Six Ways to Cut Our Debt and Advance Obama's Agenda

The following is sure to rile up people’s emotions, whether on social issues or political issues. They will also, however, provide increased revenue to a revenue starved government that says it wants to reduce the national debt, fix the economy, and cure other ills that threaten our nation (and I do not mean swine flu). I am sure some of you have heard these items be debated while chatter about others is picking up steam.

Offshore Oil Drilling. Safety issues should not be a concern with today’s technology. Other countries, such as Norway, have overturned offshore drilling bans without incident. Not a single rig in the Gulf of Mexico caused a spill, even during Hurricane Katrina. The risk of tankers causing a spill is actually higher than offshore rigs. Tankers are also the favorite target of the Somali pirates. We would benefit by depending less on foreign oil and creating high-paying jobs at home during a time of increasing unemployment and economic distress. People would be needed to survey the ocean floor, construction companies needed to build the rigs, and workers needed to man the rigs. All are high-paying jobs that would increase consumer spending and benefit every town or city on the U.S. coast as well as the federal government through more income tax dollars. As an added benefit the U.S. brings more supply online lowering prices hurting OPEC and decreasing trade imbalances due to oil.

Invest In Green Technologies. No, I do not have short-term memory loss. I am not contradicting myself either. As much as we want green technology and alternative energy it is not cheap enough or ready for prime-time. Therefore, offshore oil drilling (along with natural gas and coal) is the gap filler until green technology is ready for prime-time. The government could provide some subsidies for incentives of traditional energy companies to evolve to green energy companies, make better products, such as a more efficient and shorter charge time for the electric car battery, and upgrading the power grid to allow for solar panels to be part of the network and a place to charge those electric cars (think charge stations with an outlet where pumps would be at gas stations). This would be the new industry where growth for our economy could come from in the future and forever put an end to bubbles in commodities.

Legalize Online Gaming. The tax dollars from online gaming companies and players could be in the hundreds of billions a year. It should also be easy to tax players as these companies could provide a version of W2 forms to players via email and keep track of player winnings (or losses). A simple tax system (is that an oxymoron?) could be set-up for players. For example, someone could deduct up to $2,000 a year for losses, winnings of $499 and under is not taxed; winnings of $500 to $1,000 could be taxed at 10%; winnings of $1,001 to $5,000 taxed at 15%; winnings of $5,001 to $10,000 taxed at 20%, etc. This would also help evolve the casino industry. Instead of building more expensive casinos the casino companies could invest in servers to run their websites and store them somewhere in the bowels of the already built casino. They would reach more customers at once than they ever could before or thought possible. The brick-and-mortar casinos will not go the way of the dinosaur because they provide amenities like shopping, nightlife, spas, restaurants, and atmosphere that the virtual casino can never provide.

Legalize All Drugs. The war on drugs has failed. If people want drugs they will find a way to get them, legal or not. Legalizing drugs would make them cheaper and safer than what the local street pharmacist provides today. The government could slap a tax on it like it does with cigarettes. Social implications are positive. Crime decreases, drug wars are eradicated, and funding of terrorist groups would be severely crippled, if not cut off altogether. Doing this would raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenue streams for the government, make international travel safer, and defeat terrorist groups in one stroke of the pen. The government could also let big tobacco in on the ground floor and you have just got rid of the biggest lobbying group in Washington as a bonus.

Please Tax Me For Social Security. What is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever? If you said Bernie Madoff you would be wrong. It is social security. It has been around for about seventy years and is really just a way to usher in a younger, more productive workforce for society while trying to maintain living standards for the older citizens post-work. Social security is due to run out of money in the middle of the century because the older, soon-to-be-retired workers outnumber younger workers. Simply put, less inflows relative to upcoming outflows. The way to beat this is to increase inflows by higher social security taxes and getting rid of the cap. All income levels need to pay and not just on the first $85,000 either. This cap has to go. Also those making more than $500,000 a year, not $250,000, needs to be the cutoff for higher taxes. If you live in a big, metropolitan area and have a family $250,000 makes you middle-class. $500,000 a year should be enough for any family to live comfortably in any area in this country.

Please Do Not Tax Me (Much) For Capital-Gains. We need confidence and incentives for investors in our stock markets. The best way to get investors back is lower capital-gains taxes. Lower the base rate to 18% and long-term capital-gains taxes to 10%. Investors able to keep most of their gains increase spending. Lower taxes increases transactions which increases taxable income which increase government revenues. We cannot afford to have a generation, or generations, leave investing for good like what happened during the Great Depression. Lowering capital-gains taxes help prevent this from occurring.

