Henry's rant...

[Exterminator]

you are full of crap!........I spread my opinions........I NEVER claimed to be a journalist ... DUDE!...grow up.....this is a forum with peoples opinions....I'm not out to prove ANYTHING!......things ARE what they ARE....and, there is a lot of things going on, that leads me to think there are serious motives of moving us towards socialism...and I don't like it...and neither does millions of other Americans.

You don't even know what socialism is.

[Exterminator]

Okay. It is an educated assumption based upon fact!

Lets call it "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

[Exterminator]

We need that crazy ol poophouse rat about right now!!....Obama needs to look back at how HE handled these difficult times and try to mimic them....at least not do the opposite.

Not!  Reaganomics was a joke.

[Henry Hawk]

You don't even know what socialism is.

Okay, let me rephrase....we are moving towards MORE Government control of our day-to-day lives....and I don't like it.

Such as, National Healthcare...possibly nationalization of our Banks, MORE governmental control over our airwaves...just to name a few

[Henry Hawk]

example..........the state with the highest tax rate has the highest deficit...(California )........coincidence?  more government is always a bad thing.

[Exterminator]

Okay, let me rephrase....we are moving towards MORE Government control of our day-to-day lives....and I don't like it.

LMAO!  If you don't think the government has absolute control over your life now, you're naive.

Such as, National Healthcare...

Universal insurance is not synonymous with national healthcare; you should really read up on how it works elsewhere.

...possibly nationalization of our Banks...

Are they talking about nationalizing the banks or simply assuming a non-controlling interest in them in exchange for giving them taxpayers' money?  Would you rather they just give your money away and get nothing for it?  Conversely, they could just let those banks fail but if they do, you'd better start clearing your desk because all non-critical construction projects will come to a screeching halt and the electrical contracting company who employs you probably won't be needing nearly as many employess.

...MORE governmental control over our airwaves...

Yikes!  Now that is scary!  The next thing you know, there'll be some government agency that controls all of the licenses and content and fines people whenever the f-bomb slips out.  They'll probably give it some really official sounding name, too, like the Federal Communications Commission.  I sure hope the president doesn't sign any executive orders allowing them to listen in on our cell phone calls!

[Exterminator]

example..........the state with the highest tax rate has the highest deficit...(California )........coincidence?  more government is always a bad thing.

That might be a good argument if California had the highest tax rate but alas, it does not. (Hint: it's the same as Indiana!)

[Exterminator]

...more government is always a bad thing.

I actually generally agree with this but it is not an absolute.  If less government is better, does that mean no government is ideal?

[Henry Hawk]

I actually generally agree with this but it is not an absolute.  If less government is better, does that mean no government is ideal?

Of course not....but, we are WAY too big, and have been for a very long time.  We need, to return more power and control to the people...not MORE government  (or those elected in washington) control.

[Ma and Pa]

I think the founding fathers had a pretty good idea of the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, and drew up the Constitution accordingly, spelling those out in plain English. The problem is, times have changed, and so has the interpretation of the Constitution; neither have been for the better, I fear. An overridingly powerful central government was the Fathers' worst nightmare, and the main cause of the War Between the States.   Patriot Pa

[Exterminator]

That might be a good argument if California had the highest tax rate but alas, it does not. (Hint: it's the same as Indiana!)

Here's another fun fact: while California does have the highest deficit in dollars, it does not as a percentage of total spending.  Guess who does?  Alaska!  And they have no state income tax so that pretty much blows your theory right out of the water; huh?

[Henry Hawk]

That might be a good argument if California had the highest tax rate but alas, it does not. (Hint: it's the same as Indiana!)

Maybe you should try a more recent resource....as of Fiscal Year 2007, California's Top Individual Income Tax Rate is the Highest in the Nation
..They also are in the 10 worst business tax climates of 2009...ranked 48th (btw, Indian is 14th).....California has the Highest Gas Tax in Nation..

Tax Freedom Day for California is 4th from the worst....notice the worst states are liberal states....

the bottom line is........MORE taxes does not mean lower deficits...by ANY means...

[Exterminator]

Maybe you should try a more recent resource....as of Fiscal Year 2007, California's Top Individual Income Tax Rate is the Highest in the Nation
...

I see; you are only comparing the highest possible tax rates, regardless of whether or not anyone or how many actually pay them whereas I am comparing the average taxes actually paid.  So if a state had a tax rate of 150% for anyone making $50 billion a year or more, they would be the state with the highest tax rate; right?  Great way to make a point if you're talking to someone too stupid to know the difference!

...the bottom line is........MORE taxes does not mean lower deficits...by ANY means...

Nor do less taxes; so what's your point?  The only thing you've managed to prove is that there really isn't any absolute relationship between the level of taxation and deficits; again, this defeats what you previously suggested.

[Henry Hawk]

Universal insurance is not synonymous with national healthcare; you should really read up on how it works elsewhere.

I have, and IF there is ANY liberalness in me, I would tend to lean towards this, because it HAS become a huge problem....and since about 60% of our health care is ALREADY funded by the public...I simply do NOT trust government's intervention on free market systems....but, this system is already skewed...I'm cautiously listening to a potential universal solution...but, I hope it is brought to a good debate before it is voted upon, unlike this last stimulus.

[Henry Hawk]

Nor do less taxes; so what's your point?  The only thing you've managed to prove is that there really isn't any absolute relationship between the level of taxation and deficits; again, this defeats what you previously suggested.

Less tax burden on the richest tax payers ususually means MORE revenue generated by the top tax payers...