The Most Fiscally Irresponsible Government in U.S. History

Reader Comments
Back to article

Just read what this guy had to say. Nothing has changed!!
www.ronaldreagan.com

Ron Spooner of CA 2:14PM September 27, 2010

American business works like this:
If I control my own salary I will drive it through the roof. If I control your salary I will drive it down to the basement. Now get out there and vote Republican, the middle class is for wussies.

Lee Elliott of NY 11:41AM September 27, 2010

The last stimulus went to the huge union hired corporations, Fa and Fr Mac, Shore bank, buying up small banks( takeover) corporate property, overseas, the UN, to Obama's massive cabinet, in huge salaries for his hand picked workers, placing his chosen socialist people in strategic places like the Pentagon, universities, heads of agencies all over America etc. for parties, vacations, shopping sprees in other countries, lawsuits to opposition, acorn, men in Black, weapons to Moslem countries, such as plane parts to Syria, five stealth planes to Pakistan, supposably to stop the Taliban, now other Moslem have stealth planes with bombs on them. Money to Pakistan, colleges and universities that have a socialistic agenda, campaigns for socialistic political programs, like GM, & the huge cost of the clunker program failure, ACLU, special interest grants, such as abortion clinics, ACLU, planned parenthood, for those who are part of a socialistic plan to reduce American citizens, so people can flow across the border, become American citizens, vote democrat, keep them in power, and to erase 2 borders, part of the plan to socialize the US. Their green house or Global warming policy is set up to make us oil dependant so when the prices go out of sight, Americans will be more vunerable. If you think this is not true, go to my site on face book, and watch some of the videos. If you want more proven information, leave your e-mail address on my face book site.I have documented proof.
He needs another stimulis to pay for all of these programs, and the exorbant wages he pays friends in the white house. The Democrats talk aboutRepublicans favoring the rich. Obama is worth $5,000,000, now and by the time out of office in 2012 will have earned $8 trillion more off of the emission tax, for him alone.(article London Times) the Clintons, Al Gore, Aires, and other close connections will receive billions off the same tax. America oil will be depleted, they plan on drilling for deep off shore oil off Braille, by a company they own. This is the advantage the remark, "let us not let a disaster go to waste. By the way that is a communist philosophy, and strategy, as a way to overcome the power of the people.
They say the Republicans favor the rich, remember, if the big corperations, make cuts, it will be jobs. mall bussiness get taxed, it will be jobs. No bussiness can survive if they do not have bank acount backup. If sales wane, so does their back up. The lay offs start. As Palin said put the money into the hands of the small bussiness and the workers, and they will spend, and the money will creep up. for stability. Cut spending inG overnment, for stability. Cut taxes. Americs work nine months of the year just to pay taxis. No more stimulis, no printing more waste money. The emission tax will break US oil companies. Gore, Obama & friends, Clintions, will make billions. More proof? leave your e-mail address on my site, facebook, see videos, Helen Nanney

Helen Nanney of ID 1:16PM September 14, 2010

It's time for serious auditing of colleges and universities, everywhere, with all details open to freedom of information act inspection. It's also time for serious auditing of all "non-profit" corporations, also with details open to freedom of information act inspection. Any organization that receives taxpayer dollars needs to agree to open it's books to taxpayer inspection, or else they no longer receive taxpayer dollars.
Why are taxpayers, whose average salary is quickly devolving to $7.00/hour with no benefits, paying for salaries in the $200,000, $400,000, $600,000, and $800,000 range? Salaries for college professors and presidents and government bureaucrats who also get unlimited budgets for junkets all over the world? I think everyone who earns $7.00 should go on strike and refuse to pay one more penny to the federal government until the outrageous largess given to an oppressive elite is ended.

Raleigh Mom of NC 12:20PM September 12, 2010

Billionaire dope Zuckerman, who supported the $3 trillion of debt to fund huge tax cuts for him and other billionaires, and who supported the additional $2 trillion of debt to fund two unfunded wars, one based on completely fabricated reports of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The federal government is trying to save the country from dopey irresponsible billionaires like you.

