Is there a publication that compares state income taxes state by state?

How can I compare taxes from state to state? How can I compare taxes from state to state? Some states have income tax. Some states have sales tax. Some states have both. I need to find a list and/or comparison for all of the states. I would also like to know the differences in tax rates. Any help would be appreciated.

How does the state income tax of Oregon compare with that of California?

How do taxes in the United States compare with the taxes of European nations? I know the usual answer is that taxes in Europe are higher than in the US, but given the number of items we pay taxes on in the US, I wonder if that is true any more. For example, in the US we pay : Federal income taxes, some states require income tax too, property tax, taxes on utilities, taxes on petrol, taxes on cell phone service, taxes on other communications services (cable, stellite, internet), taxes on prescription medicine, and if you smoke or drink, taxes on booze and cigarettes. I might have enen left a few items out. So, how does that list compare with what the average European would pay?

How can I compare my current tax exempt salary and benefits to job offers back in the States? I am trying to find out a way to compare my current NET income to what I could potentially NET back home. All of the salary comparison websites do not accurately calculate my tax exemption status and cost of living (lower) here in Germany. My guess is that I'll need to almost double my salary as I'm not paying most taxes here in Germany. Here's some more info about my situation. 1. Income tax exemption - I don't pay US or German income taxes. I'm exempt from both. I'm not paying US state income taxes either. This probably saves me at least 30% every year. 2. Sales taxes - I only pay sales taxes when I eat at a restaurant or shop for groceries on the economy (a german grocery store). I mostly shop at the commissary on base...and they sell everything at cost...you can't get groceries cheaper anywhere else. All other goods (utilities, clothing, cars, electronics, etc) are tax exempt. I prepay for gasoline (current US national average price without sales tax). Any suggestions? I'm not a GS employee (civil servant) or in the military. I work for a private contractor. I file the 2555 with my 1040 every year. My taxable income is just below the allowed amount. I am paying Social Security and Medicare. I also have 3 dependents. My wife also works for a private contractor and is tax exempt. I file EXEMPT on my W4. That way taxes are not taken from my paycheck. That's what we call exempt status here. Call it what you want. We're given a 3 month extension to file for being overseas.

