Friday, May 1, 2009


I was going to confine this post to the comments section of my last post. It's a reply to my constant rightwing blatherer and childhood friend Jim and one of his many unsubstantiated comments (he thinks giving citations to other rightwing blatherers is the same as being factual), this time about how the corporate tax rates in this country will make us like Japan (no what's made us have any similarities with Japan's economic collapse and less than robust recovery over the last ten years, is that both were the result of a housing bubble, only Japan's was confined to Japan's own economy, especially the banks, whereas ours being based on undecipherable formulas packaged as "hedges" against a failure that was actually inevitable and then sold throughout the world, has caused an economic collapse EVERYWHERE!).

I realize it's a waste of time to argue with Jim since he's a rightwing ideologue and cannot see beyond their propaganda obviously from his comments. But it becomes so tiresome to have him repeat the lies of his rightwing cheerleaders ala Rush/Hannity/et. al. that I dropped my original idea for a post and just copied the comment I was about to add to the last post here.

Here's Jim's "comment"—"The US 35% Corporate tax rate is the highest after the Japanese, in the world. The Japanese have been in a twenty year slump. JFK, Reagan and George W. proved that the best way to raise tax revenues is to cut the rates."

Oy. Where to start with all the fallacies and distortions in just those few words. Okay, here's the facts Jim. Most countries IN THE WORLD Jimbo, have corporate taxes in the 35% range, a vast majority (interestingly the "socialist" ones Jim's always denigrating ala Sweden Norway et. al. are mostly much lower).

And of the few who aren't in the same range as the USA's 15 to 38% (yes, some corporations pay as low as 15% here Jim, legally) they have graduated income taxes that go way above the USA's 35% (which may be where Jim got that figure for us, mistaking personal income tax for corporate, but that's been a rightwing ploy for decades, confusing corporations with individuals and even getting the law to agree).

For instance Spain's corporate taxes range from 25 to 30% but their individual income taxes go up to 42% or Belgium's 34% corporate tax rate is balanced by individual taxes that can go as high as 50%! Canada, who's corporate rate can go to 35.5% interestingly only goes as high as 29% in income tax rates (and still gives free healthcare!). France is another country that has a corporate rate close to 35% (it's 34%) but income taxes can go as high as 50%.

India, actually is closest to our figures, so I guess their phenomenal growth rate proves Jim's point—NOT!

As for Japan, Jim has that wrong as well. Their corporate rate is 30% but personal income taxes can go as high as 40%.

All this, of course, as any basic economics course should teach (but most MBA programs in this country are run by rightwing defenders of the so-called "free market"—which of course is an ideal that could never be actually carried out in reality (much like "communism" and "socialism" etc.)—and therefore deregulation (leading to the current worldwide economic collapse brought on by the philosophy taught in most of our business schools, but notice no big leftwing outcry to rid college campuses of these rightwing MBA professors whose teachings are a central part of the root cause of WORLDWIDE FINANCIAL RUIN! Nope, just the rightwing outcry to rid campuses of leftie professors who want to promote the idea of equality of the races and sexes and genders and gender preferences and the idea that government can do some good, the dirty villains!)

At any rate, anyone with an ounce of intelligence and any history of following markets and reading about economic realities, not theories, will know that these tax rate figures are useless indicators of anything unless joined with a slew of other statistics and facts including things as seemingly unrelated as geography, climate, consumption percentages, even religion and politics.

That's why we're so lucky to have someone with as nuanced an intelligence and perspective as Obama leading us through the current mess—created by simplistic ideological (rightwing) theories that in reality have proven completely disastrous—and with a useful personal history, having experienced all the dominant religions firsthand, most of the dominant geographical and climate variants and economic and power extremes personally—from Hawaii to Chicago, Indonesia to Harvard, welfare kid to millionaire author, community organizer among the most deprived to "leader of the free world" or "the world's only super power" etc.

Obama, fortunately, knows much much more than Jim or his rightwing cheerleaders have even a clue about, thank God.

[Oh, and PS Jim, taxes increased under presidents who raised tax rates or let them settle back to previous rates (and vice versa), as well, remember the Clinton presidency?]


JIm said...

Mike, You lose credability when you wonder away from poems and films.

