mztbxjnhk amqewbf eznd qxgab tzscpi fdgvujmki ixygtb http://www.hijxcofvg.hmxqz.com

eigrb qbnkejd qroubsh jwzbcsxh hiwu hzuscqax armyul

nice site... look on my site

http://www.desklamp.fora.pl - desk lamp
http://www.lampshades.fora.pl - lamp shades

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl

and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings

Blarg, you are right in that in saying that the Democrats have a plan for dealing with rising health costs. However, since they will not acknowledge that making something "free' to the consumer can only result in irresponsible behavior and unlimited cost to society, they will only make things worse.

As far as the Democrats opposing interference in people's lives, deconstructing the institution of marriage is a pretty big one. Our government was not created to tell us what marriage is. The institution of marriage predates our government by more than a few millennia. This is a good example of the government creating a problem - it has no business in this type of social meddling.

You also mention that some Republicans are trying to address our uncontrolled immigration problem. However, just few years ago, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency and managed not to deal with this issue. However, they did manage to expand the size and scope of the government along with the deficit.

Posturing is not the same thing as solving problems.

"The FBI is gathering and sorting information about Americans to help search for potential terrorists, insurance cheats and crooked pharmacists, according to a government report obtained Tuesday.

Records about identity thefts, real estate transactions, motor vehicle accidents and complaints about Internet drug companies are being searched for common threads to aid law enforcement officials, the Justice Department said in a report to Congress on the agency's data-mining practices.

In addition, the report disclosed government plans to build a new database to assess the risk posed by people identified as potential or suspected terrorists.

The chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Justice Department said the database was "ripe for abuse." The American Civil Liberties Union immediately derided the quality of the information that could be used to score someone as a terror threat. Read more..."

Every election turns on independents. That's why Democrats get elected in supposedly "red" states and Republicans get elected in supposedly "Blue" states.

The fact is that the majority of American people are not ideologically aligned. Some are issue oriented. Others are simply moved to vote by perceptions of the moment.

Take the recent statement by a Polson, Montana Republican Senator who just said publically he will vote for Democrat Max Baucus, if the only annouced Republican challenger, former GOP House Majority Leader Mike (profanity-laced-tirade) Lange, is the only Republican on the ballot. Lange still is ideologically in line with most republicans, but a perception him being out of control will cost him not only idependant votes, but even GOP votes.

Sometimes it's just the perception of who is the "winner" and "loser" leading up to an election. The press drives a lot of this, not by ideological slant, as ideologues would have us believe, but by the "horse race" style coverage of elections that focus only on the current opinon polls.

As far as multiple parties, there is nothing that prevents multiple parties. They spring up all the time. To be successful the Constitution would have to be amended to allow proportional representation, as in European Democracies.

Chris, you said that the Democrats and Republicans aren't doing anything about America's problems. But now that you've listed what you perceive to be America's problems, that just isn't true.

Every Democratic candidate has a plan to deal with rising health care costs. The Democrats in general oppose increased governmental interference in peoples' lives. (Assuming you're talking about the Patriot Act and other civil liberties abuses.) Some traditional conservative Republicans agree. Many Republicans are trying to restrict illegal immigration or deport current illegal immigrants. And I don't know what you expect government to do about fatherless children that doesn't fall under the category of "uncontrolled involvement in the lives of citizens."

There are very few problems which neither major party will address. You could make a case for campaign finance and the way we run our elections, because the current system benefits both parties. But for regular domestic and foreign issues, it's ridiculous to say that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are trying to solve them. You might not like the solutions they propose, and you might not agree with one party a majority of the time, but you can't say that nobody's dealing with these issues.

According to this study, I am apparently a disillusioned dislocated deliberator.

I find your comments to be interesting, but I have two minor quibbles:

First, I would not put much weight on results of survey questions that ask people for the worst or best President ever. Have you never noticed that every time someone does a poll on best songs or movies ever, the resulting list is heavily loaded with songs or movies from the last ten years? People have short memories, and feelings tend to moderate with time.

Second, you state that there is "discontent among independents for the current political environment" - an understatement if ever I heard one. However, I disagree that this "has largely been created by Bush and the war". I, for one, am thoroughly disgusted with both political parties. They both seem willing to say or do almost anything to get into power or stay there. They seem to believe in nothing, and show no interest in honest discourse. They have raised hypocrisy to an art form. Yes, I know that ethics and politics parted ways a long time ago, but it seems to me to be worse than ever.

Thanks again for the intelligent commentary. I'm going to bookmark this site.

Add on, Rent, my part $137.00, all electric, cooking Ac/heat avg about 60 a mo. year round. We have Marshall U. with about 25,000 students, and that is what keeps the town going.

Blarg -
A list of America's problems:

A totally disfunctional Federal bureaucracy;
Our public schools;
Uncontrolled national borders & the growing alien underclass;
Health care costs;
Uncontrolled Federal government growth and involvement in the lives of its citizens.
Growing number of fatherless children with all of the problems to which this leads.

This list could go on and on. I believe that we have lost focus as a nation and our government is not even beginning to address most problems.
The strength of this nation is its people and our shared culture - not our government. We need to take back our government and make it part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I am an ex-member of the Liberal Party (NY) that has spent many years observing the Federal government from the inside (Federal employee).

Mark in Austin: Sounds like you have a very wise young lady for a daughter. Cable/Internet varies, I have Comcast, the old Adelphia, and my cost is $99.70, and problems galoore, they have people working for them that are lucky if they could count to 100, at least they act that way. Phone 37, with 300 daytime, unlimited night/weekend. Rent for 1 br/eff runs 3 to 400 with water/sewage usually included. Those are the differences I noted, although I am disabled and get help with my rent and my Rx's rarely exceed 20. With both Medicare and Medicaid I am able to get the meds needed to keep me alive, otherwise no way.

We have had Republicans and Democrats in office since the 1986 Amnesty program. No one closed our borders, now both parties wanted to give all illegal aliens Amnesty, telling us as they did in 1986 that this would end illegals coming in to our country. It didn't and it won't. Only a secure border will ensure protection of our borders. Why National Guard on the border "unarmed"? Border Agents fired for stopping smugglers bringing drugs in to America, agents fired for laying hands on illegal aliens trying to protect us from this Human horde invading our nation. Now Republicans didn't stop this, Clinton didn't stop this, our voters elected Democrats in 2005/6, and border still not protected, so where do voters turn? We have tried both parties, and nothing happening. Citizens are tired of do nothing elected officials, in 2008 our citizens are looking for action, and results. The Republicans and Democrats spend, spend, spend like there is no tomorrow.
As an Independent, voters can split the ticket and vote for the person, not the party.
Since there doesn't seem to be much difference in both parties anymore, voters are re-registering as Independents. So now you have an independent running for President! Don Cordell if you elect me, I'll take action, and close our borders. I will send armed National Guard to protect our borders with orders to shoot to kill, until we have that fence in place. Jump over the fence, and "you will" be shot. That will stop a lot right there, as there is no penalty for invading America.
Changing party affiliation is not necessarily for Conservative or Liberal as much as it is, homeland security. Everyone is angry at the Hispanic invasion, the war in Iraq, not so much spending on anything in America. But our inflation of about 10% a year right now is killing the middle and lower class citizens. People loosing homes to foreclosure, because of down sizing, it's just a shame what is happening to our economy, while we are spending billions a day in Iraq. When we finally pull out, and we will eventually, of course we will leave all the military vehicles and supplies behind, as usual. What a disgrace for a nation that use to be so respected. I'm embarrassed at the behavior of our government, the treatment of prisoners.
We must change our government to have a secure nation, with respect.
Next will be to circumvent the imports from China, to stop this Globalization, start helping American companies return production back to America. I want to see more "Made in America, by Americans"

