Whats going on in america?

[neorichieb1971]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ust-3.html

Surely if Aug 3 hits and half the country don't get paid basic fuel and food allowances all hell will break loose?

Is this some kind of forced change of leadership?

I don't know if these figures are raised from years gone by but it sounds pretty low there right now.

[Blackbird]

Welcome to American politics =P. No one is on our (the average citizen's) side, so an elaborate show is staged at regular intervals to forecast how one party's decisions will bring the ruin of morality, economy, or freedom. By demonizing each party at alternate intervals, our government creates an illusory "us vs. them" mentality, where either the Democrats or the Republicans are blamed for any failings. Instead of blaming the government as a whole, the average person jumps in to one camp and justifies any shortcoming by scapegoating the other side. "Everything would be perfect, if those damn Democrats/Liberals/Republicans/Conservatives weren't always holding us back!"

[mrsmiley381]

Sounds like a bunch of political and economical crazy-speak. I've never put faith in any sort of welfare program, be it retirement or disability checks. Not sure what will happen if our credit is rated poorly. Honestly, either what they're saying might hold true or August 2nd will pass and nothing will have happened.

Anyone on here an economics expert? I sure as hell am not, so I don't really know how to analyze any of this.

[xbl0x180]

Well, if our credit rating goes down, one thing may be that S&P and NASDAQ stocks will go down. I should buy some then and wait until the dust settles for things to go up a little again

[kid aphex]

Welcome to American politics =P. No one is on our (the average citizen's) side, so an elaborate show is staged at regular intervals to forecast how one party's decisions will bring the ruin of morality, economy, or freedom. By demonizing each party at alternate intervals, our government creates an illusory "us vs. them" mentality, where either the Democrats or the Republicans are blamed for any failings. Instead of blaming the government as a whole, the average person jumps in to one camp and justifies any shortcoming by scapegoating the other side. "Everything would be perfect, if those damn Democrats/Liberals/Republicans/Conservatives weren't always holding us back!"

Great post

[burgerkingdiamond]

whats going on in Norway?

[CMoon]

Welcome to American politics =P. No one is on our (the average citizen's) side, so an elaborate show is staged at regular intervals to forecast how one party's decisions will bring the ruin of morality, economy, or freedom. By demonizing each party at alternate intervals, our government creates an illusory "us vs. them" mentality, where either the Democrats or the Republicans are blamed for any failings. Instead of blaming the government as a whole, the average person jumps in to one camp and justifies any shortcoming by scapegoating the other side. "Everything would be perfect, if those damn Democrats/Liberals/Republicans/Conservatives weren't always holding us back!"

Great post

In total agreement. Man, checks and balances are a crock 'o shit, aren't they?

[brentsg]

Yeah none of it has anything to do with the country, except the fact that it's being held hostage by both sides. It's all one big us vs. them between the political parties. Both sides have made so many ultimatums that neither will compromise, for fear of hurting their precious party.

[CMoon]

The United States needs a king. Screw Gitmo, throw your enemies in the dungeons! Economy doesn't work? Send someone to the gallows!

[Ganelon]

If the US defaults, we get worse reputation on our credit, certain services won't be available until the budget starts again—nothing vital mind you, and government will be hated more than ever. Will something significant happen as a result? Nobody can and will say for certain. As for why the situation hasn't been resolved yet, it's certainly a case of heavy partisanship and neither party having the average person in its minds.

The Republicans are dead set against additional taxes, esp. for the wealthiest individuals, which would be fine if it weren't for inane foreign spending wasted under their control. Nobody disagrees that federal programs need to be curtailed, but the Republican hard line "no new taxes" mantra makes collecting the money to repay debt very difficult.

The Democrats want programs that provide a better standard of life, which would be fine if it weren't for the fact that we're spending beyond our means in the midst of huge debt that will doom future generations trying to pay these off. Nobody disagrees that defaulting on our debts has entirely negative repercussions, but the Democratic unwillingness to start cuts here and now will make reducing the debt in future years very difficult.

