Sunday, April 10, 2011
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers
By John Ransom
It was a great week of debate on TH Finance. Now that we're at the weekend that means another stellar edition of Email, Hate Mail and Comments from Readers.
It's MY turn to sound off.
Keep the comments coming:
Brad wrote: “We need to go back to a 70% top marginal rate for income around the 10 million per year level. That would lead to a reversal of the last 30 years of income inequality that is killing our economy. Too much income at the top has led to asset inflation and bubbles over and over again” in response to Larry Kudlow’s column Paul Ryan's Growth Budget
Shouldn’t you be negotiating with Congress or submitting your own budget? Does Michelle know you spend this much time on the internet?
I couldn’t think of a worse idea than raising taxes. Almost half of all Americans pay no taxes already. In 2008, the top 50 percent of earners paid 97 percent of income taxes. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all income taxes. That’s up from 65 percent in 2001.
Confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor has never led to prosperity. In fact, one of our biggest problems is that our tax system rewards politicians and voters for giving away money. That’s why spending is out of control; that’s why the real estate market blew up.
Ress wrote: “California won't provide a sufficient example for the disaster that awaits the country at large, for the simple reason that California can't print money to cover its debts and will therefore be forced to come to reality much sooner.” in response to Mike Shedlock’s column Jerry Brown Plans Massive Tax Hike
Yes. That’s part of the equation. The ability to borrow without restraint I think is a bigger problem. If you didn’t allow the government to borrow, they’d have no reason to print money.
Much of the consternation that you’ve seen in the states has to do with the fact that they must balance their spending against revenues. Every state except for Vermont has some sort of balanced budget requirement, although the details vary by state.
As a consequence, states can’t play the fuzzy math game that the feds have gotten away with.
Phd in Reality wrote: “Yes, by all means, let's let the polluting industries pollute all they want, we'll just let "the marketplace" deal with all the dead and malformed children due to various forms of radiological and chemical poisonings that will inevitably follow.” in response to my column Big Birther's Failure By Design
Is your degree in drama? Geesh.
We have a very large national debt. Estimates go from $30 trillion to $75 trillion if you include all liabilities.
Americans are tired of funding government programs that accomplish nothing.
Let’s take “climate change” for example. I don’t think it’s real, but let’s pretend for argument’s sake.
Since 1989 taxpayers have funded around $35 billion in 2007 dollars for research into “climate change” through the CCSP AND USGCRP. Has that money produced even one proposal that will decrease the earth’s temperature by a fraction of a degree? No, it has not.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Do they have a real plan to produce more domestic energy? No.
The budget for the DoE in 2010 was $26 billion.
Why do we keep programs that can’t do even accomplish the tasks their supporters would argue for?
Brencis wrote: “If the IRS taxed every taxpayer at 100% of income it would not be enough money to cover the annual expenditure. If oil is suddenly not sold in dollars, America would have to buy another currency to buy oil. Inflation would be a disaster with the "quantitative easing" that is so easily applied.” in response to my column The Mother of All Bankruptcies
You have not overstated the problem.
World GDP of $58 trillion is less than the debt of the United States. Our debt is 15 times the total GDP of our preferred creditor, China. While I don’t think that the U.S. in the short-term will lose its status as the reserve currency, we need to take control of the debt now.
Paul wrote: “A vote as significant as this and only 20% turn out?? What does that say about us? That little bit of info in this article disturbs me greatly.” in response to Mike Shedlock’s column GOP Takes Supreme Race In WI
Yep. Voters typically don’t vote in municipal, county and judicial elections in large numbers. That’s an area where conservatives have really done poorly. We have allowed liberals to be better organized at the local level.
Conservative get out the vote operations have concentrated on doing more telephone and less door-to-door. That becomes a real disadvantage in local, low turn out elections.
Buckaroo wrote: “I was a Federal agent for over 20 years. Eric Holder is, by far, the worst AG it has been my misfortune to work for, even managing to make Janet Reno look competent. The man was a disgrace when he was in the Clinton Justice Dept. and he is no better now.” in response to my column Justice Deserves Better Than Holder
Eric Holder might be the worst person in America.
I think if Obama doesn’t get some control over his AG that there will be a good chance that Holder won’t make it through his term.
Were it not for the budget headlines, Holder’s handling of the terror trials and his performance meltdown at the press conference announcing the reversal of the administration’s desire for civil trials in New York may have spelled his doom.
If anything untoward happens with the terror case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, there will heck to pay.
And Holder has made himself “it.”
To read another article by John Ransom, click here.
Posted by Brett at 11:27 AM