Mr. Poland; I can’t help but wonder why every liberal democrat (particularly the ones in power and the wealthy ones) aren’t setting an example to the rest of us by paying the Clinton era tax rates? The IRS, as you know, will gladly accommodate anyone who wants to fork it over!

I’m one of those middle class types. I don’t have a problem with giving tax relief to the “true job creators” (corporations and the wealthy) of this country, because the last time I checked, it’s still pretty hard to get a job from the poor and the dependent.

If I may recite my situation, I’m waiting to see whether or not the current federal tax rates (the so called “Bush era tax cuts”) are allowed to continue or expire. If they’re allowed to continue, I’m going to purchase that bigger house that my family has been bugging me to get. If not, we’re stuck. Now, multiply my situation exponentially across the nation and what do you think you get – a sluggish economy and a real estate market that’s in the tank – right?

Maybe I’m being a little naive here. Does most of the country believe the bull-fertilizer that our illustrious Speaker of the House is trying to feed us – that the Keynesian mentality, unemployment checks and food stamps, is the best way to stimulate the economy? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t a certain President back in the 1930’s (I think we called him “FDR” for short) try Keynesian spending to pull us out of the Great Depression? Keynesian spending failed miserably, and extended the depression by a good seven years. It wasn’t until 1954 that the stock market recovered to the 1929 levels.

(Where’s that Bob Hooper guy been hiding – the guy who always pounded on me? Has he been sick or something?)

Jonathan, let me address just a few of your observations.

" I don’t have a problem with giving tax relief to the “true job creators” (corporations and the wealthy) of this country," ? ? ?

What happened to the job creations the last 9 years? Those true job creators (corporations and wealthy) have been enjoying the tax relief all these years and jobs have diminished! However, the spread between the wealthy and the middle class has widened considerably. You may be on the upper end of the middle class or even considered in the top 2 or 3% considered wealthy. You better hang on tight or you'll be joining the slide down. The top 1% don't care whose money they get, so long as they are not held accountable for pulling the rug out from under the guy below them. And if you are among the ultra rich and wealthy, why don't you donate a little of your wealth to balance the budget, instead of crying about not being able to buy a bigger house.

As for the FDR failure, I happen to have experienced the great depression. My family and many of our neighbors were able to survive on the jobs created by those programs. Rural America and small towns got electricity. Men were put to work building schools, hospitals, roads, conservation projects (water dams & diversion ditches) and other public projects. Instead of baling out the wealthy stockholders and bankers, the support went to the working class people who then put that money into circulation buying shoes, cloths, food, etc. The stockholders and banks benefited by the 'trickle up' of the buying power for consumer goods. Society benefited many years from the building projects.

Regarding Ole Hoop, I think he is alive and well.

It amazes me how people try to rewrite history. Even though I was born after the Great Depression ended, I do know my family benefited from FDR's initiatives. Also, those initiatives kept the economy alive. And Ken, I too wonder where those "job creators" have been hiding. They had all those tax breaks to work with. It seems all that extra money went to pay the exorbitant salaries of CEOs or to move companies to Mexico or China. Cry me a river over those wealthy "job creators" having to pay more taxes.

“. . . why don't you donate a little of your wealth to balance the budget . . .” Good Lord Ken. Even if I were wealthy, I wouldn’t give one extra dime to the IRS above what I owe. There are plenty of worthwhile charities that I could donate extra money to rather than flushing it down the IRS rat-hole.

“It seems all that extra money . . .” Good Diane, it least you qualified that ridiculous statement with the words “it seems.”

I to need to stop banging my head against the wall just resign myself to conclude that the “Democratic Party” is nothing more than just the “Socialist Party” of America – filled with power hungry Statists whose mission is to confiscate wealth and grow government. You guys must make George Washington and the rest of the founding fathers turn over in their graves every waking day!

Jonathan--How about coming up with some proof that my statement is "ridiculous." I can find article after article on the business pages of the Wichita Eagle, not exactly a left-wing newspaper, to support what I said.