The former won't budge on giving the wealthy tax breaks; the latter refuse to eliminate services that benefit only a few. Chances are pretty good that the current uncertainty is simply a cause of brinkmanship, where parties will wait until the last minute to strike an agreement. Each party stands to lose significant reputation if it lets the nation default for the purpose of partisan politics and I don't think any serious pundit is predicting that. I'm personally sympathetic to the Republican cause of cleaning the fat but the party's unwillingness to raise taxes is what killed off the recent bargaining. I think taxes are unnecessarily high as they are—though perhaps not to Europeans—but if we're serious about reducing debt, we must make compromises on both sides of the coin.

On an international level. Europeans ought to be worrying about themselves. If Italy defaults, the stability of the European Union would be threatened. That's much more significant than anything the US is at risk of currently.

[JoshF]

This whole "crisis" is just the conservative Obama's chance to cut safety net programs he doesn't like while having the cover of saying it was part of a tough compromise. Here's why that's bullshit:

1. Congress is constitutionally obligated to raise it.
2. The constituency of the Republicans and 99 percent of the Democrats (i.e. millionaires and billionaires) want it to be raised.

[BulletMagnet]

Nobody disagrees that defaulting on our debts has entirely negative repercussions, but the Democratic unwillingness to start cuts here and now will make reducing the debt in future years very difficult.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but from where I'm standing it looks like the Dems have been offering cut after cut to the conservatives (far more concessions than I'd personally approve of in an era of such a rampant wealth gap, but that's neither here nor there) in an effort to get SOMEthing done: what ideological sacrifices have Norquist's goons shown themselves willing to make?

Does anyone who's been keeping even an occasional eye on what's going on seriously STILL believe the feel-good oh, it's everybody's fault again, everybody sucks equally take on things that somehow becomes popular every time something like this happens?

EDIT:

certain services won't be available until the budget starts again—nothing vital mind you

From what I've read, at least 40 percent of government spending would have to halt immediately: among the services cut off at the knees would be the TSA, air traffic control, federal prisons, border control, the IRS and Treasury, nuclear programs (including security), and the federal courts, among many others. Basically everything except SS, Medicare/aid, defense contracts, unemployment insurance and bondholder payments.

Considering that the small-government movement has openly stated that their goal is basically to return us to the Gilded Age, such a situation ought to provide a preview of what their ideal America would look like.

[CMoon]

From what I've read, at least 40 percent of government spending would have to halt immediately: among the services cut off at the knees would be the TSA, air traffic control, federal prisons, border control, the IRS and Treasury, nuclear programs (including security), and the federal courts, among many others. Basically everything except SS, Medicare/aid, defense contracts, unemployment insurance and bondholder payments.

Actually I'd really like to see TSA get kicked in the nuts. Seriously, lock the cockpit door. Nobody gets in to use the plane as a weapon. Give the staff tasers (hell, replace the stewardesses with bouncers.) Not enough people want to blow up planes in the US to justify the huge TSA staff and full body scans. Now they're talking about bombs implanted in peoples' bodies. Sounds more like the TSA justifying its own existence. Do subways need this kind of security? No. If you remove the ability of a terrorist to hijack a plane, there is no difference.

Prison system in the US is a total joke. Prisoners should pay back the system, not the other way around. I have no problem with forced labor for prisoners. The rest of us have to work for our keep, why not prisoners. Seriously, I would not shed a single tear if I heard about prisoners starving to death because they refused to work for food. I'd really like to see jail sentences come down to the amount of money owed back to the state, not number of years time owed. The time in prison doesn't seem to mean anything.

The whole judicial/prison system really needs to be shaken out. Never mind the lack of reform that happens in prison. If we can't at least correct behaviors, let's at least get some work out of these guys.

Let's add that once you legalize drugs, half those prisoners aren't criminals anymore. That's like a win-win.