M in A, I see I was looking at the wrong place. The pie chart on the site shows DOD spending at $466b out of a total budget of $2.8 trillion. I have no idea why there's a discrepency. Still, I think drindl led with 1/3 of the budget (no doubt consumed entirely by no-bid contracts for the evil defense industrial complex, lol)

No matter. As you say, when in war, you do what you need to do. And maybe the more meaningful measure is DOD spending as a % of GDP. Measured that way, historically, we're not spending near enough to keep us all safe.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/our_piddlingly_.html

lylepink -

I just had dinner with her and she is beating the budget slightly. She packs lunch 3 days.
She is an analytical chemist so she wears jeans to work - clothes budget so far is zero. She works out on my family Y membership and takes kickboxing at a UT extension program - and guys are paying the rest of her entertainment budget, pretty much.

She is driving well over 200mi per week, however. We had figured San Diego at $52000, Houston at $33000, and Austin at $35000. She also had a potential offer in Conn and in DC but she wanted to stay in Austin for her first year out of school.

She also does her laundry at our house.

lylepink -

rent 655

Elec, gas, water, wastewater, garbage, household items, cat 180

cable+internet 78

telephone 82

Auto expense @ 700 mi./mo:
gasoline 85
Oil 8
Ordinary maintenance 100
depreciation 50
insurance - liab only 100/300/50 51
Food:
50 meals home 125
40 meals out 400
clothing 50
entertainment 150

Unreimbursed med:
dentist 50
md/gyn 25
drugs 25

Misc., travel, savings 186

JD -
Article says 699B/2800B. Pie chart did not include war, apparently. Article goes on:

* $699 billion

U.S. Military Budget - DoD Base Spending: The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has the single largest budget of any government agency in the discretionary budget. Last year (FY 2006), Defense Department base budget expenditures were $411 billion, nearly half of net discretionary spending. This year (FY 2007), it has increased to $430 billion, still about half. Next year (FY 2008), it is projected to grow to $481 billion, or 52%. This so-called base budget is the basic level needed to keep the DoD in readiness.

U.S. Military Budget - War on Terror Base Spending : The War on Terror (WoT) incurs additional costs by other departments. When added to the DoD base spending, the amount comes to: $474 billion in FY 2006, which is 56% of net discretionary spending, $505 billion in FY 2007, and $554 billion in FY 2008, nearly 60% of discretionary spending. Total base budget for all non DoD/WoT departments is around $370 billion, which stays at the same funding level for all three fiscal years.

FY 2006 Supplemental Funding : The Defense Department base budget also does not include "one time only" costs attributable to the War on Terror, which are submitted as Supplemental Funding. In FY 2006, an additional $153 billion in Supplemental Funding was added to the base budget - the War on Terror received $120 billion, while $33 billion went primarily for Hurricane Katrina. As a result, 60% of last year's discretionary spending went to DoD/WoT.

whoops

edit to add: Boko beat me to the explaination punch. Well done.

M in A, my cite showed Def at 17% I think. Did I read that wrong?

As for secondary stock sales creating wealth - we know that the market creates liquidity, therefore making it much more likely that an individual will invest risk capital in a business venture. (I.e., individuals would be reluctant if they thought their capital was 'captured' by the corporation, creating a chilling effect). Taken as a whole, increasing risk capital pool means there's more production in the economy, again as a whole. Some people lose money of course, but more people gain, increasing the size of the pie.

Mark in Austin: The cost of the Apt? Also, what about health insurance, and does she have only liab. on the car without comp.? The deduct on comp. can be a killer. Saving is a dream of most folk, and most have theirs in various 401K's, and others offered my their employer, if at all. The 27k take home seems a little high for most of the south, and for Ca. and NY, it is hardy a liveable wage.

It seems a bit absurd to try and understand independents as a group. By definition, independents have independent positions. The statistics we see here are averages of a series of independent variables(the variables being the voters). That doesn't make much sense.

This from your own people Julie and Razor. Look in the mirror. don't attack me. Stop the "you", I'll stop the "rufus"

"GOP fears for credibility after scandals
Lust, predation, hypocrisy. These behaviors were observed in humans, including Washington politicians, even before Republicans roared to power on Capitol Hill in the 1990s.

But the agony of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) -- a self-proclaimed social conservative exposed Monday night as a customer of an escort service -- is one more float in a long and flamboyant parade of sexual follies and scandals served up by his generation of congressional Republicans. Previous attractions include former House members Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston and Mark Foley.

Embarrassment for the GOP was entertainment for many others, as people in Washington and around the nation chortled over the latest stubbed toe for a crowd that took power, and held it, in large measure by decrying the decay of traditional values and by issuing censorious attacks on the personal failings of political rivals.

Beyond the chortling, however, the Vitter scandal is a small piece of a much more significant development: The demoralized state of the social conservative movement on the brink of the 2008 election
"It's the hypocrisy that people can't stand," said Michael Cromartie, a social conservative himself who chaired the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom under President Bush. "It's not the fact that people are frail and given to sinful behavior. It's when they try to pretend to be morally upright and end up being self-righteous because they preach one thing and live another."

The gulf between the professed values of conservative political leaders and the way some actually conduct their lives has sapped energy from a movement that was a powerful engine for the Republican Party over the past three decades."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4873.html

I am one of the persons quoted in last Sunday's (July 1) story. I am an R but only so I can vote in local elections. I would be an I but they are generally excluded from voting in primaries in Florida.There has recently been some movement on changing those laws but each party protects its status as the majority party. More and more people here in Florida think of themselves as I even though they register as a D or R. I think the moderates are eventually going to dominate here.
Have you ever noticed how similar the far left and the far right really are? No idea has any merit except theirs. No compromise on the issues. No legislation from the bench, unless it agrees with me. The best government is local government, except when the state or federals disagree.
Moderates and independents are not spineless, they are thoughtful.

Mark - I have been working but I would have given essentially the same answer as Razor.

Razor - you challenged us to find NY Times coverage of Dingell's carbon tax proposal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/07/washington/07carbon.html

lylepink, we went through that exercise with our youngest daghter in June as she was deciding on her first career job as a chemist.

We gave her a 2002 car outright so she would not have car payments and we covered her first month of expenses.

We came up with yearly net cash outlay in Austin, living alone in a one br apt, of about $27k, necessitating a salary of about $35k. That was on a frugal, but not minimum, budget [allowed for 50 meals at home and 40 meals out, for example, and allowed her about 700mi/mo on the car, and $150/mo savings].

Pretty scary, huh?

While reading the comments on taxes, I notice no reference made on the actual cost of living a moderate lifestyle in todays world. Some of you math buffs may be able to figure this out by region, city, or even at a state level. Take this on an family and a single person, which would include food, clothing,shelter, and health care. I would like to see what you folks come up with and compare it to my situation and other working folks I am familiar with.

Yeah you giggle about the universities, the jobs, the advances in technology. Market capitalism is at the heart of the Amrican story.

Razorback writes
"The existence of an efficient transparant well regulated market which causes a person like you (and millions of others) to even think about buying stock has created the largest pool of investment capital in the history of the world."