california sucks for this reason and mr s says that im angry he rants like an idot a freacking idot.? Why do so many people say cali tight and then never been there? california is beautiful and is nice but here this dude joe m hit the nail on the head so i copied and pasted his comment and i have many things i typed like this . so here u go his then mine CALIFORNIA IS THE WORST STATE BY FAR! HERE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHY: MORE NATURAL DISASTERS THAN ANY OTHER STATE, THEY HAVE SOMETHING(FIRES,EARTHQUAKES,SO... ATLEAST EVERY OTHER MONTH. OVER-PRICED, OVER-CROWDED, OVER-CRIMED, DIRTY, TOO MANY MEXICAN-AMERICANS(DIFFERENT THAN IMMIGRANT MEXICANS) WITH SHI**Y ATTITUDES LIKE YOURS. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY SO ROTTEN, AND MAKES THE REST OF THE WORLD HATE US. I KNOW I WAS IN IRAQ WITH OVER 100 PEOPLE(AND I USE THE TERM LOOSELY HERE) FROM FRESNO. THEY WERE NOTHING BUT CRIMINALS. BESIDES, IF CALIFORNIA IS SO GREAT, WHY DO ALL THE CALIFORNIANS MOVE TO ARIZONA(KINGMAN/PHOENIX MY HOMETOWNS) AND JUST RUIN THOSE USED-TO-BE-LOVELY PLACES? WHY DON'T THEY STAY IN CALIFORNIA IF IT'S SO GREAT? IN FACT IF MEXICO IS SO GREAT WHY AREN'T THEY A WORLD POWER? WHY ISN'T THEIR GREAT ARMY HELPING TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ? WHY? I'LL TELL YOU WHY. FOR THE SAME REASON THIS JOKE WAS MADE. WHY DOESN'T MEXICO HAVE AN OLYMPIC TEAM? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO CAN RUN, JUMP OR SWIM IS ALREADY IN AMERICA. SO DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND GO BACK TO YOUR GREAT NATION OF MEXICO, AND GET THE F**CK OUT OF MY COUNTRY! Member since: June 29, 2007 Total points: 76 (Level 1) Points earned this week: --% Best answer alex g S in california one of the worst freaking *** places ever well compared to the ******* freacking *** rocking universe. or the united states i rank cali as 5th best state. after like maryland. In this order TEXAS< FLORIDA< ILLINOIS< GEORGIA, MARYLAND. CALIFORNIA for most people its is nice weather this be true. and a nice place but **** west coast. last thing till japan. most people havent been to cali and some people for some reason say they would want to live there . which i find odd. know i see great weather and u can see snow in one day then desert that is tight,. but then the freacking economy okay. and the people then the freacking natural distaters. wildfires, outrageous home prices. crappy goverment i think. to many liberals 4 of the most polluted citys in america. know earthquakes and like every thing. okay then the in los angelas. the huge ghetto shitty almost everywere. there many few beautiful places. exspensive homes i mean to get something desent it like a million. and because it has been established as high prices plus like celberities. then LOS ANGELAS smog, partical pollution, the worst. worst traffic, a huge illegal population After decades of mass immigration, California is no longer able to absorb a constant flow of immigrants and still maintain a decent quality of life for its residents. Currently, one in ten Americans is foreign-born, with about a third of the foreign-born population arriving in the past 10 years. Since California receives about 25 percent of the nation’s flood of immigration, our state’s numbers look a little different, with an astounding one in four Californians being foreign-born. In addition, nearly all of our state’s growth is now due to immigration and higher-than-average fertility rates among new immigrants. If current legal and illegal immigration trends continue, an estimated 60 million people will call California home by 2050. There are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in our country. All of the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States legally, having entered on temporary visas. California is home to at least 3.2 million of those illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who take low-paying jobs don't pay enough in income taxes, if they pay at all, to reimburse taxpayers the $5,000/per student annual cost of educating their children. Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California $10.5 billion a year for education, health care, and incarceration. Illegal aliens constitute 15 percent of our state’s school population. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals were forced to close from the financial burden of providing free health care for uninsured illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who enroll in the University of California system are charged in-state tuition. Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of persons unlawfully crossing U.S. borders to work and to receive public assistance, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Such entry is a misdemeanor, and if repeated becomes punishable as a felony. Illegal aliens from Central America have been allowed to remain in the United States so long that their homelands have grown dependent on the billions of dollars a year they send home in remittances. 300,000 people who have been ordered deported are still in the country because their deportation orders were not enforced. Census Bureau estimates say 115,000 people from terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern nations live in the United States illegally. Some illegal aliens from terrorist nations pay as much as $50,000 each to be smuggled into our country. Approximately one-third of all foreign-born U.S. residents are illegal aliens. Over half of all Mexicans living in the United States are here illegally. In the last decade, 80 to 85 percent of the flow of Mexican immigrants has been illegal. A strategy of attrition through enforcement could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics. IT says if u read most of californias population increase is do to illegals. who suck the **** of of tax payers and watever. for the poor californians makeing it so exspensive./ so better to live there poor. know so many people moving from exspensive citys of cali florida and texas for cheaper and more resonable life style. know okay los angelas hey i think of tight graffiti from awr, msk, nasa crew, tko, know i am know toy and dont care for west coast nut awr, and msk , took **** to the exstreme. okay. and i think of tight rappers such as dr dre. snoop dogg, tupac and nwa. know east coast rap better orgial and there first. SO STUPID PEOPLE ONLY SOME< Lots of gay liberals and high crime, in some areas. run down areas. high prices and shitty traffic i think of one of the shitty citys with some exseptions. in a nice state but know shitty and over run with illegals problems legal stuff. high pollution and crime. and just to many damn liberals and crappy health care, and crappy school systems ONE GOOD THING OF LOS ANGELAS GREAT SHOPPING FOR GIRLS AND HUGE MALLS. AND FOR MY STUFF AS A GUY. AND WELL THE CLIMATE. AND THE NIGHTLIFE. OTHER THEN THAT AN OKAY PLACE TO VIST JUST FOR A COUPLE DAYS. BUT EVERY CITY HAS MALL AND NIGHTLIFE LA HAS SOME OF THE BEST THOUGH ONLY GOOD THING

How high was the average state sales tax in 1965? How high was the max federal income tax bracket in 1965? How do those compare today....in 2009? is the average state sales tax higher now? Is the max federal income tax bracket in 2009 higher compared to 1965? What do these trends tell us? well done bostonian. You are a star pupil for the day.