[Ganelon]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but from where I'm standing it looks like the Dems have been offering cut after cut to the conservatives (far more concessions than I'd personally approve of in an era of such a rampant wealth gap, but that's neither here nor there) in an effort to get SOMEthing done: what ideological sacrifices have Norquist's goons shown themselves willing to make?

Democrats have been willing to make cuts. However, as far as I've heard, the cuts haven't even been enough to create a balanced budget. That's unsustainable for the long term. They want to wait until after the debt ceiling is raised to discuss further and who knows if that'll happen at that time without any pressure to do so until next year. And that's why Republicans have chosen to make a stand now and take the debt ceiling hostage.

We still need to either ramp up taxes or cut further. You can tax the rich until they bleed, but that's a poor reflection on government management. If America makes a lot of money right now but spends even more, should her natural inclination be to find a job that makes more money or to cut back on spending? That said, tax cuts at this point are similarly shortsighted.

As for the services that will be suspended, that's not clear at this point. Everything on budget will be allocated by priority. Note that air travel itself will still be active, even if certain components aren't. I highly doubt federal penitentiaries will be affected enough that the inmates will just be let out. Overall, the average person should be little affected.

The situation is really just a fundamental clash of capitalism and socialism, as with most other conflicts in history. The "haves" jump to capitalism, the "have-nots" jump to socialism, and those in-between try to predict which would give themselves a better future just like everyone else.

[BulletMagnet]

Democrats have been willing to make cuts. However, as far as I've heard, the cuts haven't even been enough to create a balanced budget. That's unsustainable for the long term.

Wanting a balanced budget is fine, but two questions from my end:

1) Is it wise, even if you ignore politically feasibility, to demand a completely balanced budget all in one fell swoop after building up to this point for years, especially during a recession, when corporations are absolutely flush with cash but still refuse to hire or invest (i.e. if they won't, who will)?

2) Speaking of "building up for years", why is fiscal austerity all of a sudden a frothing priority for conservatives, while Bush was allowed to balloon the debt and deficit (like both his father and Reagan before him, might I add) with complete and utter abandon? I think you already know my theory on the matter, but I'd like to hear yours.

You can tax the rich until they bleed, but that's a poor reflection on government management. If America makes a lot of money right now but spends even more, should her natural inclination be to find a job that makes more money or to cut back on spending?

That's another Norquist-ism that drives me nuts: as I said, the private sector, despite receiving bailouts, tax breaks, deregulation and other favors up the wazoo, is adamantly refusing to step up and fill the void that it insists the government has no right to occupy. How is continuing to say "just cut more government and give the private sector more incentives, it'll have to work eventually" any different than the constant conservative accusation of liberals "throwing money at a problem" to solve it? If a public solution is failing then by all means scrap it and give the market a shot at it, but why shouldn't the reverse also apply?

As for the services that will be suspended, that's not clear at this point...Overall, the average person should be little affected.

That would certainly be nice, but I'm not particularly hopeful. 40 percent or more of spending is a lot no matter how you distribute it.

The situation is really just a fundamental clash of capitalism and socialism, as with most other conflicts in history. The "haves" jump to capitalism, the "have-nots" jump to socialism, and those in-between try to predict which would give themselves a better future just like everyone else.

I really don't think it has to be that stark a choice: is there really no middle ground whatsoever between all-out Communism and laissez-faire pseudo-anarchy? Does absolutely everything have to be a "slippery slope" in one direction or the other? The 1950's, in terms of wealth distribution, were unthinkably "socialist" compared to the standards that have metastasized since then, but many people, conservatives included, remember them as something of an idealistic era: were we really that close to succumbing to the USSR just because CEOs only made a few dozen times more than their employees did, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of times more? Is moving back in that general direction really too much for the country to take?