MARCH 18, 2008
U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes
by Scott A. Hodge
Fiscal Fact No. 119
America's political leadership is finally waking up to the fact that the tax rates businesses face in the U.S. are way out of step with our major economic competitors. Last year, for example, Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel proposed cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. While a 5 percentage point cut in the federal corporate tax rate may sound significant, it may not be sufficient to meaningfully improve the competitiveness of the United States.
Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent.1 Lowering the federal rate to 30.5 percent would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries.
More recently, other members of Congress—including Sen. John McCain and Congressman Eric Cantor—have released proposals to cut the corporate rate even deeper to 25 percent. While this lower rate would improve the U.S.'s international ranking and competitiveness, that improvement would be mitigated by the high corporate tax rates imposed by many states.
Many states impose state corporate income taxes at rates above the national average of 6.6 percent. Iowa, for example, imposes the highest corporate tax rate of 12 percent, followed by Pennsylvania's 9.99 percent rate and Minnesota's 9.8 percent rate. When added to the federal rate, these states tax their businesses at rates far in excess of all other OECD countries.
When compared to other OECD countries:
• 24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
• 32 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
• 46 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
• All 50 states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.
Thus, if lawmakers are serious about making the U.S. corporate tax system more competitive internationally, corporate tax rates will have to be reduced both in Washington and in state capitals. State officials should be champions of substantial cuts in the federal corporate tax rate because there is only so much they can do to improve their own competitiveness. After all, even corporations that operate in the three states that do not impose a major state-level corporate tax—Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming—still shoulder a higher corporate tax rate than fifth-ranked France and 24 other OECD countries because of the 35 percent federal corporate rate.

JIm said...

Tax Rates were cut and government revenue rose in the 1920’s Kennedy etc. Back up listed below. The 90's economic boom was unleashed by confluence of events including the explosion of technology. I am unaware of another time when rates went up and revenues increased along with a healthy economy. However I do await enlightenment.

August 13, 2003
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).
According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:
At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.
2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.
The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

JIm said...

Mike's description of the Chicago politician who is the current president is "That's why we're so lucky to have someone with as nuanced an intelligence and perspective as Obama leading us through the current mess—created by simplistic ideological(rightwing) theories"

Nuance in a politician, indicates he does not want to speak the plain truth because that would jepordized reelection. To put it plainly, he is a coward when he resorts to nuance rather than state his policies plainly so even idiots that voted for him can understand what his actual policies are and what their costs will be.

-K- said...

"...To put it plainly, he is a coward when he resorts to nuance rather than state his policies plainly..."

Jim, to call any President a coward is to ignore the real physical danger that these men place themselves and their families in. I know you were saying he’s a coward because he’s afraid to state his beliefs (a debatable point to begin with) but surely you can acknowledge how many nuts with guns there are in this country and that this certainly trumps any accusation of cowardice.

And when it comes to ‘stating policies plainly,’ whenever I’ve clicked onto your hyperlink, I get nothing, no blog, no website, no nothing. Personally, I think it time for you to state your policies plainly for the world to see before accusing someone else of cowardice for not doing the same.

JIm said...

If I knew how do the hyperlink, I would do it, but I am computer illiterate.
I am a conservative politically, who believes in limited government and strict interpretation of the US constitution. My first instinct is to trust markets over government. I believe the 10th amendment is one of the most important and most abused by politicians of both parties. All powers not given to the government goes to the states to the people. I believe it is unconstitutional for judges to legislate from the bench. That should be left to the legislature and the ballot box. I believe the US is the greatest political achievement of mankind.

Other than that, I am a husband, a father of 5 the youngest being 15 yr old twins, a grandfather, a frustrated athlete that is developing the body of a seasoned gentleman, an interest in finance, politics, history and life. My favorite sports are skiing, traditional archery, tennis and biking.

If you would direct me to instructions on hyperlinking, I am more than willing to comply.

JIm said...

Thank you for calling me out on the "Coward" comment. It was over the top. As an explanation and not an excuse, even 60+ years after meeting Michael, he is able push my buttons with his "blather rightwing ideologue" nonsense. A more appropriate adjective would have been cautious and or careless with the truth etc.

Unknown said...

Well, here's from a guy who grew up in Sweden.
And ran a company in sweden before he Ieft. Me.
Some has held Sweden out as an example against Obama.
Many years ago I left Sweden partly because I thought I lived in tax hell. I now know I never appreciated what taxes paid for, and what an intelligent government could do with these taxes, before I came to the US.