The Democratic Party, of which I'm a member, is way too moderate for me. The idea of the Party being Socialist is laughable.

Our Founding Fathers would probably find your opinions ludicrous, if my reading of history is correct.

Diane; since you are the one who feels that tax breaks are somehow related to fat CEO salaries and business strategies, then you’re the one who has the burden of proof – not me , sweetheart. Otherwise, your argument is more like a red herring.

There’s nothing wrong with a CEO commanding an exorbitant salary, as long as the company is profitable and the stock holders are happy. Corporations move business assets out of the country to avoid oppressive U.S. regulations and taxation – its business strategy to improve the bottom line, but I think you already know that - then again I could be wrong.

If the Democratic Party is too moderate for you (that’s a downright scary thought), then pull your head out of the sand and laugh all you want at the brazen Marxism that’s being thrown in our face on a daily basis from this current administration. It makes me want to cry.

What happened to the job creations the past 9 years? Well, maybe you guys need to ask the right people. Like Barney Frank, who oversaw the complete collapse of Fannie and Freddie that sent monumental shock waves throughout the economy. And maybe Jimmy Carter, who signed into law the C.R.A. of 1977 – a very important catalyst to our current economic demise.

(2007 U.S. unemployment rate – 4.6%, 2010 – 9.8%)

Sweetheart? What kind of jerk calls a woman he doesn't know "sweetheart"? That's sexist and demeaning and I can see there's no point in carrying forward a discussion with you.

Ms. Diane; please allow me to say I'm sorry for having offended you. My use of the word "sweetheart" was sarcastic and uncalled for, just like it is childish and inapporpiate for someone to call another person they don't know the derogatory term "jerk."

I accept your apology. Yes, it is inappropriate for someone to call someone else a jerk, but I wanted to get your attention. I think our discussions are fruitless. You are deep into your ideology. I am deep into mine. I've spent a lifetime questioning how things work and who benefits from our government policies and right now the ordinary Joe and Jane aren't benefiting one bit, in my estimation. You obviously think if billionaires and millionaires get big tax cuts and the loopholes that they use to keep from paying even those taxes, then somehow we'll all be better off. In the '70s the richest among us had 1% of the wealth; now the richest among us have 24% of the wealth. Maybe that's as it should be. I'll tell that to the next person I meet who has lost his or her job and whose family is in danger of their house. I'm sure that will be a comfort to them.

I, and all of my right-wing friends, have always rallied for “tax relief for ALL.” Whether you earn $15,000/year or $1.5 million/year, everyone should pay the same tax rate on their money. A simplified flat-tax system (say, 20 or 21%) is the best way to go. That will gut-out the nightmare IRS tax code, loopholes, write-offs (except for charitable contributions and home mortgages), and shelters. Everyone will contribute in a flat-tax/fair-tax system. Government revenues will increase, Joe and Jane will have more take-home pay to spend at the mall or buy that new car, and those dratted wealthy types will have more capitol to work with to expand their businesses and create more private sector jobs – it’s a win-win situation! But our government has to do their part by reining in out-of –control deficit spending, otherwise we’ll continue down the primrose path.

But the Left-Wing is tone-deaf to all this. The Chuck Schumer types just focus on the fact that the rich are included in the equation, so they can turn the argument around to make the Right-Wing look greedy and selfish – a cheap and easy smear tactic. Fewer and fewer people now are buying that bull-fertilizer, which was made obvious last Nov. 2nd.

Class warfare – Diane – doesn’t do anybody any good, and will continue to tear this country apart.

A 20% flat tax would not raise enough money to fund government as we know it.

Where do you think the cuts would come from to balance the budget?

The lower income folks would wind up taking the cuts and their share of the total revenue raised would increase.

The spread between the middle and lower income folks and the upper 10% income folks would acceleratte at a faster clip than it has for the last 30 years. The middle income class would dissappear and the poverty stricken class would increase.