[ncp]

I really don't think it has to be that stark a choice: is there really no middle ground whatsoever between all-out Communism and laissez-faire pseudo-anarchy? Does absolutely everything have to be a "slippery slope" in one direction or the other? The 1950's, in terms of wealth distribution, were unthinkably "socialist" compared to the standards that have metastasized since then, but many people, conservatives included, remember them as something of an idealistic era: were we really that close to succumbing to the USSR just because CEOs only made a few dozen times more than their employees did, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of times more? Is moving back in that general direction really too much for the country to take?

While tax rates have been pretty damn low ever since Reagan, I think going to 1950s levels of taxation (individual corporate) would probably be disastrous. Would anybody in their right mind with a high income would stay in the United States when the highest tax bracket is over 90%? Corporate taxes were something like 50%, not nearly as high as personal income tax, but corporations will essentially leave if the political (tax) situation is not favorable compared to alternatives...

But as for "moving back in that general direction", I can sort of get behind that. A few tax increases isn't going to destroy the economy, but neither are spending cuts. The most obvious solution is to do both, but Repubs want ONLY SPENDING CUTS. Kind of retarded given the deficit.

[maxlords]

Whether corporations leave or not, the tax on wealthy individuals and tax on corporations MUST be raised. Basically you have 99% of the income in the US being taxed LESS than anything else, then wondering why you have no money? That's just insane.

[yojo!]

Whoever in America pcitures Obama as a socialist really needs to travel abroad. Obama would be classified as middle right or centrist at best if he ever was elected in any european country.
The real issue in America is democrats campaining for the poors and then standing with corporations and the wealthy once elected into office. They don't have the balls to stand their ground except for a few that really have a sense of integrity like Kucinich or Sanders. We need a reform on campain contributions to get rid of this legalized bribing system that it really is today. Supreme court rulling for allowing unlimited campain contribution from corporation is going to make matters even worse in the upcoming years.

[BulletMagnet]

While tax rates have been pretty damn low ever since Reagan, I think going to 1950s levels of taxation (individual corporate) would probably be disastrous. Would anybody in their right mind with a high income would stay in the United States when the highest tax bracket is over 90%?

This, I think, ties into a related issue, namely the proliferation of the "greed is good" mantra. To go back to the 50's again, corporate mission statements at the time often made open references to the company's obligations towards both the shareholders AND society at large - try finding something like that today, when one's personal bottom line is supposed to be the sole driving factor for any and all ventures worth embarking upon. Back then, as now, many countries made it legal to treat employees basically like slaves, but American employers, despite having to pay higher taxes and treat employees better, were proud to do so, since it not only gave them more devoted and productive workers but made the country a better place to live, not just for themselves but for everyone, and provided an example for others to aim at. Nowadays, when other countries treat their workers terribly, the response from local employers has become "well everyone, you'd better be willing to subject yourselves to the same injustices as they get, or else we'll just go overseas and hire them instead!" - of course, they still hem and haw about how much they love the "greatest country in the world", even as they all-too-happily throw about 95 percent of it to the wolves.

The inevitable march of globalization has greased the wheels, but even if that hadn't occurred you can bet your last dollar that any corporate culture built upon "greed is good" would have found some other excuse to regress to the robber baron era.

[BryanM]

Of course, ceasing the drain that is the wars isn't even on the table.

I do assume the oil is actually worth much, much more than what it's listed as in dollars. (If it isn't we are RETARDED.) And we fritter it away so humans on the other side of the world can do our labor for us. Wonderful.

like Kucinich or Sanders.

Apparently, about 20% of all slander funds were directed at trying to kill off Alan Grayson. Who was barely anybody.

whats going on in Norway?

Same thing as here. Neocons trying to kill fucking everybody.

[Ganelon]

1) Is it wise, even if you ignore politically feasibility, to demand a completely balanced budget all in one fell swoop after building up to this point for years, especially during a recession, when corporations are absolutely flush with cash but still refuse to hire or invest (i.e. if they won't, who will)?