I've also lived in Japan, Singapore, Hongkong, and Holland as well by the way, so I have first hand experience of what you get for your money and taxes in different places.
US is the worst by far.
Now, before I upset anybody, I love America and intend to spend the rest of my life here, as an American citizen.
But I got to tell you. Many things are bigger here than elsewhere.
Crooks are bigger. Myths about the American Dream are huge. And taxes are enormous considering what you get in return. I freelance. I pay hight taxes on my income. I pay thousands of dollars every months for my family to have (Ten times what I would have paid in Sweden by the way.)
Taxes and insurances and co-pays and feeS and so on adds up to be way higher than the taxes in Sweden would be to provide me and my family with a similar or even better standard.
Mind you, in Sweden and most European countries even University studies are FREE. Sure, you'll have to pay your books and for a place to live.
But the schools are FREE. You are selected on merit.
Which, sort of, is the same here. But if you can't afford Yale you can't. However qualified. Provided you don't belong to a small group that will get scholarship..
Don't mistake Europe or Sweden for the Soviet Union. Soviet had more in common with the Bush administration than Obama has with socialism. They stole from the poor and gave to the rich and fucked everything up in the process.

JIm said...

Defense Spending- The free world including Sweden chooses to not provide for its own defense. In stead, it relies on the US military and the American taxpayer for its defense. In short they are parasites. The US could step aside and hope China or some else did it but unfortunately, there is no one else who is capable and willing. Obama has says he plans on drastically cutting the military.

Lally said...

Torre, I think what you're talking about is the accumulated taxes you have to pay to live here, especially in your area where the property taxes are some of the highest in the U.S. I was responding to Jim's incorrect assertion that corporate taxes in the U.S. are the second highest in the world, which not only isn't true, it isn't even close to the truth. According to the studies I consulted, including U.N. figures and others, what I said in my post holds true. As for individual taxes, again, my post only referred to them in passing and only personal income taxes, not any of the other myriad taxes that have been created to raise revenue for local, state and the federal government (other than personal income taxes). But I hear you. And Jim does have a bit of a point in terms of defense, although his jingoistic expression of it is over the top and not accurate factually, there is some truth to it. But he misses the point that the U.S. spent so much on the defense of our European NATO allies during the Cold War to protect our own interests as well as theirs, and that it often contributed to the tension and extreme defense budgets (as shown after the USSR fell and for a short period records were opened to reporters and scholars) that otherwise may have been reduced without any subsequent military actions, but that aside, I'm all for reducing the U.S. military presence around the world including Europe and using that defense spending here at home on all the things Obama has listed as priorities—infrastructure, education, healthcare reform, new sources of energy, etc. Znd by the way, Obama has never said anything about "drastically cutting the military" what he has promised to do is spend more on veterans (unlike his predecessor) on pay raises for the average soldier, sailor, etc. and cut (and this is coming more from gates than Obama even) all the dumb projects Congressmen and women have been protecting through both Republican and Democratic administrations because of the jobs they create in their areas.

Unknown said...

I wonder how the US tax rate on corporations would stack up if we corrected the rate for the various credits, loopholes, and giveaways our huge corporations get?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave $36 Billion dollars away to the Energy industry. Huge Agricultural Subsidies have gone out to Agribusiness. The banking industry has the benefit of being backed by the full faith and credit of the USA, a perk that has paid out in the hundreds of billions of dollars so far.

Another benefit that isn't reflected in the corporate tax rate is the amount of influence these corporations have over our government. Influential corporations have been allowed to write laws that have benefitted them specifically. See, for example, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005-- and its provisions benefitting the credit card industry.

A report released by the GAO in July 2008 indicated that many corporations, including those with assets over $250 Million, reported no tax liabilities. Two-thirds of corporations doing business in the US paid NO taxes from 1998 to 2005, while collectively reporting $2.5 trillion dollars in sales.

If you want to talk about State taxation, lets look at tax incentives that state and local governments give to corporations to relocate to their areas. The corporations will demand "tax holidays", and ask for funding to build new infrastructure. Then, when the honeymoon is over, they float away to the next town.

It seems to me that there should be a more honest way to talk about how much in taxes corporations are "paying".

JIm said...

I think we have a break through moment.

"And Jim does have a bit of a point in terms of defense, although his jingoistic expression of it is over the top and not accurate"

Even to admit that I might be right on anything is a first in 60+ years. As far as your contention that the UN figures are more accurate than Heritage Foundation's figures, I would like to compare. Would you site your sources at the UN.

