"Americans paid a lower share of their national income in taxes in 2009 than at any time since 1950. Thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 98 percent of working families got a tax cut this year. The rich, too, have been treated very kindly by the tax code in recent years. The top marginal tax rate on income is fully half of what it was 30 years ago, and the top rate on capital gains is at its lowest point since 1933."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/taxday2010.html

If you have different numbers than those I'd love to see them.

I saw Obie-Doll make that comment last night on the news. It was right after they were showing an anti-tea party protest. Like always they made the anti-tea party spokesman look like a brave daring, resourceful,intelligent,and hip person. Then they found the village idiot to speak for the tea party people.

To me the anti-tea party guy looked very much like a 911 'truther' that I saw on a TV special on them a few months ago. In fact I am pretty sure it was him. Why am I not surprised that a 911 'truther' would believe that high taxes are good for us?

Oh... one last thing. The MSM outlet I was watching was also proclaiming that the anti-tea party protests were going on all over the country.

I should add something about the poll that just came out showing 62% of us are fine with the amount we pay in taxes, which puts all those thousands of unhappy voices into perspective.

As for the bit about the need for future taxes because of spending, see Reagan, Bush and Bush, I don't recall seeing you make this argument about Reagan tripling the national debt, or Bush funding exactly $0 of two wars and Medicare D and doubled the debt. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be consistent.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236383

"By all estimates, the budget outlook is daunting. The latest projections of the Congressional Budget Office reckon the cumulative deficits under President Obama’s policies to be $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. In 2020 the estimated annual deficit will be $1.25 trillion, or 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product), despite assumed “full employment” of 5 percent. And the deficits get larger with every succeeding year. Given unavoidable uncertainties, these precise projections are likely to prove wrong. But their basic message seems incontestable: there’s a large and growing gap between the government’s promises and the existing tax base.

"How big a tax increase would be needed to close the gap? Well, huge. To put things in perspective, all federal taxes (income, payroll, and excise) averaged 18.1 percent of GDP from 1970 to 2009. Under CBO’s assumptions about Obama’s policies, taxes in 2020 would already be slightly higher, at 19.6 percent of GDP. But on top of that, there’d need to be a further tax boost approaching a third to balance the budget, because spending is projected at 25.2 percent of GDP. Needless to say, this would be the largest tax burden in U.S. history, even including World War II."

I guess what I'm really trying to say is "Thank you, Mr. Obama. Thank you for making it so I'm going to have to pay a metric assload more in taxes so that you and your ever-dwindling number of sheep can live in the nanny state that you've always dreamed America should be."

Because you know damn well he isn't going to stop spending. That right there is just crazy talk.

Well, aside from the 4 Trillion or so we spent on wars that have no real purpose, I guess the few billion we spend on economic recovery after the Wall Street bankers trashed it could be considered a waste.

Seriously, at some point deficit hawks are going to have to put forward a real idea about spending, one that addresses the fact that about 85% of all spending is for SS/Medicare/Defense/Debt service; in other words, someone is going to have to kill one of the sacred cows, instead of just braying like a donkey about the Deficit Boogeyman.

Jim,
I am beginning to realize that you are a student that has very little world experience and likely has never paid a tax.

Yes, the rate of taxes we pay is less. However, the amount is more! That is because in the past we were allowed significant deductions. Those are not present now. Most of the tax reductions are secondary to Bush tax cuts that expire this year. Still we pay too much.

Now as to 62% being fine with what they pay, I am sure they are as 50% of the folks don't pay any tax at all. Those of us that actually work for a living are sick and tired of paying taxes and the spending in Washington. In fact, we are so sick that unless something changes soon, it will be changed in a very dramatic manner.

Obama's message is use a little more KY and bend over more.

Two questions for Jim and his ilk. One is philosophical, the other pragmatic.

1) Is it morally right for someone to take from me the fruits of my labors and use it for his own personal benefit; and, if your answer is yes, is it morally right for someone to use the government as his agent for the same purpose?

2) As I am an independent contractor in the 25% marginal tax bracket, approximately 40% of the next dollar I earn goes to the federal government (25% in income tax and 15.3% in Medicare and Social Security taxes. What do you think that percentage ought to be?

Jim- I think you actually have your numbers backwards, 66% of Americans believe we are overtaxed

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/april_2010/66_say_america_is_overtaxed

Also, don't forget that the majority of the debt racked up during the G.W. Bush administration was during the last two years due to the Pelosi and the liberal majority in congress. The wars we were/are fighting are a relatively small percentage of that.