Comments

[Tom Wright:]

Ponzi scheme my patoot! Social Security has always been clear on what it provides and the reason for its existence. I know my SSA went to support my parents (among others) who helped make this country what it is. I know my return is not the Madoff type of scam promises. A bigger scam would be to free marketize contributions and hope against hope, that when withdrawals are needed, the market has devastated the funds into which the contribution was put--yes devastated by the same snake oil salesmen who caused this current debacle.

Apr 28 09:28 AM

[socrateazz:]

Hmm ...Interesting. I agree with the oil drilling. Solar cellsare still not efficient enough to replace the energy it takes to build and distribute them unless they last ten years problem free. I have yet to have any solar cells last that long. I skip the Gaming, for I have feeling both ways. Drugs are a problem. I think the lure of feeling better by taking some substance is greater than most humans to live through reality. The gain in taxes may not equal the loss in effectiveness in life. Who knows? Social security is not called retirement security. Why do you think that is? I can not argue with the tax going to higher incomes. I think no limit should be on that tax. The capital gains is where I find the most disagreement with most financial people. I think the capital gains under $10,000 net per year should not be taxed and can be accumulated for an individual. But I think numbers above that should be taxed at the going tax rate until goods demand exceeds supplies. Then another capital gains tax can be implemented. Capital Gains for stocks just rewards holding investments in paper. The real company will exist either way. Capital gains should be for producing what the society needs until supply exceeds demands.

Apr 28 09:48 AM

[jpiretti:]

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service May 2006 report Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and rigs.
The rest of your article certainly has merit.

Apr 28 10:17 AM

[fireball:]

i like your ideas. i hope you meant let green energy correct its' innefficiencies with the monies supplied by those that wish to invest in them and not the monies seized by taxation.
socialist security is done for. the spendaholics have stolen the funds for pork to buy votes for decades. it is now a pile of iou trash. i hate not to get a return on what i was forced to pay but since it is probable i won't see it anyway i would settle for no more good money after bad down that blackhole. i.o.u. indeed. this is one more ridiculous situation. it looks like another bailout to me at this point.
because i have contempt for politicians i have tried to see to my own retirement security even with that system to steal from me as a handicap. sorry but the politicians have already destroyed that one. now they are salivating over iras and 401ks to hide their mismanagement and (stealing) "borrowing".

Apr 28 10:34 AM

[Gregman2:]

Your strategies are likely to result in incurring more debt.;-)

Apr 28 10:51 AM

[perfectface...:]

jpiretti is correct, and there are other reasons that off-shore drilling is a poor idea.

Even now, whenever there's so much as a tropical depression in the Gulf, we see *wild* price fluctuations, for no real reason (no supply constriction, just wild unregulated speculation).

Increasing our dependency on Gulf oil would only further destabilize the Oil/Gas market. Do you want to see $20/gal unleaded? If we increase our dependency on Gulf oil, $20/gal gas is a big "Yes we can!"

Gulf oil is a pathetic wedge issue only good for splitting the "greens", the "Conservatives" and people with common sense from each other. Why do I think this? Because there's more *light sweet crude* under the Dakotas than there is under Saudi Arabia. With that much honey-colored light sweet crude in the center of the US, what possible reason is there for discussing oil development in the Gulf of Mexico, where both the economic and environmental impacts would be far from positive? It's wedge that distracts us from real issues and real solutions. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Gulf oil is not going to benefit normal americans... it won't save one american one cent at the pump. It will only benefit those that work on the edge of legal behavior and manipulate the market for their own profits at the expense of our nation's economy and security.

Apr 28 12:09 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

What is the definition of a Ponzi scheme? It is using new money to pay back old money plus "gains" that were promised. What is social security? The new workers paying back the old workers. By that definition SS is surely a Ponzi scheme. But since it is backed by the government it is a legal Ponzi scheme. I agree it shouldn't be used in the market. It should be under lock and key and invested in U.S. T-Bills. But like all Ponzi schemes it has its day of reckoning coming. But it could be saved if we do what I outlined in my article.


On Apr 28 09:28 AM Tom Wright wrote:

> Ponzi scheme my patoot! Social Security has always been clear on
> what it provides and the reason for its existence. I know my SSA
> went to support my parents (among others) who helped make this country
> what it is. I know my return is not the Madoff type of scam promises.
> A bigger scam would be to free marketize contributions and hope against
> hope, that when withdrawals are needed, the market has devastated
> the funds into which the contribution was put--yes devastated by
> the same snake oil salesmen who caused this current debacle.

