Does the "soak the rich" tax scheme work?

[dorminWS]

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich, by Warren Buffett
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opini ... _LO_MST_FB

From the article:
"Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)"

According to Buffett taxes need to be raised on the rich. The article is worth reading, he makes good points.

Another quote:
" I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let's see, here..........................
In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

I guess that's supposed (or at least assumed) to be a BAD thing by Mr. GotRocks Buffet.

But wait........
29.2% of $16,900,000,000 is $4,934,600,000.
21.5% of $90,900,000,000 is $19,543,500,000.

So a 26% decreas in the effective tax rate brought the government a 296% increase in tax revenues, right? Is anybody who is posting here too dense to figure out whether that's a good thing?

This focuses us (or should, at least) on the REAL question: Is the federal taxation system about raising revenues, or is it about prosecuting class warfare and the politics of envy?

A lot of solid truth has been posted here on this subject, in my opinion; and some total bullsh!t, too, I'm afraid.

Corporations truly do not pay taxes - - their customers do. The reason politicians like to tax them is that they can't vote, and 99.99% of their customers haven't figured out who's really paying that tax.

15% IS too dang much to pay in flat taxes. Yet many advocates of this scheme talk in terms of 28%. That's what scares me about it. Also, what happens to people who do not generate enough income to pay even a 10% flat tax in a bad year?

And it is also true that the market manipulators like corporate raiders (not to mention hedge funds and other entities that bleed wealth without contributing to the system) are destructive to the long-term health of US businesses. But I'm not sure the tax system is the way to control that behavior. Why not just make it illegal?

Finally somebody asked the question "who will collect taxes if we abolish the IRS?" I would think the answer to that would be obvious. It'd be the same folks who enforce all other federal laws and prosecute other federal crimes, wouldn't it? Heck, we could probably abolish the ATF and thereby free up enough US attormeys to take care of that job.

[dorminWS]

BY THE WAY, here's something that surely must bring home the message that the problem is spending rather than coddling the rich:

It was sent to me by a friend of mine just now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's easy to dismiss individual programs that
benefit non-citizens until they're put together
and this picture emerges. Someone did a lot
of research to put together all of this data.
Often these programs are buried within other
programs making them difficult to find.


A Real Eye Opener
WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?

Informative, and mind
boggling!


You think the war in Iraq was costing
us too much? Read this:

We have been hammered with the
propaganda that it was the Iraq war and
the war on terror that is bankrupting us.


I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.


I hope the following 14 reasons are
forwarded over and over again until
they are read so many times that the
reader gets sick of reading them. I also
have included the URL's for verification
of all the following facts...


1.
$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare
to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify
at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... enters7fd8 <http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... enters7fd8> <http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... enters7fd8 <http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?p ... enters7fd8> >


2.
$22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
assistance programs such as food stamps,
WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify
at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML> <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML> >


3.
$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on
Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML <http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML>


4.
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on
primary and secondary school education

for children here illegally and they

cannot speak a word of English!

Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt..0.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt..0.HTML> <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... ....0.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... ....0.HTML> >


5.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for

education for the American-born

children of illegal aliens, known as

anchor babies.

Verify
at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... dt.01.HTML> <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... ...01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/ ... ...01.HTML> >


6.
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to

incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML> <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML> >
http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... ldt.01HTML> <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML> <http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscrip ... dt.01.HTML>




7.
30% percent of all Federal Prison

inmates are illegal aliens.


Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN..com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcriptscnn.com/TRANscriptS/0 ... dt.01.HTML>
<http://transcripts/ <http://transcripts/> <http://transcripts/ <http://transcripts/> > .." href="" >

<" href="" href="http://cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E" target=_blank rel=nofollow>

" href=

8.
$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on

illegal aliens for Welfare & social

services by the American taxpayers.


Verify
at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML <http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML>


9.
$200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed

American wages are caused by the illegal

aliens.


Verify
at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI < <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC> http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute <http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute/> ..org/PDF/deportationPDF>



13.
In 2006, illegal aliens sent home

$45 BILLION in remittances to their

countries of origin.


Verify
at: http://www/ <http://www/> . <http://www <http://www/> /..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://rense.com/general75/niht.htm> > rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://rense.com/general75/niht.htm> <http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm> > ;

; " href=;!


14.
The Dark Sideof Illegal Immigration:

Nearly One million sex crimes committed

by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .

Verify
at:http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml> <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml> >;
" href=" "; ; " href=20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml> <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml> >;
" href="";

The total cost is a whopping " href=;
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS

A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME,

HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING

THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS

$338,300,000,000.00WHICH

WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE

THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF

THIS COUNTRY.