For anyone to try and make a comparison to what has happened in this last year to anything in US history is insane! We have spend more in one year than in our entire history multiple times over. When are we going to take the off balance sheet Fanni/Freddi mess (what 6.5 trillion) and the rest of the over (with the new healthcare) 27 trillion dollars (and healthcare will be much much larger than the 2 to 3 trillion they are guessing at) on to the 14.5 trillion we have authorized as our national dept. Please look at those numbers again and think what that means.

When you take all of the stimulus away and our GDP normalizes I will be surprised if our real GDP is over 4.5 Trillion and dropping. We can't even begin to pay the interest on this mess at the current interest rate let alone the 5 to 12% it is going to. At this point please just shut up about who caused all of this because it is US and we need to fix it before there are absolutely no options......

P.S. I am sick of the where were you when Bush was in office. We are over a year into this administration - you own it! If not get out of the way and we will find someone that will!

s4f

David,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been paying payroll and income taxes since 1988, payroll taxes beginning in...1982 or 83?

Note that payroll taxes are also...taxes. About 10% of the population pays neither payroll or income taxes, and I sure as hell don't want to trade my life for theirs.

I can play the guessing game as well, let's see, I'm guessing you collect SS and Medicare and that you paid less in taxes this year than last.

Diffus,

Do you drive on public roads? Is your homeland defended by the US Military? Is your home protected by public police and fire services? Do/did you parents and grandparents collect more SS and Medicare benefits than they paid? Your money isn't going to someone else, it's going towards the society you and I benefit from living in. Things we directly, and indirectly need.

What's the magic number? I don't know. What I do know is that the American tax burden has been right around 16-20% of GDP since 1945, it's about 15% this year.

Sailboffin,

The 62% figure is from this poll:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/poll-most-find-their-income-tax-fair/

This one is more interesting though because it's been asking the same question since 1947, Are your taxes too high, about right, or too low.

Mar. 1947 54 40 0
Nov. 1947 63 32 0
Mar. 1948 57 38 1
Mar. 1949 43 53 1
Feb. 1950 57 40 0
Feb. 1951 52 43 1
Feb. 1952 71 26 *
Feb. 1953 59 37 *
Feb. 1956 55 35 1
Apr. 1957 61 31 *
Mar. 1959 51 40 2
Feb. 1961 46 45 1
Feb. 1962 48 45 0
Jun. 1962 63 32 1
Jan. 1963 52 38 1
Feb. 1964 56 35 1
Feb. 1966 52 39 0
Mar. 1967 58 38 1
Mar. 1969 69 25 *
Feb. 1973 65 28 1
Feb. 1976 58 33 1
Feb. 1977 65 28 1
Feb. 1980 68 27 *
Feb. 1982 69 26 *
May 1982 60 32 *
Feb. 1984 63 33 1
Feb. 1985 60 32 *
Jun. 1985 63 32 1
Feb. 1987 59 35 1
Feb. 1988 55 39 1
Feb. 1989 56 37 1
Feb. 1990 59 37 *
Mar. 1990 63 31 2
Feb. 1991 55 39 1
Mar. 1991 55 37 2
Mar. 1992 56 39 2
Feb.-Apr. 55 41 1
Mar. 1993 55 41 2
Jan.-May. 1994 63 33 1
Apr. 1994 56 42 *
Dec. 1994 66 30 1
Feb.-May 1996 65 31 1
Apr. 1996 64 33 1
Mar. 1997 58 38 1
Feb.-Jun. 1998 63 31 1
Apr. 1998 66 31 1
Apr. 1999y 65 29 2
Jul. 1999 60 37 *
Sep. 1999 68 28 1
Feb.-Jun. 2000 64 31 1
Apr. 2000 63 33 1
Apr. 2001 65 31 1
Feb.-Jun. 2002 59 37 1
Jan. 2003 47 50 1
Feb.-Mar. 2003 51 43 3
Apr. 2003 50 46 2
Apr. 2004 50 43 3
Apr. 2005 51 44 2
Oct. 2005 43 48 3
Apr. 2006 48 44 2
Apr. 2007 53 41 2
Apr. 2008 52 42 2
Apr. 2008 55 41 1
Apr. 2009 46 48 3

http://www.aei.org/docLib/AEIPublicOpinionTaxes2010April.pdf

The answer varies poll to poll, somewhere between about 50-50 and 70-30, but, it's been like that since the question has been asked.

Like I said, if you guys had been posting here worried about how you and your kids were going to pay for Bush's Medicare D or Iraq I'd have more faith that you weren't just playing politics with the issue every time a Democrat is in the White House.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

Dick Cheney 2002

ike,

Obama's approval ratings are already hitting the 40% level. Bush didn't get that low until he was into the lame duck stage of his second term, if memory serves correctly.