Apr 28 12:18 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

Any amount that may have been spilled during those Hurricanes were deemed so minute that it had no impact on the environment and clean-up. About 3000% more oil gets spilled into the Gulf of Mexico from leakage of pipes on land that what was estimated from the hurricanes. There is very little environmental risk from rigs.

It depends on your sources though, some media outlets said nothing was destroyed from the hurricanes, others reported some rigs destroyed as a direct result of the hurricanes. Sources from 2006 reported no damage to rigs. Sources later on in 2008 reported damage to rigs from those hurricanes. Perhaps there were reassessments of damage. I would have to look into this further over the four year period.

But it doesn't change the fact rigs are statistically safer than tankers.
On Apr 28 10:17 AM jpiretti wrote:

> According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service May 2006 report
> Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Caused 124 Offshore Spills For A Total
> Of 743,700 Gallons. 554,400 gallons were crude oil and condensate
> from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined
> products from platforms and rigs.
> The rest of your article certainly has merit.

Apr 28 12:27 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

Yes, I meant green energy correct itself and further products along from private investment and government grants in research. Not from taking tax money from oil, natural gas, or coal companies, etc.


On Apr 28 10:34 AM fireball wrote:

> i like your ideas. i hope you meant let green energy correct its'
> innefficiencies with the monies supplied by those that wish to invest
> in them and not the monies seized by taxation.
> socialist security is done for. the spendaholics have stolen the
> funds for pork to buy votes for decades. it is now a pile of iou
> trash. i hate not to get a return on what i was forced to pay but
> since it is probable i won't see it anyway i would settle for no
> more good money after bad down that blackhole. i.o.u. indeed. this
> is one more ridiculous situation. it looks like another bailout to
> me at this point.
> because i have contempt for politicians i have tried to see to my
> own retirement security even with that system to steal from me as
> a handicap. sorry but the politicians have already destroyed that
> one. now they are salivating over iras and 401ks to hide their mismanagement
> and (stealing) "borrowing".

Apr 28 12:29 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

Could you elaborate further? How would more debt be created if there is job creation, new industries providing growth, and the legalization of some things and getting the tax dollars from them?


On Apr 28 10:51 AM Gregman2 wrote:

> Your strategies are likely to result in incurring more debt.;-)

Apr 28 12:31 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

I didn't say we should just increase Gulf of Mexico oil production. I meant doing this along the whole coast. From Florida to Maine and Washington to California. This would directly benefit about 14 states along both coasts and then the money filters inward to the middle of the country by those people with new, high-paying jobs buying products and taking vacations.


On Apr 28 12:09 PM perfectfaceforradio wrote:

> jpiretti is correct, and there are other reasons that off-shore drilling
> is a poor idea.
>
> Even now, whenever there's so much as a tropical depression in the
> Gulf, we see *wild* price fluctuations, for no real reason (no supply
> constriction, just wild unregulated speculation).
>
> Increasing our dependency on Gulf oil would only further destabilize
> the Oil/Gas market. Do you want to see $20/gal unleaded? If we increase
> our dependency on Gulf oil, $20/gal gas is a big "Yes we can!"<br/>
>
> Gulf oil is a pathetic wedge issue only good for splitting the "greens",
> the "Conservatives" and people with common sense from each other.
> Why do I think this? Because there's more *light sweet crude* under
> the Dakotas than there is under Saudi Arabia. With that much honey-colored
> light sweet crude in the center of the US, what possible reason is
> there for discussing oil development in the Gulf of Mexico, where
> both the economic and environmental impacts would be far from positive?
> It's wedge that distracts us from real issues and real solutions.
> Nothing more. Nothing less.
>
> Gulf oil is not going to benefit normal americans... it won't save
> one american one cent at the pump. It will only benefit those that
> work on the edge of legal behavior and manipulate the market for
> their own profits at the expense of our nation's economy and security.

Apr 28 12:35 PM

[ariesl:]

How about a tax on foods, snacks, and drinks based on positive or negative food (health) value. Slap a tax on foods with high saturated fat, transfats, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, high fructose corn syrup, high calorie count, high sugar content, low nutritional value, and high amounts of artificial color and/or flavors. Offset the tax by a reduction based on the amount of vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber the item has. Few shoppers would buy an $8.00 12 oz. bag of Cheese Dooldles or a $4.00 2 pack of Twinkies. On the other hand, fresh vegetables or low fat meats would be discounted so a rational eater's grocery bill might even be reduced from current amounts.