Yup. Its not Mark's transaction that counts, its the existence of the market in which Mark conducts transactions.

Rz continues...
"This has been, despite the occasional frauds and foibles, one of the greatest forces for good in all of human history."

Geez... Got hyperbole?

Calling capital markets 'forces for good' makes me giggle.

Independants are taking over. You corporate sell-outs had your chance. You chose poorly. You chose yourself and or $$$$$$ over the future (country).

That to me is treason. Independant nation.

That's what this country IS WAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE. Now that the people know aobut you GOP, you are done. Done blame me. Look in the mirror.

Peace

Peace in the middle east. Have a good day everybody.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Read my boy. He will help you GOP'ers return to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Krishnamurti

It was asked:

"I have always had difficulty with understanding the effect of the secondary stock market - when I buy stock, it is a bookkeeping transaction offset by a bookkeeping transaction of a sale by another "investor", less a broker's commission. I am missing how secondary trading increases investment capital."

Mark in Austin, when a person buys a stock from someone else, it generally does not contribute to the investment capital of the company. An increase in value caused by many buyer would potentially increase the capital of the company (if it owned its own stock, if it issued bonds that could be exchanged for stock, maybe others).

The existence of an efficient transparant well regulated market which causes a person like you (and millions of others) to even think about buying stock has created the largest pool of investment capital in the history of the world. This has been, despite the occasional frauds and foibles, one of the greatest forces for good in all of human history.

I watch Fox. Have since 2001. I have been angry for years the people they attack and the reasons they attack them. I don't need you to tell me that Fox reports facts, because you know that's false.

Your playing games. Your probably laughin glike a school girl when you make posts like that. Play time is over. That is why the GOP is done.

There are no NEWS stations that only report good news for dems and bad news of the rebubs, are there? I've never seen them. You can cherry pick all you want. Look what the've done to the media.

You want me gone. Help me get Fox/Rush off the iar. Until then your going to have to put up with it. That or keep your mouth shut

Rufus, I am not trying to push you off this cite. I am just trying to get you to check out the Fox News site BEFORE you post that Fox failed to report something, so I don't have to post a link which shows that Fox did report precisely what some goober claimed they did not.

Razorback or JD - Could you address the question I asked JimD at 4:44p? He may be off doing something productive.

JD, in Gore's book, he compares polling data of American opinion which his opinion of objective truth, and determines that there is an "assault on reason".

If over the last 20 years, Democrats were polled and asked the size of the defense budget as a % of federal spending, the results would be so astronomically higher than the actual defense budget it would show where reason does not lie.

More Democrats believe in UFOs than believe that the defense budget is way less than 10% of federal spending, and has been so for a long time.

Play time in Razor's pen.

YOu will not push me off this site. Your party of fascsits has a couple months. What will you do without your avatars?

JD - I looked at your cite and saw that Defense is about 1/4 of the budget. Is that what you intended to demonstrate?

I think Defense should be the biggest item in the budget. We are in two military ground engagements in Asia.

Rufus said: "SEE Razor. The main-stream media (liek the market DOMINATING FOx) refuses to report facts."

They did report the facts, you said they didn't.

ahem. drindl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

JimDinFL says:

"Razor - interest rates are higher than they were a few years ago. Foreclosures are on the rise due to rate increases on adjustable mortgages."

If you compare this table on interest rates....:

http://mortgage-x.com/trends.htm

....with Figure 3 (surplus/deficit as % of gdp)...

http://www.house.gov/berry/crs/RS21786.pdf

... you will see that as the surplus peaked in 1999 and 2000, interest rates were nearly as high as they were in January 1993, before the Clinton budget. Compare Jan. 1993 and July 2000 rates.

As the surplus turn into a deficit from 2000 until 2004, interest rates declined to historic lows. In fact, the interest rate for each year of "Bush" deficits is LOWER THAN the interest rate for each year of "Clinton" surpluses.

You bought the Clinton "not one Republican vote" spin. Its on the wall at the Clinton library, its all over Krugman. Its only link to rational cause and effect tie(as you point out) is interest rates, but as Harry Truman pointed out, there are so many different causes and effects going on that there is always an "on the other hand". The tie held for a few years in the 1990s, but the spin goes on forever.

Clintonian taking credit for low interest rates because of the first budget vote disappeared from policy discourse when rates when down as the suplus declined and turned to deficit. It remains in public discourse because of Clintons never ending quest for credit.

There were many other factors at work in the 1990s, most of which had to do with the efficiencies created by technology and the technology stock bubble, not government policy. As I said before, politicians of both parties greatly exaggerate the role of government in the economy.

JimD, I have a question for you, too. I understand how savings create multiple times as much lending capital in banks and s&l's .

I understand how new issue investment directly capitalizes a business.

I have always had difficulty with understanding the effect of the secondary stock market - when I buy stock, it is a bookkeeping transaction offset by a bookkeeping transaction of a sale by another "investor", less a broker's commission. I am missing how secondary trading increases investment capital.

Help.

Chris, what do you mean by "America's problems"? Give some examples.

As a long time independent, I feel that the Democrat party has ceased to offer a program for America as a whole. It appears only to pander to specific groups, offering to expand the rights and priviledges of these specific groups at the expense of the rest of America. To me, it has no respect for American values or vision for the future of America.
On the other hand, the Republican party has become more and more come to resemble the Democrats, e.g. the expansion of the Federal government under Bush, as well as the shameless pandering to illegal aliens pouring across our borders. While many of us independents are now discusted with the Republicans, I don't see me and others like me voting for the Democrats.
I'm looking for a party that will responsibly address America's problems. Maybe I'll vote Libertarian.

Two seperate issues, Razor. That's why I put a space. Are you a lwyaer trying to rebuttal? :) What a funny guy you are. What are you trying to prove? Who are you trying to convince? YOurself?

I spell it out for you. I know dittoheads CAN'T think for them selves.

1. Your people are hypocrites. You tell (preach)other how to live while doing the exact opposite. The FOx first amendment was an exapmle. Ok.

2. All news organization are now run by THE CORPORATION rather than newsmen. The worst is fox. They are liars. They should be reporting news. Your gonna "news flash" that they reported news for once. They should do that. Their title has NEWS in it.

You look like a fool. Are you really this dumb or are you messing with me.

Mark in Austin, there are so many variables in play when attempting to accurately describe investment taxation and I have seen so many studies which are contradictory that I am not comfortable with any of them.

I did see a note that stated there is rebate for toursist of Danish VAT.

As I was asking ??? you posted Danish tax treatment. I am reading it.

Colin, I am sure then that you recall the part in Woodward's book where Clinton voices frustration that reduction in interest rates would not be automatic, but would depend on what the BOND MARKET did in reaction to the deficit reduction.

The bond market (yes, thats right, all of the greed bond daddies speculating) and the Federal Reserve Board have alot more to do with interest rates than does the President.

Politicians of both parties greatly exaggerate the influence that they have on the economy when claiming credit. The reason our economy works so well is because the government has relatively little influence.

The real irony here is that the thing that politicians most like to claim credit for is the creation of jobs. Politicians attempting to claim credit for creating jobs is the number one reason for corporate welfare.

Razor -

I understood our previous discussion of corporate taxes with JD to be that JD agreed with me that corporate income taxes in a competitive market theoretically could not be passed on as pricing because the same price would maximize profit before or after tax;
however, both of you explained to me that in a global economy the corporation was free to choose a tax haven to set up shop.