He keeps running off at the mouth and going the way he's going, and the GOP could ride the reanimated corpse of Barry Goldwater to victory in 2012, never mind an actual live, breathing candidate.

Jim, its odd how you made sure to list the specific items supported by tax dollars that you did. I don't think anyone would argue that those specific items aren't good/worthy projects. I pay road taxes and I can drive on roads. Taxes pay for the military and the police and they protect all taxpayers. The problem arises when the taxes are simply wealth redistribution projects whereby the payer receives very limited or no benefit. Do we have roads set aside for minorities only? Why do some children go to college basically free based upon superficial qualities, yet I have to pay for my child's education?

Obama and Congress should be treated like teenagers. They get to act like adults as long as they show their ability to stay within reasonable limits. This president and congress effectively have maxed their credit cards and raced dad's Ford. It's time the adults (taxpayers) took their cards and keys.

Approval ratings are crap, how do you confirm them. The right is going to have their arse handed to them because they have no one to run against Obama who took 52% the last time a poll counted. You can erase my posts it is not going to defeat Obama in 2012.

RicardoVerde

I mentioned the things that make up the vast bulk of the budget, what you're talking about is just noise on the edges. Everyone is going to have programs at the edges they support, and ones they don't, that's life.

You already know the arguments for things like affirmative action style scholarships, and just as obviously you don't think they're valid, or important. As the same time you know, I'm sure, people who like you pay a lot of taxes and do value those programs. If they didn't have significant support from voters -- who tend to be earners -- they wouldn't exist.

And if your beef is with things like race or income based scholarships, why blame Obama or this Congress? Who are the adults in this scenario exactly???

Pish posh Jim. The point was not to discuss specific programs, the point was that few argue when the benefits are basically for all.

The sum total of G.W. Bush's deficits for ALL years were roughly equivalent to Obama's FIRST year. THIS president and THIS congress are breaking several generations piggy banks. The malcompetence is staggering.

I am the adult and I am taking the keys.

"I am the adult and I am taking the keys."

An apt quote for dealing with the mental adolescent on this board. The naked sense of entitlement is fascinating. Since the adolescents on here failed to answer the question @12:03 I suppose they DO support the Kenyan's brand of gunpoint charity.

Well you're right, when asked about specific programs most anti-tax folks sign off on the big ticket items, and yet they still complain.

Obama's first budget year was 2010, not 2009, just like his last one will be 2013 or 2017. His first year also came smack at the bottom of a huge recession caused in no small part by the policies of the adults you want back in control.

Besides, the big ticket item Obama did add to the budget was the stimulus package, one of those things that did benefit all. And let's just skip the whole argument that the stimulus didn't work, I know that's what the Republicans in Congress keep saying, and then they go home and talk up all the jobs they brought to their districts and states as their part of the stimulus. I can post the link to 30 or so examples if you care to see them.

Hi Nine,

Read 7:12PM and get back to me. You're the one who is upset about having to pay for stuff you need.

And spare me the gunpoint crap, the only President I know who collected taxes at gunpoint was George Washington. Please feel free to tell me how George misunderstood the Founder's intent for the role of the Federal government.

"caused in no small part by the policies of the adults you want back in control."

Too ignorant to realize that, no, I do not want the late 1990's - mid 2000's breed of politician back in control.

"if you guys had been posting here worried about how you and your kids were going to pay for Bush's Medicare D or Iraq"

Attempt to stifle debate with illogical premise. If you support spending for the war then you cannot criticize the Magic Negro's budget allocations.

Too stupid to realize that you can criticize the Magic Negro and be opposed to the Iraq war, which I am.

"one of those things that did benefit all."

Lie

"the only President I know who collected taxes at gunpoint was George Washington."

Lie

"Please feel free to tell me how George misunderstood the Founder's intent for the role of the Federal government."

Strawman, plus false appeal to popularity of historical figure. Deliberately conflates desire for limited government with desire to pay no tax.

Wow - blasphemy against the Anointed One sure doesn't do much for proggies' minds - :)

"Lie" isn't much of a rebuttal.

Here are 114 Republican Congressmen talking about the benefits to their constituents from the stimulus.

http://thinkprogress.org/touting-recovery-opposed/

Whiskey Rebellion, look it up.

I'm not saying you can't support the wars and criticize the President, I'm saying you can't be silent for years about not paying for the wars and then pretend you care about deficits.