Are we THAT Stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That $338,300,000,000 is 20 times what would have been raised in Revenue if those 400 highest earners had been taxed at 100% of their earnings in 1992, It's 372% of the total earnings of the top 400 in 2008.

That brings us to the nasty truth about it: THERE AIN'T enough money anywhere (indeed, EVERYwhere) to pay for what these @ssholes are doing. They've got to be stopped before they irrevocably riun out country; if they haven't already.

[Chasbo00]

[zephyp]

ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dorminWS]

WHEN DOES SEASON OPEN, AND CAN YOU HUNT COLLEGE CAMPUSES OR ARE THEY CONSIDERED PRESERVES?
..........................
HMMMM.......... Guess that second statement might be considered impolitic in the wake of the Va Tech shootings. I was referring to college professors, and I was engaging in a little dark humor...... not a serious bone in my body, OK? Besides, there ain't no need to shoot them...........they'll all starve to death when the gub'int finishes running out of money.

[wpoppert]

Freakin' hilarious!

[Kreutz]

The comic is cute.

[mikalthekrout]

no it is just another ploy, Like save fema, house does, Senate cries foul foul you have to pass this part also, raise debt ceiling to a quad drillion dollars
But you no i think we should say Okay but higher tax that wealthy 1% at 97.5% on all foreign earned income not US made, with not tax relief

Tax US income at 50% with no tax breaks, on same 1% and give ewveryone else a tax reduction too .05%

[mikalthekrout]

Tax the Obama supporters at 350% on income made overseas, 200% on income derived from US sales of their products and reduce US labour taxes to 0.051% of annual income


yeah vote for me and i'll set u free

[gatlingun6]

IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...[/quote]
Unfortunately we are far more likely to get a consumption/flat/VAT taxes in addition to the current tax code.[/quote]

Indeed. Even Bonehead Boehner is now talking about low "revenue" streams. What a crock. It is simply beyond me how anyone could actually believe the solution is to increase "revenue" for an entity that produces absolutely none or nothing.[/quote]
**********************************************************************************
Mr Z that's an interesting comment coming from a Virginian from a State where approx 40% of the Gross Domestic Policy (GDP) comes from the Federal government.

What the Federal Government produces is jobs, jobs and more jobs than any single entity in the nation. The vast majority, over 10 million plus, are NOT government jobs. The last time I looked, last week, there were approx 40,000 contracts waiting for bids on the federal site frequented by small businesses.

How can anyone move around the metro area without seeing evidence of government produced jobs everywhere. The Metro extension to Dulles? Government. The new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Government. The new lanes on I95 and I66, Government. The new hospital at Fort Belvoir, Government. The new housing, built and managed by private corporations on Belvoir, Andrews, McNair, government. The new Home Land Security Headquarters, government, The Border Patrol has been doubled to 22K personnel, government, and on and on.

Where the idea came from that government does not, or can't create jobs is mystifying. If government does not create jobs why did we have a titanic struggle over billions in earmarks? Why are business lobbyists all over the hill seeking more money from government? Why is the bidding so fierce over government contracts? The government is both a creator and a catalyst for jobs, both old and new.

The government is also the largest single consumer in the nation. What does it buy? Look around your home. Generally it buys everything you do and more. Not counting the military the government has the largest fleet of vehicles in the world. Who built those vehicles? Aside from the airlines, government has the largest fleet of aircraft. Who built those aircraft?

Then there is the ultimate paradox, we are debating over a communication medium created by government, the Internet. Would anyone care to guess how many jobs have been created or added by the presence of the Internet? How many businesses were started or expanded by the internet? If private industry had created the internet do you think they would have created it without a central controller?

In Virginia there probably isn't a single job that does not financially benefit in some way directly, or indirectly from federal spending. Our governor found that out that when after saying what part of cut spending does the Federal Government not understand, he screamed foul when DOD decided it did not need the NATO Naval HQs in Norfolk. Apparently the only spending the governor wants the Federal Government to cut, is that spending which does not affect VA.

Is the government the only answer? Of course not, but it has always been involved in job creation. Something tells me that the phrase, government does not create jobs is a Dr Frank Lutz focus group tested phrase, nothing more, nothing else.

Hell even some government regulations create jobs! Remember the prohibition against using asbestos in construction? Someone had to remove it. Cleaning up emissions meant that someone had to manufacture the new devices, such as scrubbers, etc.