If I have got a handle on that, do you know how our corporate tax structure compares with the EU? Japan? Is it not easily compared because of VAT? JD seemed to think that VAT played into any comparison, which seems realistic to me. Of course, VAT can be passed on, and strikes me as a way for a Euro company to hide what would be an unlawful tariff as a lawful tax in its overseas trade. I know Canada rebates the VAT to US tourists - does EU rebate VAT to American customers?

http://www.copcap.com/composite-605.htm

Danish tax treatment of holding companies cite.

http://www.copcap.com/composite-605.htm

Danish tax treatment of holding companies cite.

MikeB, its not stupid to point out that Demark does many of the things that you call corrupt lobbyist driven Republican political evils, and you are praising Demark.

You would be howling of you knew that the the US allowed something like this:

"Compared to most other countries, Denmark is a unique holding company location, especially for investors from outside Europe.

The Danish tax regime allows an efficient routing of subsidiary dividends from other EU countries through a Danish holding company to an ultimate parent outside the EU without any taxes."

That you do not understand how Demark is using tax laws favorable to corporations to attract investment and jobs in a manner I said the US should do makes YOU stupid, not me.

drindl,

Actually, savings is investment in the macroeconomic sense. The banks invest your savings when they loan to businesses or to home buyers. I don't know where you draw the line on the well-off, but over the last 20 years more and more middle income people have invested in mutual funds.

Razor - interest rates are higher than they were a few years ago. Foreclosures are on the rise due to rate increases on adjustable mortgages.

I applaud Independent voters who vote for the best candidate based on who among the field of candidates is the best choice. They are not blinded by any party affiliation. They vote based on an intelligent research and analysis of the candidates.

Perhaps government would fare better if we had a government with no party labels (Repbulican, Democrat, Green or Independent) and everyone was felt free to vote for the candidate they felt would do the best for the America and We the People.

Razorback keeps making stupid posts about Danish "Free Enterprise". Well, most Dane's wouldn't knows that KOZ is talking about. Corporations are heavily regulated and made to be socially responsible. To give you all an idea about this, I quote from a recent article in the COpenhagen Post:

09.07.2007 Print article (IE & NS 4+)

A UN study has named Denmark as one of the world?s best countries when it comes to corporate social responsibility

A well-balanced mix of capitalism and social integrity have helped make Denmark the world's second leading nation for corporate social responsibility, according to a study completed for the United Nations' Global Compact Leaders Summit, which ended Sunday.

The study, conducted biannually by London-based think-tank AccountAbility, rated Denmark second-best in its 2007 Responsible Competitiveness Index, which determines how effectively a country's companies are carrying out responsible business practices.

Denmark moved up one place from its ranking of third in the last RCI and only Sweden ranked higher in the 2007 study.

RCI 2007 examined 108 countries represented on all five continents and consisted of over 96 percent of global GDP. Variables used in the study included carbon dioxide emissions, ethical behaviour of companies, employment of women in the private sector, public perception of government corruption, freedom of the press, and countries' participation in the signing of socially and environmentally beneficial treaties.

The Global Compact Leaders Summit, held to discuss ways to build international markets while promoting social responsibility, was chaired by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and included many of the world's top chief executives, heads of state and government ministers.

All five Nordic countries - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland - placed in the top six, with the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Australia and Canada making up the rest of the top ten.

And, KOZ? The U.S. ranks in the bottom 10% in that study.

JimDinFL says:

"Colin - no and yes.

Actually, the taming of the deficit is widely credited by non-partisan economists with being a major factor in the econmoic boom of the 90's since it allowed lower interest rates. The Clinton tax package played a key role in deficit reduction. Senator Phil Gramm predicted grass growing in the streets of America if that bill were passed - which it did without a single Republican vote."

Economists USED to say that the taming of the deficit led to lower interest rates which spurred the economy. Did interest rates go back up when the deficit went back up? NO, this is why you don't hear that element of the Clinton spin anymore.

The reason interest rates have stayed low despite the deficit is because inflation has stayed low (despite oil prices), mostly because the labor competition resulting from Chinese imports.

Harry Truman once said he would like to "meet a one handed economist". This is because economists always say "on the other hand" when explaining the negatives that come with the positives of anything that happens in the economy. Chinese imports have cost the US alot of manufacturing jobs, but they have also allowed alot of people to finance homes inexpensively.

JimD in FL - I would draw your attention to the fact that the same sorts of laws exist all across Europe. If a company lays off an employee, they end up paying up to 2 years unemployment. This was done as a disincentive to willy nilly fire employees and replace them with cheaper workers as U.S. companies do. And, I might note, it hasn't harmed the employment numbers, the job creation numbers, nor corporate profits in Scandinavia, Austria or Germany. Almost alone amoungst Western European countries outside of France, the U.K. has laws similar to ours, and their economy is floundering!
In France roughly 14% of the population is over 65. Ten percent of the population are Muslim immigrants, mostly from North Africa. Amoungst those immigrants, unemployment reaches close to 30%, butmost this population doesn't speak French and has never integraed into French culture. These two groups alone account for more than half of the "unemployed" in France. The fact is, however, that neoither of these groups wants to work and it is problematic that they could anyways. In a lesson on lying using statistics, if these two groups are subtracted from the unemployed pool be bandied about by the likes of Razorback/KOZ French unemployment would actually be on with our published figures.

Razor -- I didn't say it created budget surpluses. I didn't even mention surpluses. My point, which JimD has already articulated, is that by raising taxes Clinton's economic policy contributed to taming the deficit, which in turn enabled interest rates to decrease, which helped spur economic growth. Which is EXACTLY what Clinton said it would do.

Bob Woodward actually has an entire book detailing the tug-of-war inside Clinton's economic policy team that details Bob Rubin and Secretary Bentson's views in favor of aggressive deficit reduction prefailing over calls for immediate middle class tax cuts.

'You're wrong about DOD being 1/3 of the budget though, it's more like 17%. '

Not since 9/11, JD. It's skyrocketed. It's now a quarter of our entire budget. Just read a report this morning... will try to find a link for you.

JimD-- I understand what you're saying ahout encouraging investment,but I think it's an outdated idea. People [particularly the well off] don't need incentives to invest. Those that have, will. Saving is not investing... I could certainly suppor earned income from savings as worth a lower rate [espcially for those on the lower end of the scale] but that's different.

And as far as creating jobs -- jobs where? Not necessarily here, that's for sure.

Rufus, you are busted. Fox News not only has a story, they quote Vitter's WIFE:

In 2000, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service she could not be as forgiving as Livingston's wife or Hillary Clinton.

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary," she said. "If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288740,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/senate

Every single time that I have seen a reference in a post which claims Fox News is biased for failing to report a story, I have found that very story on Fox News in less than 5 minutes.

Now lets see if anyone can find New York Times or CNN coverages of John Dingell's 50 cent per gallon carbon tax? You will find coverage of Al Gore's rock concert.

Colin - no and yes.

Actually, the taming of the deficit is widely credited by non-partisan economists with being a major factor in the econmoic boom of the 90's since it allowed lower interest rates. The Clinton tax package played a key role in deficit reduction. Senator Phil Gramm predicted grass growing in the streets of America if that bill were passed - which it did without a single Republican vote.

Chris, Please write out all the poll numbers, or put them all in digits.

It's jarring to jump back and forth between "forty-one" and "41".