And yeah, I have no idea who you personally want in power, nor do I care. We have a two party system, that's reality, if you want to dream about another reality go ahead. Throw in some unicorns while you're at it.

""Lie" isn't much of a rebuttal."

Lie.

"And yeah, I have no idea who you personally want in power, nor do I care."

Hence the wailing about blasphemy against his beloved Affirmative-Action jeebus.

"I'm saying you can't be silent for years about not paying for the wars and then pretend you care about deficits."

Fixation on controlling discourse. Wonder where he got that trait from.

"Here are 114 Republican Congressmen talking about the benefits to their constituents from the stimulus."

Yet again, the stupid assumption that I'll fall in line so long as the slime in Washington have "R"'s next to their names. How quaint. Also contradicts claim not to know or care who I want in power.

Nine,

You do realize when I said "the adults you want.." I was specifically replying to Ricardo, right? I mean you're not insane enough to think every time someone says "you" in a post they are talking about Nine-of-Diamonds, right?

Oh, sorry, too many words, let me craft a response just for you:

Truth.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175861

48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the Stimulus Package passed. Only Alaska, North Dakota, and the District of Columbia have seen job growth.

California, according to the projections that the stimulus people did when they were fabricating this whole thing, was supposed to have a net GAIN of 396,000 jobs by the end of December 2010. As of January 2010, they have posted a LOSS of 558,800 jobs.

So please, ike, enlighten me. . .

How, in the next 10 or 11 months, is California going to come up with 954,800 jobs to match up with the promised projections from the stimulus folks? Hell, how are they going to come up with 558,800 jobs so they can get back to where they were before the totally awesome, wonderful stimulus package kicked in? And that's just one example. . .there are other states that are every bit as screwed here as California is.

Yeah, you're right. . .I don't see it happening, either.

"Oh, sorry, too many words"

Nope. The more the better...

Serial liar who commits logical fallacies, is unintelligent, & can't answer direct questions? I wonder if anyone's ever seen Jimboid & the Majick Negroid in the same place at the same time. :P

Gonz,

Do you think the job numbers would have been better without the stimulus? I don't.

TheGonz, you obviously haven't caught on to Affirmative Action Boy's new "jobs saved or created" metric. Thanks to his decisive action, maybe Amerikkka was saved from certain 100% unemployment. And if we "stimulate" the economy hard enough, maybe we'll all start crying tears of gold and puking out unicorns. You can't prove we WON'T, can you?

"Do you think the job numbers would have been better without the stimulus? I don't."

Of course not. Praise Affirmative Action Jeebus, and Glory Be. The oceans ain't risin' no mo, so a little benefit like the booming economy is hardly anything to get excited over. Divine powers, don'tcha know.

Jim,

http://michaelscomments.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/unemployment-projection-march-2010.gif

Why, yes. . .yes I do think that things would have been better without the stimulus. According to the projections of Obama's own people, it would have been.

But hey. . .paying back political favors isn't something one can do for free now, is it?

Jim, take a basic civics course. Presidents don't spend one dime. Congress (controlled by Copperheads since 2006) writes the budgets. Also, see this little chart, which shows clearly that the deficits were shrinking under Bush UNTIL Copperheads got the Congress.

I'm probably going to get jumped, but I'm going to speak honestly about this subject.

Social security is bankrupting us, medicare is bankrupting us, Obamacare is going to speed this up...and the costs of the Military also adding to the bankruptcy.

I'm not saying to cut the whole damn military budget, I'm just saying it needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, SS, Medicare, and Obamacare need to be thrown completely out, along with all those cushy pointless bureaucratic government jobs that pay WAAAAAYYYYY too well for that skill level.

In all honesty, the military really is a HUGE budget item. If you disagree, you are lying to yourself. We could still have the best military in the world and spend quite a bit less. Not only that, but we still have the manufacturing, technology, and infrastructure to ramp up production of war materials if a huge conflict is imminent or already starting.

Basically, after we slaughter all the left's sacred spending cows, it might not be a bad idea to cut military spending to the point where we are still the most powerful nation, but not quite the military juggernaut of planet Earth. If we did all those things, there would be very few taxes and the government would still be running a surplus. Our nation would be much safer financially, and just as safe militarily.