Now if someone wants to argue that there is some job or economic activity in which government should not be involved, that's a worthy but different debate.


Gat6

[Chasbo00]

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

So, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before, and the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

[Kreutz]

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Had to laugh at this; where they gonna go? Europe and see what it means to be a team player and pay real taxes? South America were they can be nationalized at a moments notice? Asia where they will be stripped of all their IP's and plundered? Africa to be killed and then nationalized? That weird Bioshock libertarian death trap ocean platform that will never exist because they'd have to chip in for it?

Good to see the long running trend of economists lacking common sense continues unabated!

[OleMan]

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Had to laugh at this; where they gonna go? Europe and see what it means to be a team player and pay real taxes? South America were they can be nationalized at a moments notice? Asia where they will be stripped of all their IP's and plundered? Africa to be killed and then nationalized? That weird Bioshock libertarian death trap ocean platform that will never exist because they'd have to chip in for it?

Good to see the long running trend of economists lacking common sense continues unabated!

Well, let me see - the rich tend to start private clubs, have luxury retreats for parties and get togethers, so they don't need to go overseas. And what about the bar owner, his gross income from those drinking buddies drops considerably. Meanwhile, rich guy buys his beer and booze by the case and drinks all he wants at a cheaper per unit price - at his place with the same or a different set of drinking buds. With different drinking buds, the old drinking buds lose benefit of the guy who used to pay most of the tab, the bar owner lays off an employee or two 'cause all the rich patrons quit paying other's tabs and began to drink their own booze in in private settings; or just don't drink where the lower income types choose to drink.

Seems 'progressive economics' still has that vision syndrome called rectimus myopia.

[Kreutz]

Well, let me see - the rich tend to start private clubs, have luxury retreats for parties and get togethers, so they don't need to go overseas.

How would this exempt them from taxation?

[Skeptic]

The bottom line - in America today , even most of the poor have so many more riches than all but the most wealthy of centuries past.
Almost every home has running water and electricity, most have more than one television, refrigerators and freezers, stoves, even air conditioners.

When you look at the advance in wealth of the common man in America from, say, 1900 to today, it should seem miraculous, but instead many complain because some others got richer still.

Where did that wealth come from? Did it come from redistribution? No, it came from industry and capitalism. If you want more, produce more. If you want an even bigger slice of the pie, take the risks yourself, risk your own capital, or your own borrowing. Coveting the treasures gained on the risks of someone else is vile.

I worked for a poor person once. You know what? When it came down to it, I didn't get paid like I was supposed to. Why - because they were poor, and their business was not sustainable. I worked 80, 90, 100 hours a week there for a meager salary, because I wanted to make a difference. But it was BS - bottom line, it was based on how we wanted people to behave and how they wanted markets to work, not on reality.

An economist noted that blaming greed for the crash of our economy is sort of like blaming gravity for plane crashes. Greed has always been there, and will always be there in this world.

Meanwhile, our government has proven they can lower taxes, and even proven they can raise taxes. What they have never done in recent times is prove that they can cut spending in any meaningful way. Soaking the rich to fund the endless needs and desires of who for whatever reason consume more than they produce is a recipe for a death spiral, especially because wealth is not a zero sum game, and also because wealth can migrate.

Right now so many companies realize so much of their income in other countries, because their tax treatment is actually better there. If we could lower the marginal corporate tax rates in our country while also eliminating loopholes, we would see an increase in tax collections - BUT - only if the companies believe its something that will last.

[gatlingun6]

"]IMHO the "soak the rich" gambit is just a ruse to get the non producers excited to go out and vote for whatever $hithead is advicating it at the time.Flat tax for all including the non producers would even it all out

Consumption tax and do away with the IRS and the stinking tax code...[/quote]
Unfortunately we are far more likely to get a consumption/flat/VAT taxes in addition to the current tax code.[/quote]

Indeed. Even Bonehead Boehner is now talking about low "revenue" streams. What a crock. It is simply beyond me how anyone could actually believe the solution is to increase "revenue" for an entity that produces absolutely none or nothing.[/quote]
***********************************************************************************
Hey there Z man what do you mean that the Federal Government produces nothing? It's odd that you would say that on a communications media that was developed in this form, by you guessed it the Federal Government. I'm sure that was just an oversight and that you are well versed in what the Federal Government produces,or pays someone else to produce.

The Federal Government creates and sustains more jobs than any single corporation by far.

Gat6

[gatlingun6]

A man has an idea, creates a product, brings the product to market, it's successful. He makes money.