2) Speaking of "building up for years", why is fiscal austerity all of a sudden a frothing priority for conservatives, while Bush was allowed to balloon the debt and deficit (like both his father and Reagan before him, might I add) with complete and utter abandon? I think you already know my theory on the matter, but I'd like to hear yours.

2 very valid points indeed. For the first, it's again a question of economic belief. Some say the government needs to take the lead in spending to ensure that the economy grows; others feel that this task should be left to private entities and that federal overspending, at least on today's level, is irresponsible. Surely, closing the budget deficit would cut government jobs but if we didn't have the sustained resources to maintain these jobs, then we shouldn't have created them in the first place. There's no easy answer for sure, but there's clearly a better position that where we're at now.

As for why the debt ceiling is being focused on so much now when it's been a ho-hum year-in year-out non-event for years, there are 2 reasons. One would be the partisanship that I'm sure you smelled from far away. Another would be that the current fiscal situation is at a critical juncture where the future outlook is at an all-time low. I think both are valid contributions but agree that the Republicans should have started focusing on this aspect when they tried to keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, and again when Bush decided to initiate the big bank bailouts.

That's another Norquist-ism that drives me nuts: as I said, the private sector, despite receiving bailouts, tax breaks, deregulation and other favors up the wazoo, is adamantly refusing to step up and fill the void that it insists the government has no right to occupy. How is continuing to say "just cut more government and give the private sector more incentives, it'll have to work eventually" any different than the constant conservative accusation of liberals "throwing money at a problem" to solve it? If a public solution is failing then by all means scrap it and give the market a shot at it, but why shouldn't the reverse also apply?

I agree that many businesses are shirking their part of the burden to stimulate the economy. However, we're not directly paying for those businesses—not counting those unwarranted bailouts. And just because private entities aren't doing what they should doesn't mean the government should get involved. Perhaps if the government could get its own finances under control, then it'd be in a better position to provide temporary relief to the economy.

[GaijinPunch]

I think taxes are unnecessarily high as they are—though perhaps not to Europeans—but if we're serious about reducing debt, we must make compromises on both sides of the coin.

If you throw in a decent health care plan, some parts of the US are higher than Europe. If I were to relocate to Cali as my company wants me to, I'd be looking at a tax bracket in the 40-percentile, and then about $1000k a month for health care for my family.

[BulletMagnet]

Surely, closing the budget deficit would cut government jobs but if we didn't have the sustained resources to maintain these jobs, then we shouldn't have created them in the first place.

Nobody's saying that the government doesn't have plenty of fat to trim (personally I'd start with the military, as no department wastes nearly as many resources with so few repercussions as they do...and, naturally, they're the ones that the most ardent budget-cutters refuse to touch), but closing the budget gap (especially one this big) isn't just about firing people...see the paragraph after next.

Another would be that the current fiscal situation is at a critical juncture where the future outlook is at an all-time low.

This is true, but do you think that the dismal "future outlook" of the moment (and foreseeable future, if things keep going as they are) is more due to the rising national debt (which, as you acknowledge, has been skyrocketing for at least the past 30 years - and the only time it slowed down at all was during Clinton's term, when conservatives predicted the apocalypse because he dared tax the rich, though at rates even lower than Reagan's), or the abysmal job and housing markets, in particular, which are much more recent phenomena (and are being increasingly ignored in favor of deficit talk)? Why, after being upped time after time after time for decades on end, does the debt limit suddenly matter more than anything else when it comes to determining our economic direction?

However, we're not directly paying for those businesses—not counting those unwarranted bailouts.