PS It was so special to watch Tim Geitner emote on TV this morning about mean old tax cheats that do not pay their fair share.

Lally said...

John, You make great points which I've touched on before but didn't want to get sidetracked on with jim this time, although sidetracking is what rightwingers always do so well, changing the subject etc. to avoid facing certain realities, like the ones you bring up in your comment, all of which are valid.
ASs for Jim's contention that I've never admitted that he might be right on anything in the lifetimes we known each other for is silly. he knows I often admitted (I think even on comments and posts earlier in the history of this blog) my admiration for various actions and statements he's made even back when we were kids. And we agree, for instance, that legalizing marijuana and other drugs is a better policy than our present one, etc. There are many points we can agree on. But he takes a clearly ideological stance (quoting The Heritage Foundation is an ideological stance in itself, let alone all the nonsense he repeats originated by Rush) and pretends it's somehow more "factual" or "true" than statistics compiled by neutral or "liberal" source, as if only rightwing or so-called "conservative" sources can be legitimate. It's too silly to waste so much time on, except that it represents a small but very dangerous minority that continues to foment anger and nonacceptance of our democratically elected government and its policies in ways that many undereducated followers take as a call to violence (see the killing of those three police officers by the young man convinced "Obama is coming to take my guns away") and more educated ones take as a license to foment that violence (Glen Beck and that crazy congresswoman who's name I won't even honor by repeating) who claim Obama is a "fascist" or creating concentration camps or re-education camps etc. and leading our country into some form of totalitarianism because he's trying to reinstate taxes that were in place under Reagan (!) or expand programs that have been in place since JFK or Nixon or Carter or Clinton, but making it seem like he's doing something so unprecedented only Hitler or Stalin can be used for comparison. It's not only cynical and manipulative and deliberately distorted, it's extremely dangerous (see the Oklahoma bombing that killed so many innocent people including children) but outright evil.

JIm said...

I tried to find the UN figures to back up your assertion that "Jim's incorrect assertion that corporate taxes in the U.S. are the second highest in the world, which not only isn't true, it isn't even close to the truth. According to the studies I consulted, including U.N. figures and others, what I said in my post holds true. As for individual taxes, again, my post..."

Here are a couple of other sources backing up fact that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. The CD Howe Institute has it at 38%,(Pls note that the China figure is out of date. They reduced their corporate rate to 25% a year or so ago.) The Tax Foundation has it at at 39.3% an increasing out of line with the rest of our trading partners. I was unable to find any UN figures. I assume I am just looking in the wrong places. Again, your source would be enlightening.


Highest Taxed Countries
Top Ten Nations Based on Taxation
© Daniel Workman
Sep 24, 2006

Nothing can stifle a country's global trade like high corporate taxes on profits. Here are the ten top countries where businesses face the heaviest tax burdens.

C.D. Howe Institute has released statistics that reveal the ten nations with the highest average effective tax rates on business capital investments.
• Congo ... 55.7% avg. tax rate
• China ... 46.9%
• Argentina ... 44.3%
• Brazil ... 38.8%
• Germany ... 38.1%
• United States ... 38.0%
• Russia ... 37.6%
• Canada ... 36.6%
• Japan ... 32.2%
• France ... 32.1%
The effective tax rate includes corporate income taxes, sales taxes on capital purchases and other capital-related taxes. Higher effective rates discourage businesses from making capital investments in new machines, structures, land or inventory.
Simply put, the additional burden of having to pay a high effective tax rate lowers an investment's risk-return to the point where many executives say "Why bother?" and look for investments with higher returns - often in foreign countries.htttp://
AUGUST 28, 2008
Comparing International Corporate Tax Rates: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Increasingly Out of Line by Various Measures
by Robert Carroll
Fiscal Fact No.143
The U.S. has left the major features of its business tax system unchanged over the past fifteen years. Meanwhile, other countries have been changing theirs, potentially hurting the competitiveness of the United States. Perhaps most emblematic of the trend abroad is lower corporate tax rates in virtually all developed nations. As a result, the United States now has the second-highest statutory tax rate among OECD member nations.
Figure 1 below tells this story: The U.S. became a low-tax rate country with enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, dropping its federal corporate tax rate from 46 to 34 percent. But since then the reduction in corporate tax rates by most other developed nations has left the United States in the unenviable position of a high-tax rate country.1