The income from the tax would go towards Medicare and Medicaid helping to slow the coming insolvency of those programs. Also helping, would be the improvement in the health of the population as people slowed the rate at which they have been poisoning themselves with junk food. The cost of the programs would go down if people were in general healthier. Those healthcare programs should also automatically exclude smokers and those who have no genetic or accidental cause for their fatness and/or poor cardiovascular fitness. Those are usually preventable conditions caused by poor lifestyle choices just like smoking, excessive drinking, or non-medical drug use. The general population of tax payers should not have to pay for the poor choices of others. Reductions in benefits could be on a scale graduated by the degree of excess fat or poor fitness. That way people would be rewarded in dollars for improvements in fitness and/or reductions in their fat to weight ratio.

I am looking forward to comments and additions or exceptions readers have.

Apr 28 12:42 PM

[OldNavySailor:]

How about:

1. Eliminating government (federal and state) agencies/departments that are unnecessary (e.g., Federal Reserve Central Bank, Department of Education, etc.)?

2. How about reducing corporate and personal income taxes?

3. How about removing burdensome regulations that have nothing to do with employee safety, consumer safety or environmental safety?

When the private sector shrinks, government must reduce itself as well, otherwise the economy is out of balance and the people suffer.

Apr 28 01:37 PM

[Valley Boy:]

It makes better economic sense to concentrate on the oil and gas fields which are much easier to exploit more than the deep sea fields. I'm referring to the Bakken, Fayetteville, Marcellus Shales
plus extracting more oil and gas from older fields with the new technology. Geothermal offers the best long-term technical strategy in the green energy arena. We have an abundance of it out West. It runs full time, doesn't leave a huge real estate
presence and involves minimal evironmental consequences.
Reducing the taxes on entrepreneurs while raising taxes on
offshoring labor, unhealthy snacks, and unhealthy drugs seems
like intelligent policy.
Let's get a grip on our debt load, too.

Apr 28 02:23 PM

[lavrys:]

In short, I AGREE. With everything.
The only thing I would add is a phased (25-yr) zero-garbage policy. Zero polution, 100% recycling etc. Lot's of jobs and technology there..

Apr 28 02:45 PM

[quick:]

jpiretti,

You are absolutely right! Hurricane Katrina did in fact cause a bunch of oil spills! Too bad these "authors" at SA can just write whatever the heck they want to regardless if it's true or not. Well, I guess as long as they get to advance their agenda, the truth doesn't really matter!

People, be careful what you read on this site! It's not like a newspaper that is occasionally held accountable for the things they publish.

www.sierraclub.org/wil...

www.katrinadestruction.../

Apr 28 04:13 PM

[Dirk:]

Agree totally on the drug question, the war on Drugs is the wrong way of looking at it, it is an epidemic of drugs, not a war. On the drilling question here is my compromise. Allow drilling for natural gas, but not oil (at this point). There has been lots of progress over the last few decades making rigs safer, and I assume that will continue. Gas can not spill, and allowing drilling will provide the incentive to get all the seismic work to get done, so we will have an idea of how much is out there. Ten or 15 years from now we can pump the oil. Green tech is a must. Also agree on the legalized internet gambling. However, it is hard to argue that taxes on capital are too high relative to taxes on labor.

Apr 28 04:34 PM

[JulieCJ:]

Normally, I read, but don't write. However, I disagree with this writer pretty much across the board. I couldn't just sit back and not put my two cents in here.

To NOT invest in green technology is unthinkable at this point in our history. Green technology is ultimately what will free us from the bonds of the foreign oil. It must happen sooner rather than later, so do your due diligence and invest in green technology NOW! There are hundreds of companies out there that have great ideas and incredible technology right now!

New drilling for oil will inhibit the employment of green technology, not to mention, especially in the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico, the potential for damage to the fragile environment. The time it takes to bring a new well to full production is just too long - and expensive, given the environmentalists fights to prevent any new wells anywhere. It would be much better, cheaper and easier to reactivate wells that have been shut down, and allow the wells that are currently operational to pump at full capacity (rather than limiting the amounts they can pump). Do that and new drilling will not be necessary.

The writer's opinion on gambling and drugs makes me wonder - legalizing them will NOT result in the utopia he promises. If it isn't drugs that makes the underworld tick, it will be something else. Crime will not magically disappear. It's simply too lucrative to that element. Does the writer (and others who push the same agenda) enjoy one or both too much . . . enough that they want them to legalized to be sure they won't end up in prison?