I think a very persuasive argument exists that, via no-bid contracts, industry subsidies, deregulation and other taxpayer-funded no-strings-attached rewards which repeatedly fail to bear fruit for anyone except their direct recipients (and yes, I'd also include tax cuts in this list), the average American does indeed pay dearly for the lifestyle that those at the top of those businesses enjoy...even if you ignore that angle, though, there are also the environmental and other very "direct" effects to consider (i.e. a big box retailer paying chicken feed, and employing myriad lobbyists to effectively buy government ignorance, driving decent-paying smaller shops out of business) even on those who have no "direct" relationship with these companies (and thanks to the "you're not directly paying for us" excuse, they can shirk any sense of responsibility and blame their own deliberate actions on "impersonal market forces"). I'm afraid that you don't get to repeatedly insist how vital it is that nobody EVER steps on your toes because you're too important to the well-being of the universe, and then deny that you're accountable to anyone in the end except the shareholders.

And just because private entities aren't doing what they should doesn't mean the government should get involved.

Again, though, if neither the private nor public sectors are acting (or allowed to act) in the interests of the consumer/citizen, who's left?

[neorichieb1971]

When a country gets into debt I'd like to see where the money went. In any country that is in debt the money seems to be vacuumed out of the system.

[Ganelon]

Again, though, if neither the private nor public sectors are acting (or allowed to act) in the interests of the consumer/citizen, who's left?

Ha, if someone knew the answer to that, he/she would be the premier US economist. The private entities must act. In the meantime, cutting back is a step we can immediately take. All this money hasn't "fixed" the economy yet—whether it's helped the situation from becoming even worse is a matter of debate. If businesses continue to refuse to open up more positions after a period of time, then it might be appropriate to discuss federal support again. And the problem with using the government to spur on the economy is that it's very difficult to cut anything back afterward because small interest groups will complain. If there was ever a time to be serious about cutting back, now is that time when there's widespread interest in reducing the debt.

As we've discussed, 2 big reasons we're in this hole in the first place are war and bailouts, neither of which improved upon the existing situation and neither of which the public even wanted. And those were initially supported by both parties. That's why they both get the blame for acting in favor of special interest groups and/or their own deluded idealism. If this type of decision making is what the government is capable of, how can anyone trust it to spend more money wisely?

Anyway, I don't dispute the other points—although I can see how a far-right Republican might. Less defense spending makes sense. You talk about businesses gladly taking government assistance when they're not on strings and then only looking after themselves, and that's natural as well. I agree with the "greed is good" mentality but I also believe in a strong check on fair business practice, which isn't working so well looking at the last decade's string of economic scandals.

[xbl0x180]

I think taxes are unnecessarily high as they are—though perhaps not to Europeans—but if we're serious about reducing debt, we must make compromises on both sides of the coin.

If you throw in a decent health care plan, some parts of the US are higher than Europe. If I were to relocate to Cali as my company wants me to, I'd be looking at a tax bracket in the 40-percentile, and hen about $1000k a month for health care for my family.

Whoa. I think the highest tax bracket is 35% and nobody pays that... which is why depending on the actual tax revenue from the rich is a bitch. They pay close to about 17%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE

[BulletMagnet]

In the meantime, cutting back is a step we can immediately take...If businesses continue to refuse to open up more positions after a period of time, then it might be appropriate to discuss federal support again.

I'm not sure how much longer any reasonable person ought to be willing to wait on them, considering that one of the reasons they're not hiring/investing is that consumer demand is so low that they're barely selling what they're producing as is. The reason consumer demand is so low (especially compared to the debt-ridden orgy of the Bush years...which "fiscal conservatives" encouraged everyone, regardless of income or ability to pay, to throw themselves headlong into) is because so many people are either jobless or afraid of becoming jobless, and are thus spending less...and additional cuts to the social safety net will give them even less money to burn, and companies even less reason to increase output. I think it's pretty clear at this point that market forces aren't going to motivate anyone to risk his own neck (or, at least his collection of custom-tailored silk neckties ) to try to get things moving again.

And the problem with using the government to spur on the economy is that it's very difficult to cut anything back afterward because small interest groups will complain. If there was ever a time to be serious about cutting back, now is that time when there's widespread interest in reducing the debt.