Colin, if we did EXACTLY what you propose to do, and then used all of the money for a "middle class" tax cut, the impact on the middle class would be far less than the impact of the Bush tax cuts.

Colin also says: Razor -- Folks a whole lot smarter than I am seem to think the economic plan Clinton passed after coming into office, without a single Republican vote, had an awful lot to do with the record and sustained economic growth that came afterwards.

That was one budget, Colin. Do you really think that one year's budget determins the economic performance of the next 8? Your quote, which is very popular, is the triumph of spin over reality. The budget would have failed, except David Boren of Oklahoma insisted that Clinton's "BTU" tax be stripped.

The best way to prove that the argument that the vote you referred to created the surplus is to look at the very budge document that Clinton submitted. What did CLINTON say would happen if you passed CLINTON's budget? I will give CLinton 100% of the credit for whatever he claimed would happen in that budget. It is no where near the surplus.

This same principle applied to Reagan's and Bush's budget is the reason that I do NOT support what some call "supply side" economics. When Republicans say that a tax cut will spur enough growth to offset the revenue lost, go back and see what the actual revenues were compared to the forecast in the first budget. You will see that the shortfall is on the revenue side, not just the spending side, contrary to what Larry Kudlow says.

The government is about 25% of the economy. What happens in the 75% that is the private sector has alot more to do with what happens in the economy than what the government does.

Mike - all France's problems are not due to immigration. France's problem with unemployment is directly related to the barriers to firing employees in French law. They have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe. Also, I think extrapolating from a country with 16 or 17 million to one with 300 million is dicey at best.

The problem with mass transit in the US is largely due to sprawl. The DC area had a pretty good system when I lived there in the early 90s. But, for mass transit to be anywhere near cost effective, even with subsidies, you need to have population centers large enough to provide enough riders in a compact enough area so that, for example, getting workers from the residential districts to the working districts can be done in enough numbers to make it effective and in short enough time so as to encourage people to use it. With dispersed populations and spread out work areas - look at the proliferation of industrial parks and office parks in suburbs for example - it gets trickier to devise the routes that will have enough riders to be worthwhile and will get people where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time. The sheer size of the US has encouraged sprawl. Europeans are far more likely to live closer to urban centers and in apartments as opposed to single family homes in the suburbs than Americans. The size of European countries and the age of their cities play a role too. I have driven in Europe (I lived in Italy for several years) - urban traffic is much worse than in most US cities.

"The blogs are having a field day with that hypocrisy.... The mainstream media, however, has largely steered clear of focusing on Vitter's past statements, opting instead to play the story relatively straight. The Washington Post, noting only about his rhetoric that Vitter is "reliable conservative vote in the Senate," didn't front the story, opting instead for A3. Rather, it's the blogs and liberal sites like Salon that are jumping on the story and hammering Vitter for statements at odds with his behavior.

If you want a straight news story, then, you can stick with the traditional media. But if you want a spotlight placed on Vitter's hypocrisy -- and the rush of satisfaction that comes with experiencing schadenfreude that you can justify -- you can head over to the blogs. Is it any wonder that the latter get so many clicks?"

SEE Razor. The main-stream media (liek the market DOMINATING FOx) refuses to report facts. Once Fox is gone you won't see me here. Once CNN and MSNBC (other than olberman) start reporting facts and truths other than paid advertisments parading as news, the nI'll be gone. YOu have every other media.

Give us the internet you greedy little pigs :). Or better yet stop complaining for once. Fear doesn't exist.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

JimD -- Would raising tax levels back to Clinton-era levels constitute "soaking the rich?" Because that's really all I'm talking about. At best, my proposal would include creating an additional tax bracket for individuals making more than $1 million a year, who would pay a marginally higher percentage. Maybe I'm off, but that doesn't exactly seem like "soaking" anyone to me. Although obviously reasonable people can disagree.

On a somewhat related point, would you support some tax increases -- along with judicious benefit cuts -- to make sure our entitlement programs remain solvent?

" It would be an issue (for me) if he would just keep his mouth shut on telling others how to live"

Wouldn't be an issue. rather

No dope, we have to compete with other countries for investment, or others countries get the jobs.

Investors in CHINA pay the CHINESE TAX, not the US tax, that is precisely why taxes on investments should be lower.

Most major nations do not double tax dividends.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ce0301.pdf

Capital flows to the point of highest after tax return. If we tax to high, investment and jobs go elsewhere.

And as MikeB tends to do, gets it wrong again and posts no source. Check out this source for Demark's business taxes:

http://www.copcap.com/composite-605.htm

The Danes promote:

Low corporate tax and minor social costs for employees

Competitive, effective taxation through flexible depreciation and amortisation methods and financing

Attractive holding company tax regime
Special expatriate taxation regime for salaried foreign individuals working in Denmark for a shorter period of time
Attractive taxation of research and development activities

Full deductibility regarding interest arising from acquisitions

Sounds like alot of "loopholes" as Colin would say.

MikeB, did you see that Corporate tax rate of 28%? Alot less that individual rates. How is that for progressive Denmark?

http://www.copcap.com/composite-605.htm

Why, they even ADVERTISE their corporate taxes are below the average European level. I wonder why they do that?????

as soon as world peace breaks out and the cost of the defense of europe is not borne by the usa the usa can be compared to the austrians we protect. not before.

Razor -- Folks a whole lot smarter than I am seem to think the economic plan Clinton passed after coming into office, without a single Republican vote, had an awful lot to do with the record and sustained economic growth that came afterwards. We can debate that till the cows come home though, b/c there is ultimately no way to PROVE what variable, amongst many, lead to economic growth. But I think you already knew that, didn't you.

As far as what I'm talking about when i say middle class and wealth, why don't we use the current income tax brackets as a jumping off point -- since my only specific proposal to date was to raise the top bracket back to 39%. I would then suggest creating another top bracket, for income over $1 million/year that would be taxed at a somwhat higher rate. To the extent those "definitions," which I've pulled off the top of my head, don't work I'm open to making changes. The point is to have a rational discussion about tax policy that doesn't rule out any tax increases as a matter of ideology.

Gop hypocrites. Your people tell you one thing while representing the opposite. This happens much more than not. Most things you republicans claim to be for run counter to what you say. I could go on forever. You don't want that.

Most recent is Vitters. The republcian that caught up in the dc madam scadel. Now I don't care if you go and see prositues. That's his business. But don't go out there and tell other people they need to have conservative christian wholesome marraiges. It would be an issue (for me) if he would just keep his mouth shut on telling others how to live. This is the GOP. You love to tell others how to live, but can't measure up to the same standards. Like fox "news" saying free speech needs to be protected while ATTACKING AND TRYING TO SILENCE ALL NON_CONSERVATIVES. YOu can't have your cake and eat it to.

Like Bush, you can't make the rules then tell others the rules don't apply. YOu can't be free from laws/rules while going after the next guy

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's most recent surgeon general accused the administration Tuesday of muzzling him for political reasons on hot-button health issues such as emergency contraception and abstinence-only education.

Dr. Richard Carmona told lawmakers that the Bush administration interfered with his work.

Dr. Richard Carmona, the nation's 17th surgeon general, told lawmakers that all surgeons general have had to deal with politics but none like this before.

For example, he said he wasn't allowed to make a speech at the Special Olympics because it was viewed as somehow benefiting a political opponent. However, he said he was asked to speak at events designed to benefit Republican lawmakers.