Gonz,

So despite all the Republicans talking up the jobs created and saved in their districts due to the stimulus -- Obama was paying back political favors to the opposition party??? -- you think the stimulus didn't have a positive impact upon employment because a projection of how bad the recession would be that was made in late 2008 was too optimistic. A projection vs the on the ground reality. No doubt you're comforted by the projections of reductions to the deficit and to health care costs made by those same Obama people. ha ha

SDN,

The costs of Iraq and Medicare D weren't going to show up in the deficit before the money was being spent. Medicare D was passed in Jan 2005, crap hit the fan in Iraq in 2005-06. The Surge was 2007. None of that money was spent because of a Democratic Congress, are you seriously trying to claim that the Surge and Medicare D were Democratic proposals that Bush was against?

Where were the Taxed Enough Already people in 2004-2008? Taxes were higher. 100% of the costs of Medicare D and Iraq were unfunded. Where were you guys?

Bravo Jim,

When you have them screaming "lie" at the truth of the Whiskey Rebellion and resorting to racist Magic Negroid attacks, they've been exposed. you show far more patience with them than do I.

Wow; less than 50 posts in and the usual suspects have to resort to 0bama opponents are "Waysist". Say it with me: MAGIC NEGRO. Oddly enough, this term was coined by Leftist David Ehrenstein (sp) - not a conservative.

"Where were the Taxed Enough Already people in 2004-2008?"

Once again, tries to dictate when people can and cannot protest the government. How progressive!

And he's too stupid to understand that:

1) the inflation 0bammy's going to create is itself is akin to a tax, and

2) it is devastating to the economy for a gov't to have large unfunded future liabilities, even if you haven't yet levied the taxes to pay for them.

Not to worry - their little Affirmative Action idol will sprinkle the fairy dust & make it all go away.

Hey Nine

1) It doesn't matter WHO coined a racist term. It's still racist when you repeat it. You're a racist, plain and simple.

2) No one is saying when you can and cannot protest, but it's interesting that you weren't out there when Bush was giving massive handouts to the top 2% (which I assume you're not in), ran up massive unfunded liabilities (paying off two wars which he ran off the books and left us holding the bill on, Medicare part D, etc...) and disabling the Constitution by gathering massive executive power (via Cheney) and with assaults on due process and posse comitatus.

You can certainly protest whenever you feel like it, but it just looks funny when #44 gets federal taxes to their lowest level in 50 years with a tax cut for 95% of working Americans and you protest him, when you didn't go after the guy who ran up the bill, padded the accounts of Goldman Sachs and then let them raid the economy.

Might it be that you only like tax cuts when it's a white President giving you them? By your Obammy the Magic Negro comments, I'm willing to bet that's the case.

You are a racist, and everything you say is being viewed through that lens. Stop the race baiting and maybe more people will take you seriously. Until then, hike up your Klan robe, it's dragging in the mud.

How sad.

Well now, let's see...recent polls indicate the Tea Party movement has the support of about 25% of the public. That's around 75 million Americans, americans who, according to the polls are wealthier and better educated than average (ie: people who vote and have long memories), and who, again, according to the polls, encompass a substantial portion of independents and not an insignificant portion of democrats.

A rational politician would rather advocate torturing small, furry animals as a spectator sport than taking on such a potent political force. Of course, if you are a god, as the media has often claimed, such pedestrian political concerns obviously don't apply to you and you're free to spit into the political wind as often as you like. After all, who can stand against your magnificence and pristine power?

As the ancient Greeks often said, hubris (excessive pride) will incur the wrath of the gods every time, and the higher and mightier the miscreant exhibiting such hubris, the harder the fall.

"Until then, hike up your Klan robe, it's dragging in the mud."

Waysist! Waysist! Waysist!

Sorry - Bobby Byrd got ahold of that robe before I could - lol.

"(paying off two wars which he ran off the books and left us holding the bill on"

reading comprehension fail! Too dumb to actually read prior comments & find out I'm opposed to the wars. :)

Now go starch Senator Byrd's linens before he puts a boot in your rear, boy! It's so hard to get good hired help these days...

It's racist when Byrd did it and it's racist when you do it.

My point is not the war spending, but the lack of opposition to the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush years. But he was white, so all is forgiven.

"My point"

False. Making "points" is beyond your capability, laundry boy.

Aside from wailing about blasphemy against your Affirmative Action idol and supporting commeters who make off-the wall claims (do you really want to postulate that George Washington's was the only administration to use coercive power to tax?), you just haven't really done too much in the way of making points.

My mistake - logic is "racis'" and "be keepin' you down".

Screeching about how everyone else is "racis'" just ain't gonna cut it no' mo. Been there, done that, got the commemorative Bill Ayers t-shirt.

Now get back to work on Mr. Byrd's sheets, boy. Two cups of detergent-not one.

Oh, and you know you want to say it:

MAGIC KNEE - GROW! :)