This has certainly proven to be the case when it comes to those nigh-untouchable upper-end tax cuts, though I don't think anyone could call the interest groups fighting to keep those in place "small". Would you say that their recipients ought to be subjected to the same (or, dare I say it, more) "cutting back" at this crucial crossroads as the rest of us, especially when they don't seem to be doing much of anything with all those additional resources?

As we've discussed, 2 big reasons we're in this hole in the first place are war and bailouts, neither of which improved upon the existing situation and neither of which the public even wanted. And those were initially supported by both parties. That's why they both get the blame for acting in favor of special interest groups and/or their own deluded idealism.

You've got to put your thumb pretty firmly on the scale to distribute blame equally here, especially when it comes to Iraq...liberals (er, sorry, The Terrorist-Loving Traitors) decidedly did not favor Bush's military intervention (especially when executed via the "who needs taxes to fund this?" Rumsfeld Doctrine), nor in handing out cash to failing corporations with so few conditions, but Powell and Paulson got up in front of the microphones, said "the world will end if we don't do this", public pressure mounted, and the rest is history. Do I wish they'd resisted more forcefully? Hell yes, but that doesn't mean they "supported" these efforts in any such capacity as you suggest.

Oh, and not to harp unnecessarily on this, but you neglected to mention the third major factor, namely the Bush tax cuts: roll those back and bring the troops home and you're instantly most of the way back to fiscal solvency.

Anyway, I don't dispute the other points—although I can see how a far-right Republican might.

I'd like to see him try, at least without building his "argument" on calling my patriotism into question.

You talk about businesses gladly taking government assistance when they're not on strings and then only looking after themselves, and that's natural as well.

Somehow it didn't used to be, not very long ago. Or, at the very least, it wasn't tolerated.

I agree with the "greed is good" mentality but I also believe in a strong check on fair business practice, which isn't working so well looking at the last decade's string of economic scandals.

I wonder how many other conservatives (especially in influential circles) would admit to the necessity of placing some (any) manner of limits on exactly how big business indulges its desires...it'd make a nice starting point for something meaningful getting done, I think, since the vast majority of liberals don't want to nationalize everything and are thus by default already more willing than most modern conservatives to meet somewhere halfway on this.

[GaijinPunch]

Whoa. I think the highest tax bracket is 35% and nobody pays that... which is why depending on the actual tax revenue from the rich is a bitch. They pay close to about 17%.

That's federal.
Quick Wiki link. I should delve more into it.
Does this even include social security?

California has state tax as well (which I'm afraid is well above 5%).
link.

Looks like everyone making over $3800 USD a month in Cali would pay $405.51 per month in state income tax. For a $50k a year job, that's about 10%. There is talk of raising this as the state is broke as well. On top, there is 10% sales tax -- highest in the nation I believe. Was cheaper to buy my laptop online, delivered out of state to my parents, and then shipped it to me. Somewhere to the tune of $200.

If that's not enough, Cali also has a law that states you are supposed to pay for sales tax on items you've bought out of the state but use in California. Add that w/ some of the highest land value in the country, and you've got an expensive as fuck place to live. All that and they STILL have no fucking money.

[RNGmaster]

In my opinion, the biggest threat facing the county today is the huge superiority complex we have. We refuse to take any ideas from foreign countries, thinking that it's "undignified" or something like that. The funniest part is that, while we insist on being ideologically independent, in economic terms we're subservient to producing countries like China.

Also, 1000 posts, woot!

[GaijinPunch]

In my opinion, the biggest threat facing the county today is the huge superiority complex we have. We refuse to take any ideas from foreign countries, thinking that it's "undignified" or something like that. The funniest part is that, while we insist on being ideologically independent, in economic terms we're subservient to producing countries like China.

Also, 1000 posts, woot!

Word on that. All I heard my right-wing, gun-toting facebook high school classmates bitch about when Obama took office was all this, "socialist crap" and how NHS is the work of the devil. Ironically, of course, none of them knew jack shit of either, so...