The United States would become a classic 3rd world country.

As long as ALL wage and income earners contribute to a 20% flat-tax system (20% is an approximation), our wonderful government will have MORE funds to work with, but the Fed has to rein in spending – that’s imperative – especially for our future generations. The progressive income tax is for the purpose of wealth redistribution – not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.

Yes, some tuff choices are going to have to be made as far as governmental cuts go. It’s going to seem overwhelming and there’s going to be a lot of unhappy people, but we have to get started.

• Limit federal spending each year to less than 20% of the GDP.
• Eliminate unions for federal government employees and reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20% or more.
• Eliminate the federal Dept. of Education, since education is primarily a state and local function.
• Eliminate “chain” migration, better secure our borders, and start getting serious with enforcing our immigration laws.
• Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all going bankrupt. These programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion in IOUs – we can’t keep sweeping this under the rug.
• Make it more difficult to get on and stay on Welfare, and become more aggressive to cut out fraud.
• Sunset all “independent” federal agencies each year, subject to Congress affirmatively reestablishing them.
• Reduce unemployment compensation – we can’t keep paying for an extended period of time people not to work.

I think that’s a good start. Government doesn’t have an income problem Ken, it has a spending problem.

The United States would become a classic 3rd world country? Hyperbole.

(Ken, I think something is wrong with Ole Hoop – he would have jumped in somewhere by now.)

"• Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all going bankrupt. These programs and others have accumulated more than $50 trillion in IOUs – we can’t keep sweeping this under the rug."
Whoa Whoa Whoa!! Jonathan, something is wrong with that perception! I think that back in the 1960s, under a Democratic administration, the Federal government began borrowing money from the SS trust fund to keep from raising income tax rates or borrowing from other sources. I don't know about 'trillions' but it was at least in the billions. Billions and trillions are beyond my comprehension. It's a bunch! They are almost like infinity.
We can't seem to get honest and straight answers from the bureaucracy or the governing bodies. I'm inclined (no proof) to think the reason SS appears to be broke, or soon to be, is because the congress doesn't have the nerve to raise taxes from the IRS sources to pay back on those IOUs. The retired population that depends upon SS is not a majority of the voting public. How can intelligent reason put blame on SS for the National debt and deficit spending? And by the way, I don't think 'medicaid' is in any way connected to SS/Medicare.
I don't understand why the answer to our economic dilemma can be to cut 2% out of FICA collections, if the SS and Medicare systems are supposedly bankrupt. Lack of purchasing power is the primary reason for the stagnant economy. Most SS benefit checks are put into the market for expendable goods, almost immediately. Is it a back door attempt to eliminate SS and move all retirement funds into the open stock markets? How many senior citizens lost their hard earned retirement benefits when the stock market broke? The major threat to our SS retirement benefits is the radical fundamental conservatives who are trying to eliminate the FICA program.
Take government out of education, you will have masses of people who have no access to a good education. Do completely away with graduated income tax schedules and the extreme wealthy and the extreme poor will be separated further and further apart. The original philosophy of graduated income tax was to discourage the wealthy from just accumulating more and more wealth. The distribution of resources to meet basic needs of people should start at the base level of income. However, when the wealthy have unfettered power to determine wages or compensation, too few of them are inclined to pay anymore than the bare minimum to keep the servants serving.
There are some extremely wealthy people living in the gated communities that are generously philanthropic, but most of them are interested only in protecting what they have and accumulating more.
There are some (too many) of those on the receiving end of welfare benefits who have no desire to get out of the cycle. But, a significant number of them would love to get out and enjoy the benefit and satisfaction of supporting themselves.
"The United States would become a classic 3rd world country? Hyperbole."
Jonathan, statistics prove that the concentration of wealth is getting into fewer and fewer hands. The percentage of the population falling into poverty status is getting larger and larger. What do most, so called, '3rd world countries' have in common?
Hoop, where are you? Give us another blog, this comment section is getting long and probably boring for some people.