacht. Now, I can buy one in America and pay $6 million total for it. Or, I can scoot on down to Mexico and purchase it with only a 10% tax on it. Which should I choose? Hmm...

I hope you see where the fallacy of your argument lies.

11/15/2007 12:40:06 PM

that's simple... make all foreign purchases subject to the US tax.

11/15/2007 12:45:33 PM

Yeah, because that would be easier than just using an income tax...

11/15/2007 12:53:01 PM

Quote :

"Just a bit of correction here. Rep John Linder's FairTax legislation provides a monthly prebate to every taxpayer up to the poverty level. What this means is that the poor will still pay no federal taxes. A family of 3 can spend up to $22,400 in a year before they pay a penny of federal tax. "

How much does that family of 3 make in a given year? I would venture to bet that family of 3 would pay no federal income tax, pay into social security and medicare, and still have a decent refund (in the thousands) due to the additional child tax credit and earned income credit within our current system.

The one thing I have found within our tax system is that it is extremely fair. Many of you look at this on an indiviudal basis and see it as unfair. In the last 5 years I have probably prepared over 2000 tax returns and there only a few cases in which I believe the tax law to be unfair. I always find that people who owe the most can pay the most and those that get the most need it the most.

11/15/2007 1:43:35 PM

Quote :

"So suppose there was a 20% consumption tax on all goods. I'm rich, so I think I'm gonna buy a $5 million yacht. Now, I can buy one in America and pay $6 million total for it. Or, I can scoot on down to Mexico and purchase it with only a 10% tax on it. Which should I choose? Hmm... I hope you see where the fallacy of your argument lies. "

Surely youve thought about this further. For instance, say you live in NC and purchase a car in mexico or just SC because the sales tax is cheaper. Here is the kicker, you wont pay the taxes when you make the purchase, you will once you have to register it in you own state.

I hope you see where the fallacy of your argument lies.
Although, you might be pretty young and havent ever purchases a car or switched your registration between states, so Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

11/15/2007 1:49:12 PM

My three-cents

Ron.

Motherfucking.

Paul.

[/thread]

11/15/2007 2:37:06 PM

who is ron paul?

11/15/2007 2:45:29 PM

Quote :

"who is ron paul?"

Exactly.

11/15/2007 3:47:02 PM

Quote :

"I can scoot on down to Mexico and purchase it "

How many millions of people are going to scoot down to Mexico to buy their everyday stuff? I doubt even the super-rich are going to scoot to another country to buy toilet paper and cereal...which probably generates more sales than all of the yachts sold in a year.

Quote :

"In the last 5 years I have probably prepared over 2000 tax returns and there only a few cases in which I believe the tax law to be unfair."

You have a personal stake in defeating the FairTax, for if it passes...your income tax preparing days would be over. I for one would welcome that day. Americans spend millions of dollars and work-hours filling out those damn forms each year. The income tax is a horrible mess, and the sooner it goes the better.

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2007 5:05:30 PM

I do have a personal stake in it, no doubt. That doesnt make it any less fair though or make a flat tax (or fair tax) any more legit.

11/16/2007 10:55:35 AM

^but penalizing people for being productive/successful makes more sense?

11/16/2007 6:50:09 PM

Quote :

"If i want lower taxes, who do i want to be pres?"

If you want to change things on a national scale, you have a lot work to do on a lot of levels. It's not something one vote can change. People gather around causes, it might be easier to try to change what the taxes are spent on rather than just trying to reduce them. We always need schools, and roads, and sewage systems, and animal control, and policemen, and firefighters and the like. Taxes aren’t inherently a bad thing.

At some point it should be about getting bang for your buck, quality for your money, rather than just going for whichever politician promises you lower taxes.

11/16/2007 9:36:49 PM

Quote :

"If i want lower taxes, who do i want to be pres?"

You have to go back in time and not elect bush.

His administration's gross fiscal irresponsibility over the past ~7 years has pretty much guaranteed higher taxes down the road if we ever want to bring back any semblance of economic balance.

11/17/2007 10:55:13 AM