So, anyway, how much spending is enough?
Federal per capita expenditure is $68,000 in where else, but the District of Columbia and $5500 in nevada.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_expend/percapita.html
Ben Stein agrees with Buffet - raise taxes on the rich
- Thread starter dddooo
- Start date
So, anyway, how much spending is enough?
Federal per capita expenditure is $68,000 in where else, but the District of Columbia and $5500 in nevada.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_expend/percapita.html
As much as necessary to pay for all government expenditures. If you have some government programs in mind that you think need to be eliminated and if you believe americans will agree that these programs are no longer needed - I am all ears. Talking about spending is meaningless without talking about specific programs that americans no longer want to pay for.
Monday, Nov. 27, 2006 5:22 p.m. EST
Democrats Want to Keep Pork
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic candidates have complained loudly about "special interest earmarksâ in Congress â pork barrel spending projects inserted into bills, often anonymously.
But now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, it appears doubtful that lawmakers will seriously clamp down on the practice, according to a report in the New York Times.
Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii is set to chair the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, which presides over the largest single source of discretionary spending and earmarks. He said recently: "I donât see any monumental changesâ regarding earmarks.
"If something is wrong we should clean house, but if they can explain it and justify it, I will look at it.â
Another Democratic Senator, Patty Murray of Washington â who will be chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee â said: "I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.â
Last year, Murray defended the allocation of more than $200 million for the so-called "bridge to nowhereâ in Alaska, warning those who might vote against the outlay that her subcommittee would take "a long, serious look at their projects.â
Over the past 12 years, the number of earmarks tripled to 16,000 accounting for $64 billion a year in spending, figures cited by the Times reveal.
Democratic Congressional leaders have vowed to require the sponsors of earmarks to identify themselves. But critics say that may not do much to rein in earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said both Democrats and Republicans have shown that "there is no longer any embarrassmentâ in sponsoring an obvious piece of pork barrel legislation.
"Like their Republican counterparts, many Democratic appropriators consider earmarks a venerable tradition dating to the Constitution, which gives Congress the power of the purse,â the Times reports.
Among the Democrats who will control important committees and subcommittees â with increased power to bring home the bacon:
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who will chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, "may be the foremost master of the art,â according to the Times. Among other projects, Byrd has succeeded in getting three major Coast Guard facilities placed in his landlocked state.
David Obey of Wisconsin, who will chair the House Appropriations Committee, got his district $6 million to develop an airless tire and $8 million to research plastic food containers for the military.
Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is expected to become chairman of the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Committee. In April 2006, he resigned as the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee after questions were raised about his earmarks to nonprofit organizations he founded and to a real estate partner.
Newsmax
_____________________________________________-
Funny how this comes out right after the election.
Democrats Want to Keep Pork
House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic candidates have complained loudly about "special interest earmarksâ in Congress â pork barrel spending projects inserted into bills, often anonymously.
But now that the Democrats have won control of Congress, it appears doubtful that lawmakers will seriously clamp down on the practice, according to a report in the New York Times.
Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii is set to chair the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, which presides over the largest single source of discretionary spending and earmarks. He said recently: "I donât see any monumental changesâ regarding earmarks.
"If something is wrong we should clean house, but if they can explain it and justify it, I will look at it.â
Another Democratic Senator, Patty Murray of Washington â who will be chairwoman of the transportation subcommittee â said: "I tell my colleagues, if we start cutting funding for individual projects, your project may be next.â
Last year, Murray defended the allocation of more than $200 million for the so-called "bridge to nowhereâ in Alaska, warning those who might vote against the outlay that her subcommittee would take "a long, serious look at their projects.â
Over the past 12 years, the number of earmarks tripled to 16,000 accounting for $64 billion a year in spending, figures cited by the Times reveal.
Democratic Congressional leaders have vowed to require the sponsors of earmarks to identify themselves. But critics say that may not do much to rein in earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said both Democrats and Republicans have shown that "there is no longer any embarrassmentâ in sponsoring an obvious piece of pork barrel legislation.
"Like their Republican counterparts, many Democratic appropriators consider earmarks a venerable tradition dating to the Constitution, which gives Congress the power of the purse,â the Times reports.
Among the Democrats who will control important committees and subcommittees â with increased power to bring home the bacon:
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who will chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, "may be the foremost master of the art,â according to the Times. Among other projects, Byrd has succeeded in getting three major Coast Guard facilities placed in his landlocked state.
David Obey of Wisconsin, who will chair the House Appropriations Committee, got his district $6 million to develop an airless tire and $8 million to research plastic food containers for the military.
Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia is expected to become chairman of the Science, State, Justice and Commerce Committee. In April 2006, he resigned as the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee after questions were raised about his earmarks to nonprofit organizations he founded and to a real estate partner.
Newsmax
_____________________________________________-
Funny how this comes out right after the election.
EVERY tax payer got a cut from Bush. Bit, 38% of wage earners in the U.S. pay ZERO income tax. In America if you have two children you're exempt up to $30,000 a year. Taxable income in the U.S. of over 300k is in the 35% bracket. That's JUST federal income tax. That doesn't include social security/medicare tax and state income taxes. Not to mention property taxes. Only a COMMUNIST would suggest a bigger burden on wage earners.
I personally don't want SS, medicare-aid, etc. Why couldn't I have opted out when I started working and do my own saving and investing? You know, be responsible. I'm disabled, but I refuse to file a claim for SS disability.
Since most of the tax revenue comes from the upper class, which make up a minority of the population, why would the middle and lower class Americans say no to all the gov programs?
understand u and mav's point but u gotta put it into perspective. i mean, i am all in for a permanent cut for the middle class, hell i am all in even for a cut to those who earn more than 1mln a yr. afterall i voted berlusca for this very reason.
but those who earn 100s of millions or billiions of dollars are freakin' filthy rich, take away some of it they are still gonna enjoy their luxury lifestlye no matter what. in the end a higher tax is not gonna affect them one bit other than piss em off that they cant beat their rivals to the last million. tax the middle class and they are gonna suffer hard no matter how small the tax itself. those that should benefit the greatest from tux cuts should be the freakin' middle class not the pigs...or are u happy exxon ceo gets a bonus at your expenses.I don't know about the Caribbean but
Switzerland's top cantonal income tax rate is 35.5 percent. (Switzerland taxes its citizens at the federal and cantonal levels. Taxation at the cantonal level is a greater burden on the average citizen than taxation at the federal level; therefore, Switzerland's top income and corporate tax rates are based on the highest cantonal tax rate.)
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Switzerland
As you can see their tax rate is as high as ours and that is despite the fact that Switzerland does not have to pay for the huge military we are paying, for aggressive foreign policy, for troops all over the world, for the UN, for AIDs in Africa etc.
I am afraid there is no free lunch in Switzerland restaurants either.