Why does he owe a DAMNED thing to ANYONE else?!? He took the risk, spent the time on research and development, marketing, and fnally got the rewards from being an innovator. You remember that? When America was filled with INNOVATORS!?!? Not these hands out lazy POS's that have RUINED this country.... they make me sick.

ALSO, IF the man hires workers, then they agree to trade time/skill for pay. If they don't like it? QUIT! This "Milking the profits" for all they're worth is what's bringing down some companies. You have to put money ASIDE for hard times! You cannot continue to dispurse with NOTHING left over!

The way government SHOULD work? The local provides for the immediate needs of it's citizens request within the budget, state covers what the local cannot, and federal handles what the local, and state cannot.

Right now? It's topsy-turvy. The Fed taxes people, then "trickles" the funds back to the local level. As to those "poorer" districts, if the money flows UP to the Feds, and your local, and state governments are doing their parts, then the surplus from that staging would come back to you.

Again LOCAL-STATE-FED as the final stage.

Just my opinion though.

************************************************************************************
As I was reflecting on your posts some thoughts occurred to me.

1. Who or what protects that man's idea (intellectually property) from being stolen and used by others? Easy answer: Government.
2. How does that man bring his product to market without government. As far I know the man does not own a separate transport system, or separate airways either.
3. How does the man insure the integrity, validity and quality of his materials without government.
4. The man entered into numerous contracts to get his idea turned into a product and delivered to the market. Who or what insures that all abide by those contracts. Government.
5. What insures that the byproduct from that man's idea does not contaminate your property, your water supply, or the air that you breathe.

The internet alone has spawned millions of ideas, and billions in profits. How did it come about, again the government. The government is the largest entity doing basic research, the results of which are free to the Man who has an idea how to turn that applied research into a money making product.

Don't get me wrong, government is not THE answer, but it has always operated in partnership with entrepreneurs. The fact that we will protect your ideas (intellectually property) is why people from all over the world want to come here.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single business idea that has not, or does not benefit from government.

Can government be more efficient? Of course it can, but I don't know of any organization public, or private that can't be improved.

Enough, I think you get the idea.
Gat6

[SHMIV]

Well, yeah, Gat, but all of that doesn't conflict with Reverenddels point. I read his point to be a condemnation of the whole "share the wealth" movement.

No one is disputing the usefulness of government, in general; the absence of government is complete anarchy, which would severely infringe on ones freedoms.

[gatlingun6]

Well, yeah, Gat, but all of that doesn't conflict with Reverenddels point. I read his point to be a condemnation of the whole "share the wealth" movement.

No one is disputing the usefulness of government, in general; the absence of government is complete anarchy, which would severely infringe on ones freedoms.

*************************************************************************************
Actually the argument depreciates his entire idea that his "MAN" owes nothing to anyone but himself. Why? Because he owes something for all the benefits that he receives from living in a civilized and democratic society.

For example where did the MAN get his workforce? Did he provide them with a basic, or even an advanced education? For that matter where did the MAN get his education? Apparently the MAN wants all the benefits that come with living in such a society without paying a penny for it, that makes the MAN essentially a grifter.

As a nation we decided long ago that workers are not surfs, or slaves so at the very least minimum standards would apply between labor and the boss because it is in the national interest.

I know of no successful advanced society that has ever worked the way the author described. It seems to describe either anarchy, where the MAN had better be the strongest MAN around to keep everything; or alternatively some kind of utopian society.

Gat6

[dorminWS]

I'll probably regret getting into this again, but the bald truth is that even though I seldom have the time to get into point-by-point recitations and refutations with folks who just don't understnd, I can't tolerate this pro-big government prattle silently any more!

Government has become a giant ice cream cone that licks itself.

It should exist to enable commerce. But it has grown so uncontrollably for so long that it impedes and obstructs commerce by shear weight of it's bloatedness.

Gat6, if you really view our government as a benevolent conferor of benefits, you're beyond hope by my lights. You either don't get it real bad or you approve of what's going on because you are a beneficiary of it. What government does is take income and wealth from us by force and hand it out to those it favors more than us. But first, it consumes a large portion of what it has appropriated to feed its own fat @ss. The only difference between the US government and some medieval warlord is the original claim to legitimacy the US government had before it started coercing incometaxes from it's citizens and redistributing the funds to b uy votes. I don't feel a damn bit of gratitude for what the damned government "lets me keep". IT WAS MINE TO BEGIN WITH! We need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at least half. Government "employment" is not REAL. It produces nothing (except, occasionally, by accident), and is reall just a form of consumption (it's part of what the ice cream cone sucks up when it licks itself).