Can someone who went through the one a few years ago explain the Tax Rebate thing to me? Together my husband and I make about $95,000 so we would be within the range to get back $1200. And that money counts against our rebate when we file next year. This year we are only getting about $1400 back any way for our normal tax return. So assuming that the tax rate stays about the same and we make about the same this year compared to last, would we only get $200 back when we file next January? If so isn't Congress just screwing the lower income people who wouldn't normally even get the amount of their rebate back to begin with? Wouldn't they just end up oweing more money next spring? If I understanding this correctly, is there a way to opt out? Due the state's stupidity, I usually end up using my federal return to pay the difference for my state taxes and would hate to have to pay out of pocket (I realize it is all my money anyway and would save it.) because the government decided to encourage frivolous spending. If I have misunderstood please illuminate.

How may I compare my Property Tax Rates, Sales Tax Rates and Income Tax Rates to other States?

Does Anyone Still Think We Can Tax Ourselves Into Prosperity? When there is so much evidence that it's the opposite of what we need to do. Take a look at this article comparing Texas and Ohio. Ohio has the 3rd largest corporate tax rate and the 6th largest income tax rate. Texas has no income tax. "Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations. On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005

Is there a list of All Taxes & Fees Paid broke down by state? to compare each state cost of living, and i mean all taxes and fees cell bills utility property income taxes sales tax licenses or filing fees plates hidden taxes like in your insurances health car toys, someone must have a Matrix done the politicians seem to find them to find out what there missing gas taxes all of them not just the sales taxes the other 6 taxes too

Can someone please help me cross check my answers?

Why did Warren Buffett state that he pays 17.5% in taxes while average people pay over 25%? He stated that the tax code is weighted heavily in favor of the rich and it needs to be changed. He is the 3rd richest person in the world and recommends a progresive, consumption tax. He compared his income tax rate to his office employees. They averaged 30% to his 17.5%. He said he does NOT use accountants and files his own. He said accountants would find more shelters and would have him at an even lower rate due to the current tax code. Morning Joe (Scarborough) (MSNBC) - Oct 30 TODAY Mel (below) He comes across as a nice guy. I'm sure I'd hate to face off with him over a business deal. He'd probably eat my lunch. LOL It was VERY decent of him to make this statement.

Eco Help Please? I have a few questions I cant find or figure out in the book. Thanks to anyone that can help 1) If a union negoitatates a wage above the market equilibrum, each firms a) supply of labor is greater then its marginal resource cost b)supply of labor is less then its marginal resouce cost c)supply of labor is equal to its marginal resources cost d)demand for labor is less then its marginal resource cost e)deamdn for labor is graeter then its marginal resource cost 2) A fair distribution of income for the U.S. economy is a)not an economic issue b)defined by the Department of Agriculture c)a postive economic question d)a normative economic question e)a state and local issue but not a national one 3) Compared to the US, the income distrubution in other major industrial nations tends to be a) more concentrated b)less concentrated c)similar d)impossible to calculate e)not comparable because tax structures differ among countires THANK YOU SO MUCH - 10 Points -

Explain what the "bush tax cuts" actually do to income taxes? I was comparing these two tables of income tax in canada and US. I always heard canada was a place where rich people payed more tax and the In the US rich people actually payed less, but in these tables the two seem pretty similar, that is rich people pay more taxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada#Personal_federal_marginal_tax_rates thanks :)