"The reality is that the nation's doctor has been marginalized and relegated to a position with no independent budget, and with supervisors who are political appointees with partisan agendas," said Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006.

Yo Razor! Have you read that book or not. Simple question, simple answer. Why don't you respond? Why are you guys talking about Paris Hilton? She's not even that hot.

JimD in FL - Frances problems are a direct result of an enormous immigrant community, both legal and illegal. But, then, the reason Sweden has been so far behind Denmark and Norway is becasue they have allowed in hundreds of thousands of Mulim immigrants who wont learn the language, are actively opposed to their culture, and simply wont work. Denmark had a bunch of them at one time, but the rounded them up and expelled them. The lesson for us is to get rid of the 20 million illegals here and do whatever it takes to prevent new ones from coming. And, Razorback's figures about Scandinavian populations, as with everyhting else he posts, is so wrong as to make one think he simply invents these things. The population of Sweden alone is more than 9 million. Norway has a population of 4.6 million. Denmark's is 5.5 million. Holland's population, the Netherland's having similar taxes and programs to her Scandinavian neighbors, is 16.6 million. Moreover, Austria also has similar social programs and taxes to Scandinavia and her population is 8.2 million.

Instead of denigrating these countries for paying off their national debt and having universal health care and other programs, I would think people would marval at them. How can you explain efficient mass transit systems that reach the farthest parts of the country with such a small budget, given the limited population? Same for universal health care, universal retirement, etc. If we initiated similar programs here, we would become an economic powerhouse and restore people's faith in this coountry and the Amercian dream.

No razor(kiddo).

She is a republican plant. Like always (sabotage). So you have something to point to and say " See, she is a lefty). The proof is in what she does not what she claims (as with everybody, but gop hypocrites especailly)Have you been listening to anything I've been saying the last few months:)

Did she even vote that year?

I have to agree with Razor up to a point. The amount of money to be raised via a "soak the rich" policy is usually well short of the amount needed to finance the schemes of the people proposing it. I remember reading some statistics about what could be raised by taxing incomes above $1 million compared to the annual budget deficit in the late 80's. Even taking 100% of all income over one million was a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit.

Also, polls have shown that the vast majority of high income Americans do not consider themselves rich.

'An additional fact it the only thing that creates private sector jobs is private sector investment. Again, the appropriate level of taxation on that investement can be debated reasonably.'

private sector jobs -- where? with globalization, you cannot reasonably say that american workers should feel that they should pay more taxes on wages than investors do on capital gains sothat jobs can be created in China.

Rufus, Paris was affiliated with "Vote or Die".
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/77733/low_voter_turnout_paris_hilton_didnt.html

Are you really suggesting that Vote or Die, P Diddy's urban voter turnout operation, was Republican?

Wealth and Democracy, not Weath.

Razorback: Have you ever read Kevin Phillip's book Weath and Democracy?

I got a solution. Remove the sabotage from the eqation. Remove the people who only care about the corporations (most GOP but some D's)

At least the dems aren't ONLY of the corporations. Let the corporations fend for themselves, like they used to. Get them out of politics. We can vote. That's about it. Nobody is reading this post trying to figure out how to "fix" the economic problems fo this country. Is Alan Greenspan out there HEEELOO :)

Vote out the GOP. Start there. If the dems follow the same path we vote independant. As many parties as it takes. When the dems and repubs act right they would be able to re-enter politics. WHEN WE LET THEM. When they act right. That brings them back to working for the people as opposed to for big business. Naive? What else can we do? Vote them out. As long as it takes.

'whats the incentive to work hard in a system that punishes you for being rich and rewards you for being poor?'

what planet do you live on? apparently you have never been poor, you freaking moron. i just get sick of this kind of BS.

Colin, the "thriving Clinton economy" had more to do with the internet and other technology that it had to do with Clinton. The surplus was driven by the same things that drove the stock market bubble. The bubble led to the bust and 9/11 didn't help, and there went the surplus.

The lack of even an attempt to apply basic ideas of cause and effect when crediting or blaming a president for econmic performance is much more psuedo-scientific than Rush Limbaugh is on global warming.

Colin says:

"I think the point is that the debate shouldn't start with the proposition that ANY tax increase on the wealth, even if its purpose is to REDUCE tax rates for the middle class, is a non-starter. The modern GOP seems to feel that way, which is a shame and -- to borrow their term -- a real example of class warfare."

The problem with the left and the tax issue is that the discussion is a poll driven political pander instead of a real debate. This point is proven by the fact that leftist politicians amost never define "middle class" and "wealthy". These terms are relative. Even those who most would consider to be wealthy think that they are in fact "middle class". It makes for a great political issue, because the wealthy people whom you want to tax support taxing the wealthy more, because they think they are middle class. Cute politics.

In 2004, to be in the top 10%, you had to make 99,000 and to be in the top 25%, you had to make $60,000. What is wealthy, and what is middle Colin?

The higher you define "wealthy" the fewer taxpayers you have. As a group, those that make between $60k-99k have ALOT more income than those who made over $350,000, just because there are so many more of them.

mikeB's answer to almost every problem seems to be "look at Norway and Denmark"!

I don't claim to be an expert in economics but considering that the combined population of Scandinavian countries is a little over 10 million, it seems a bit of a stretch to compare their way of life and social system to the United States with a population of 299,398,484 people.

California alone has a population of over 36 million people.

MikeB - to add to my earlier comment, France is having problems now with the cost of its welfare state. Sarkozcy was elected on a promise to scale it back in order to grow the economy and reduce unemployment. The UK under Labour had an extensive welfare state financed, in part, by confiscatory taxes on the well-off, not just wealthy. Thatcher repealed those very high taxes and the British economy took off.

I think the French and British experience are more applicable to the US than the Scandinavian.

drindl, I agree with you about the labels 'lib' and 'con' being morphed over the last few decades. That's why I'm a lib(ertarian) I guess; less government not more, let people live their own lives, live with the consequences of their actions, etc.

You're wrong about DOD being 1/3 of the budget though, it's more like 17%. Social Security is bigger, at 21% of our budget (1/5!!!), and Medicare is 14%.

"The endpoint of libertarianism (another 'ism' in the spectrum above) would be to let him figure it out for himself or starve to death in the process."

Is that libertarianism or capitalism? "teaching him to fish will take to long. While teaching I won't be making money."

No argument, Keith. I'm just responding to the communism/socialism labeling that suggests we throw the baby (government programs to help the poor) out with the bathwater. Teaching a man how to fish - your well-worn analogy - could be an example of either communism or socialism if you look at it the right way.

The endpoint of libertarianism (another 'ism' in the spectrum above) would be to let him figure it out for himself or starve to death in the process.

You pay a man a good wage you can expect loyalty. You pay a man a slave wage you get a slave.

High stocks do not equate to a "good economy". High stocks are good FOR PEOPLE that can afford to buy them. Do you gop'ers (who think the economy is SOOO good right now) think that the 12 billion a month will not catch up to us. High stocks means nothing but the rich are gettign richer. Ther eis no excuse for teh ceo's to be making millions. There is no excuse to be paying employee's the lowest possible amount.

Again, you want loyalty from your employee's you pay them like you want loyalty. If you can throw your employee's over the bridge and replace them on a whime. DON'T EXPECT BUSINESS LOYALTY. There is an old saying You get what you pay for. You pay your employee's peanuts, expect them to jump ship when an oppurtunity arises.