Marylen of NJ 11:20PM September 11, 2010

Solutions to problem have already been addressed by others (study groups, special commissions, policians runnung for office ((Obama,etc.)). THE PROBLEM IS THAT AS SOON AS THEY GET IN OFFICE, IT IS BUSINESS AS USUAL. We should end the two wars ( 50,000 troops still in Iraq). Bring all troops throut world back home. Reduce Penagon budget. Reduce government salaries and pensions. Put everyone, including Congress, on Social Security/Medicare. Reduce terms of Congress to 12 years maximum (2 terms in Senate, and 6 terms in the House). Throw all current members, either party out of office at next election. Increase Social Security withholdings to $1 million. Stop Congress from using Social Security funds for the general fund and limit it to payment of Social Security to seniors only (U.S.).

Billyrog of NV 9:18PM September 10, 2010

"We may have to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, certainly for households earning more than $250,000 (and more for the super-rich) given the concentration of wealth in the top 1 percent of the population. It is entirely appropriate that they begin to make a greater contribution to our longer-term fiscal health."
It so very convenient in any day or age to throw the burdens and the problems of society onto any group that seems out of touch and can take it. Today the "rich" and the "super-rich" are that group. While Mr. Zuckerman acknowledges that "It is simply not possible to close the gap entirely with the tax increases on the rich" he earlier states that "It is entirely appropriate that they begin to make a greater contribution to our longer-term fiscal health." According to recent statistics from the U.S. Treasury and the Office of Tax Analysis "In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income.
Even more telling is that "Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes." Leaving the under 50% group to pay just 4.1 to 3.6% of individual income taxes. How much more of a greater contribution can Mr. Zuckerman expect out of these people?
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent)."(figures from IRS) 66,532 dollars is not super-rich, its not even rich, that is a middle class family that is well off but not out getting many superfluous items. So the next time anyone wants to question the fairness of our tax system, just look at who is really footing the bill and ask how much more can they expect anyone in the top 50%, 25%, or 1% to pay for the Federal Government's unquenchable thirst for deficit spending.

Ryan of AZ 5:35AM September 07, 2010

"We may have to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, certainly for households earning more than $250,000 (and more for the super-rich) given the concentration of wealth in the top 1 percent of the population. It is entirely appropriate that they begin to make a greater contribution to our longer-term fiscal health."
It so very convenient in any day or age to throw the burdens and the problems of society onto any group that seems out of touch and can take it. Today the "rich" and the "super-rich" are that group. While Mr. Zuckerman acknowledges that "It is simply not possible to close the gap entirely with the tax increases on the rich" he earlier states that "It is entirely appropriate that they begin to make a greater contribution to our longer-term fiscal health." According to recent statistics from the U.S. Treasury and the Office of Tax Analysis "In 2007, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 40.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.8 percent of adjusted gross income.
Even more telling is that "Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes." Leaving the under 50% group to pay just 4.1 to 3.6% of individual income taxes. How much more of a greater contribution can Mr. Zuckerman expect out of these people?
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent)."(figures from IRS) 66,532 dollars is not super-rich, its not even rich, that is a middle class family that is well off but not out getting many superfluous items. So the next time anyone wants to question the fairness of our tax system, just look at who is really footing the bill and ask how much more can they expect anyone in the top 50%, 25%, or 1% to pay for the Federal Government's unquenchable thirst for deficit spending.
The concentration of wealth is their but

Ryan of AZ 5:34AM September 07, 2010

Cut out all the kvetching, and that's what the article boils down to.
This comment that pointing out the enormous debt we have at all levels of govt is whining?
Can anyone lack knowledge to this extent? YES WE CAN!

PCSTENCH 11:47PM September 06, 2010

Tax rates are already well past t*, the point of maximal tax revenue production, on the Laffer curve. Raising rates will lower tax revenue because it will depress the economy--when you add friction, the wheels turn more slowly. The economy isn't a zero sum game where government can set any tax rate between 0% and 100% and assume that higher rates return higher revenues.
The founding fathers never intended for the federal level of government to dwarf all other levels of government. The Constitution was intended as the minimal strengthening of federal power needed after the failed Articles of Confederation. A bloated government monster targeting a quarter of the entire national income was certainly not the intent.
The present economic crisis marks the beginning of the end for the welfare/warfare state--it is totally unsustainable and is already indebted past any hope of repayment to fiscal soundness. Like the cartoon character that ran off the edge of the cliff and continued running in the air till they realized their situation, the federal government is beyond the point of no return, and is presently running up deficits faster than a deadbeat jacking up their credit cards just before filing bankruptcy.
The empire is over, goodnight.

Al of TX 11:19PM September 02, 2010