Tobacco is deadly and must be taxed out of existence, if that's the only way to be rid of it! Second-hand smoke is even more deadly (it's picked up and carries potentially deadly viruses and bacteria while it's in the air). Legalizing tobacco just to rid the country of a group of lobbyists seems a bit odd. Lobbyists can be legislated away (although that's not likely given the definition of politics), but lung cancer can kill, and is hugely expensive, whether or not you live to tell about it.

Taxing Social Security benefits is wrong. ALL workers who will benefit from Social Security should pay into it, from from ALL income sources, including bonuses! However, taxing the benefits is robbing the poor. It's a less-than-poverty living for seniors to begin with and taxing it further erodes it's worth to the recipient. It was never intended to support people in the manner-to-which-they-h... while working. If all workers paid SS taxes on all incomes, the benefits wouldn't need to be taxed!

What is usually considered to be unearned income (capital gains) should be taxed - every penny of it! First, it is income (duh), however it was generated, and second, just begging for it to be taxed less leads me to believe the writer has a lot of unearned income (as opposed to earned income). The only exception would be the capital gains taxes on homes. Home ownership has taken a real beating, thanks in part (at least) to Wall Street, so making it that much harder hurts everyone.

For too long, too many have had it their way (lower or no taxes while the 'middle class' foots the bill). That is changing, thanks to the revelations of greed on Wall Street and in board rooms across the country.

'. . . dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal' means that EVERYONE - rich and poor alike - pay their way, whether the rich think it's 'fair' or not!

Apr 28 05:53 PM

[Valley Boy:]

People are free to believe whatever they want
and decide for themselves what is true. That is
what makes a market.



On Apr 28 04:13 PM quick wrote:

> jpiretti,
>
> You are absolutely right! Hurricane Katrina did in fact cause a bunch
> of oil spills! Too bad these "authors" at SA can just write whatever
> the heck they want to regardless if it's true or not. Well, I guess
> as long as they get to advance their agenda, the truth doesn't really
> matter!
>
> People, be careful what you read on this site! It's not like a newspaper
> that is occasionally held accountable for the things they publish.
>
>
> www.sierraclub.org/wil...
>
>
> www.katrinadestruction.../

Apr 28 06:06 PM

[Ryan Pollack:]

You obviously did not read one word of the article or didn't understand it. For instance where did I say to NOT invest in green energy? Or to tax social security income; I said to have all workers and income levels pay their fair share of THE social security tax that is taken out of your paycheck. I didn't say crime would disappear with the legalization of drugs i said DECREASE there is a huge difference. As far as online gambling and drugs people are doing it/using it anyway, why not get tax dollars for it to reduce the government's debt and pay for social programs?

Nice try on trying to spin my words around though, but it didn't work.


On Apr 28 05:53 PM JulieCJ wrote:

> Normally, I read, but don't write. However, I disagree with this
> writer pretty much across the board. I couldn't just sit back and
> not put my two cents in here.
>
> To NOT invest in green technology is unthinkable at this point in
> our history. Green technology is ultimately what will free us from
> the bonds of the foreign oil. It must happen sooner rather than later,
> so do your due diligence and invest in green technology NOW! There
> are hundreds of companies out there that have great ideas and incredible
> technology right now!
>
> New drilling for oil will inhibit the employment of green technology,
> not to mention, especially in the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico,
> the potential for damage to the fragile environment. The time it
> takes to bring a new well to full production is just too long - and
> expensive, given the environmentalists fights to prevent any new
> wells anywhere. It would be much better, cheaper and easier to reactivate
> wells that have been shut down, and allow the wells that are currently
> operational to pump at full capacity (rather than limiting the amounts
> they can pump). Do that and new drilling will not be necessary.<br/>
>
> The writer's opinion on gambling and drugs makes me wonder - legalizing
> them will NOT result in the utopia he promises. If it isn't drugs
> that makes the underworld tick, it will be something else. Crime
> will not magically disappear. It's simply too lucrative to that element.
> Does the writer (and others who push the same agenda) enjoy one or
> both too much . . . enough that they want them to legalized to be
> sure they won't end up in prison?
>
> Tobacco is deadly and must be taxed out of existence, if that's the
> only way to be rid of it! Second-hand smoke is even more deadly (it's
> picked up and carries potentially deadly viruses and bacteria while
> it's in the air). Legalizing tobacco just to rid the country of a
> group of lobbyists seems a bit odd. Lobbyists can be legislated away
> (although that's not likely given the definition of politics), but
> lung cancer can kill, and is hugely expensive, whether or not you
> live to tell about it.
>
> Taxing Social Security benefits is wrong. ALL workers who will benefit
> from Social Security should pay into it, from from ALL income sources,
> including bonuses! However, taxing the benefits is robbing the poor.
> It's a less-than-poverty living for seniors to begin with and taxing
> it further erodes it's worth to the recipient. It was never intended
> to support people in the manner-to-which-they-h... while working.
> If all workers paid SS taxes on all incomes, the benefits wouldn't
> need to be taxed!
>
> What is usually considered to be unearned income (capital gains)
> should be taxed - every penny of it! First, it is income (duh), however
> it was generated, and second, just begging for it to be taxed less
> leads me to believe the writer has a lot of unearned income (as opposed
> to earned income). The only exception would be the capital gains
> taxes on homes. Home ownership has taken a real beating, thanks in
> part (at least) to Wall Street, so making it that much harder hurts
> everyone.
>
> For too long, too many have had it their way (lower or no taxes while
> the 'middle class' foots the bill). That is changing, thanks to the
> revelations of greed on Wall Street and in board rooms across the
> country.
>
> '. . . dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal'
> means that EVERYONE - rich and poor alike - pay their way, whether
> the rich think it's 'fair' or not!