As shown in Figure 1, the U.S.'s combined federal-state statutory corporate tax rate (39.3%) is now well above the weighted average for both the member nations of the OECD2 (31.9%) and the larger G-7 countries (33.8%). Moreover, both groups of countries continue to lower their tax rates. The weighted average corporate tax rate has fallen by 38 percent for OECD nations and 37 percent for the G-7 from the early 1980s.
While the statutory corporate tax rate may be emblematic of the changes occurring abroad, there are other metrics for comparing business tax systems internationally. Other important factors are a country's depreciation system—how quickly businesses are allowed to write off investment in equipment and buildings; a country's tax treatment of debt; and a country's investor-level taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest. All of these affect the cost of capital and a country's ability to attract investment. For example, the benefit of lower corporate tax rates could well be offset if less generous tax depreciation were offered as a means to finance the rate cut, depending on the net effect of these two policies on the cost of capital. Thus, it is important to consider a broader measure of countries' corporate tax systems when making such comparisons.3
Economists often use the "effective marginal tax rate," a measure that accounts for the major features of a country's business tax system—corporate tax rate, depreciation, investor-level taxes, and other considerations—to gauge how well a country's overall business tax system stacks up.4 This measure is often relevant to a firm's decision whether to invest another dollar or where to locate that dollar of investment.
Figure 2 compares the effective marginal tax rate for equity-financed investment in equipment for the United States to the G-7 and select OECD countries from 1982 through 2005, the latest year for which these calculations are available.5 What is striking about this chart is that it tells a story very similar to the one described above depicting statutory tax rates. Effective marginal tax rates abroad have also fallen relative to the United States. That is, when we take a more comprehensive look at the business tax systems and account for changes in the business tax base, we find that the effective marginal tax rates of other nations have fallen while the United States has stood still.6 Indeed, the effective marginal tax rate abroad has fallen by about 30 percent since the mid-1980s while remaining largely unchanged in the United States. Also, while the U.S. is now about at the same level as the average among other OECD nations (both at 23.6% in 2005), the weighted average effective marginal tax rate for the G-7 countries (excluding the U.S.) has fallen to a level well below the United States (19.5% in 2005).7

JIm said...

"America the uncompetitive" - The Wall Street Journal editorial page is just the latest stating statistics that US corporate rates are amongst the highest in the world. Japan is listed at 39.54% followed by the US at 39.25%. Obama plans an additional corporate tax raid by limiting the tax deferral on income earned abroad thus double taxing US corporations with foriegn activities. Obama's war on the US
economy continues.

By the way, Mike I still await your second example for the economy expanding when taxes are raised. Could it be that the Clinton aberation was caused by his passing of NAFTA in the face union and Democrat's oppostion.

Unknown said...

The Wall Street Journal editorial page is run by Rupert Murdoch, who also runs Fox News and Fox Business News. It's not a credible source anymore.

JIm said...


PHD Daniel Mitchell, the CD Howe Institute, The Tax Foundation and now the Wall St. Journal (all listed above) has incorrect tax figures but the 2lallys are unable to produce a vague UN report that purports to say that in fact the US has relatively low corporate tax rates. The logic of your brain is breath taking.

No wonder many have compared Liberal Progressive Democrats to religious fanatics rather than political adherents to a political philosophy. Facts are routinely denigrated, denied or invented. God the father is FDR, who according to liberal legend, ended the Depression contrary to the assesment of his own Treasury Secretary and NYT liberal, Krugman. God the Holy Ghost is JFK, whose death greased the passage of the New Frontier and the "War on Poverty" (the longest war in US history). Both programs were mostly a failure and did more harm than good, except for civil rights (examples available upon request). Even JFK admitted that high taxes do not work. God the son of course is the Obamasiah, who is working to expand the Federal Govt. to achieve a socialist Obamatopia, subvert the Constitution, with attempts to muzzle critics and overturn bankruptcy etc, etc. Now the Obamasiah is fiscally responsible because he proposes to cut spending by 1/4 of 1% while expanding the deficit three fold in his first year.


Unknown said...


I think it's very telling that you cite a newspaper's Opinion page as "Fact".

I didn't cite any UN report. Mentioning the UN runs the risk of illiciting responses from the John Birchers.