Colin - my point on confiscatory taxes was in response to MikeB's call to raise taxes on the rich "through the roof". The tax rates I was referring to were marginal rates of 60 to 90% at some levels of income.

MikeB - I did not say it did not work in Scandinavia. I said that extrapolating from small, homgeneous countries to the US is tricky.

JimD -- I don't think we disagree on a theoretical level. It's simply a matter of where the rubber meets the road I suppose. To be honest, I'm all for taxes being as low as possible for everyone. But since, as you say, there are services that the public demands the next question is how we should prioritize that tax burden. For me, I tend to think it's better to reduce the tax burden of the middle class relative to the extremely wealthy to a greater extent than is done right now. Conversely, when Reagan pushed his first set of tax cuts through he was absolutely right in arguing that the top income bracket was being taxed TOO much. So obviously, context matters quite a bit.

Mark -- Point taken and obviously I'm NOT a tax attorney myself. I suppose my basic point is simply that taxing one entity -- a corporation -- and its sharholders, who have a separate legal status, doesn't strike me as particularly novel under our tax system. We do it all the time. Since I don't think corporations are currently over-taxed, it just doesn't bother me much. And I certainly don't understand why that provides a particularly compelling argument in favor of lowering investment income taxes. At the very least, shouldn't we be talking about fixing the AMT first? That is hurting more and more middle class families every year, yet the GOP isn't willing to even consider raising any other taxes to fix the problem. That strikes me as incredibly cynical on top of being bad policy.

I'll check back in later, but great conversation today.

"Or humanitarianism. Or Christianity. Nope, we can't have any of that going on in THIS country."

whats the incentive to work hard in a system that punishes you for being rich and rewards you for being poor?

I agree, it is humanitarianism to help those that are less fortunate, but if you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a mean how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.

To me "Independent" means being willing to say something true even when your base is in the habit of denying it.

For example, Obama is acting Independent when he says that some American blacks need to watch less TV and do more homework. Obama is also acting Independent when he says that teachers who are willing to teach badly-needed subjects should be rewarded (i.e., that the concept of merit pay has something going for it).

I consider myself an Independent with a Democratic base. But that Democratic base says some pretty bizarre things... see this page any day of the week. I really don't like liars. I see a lot of lying going on in both bases, D and R.

And so I consider myself Independent in some ways, Democratic in others. I do register as a Democrat to be able to participate in the primaries; I have never felt motivated to participate in a Republican primary. I vote Democrat often, but not always.

The top rate in '92 was 36% and Congress added a "surtax", 10% of 36%, to "balance the budget". The surtax was called "temporary" within the legislation. After we balanced the budget the temporary surtax was supposed to be repealed and the top rate dropped from 39.6% back to 36%. The Ds did not follow through on that.

Colin and MikeB are the men/woman. I don't even need to post. These guys are on point. The truth is getting out there. good job guys. Keep up the great work.

Pretty soon I'll just be able to chime in with Zouk is a fascist. Or Let's throw Bush in jail for treason. :)

You guys are on point. With real voices like yours in here it exposes zouk/razor for the propogandist they are. That is good

Colin - as I said before, taxes are the dues of a democratic society, a necessary evil. I believe in paying for what we get in the way of services and not leaving the bill to our children and grandchildren. Taxes have an impact on the economy - Razor correctly points out many of those impacts. However, since the public wants certain services from government, we have to impose taxes to finance them. It is all a matter of trade-offs.

As for "valuing" earned over unearned income, I don't even like the terms. I would tax income from work at very low levels at the lower end. I definitely believe we need to encourage savings, however. Tax policy is intended to finance the government and to encourage or discourage certain economic behavior. We should encourage savings and investment. Properly used, investment fuels productivity which is the main engine of economic growth. Even those desiring a European style welfare state should understand that it is unsupportable without economic growth.

Colin -

I would not strongly consider "not McCain" among the Rs.

I think Razorback makes a valid point about dividends - the IRC intends a double taxation of dividends. I was, at one time, convinced that the double taxation model should be modified by making dividends deductible to the entity. I think Razorback underestimates the efficiency of a corporate tax - that is a conversation he, JD, and I had weeks ago.

I think that there are computer models of various tax tweaks out there but I have not read them. My wife is a CPA with an MS in Taxation so I get regularly that I am w-w-rong. I claim no expertise...

Paris Hilton affiliated herself with "Vote or Die" the leftist celebrity youth voter turnout movement, although she didnt register to vote."

Now paris hilton is a "lefty". Anothe lie by the propogandist. He can't help himself. Everything about her points to her being a Repub. She's willfull a moron. Doesn't want to grow up. As said above, got tons of money from her parants. Do you think she fo more tax? Doesn't think she needs to follow the laws. Are we getting somewhere here.

I saw Baca ( the guy that let her out) speaking at a conferance with Bush 43. Her jailing took attention off bush the war the gop. On fox they were defender her left and right.

another lie or mislead by razor. She is a repbulican, as is richie. I see the signs. Not that I care at all. That's Fox "news's deal.

Razorback - Wrong again! The VAT and sales taxes are two diffeent taxes on goods and services in Scandinavia. Both apply, in varying amounts, to everything people purchase. This is made up for by the fact that the poor and lower income people pay far less in income tax. The income tax is at a flat rate of 25%, depending on the country, on the first (roughly) $50,000 people make. After that, this tax applies and an added income tax of 25% is applied to the additional income up to around $100,000 annually. Additional taxes are added for more money until, after around $200,000 a year, virtually all of a persons income above that amount goes for taxes. And, JimD, as for not working, it works just fine. Denmark and Norway have NO national debt and Sweden's is due to be retired next year. For all of that, they have a national HMO that everyone participates in (medical, dental and prescription drugs), a national retirement insurance covering every worker, pehaps the best mass transit system in the world, and close to universal home ownership. There are no homeless or drug addicts laying around the streets, the rivers and lakes are clean, virtually universal employment, and people are generally happy.

Judge C. Crater, the notion that Christianity requires a bloated bureacracy to administer an ineffective welfare state that encourages dependency is just as stupid as the notion that God is a Republican.

JimD -- Severely taxing the wealthy will have a negative impact on the economy. Raising the top income bracket back to 39%, which it was at during the entire Clinton administration, didn't seem excessive to me or the many others that enjoyed the thriving economy. The Devil is always in the details, but I think the point is that the debate shouldn't start with the proposition that ANY tax increase on the wealth, even if its purpose is to REDUCE tax rates for the middle class, is a non-starter. The modern GOP seems to feel that way, which is a shame and -- to borrow their term -- a real example of class warfare.

Razor -- the so-called problem of "double taxation" can easiliy be avoided, as you well know. Entity choice is one option, as S Corps, LLCs, and a variety of partnership permutations allow for pass through taxation. The trade off, which you don't bring up, is that some of those entity choices provide less liability protection.

You also don't bring up, I notice, the fact that it's not at all uncommon for a revenue stream to be taxed multiple times or for an exchange of a portion of a revenue stream to be taxed when it changes hands. SS taxes are a good example of the former, as they apply on-top of income taxes, and the sales tax is an obvious example of the latter. Strangely, none of these common taxes are referred to as "double taxation."

Finally, as an aside, the effective rate of taxation for investment income is already much lower than for income taxes precisely b/c things like SS taxes don't apply to it.