Apr 28 08:33 PM

[dragonpaw:]

I appreciate that you return comment to so many readers. Keep it up. Too many "experts" are so willing to blow-off the plebian commentators. With regards to your stances: 1] Pursuing all forms of energy at this point are an absolute necessity; nuclear, coal, natural gas, and oil drilling [see James Qiunn, a frequent and eloquent Seeking Aplha contributor]. Other frequently referred to alternative sources [ wind,solar ,geo-thermal ,etc.] at this point are white-tower pipe dreams. These will all come to fruition someday, but not in the practical near-future, nor at the whimsy of governmental "cap" taxation. 2]" Green-tech" ,just as I write this word and see the neo-logistics of it's implicaton, I can only refer back to the first statement. 3] Gambling for most of us is simply an idle vice. For some [hope you don't have someone near and dear who is so addicted] it is an obsessive-compulsive addiction that destroys lives. We can't balance the budget on the backs of the disabled. 4] Pretty much like gambling. The effects of drugs on a growing and developing mind are far different than on those of us who are adults. I could go on at length about this, but just look at the age- implications for those who become nicotine addicts. How many more drunk-drug addicted people do we want driving the streets? 5] Social-security; a Ponzi scheme of the highest order; will bring down this 0r the next presidency. 6]Cap-gains; there should be an orderly and slight increase [1-2%/year] over the next few years that is "means-tested" i.e. related to income levels starting say 200K taxable and upward.

Apr 28 11:37 PM

[kertch:]

I'm moving to China.

While you sit in your expensive energy efficient home, which you couldn't afford without a goverment subsidy, eating broccholli and tofu, I'll be in my Shanghai condo smoking cigarrettes, sipping whiskey, and enjoying a cheeseburger. While you're wearing sweaters to so you you can reduce you immense but "green" power bill, growing food in your gardens, and driving your ethanol powered micro-cars, I'll be the beneficiary of coal power, the cheapest source of energy on earth, and driving to work in my gas-guzzling Buick SUV. While your productivity stagnates under your immense tax burden, trying to fund every needless government project that the politicians promote, and enact every stifling regulation the social "busy bodies" can concieve of, I'll be living in the most dynamic growing economy in the world. The companies in my country will dominate world commerce since they operate in the worlds largest single market and one of the world's friendlies business environments. You will continue to run companies out of your country while we welcome them with open arms. You'll come to us to borrow money to finance your very existance (which you're already doing now), and we'll have to eventually turn you down and find other, more sensible borrowers and customers since we all know that you can never possibly pay back all the money you're borrowing. You'll acuse us of being "polluters" and "human rights violators" and we'll just laugh because we'll be so economically powerful and important that we can just ignore you. What will you do? stop buying our products? You couldn't possibly produce them for even twice the cost in your country!

We usd to say "Capitalism is the scourge of mankind", now we say "It's glorious to become rich!". You used to say "You can become anything you want in America if you work hard enough", now you say " It's not fair! The rich must pay!". Ironic isn't it. Capitalism is not dying, it is simply moving to China, albiet with an authoritarian twist.

May 07 05:50 PM