JimD writes
"Confiscatory taxes on the wealthy are drags on the economy. Taxes on wealth, as opposed to income, have a particularly negative impact on the economy."

At what level does taxation become 'confiscatory'? To hear the current GOP talk, all taxation qualifies. The logical fallacy that self-described fiscal conservatives continue to apply is that tax cuts always increase revenue. yet, if we pull out the good old laffer curve, we see that there's a 'sweet spot' where both increasing and decreasing taxes diminishes revenue. What we don't know is the tax rate that achieves this maximization of revenue. Yet, 'conservatives' don't want to seek out this point, they merely want to cut, borrow & spend. They also don't want to ask what the target spending should be - they grow government while disparaging all that government does, claiming to be in favor of eliminating gov't waste while borrowing the money to continue gov't growth.

I am very much a capitalist, but I still support the SEC, FERC and FTC pretty much in their current form.

Those who have posted vile derogatory things about me on this blog (and to be fair, I respond in kind) should read some of the work product of these regulatory commissions. They would be shocked to see that the DEMOCRATIC appointees on these commissions agree with about 90% of what I post on the blog that is related to economics.

You are wrong, Chris. George Bush is the face of the Republican party and will continue to be so for at least the next election cycle and perhaps a generation.

You are wrong, Chris. George Bush is the face of the Republican party and will continue to be so for at least the next election cycle and perhaps a generation.

MikeB

Confiscatory taxes on the wealthy are drags on the economy. Taxes on wealth, as opposed to income, have a particularly negative impact on the economy. The British had extremely high marginal tax rates - far beyond anything we've ever had outside of WWII - they experienced a tremendous economic boom when Thatcher came in and repealed them. I would also be cautious about extrapolating from small, very homogeneous populations like the Scandinavian countries to the US.

Razor - I would have voted for Tsongas in 1992 if he had gotten the nomination. He was the only major party candidate seriously addressing the deficit.

Colin says:

"Razorback -- you'r wrong in arguing that taxing dividends constitutes double taxation. Trust me -- there are a billion ways to avoid that from occuring and companies and funds, whether private or public, take advantage of all of them. If you want to close those loop holes, then I'm open to reducing dividend taxation - but not till then."

There is no such thing as a loophole. There is within the law, and outside of the law. A "loophole" is a derogatory term similar to "technicality" which people used to describe parts of the law that they don't like.

Name ANY loophole you want to discuss.

Paris Hilton affiliated herself with "Vote or Die" the leftist celebrity youth voter turnout movement, although she didnt register to vote. I detest Paris, I thought she deserved jail time for thumbing her noses at the courts. I can live with the shenanigans of an idiot like Paris as long as society gets the benefits of an entrepenuer like her grandfather.

I would support changing the "death tax" in a manner proposed by some Senate Dems which cut the rate and raised the exemption IF all of the money was used for income tax reductions.

Income taxes and capital gains taxes are the job killers, not the so called "death tax".

"hmm.. redistributing from the rich to the poor.. sounds like socialism to me -- or taken to the extreme, communism."

Or humanitarianism. Or Christianity. Nope, we can't have any of that going on in THIS country.

"I'm all for anything that takes enough money from them so that they cannot afford to do this any longer"

hmm.. redistributing from the rich to the poor.. sounds like socialism to me -- or taken to the extreme, communism.

Source for 2 quotes on VAT

http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn632flattaxed

MikeB, will you ever learn?

First, you said that software engineers have a 25% unemployment rate in the US. That is a complete joke, an obvious falsehood. I even let it go unchallenged, because I am tired today.

MikeB says:

(MikeB) would NOT be for anything reseembling a flat lowering of taxes on savings becasue it would reward the wealthy, who already pay far less than their fair share.

Denmark has a VAT (value added) tax, which is similar to a sales tax except that it applies to both wholesale and retail sales, unlike most US sales taxes, which applies to retail sales only.

Like sales taxes, VAT taxes are not progressive. A rich person and a poor person pay the same.

So MikeB says he is against "flat" non progressive taxes, and prefers a Scandanavian model, when in fact, Denmark has a non progressive VAT tax of 25%.

http://www.100svar.dk/beingbusinessman/VALUEADDEDETAXVATReturnFrame.html

A VAT tax hits the poor much harder than the rich, unless there are exemptions for necessities and surcharges for luxuries.

The VAT tax, if it were hidden in the price of products (as it is in Europe) rather than added at the cash register, is nearly invisible. It would be the easiest to raise without howls of outrage -- good for budget balancing, bad if you're the type who wants a lot less government.

MikeB, you get busted so often for falsehoods that should at least try to check out some of what you say before you post.

Note that the VAT is a "hidden tax" hidden in the cost of products. Drindle will like that, because she can pretend she isn't paying it.

This is one of the best days that this blog has ever had. I too took the test and find myself in the lower right hand corner of the chart (more libertarian than anything else). I guess age has something to do with it. From my experience the "I"s tend to be less engaged in the day to day movement of the candidates and candidacies than the self-identified "party regulars". That appears to be a good thing, what with this gaggle of fundraisers, consultants, flame-outs and "tiered" candidates, SIX MONTHS before any scheduled state primary. I would prefer a parliamentary system where many more views, issues, and voices could gain traction. That would require at least one constitutional amendment, which wont happen in this political climate.

Razorback -- you'r wrong in arguing that taxing dividends constitutes double taxation. Trust me -- there are a billion ways to avoid that from occuring and companies and funds, whether private or public, take advantage of all of them. If you want to close those loop holes, then I'm open to reducing dividend taxation - but not till then.

JimD -- I agree we need to incentivize savings, and I don't have anything INHERENTLY against keeping taxes on investment income lower. But if you had to prioritize where tax rates should be adjusted, doesn't it make more sense to tweek the tax system so that it values earned income more than investment income? At some point, there is a necessary tension between the taxes people are willing to pay and the services that they're unwilling to lose. I guess my only point is that to the extent a specific baseline of tax revenue is needed, I'd rather increase the burden on those earning large amounts of investment income than those struggling to stretch their pay checks on a month-to-month basis. And I say that as someone whose clients tend to be in the financial services industry.

Mark -- I'm curious whether you would strongly consider voting for any of the current GOP candidates other than McCain. I understand his appeal, but given your list of policy priorities I can't really imagine any of the other GOPrs being a good fit for you, even IF Hillary won the Dem nomination. If Romney was still the guy who got elected governor, obviously things would be different, but since he's not...

MikeB, if you want to stop Paris Hilton, don't raise taxes on income. Raise the inheritance taxes. (More accurately, return them to their previous levels.) She's an heiress. She's rich because her parents and grandparents did something useful for society, allowing her to be an extremely wealthy leech. And because Republicans keep reducing inheritance taxes, Paris Hilton gets to keep more of that money earned by her ancestors, instead of having to work for it.

Nobody should be able to live Paris Hilton's lifestyle without doing something to actually earn that money. Raise the inheritance taxes and eliminate lazy billionaire heiresses for good.

Simpletons debate tax policy in terms of what they think the tax policy does it do for them or their preferred special interest group(s), rather than focusing on how tax policy impacts the economy as a whole.

The same simpletons also sound off about unemployment and lack of jobs. It never occurs to them that the 2 issues are related.

Why do some of those simpletons who like to lecture about technical expertise in the context of global warming exhibit such hostility to technical expertise when it comes to economics and accounting?

Rufus: I thought he meant ex-convict, too, and I just assumed that was the the lat