A neo conservatives hero exposed? Limbaugh vs. Reality Bogus Economics LIMBAUGH: On California contractor C.C. Myers completing repairs 74 days early on the earthquake-damaged Santa Monica Freeway: "There was one key element that made this happen. One key thing: The governor of California declared the [freeway] a disaster area and by so doing eliminated the need for competitive bids.... Government got the hell out of the way." (TV show, 4/13/94) "They gave this guy [Myers] the job without having to go through the rigmarole...of giving 25 percent of the job to a minority-owned business and 25 percent to a woman." (TV show, 4/15/94) REALITY: There was competitive bidding: Myers beat four other contractors for the job. Affirmative action rules applied: At least 40 percent of the subcontracts went to minority or women-owned firms. Far from getting out of the way, dozens of state employees were on the job 24 hours a day. Furthermore, the federal government picked up the tab for the whole job (L.A. Times, 5/1/94). LIMBAUGH: "Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93) REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured. LIMBAUGH: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth." (Ought to Be, p. 70) REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: "And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period." (Told You So, p. 84) REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States") LIMBAUGH: "Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years." (Ought to Be, p. 242-243) REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. "We're getting out of the housing business. Period," a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985. LIMBAUGH: "The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708. LIMBAUGH: "There's no such thing as an implied contract." (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is. LIMBAUGH: "Ladies and gentlemen, we now know why there is this institutional opposition to low tax rates in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's because [low tax rates] are biblical in nature and in root. When you can trace the lowering of tax rates on grain from 90 percent to 20 percent giving seven fat years during the days of Pharaoh in Egypt, why then you are tracing the roots of lower taxes and rising prosperity to religion.... You can trace individual prosperity, economic growth back to the Bible, the Old Testament. Isn't it amazing?" (Radio show, 6/28/93) REALITY: Amazingly wrong. Genesis 41 is about the wisdom of instituting taxes, not cutting them. After Pharaoh had a dream that prophesied seven fat years to be followed by seven lean years, Joseph advised him to "appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years...and lay up corn under the hands of Pharaoh." In other words, a 20 percent tax on the grain harvest would put aside food for use during the famine. Pharaoh took Joseph's advice, and Egypt avoided hunger during the famine. Weird Science LIMBAUGH: "It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]." (Radio show, 4/29/94) REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; "Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries," states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 "Medical and Health Annual." LIMBAUGH: "We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful." (Ought to Be, p. 163) REALITY: "The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before," editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93). LIMBAUGH: "The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks." (Ought to Be, p. 135) REALITY: A one in five AIDS risk for condom users? Not true, according to Dr. Joseph Kelaghan, who evaluates contraceptives for the National Institutes of Health. "There is substantive evidence that condoms prevent transmission if used consistently and properly," he said. He pointed to a nearly two-year study of couples in which one partner was HIV-positive. Among the 123 couples who used condoms regularly, there wasn't a single new infection (AP, 8/29/93). LIMBAUGH: "Most Canadian physicians who are themselves in need of surgery, for example, scurry across the border to get it done right: the American way. They have found, through experience, that state medical care is too expensive, too slow and inefficient, and, most important, it doesn't provide adequate care for most people." (Told You So, p. 153) REALITY: "Mr. Limbaugh's claim simply isn't true," says Dr. Hugh Scully, chair of the Canadian Medical Association's Council on Healing and Finance. "The vast majority of Canadians, including physicians, receive their care here in Canada. Those few Canadians who receive health care in the U.S. most often do because they have winter homes in the States--like Arizona and Florida--and have emergent health problems there." Medical care in Canada is hardly "too expensive"; it's provided free and covered by taxes.

Will anything come out of these Texas Secession talks? Read This Article: Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!" An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt. Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package. Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that. "There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede. Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that. Perry is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican. His anti-Washington remarks have become more strident the past few weeks as that 2010 race gets going and since Perry rejected $550 million in federal economic stimulus money slated to help Texas' unemployment trust fund. Perry said the stimulus money would come with strings attached that would leave Texas paying the bill once the federal money ran out. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also Republicans, have been outspoken against the federal economic stimulus spending and were supportive of tea parties in their states. The protests were being held throughout the country on federal income tax deadline day to imitate the original Boston Tea Party of American revolutionary times. In an appearance at the Texas Capitol last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in pushing a resolution that supports states' rights protected in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He said the federal government has become oppressive in its size and interference with states. Since then, Perry has been featured on the online Drudge Report, and other conservative commentators and citizens have latched on to his words. After praising veterans in the cheering crowd Wednesday, he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you." Perry said he believes he could be at the center of a national movement that is coordinated and focused in its opposition to the actions of the federal government. "It's a very organic thing," he said. "It is a very powerful moment, I think, in American history." For her part, Hutchison issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill. "On April 15 — Tax Day — some in Congress may need a reminder of just who is underwriting this spending: the American taxpayer. I am deeply concerned over the swelling tax burden that will be imposed on all Texas families," she wrote. The crowd at the Austin tea party appeared to be decidedly anti-Democrat. Many of the speakers were Republicans and Libertarians. One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats. Rebecca Knowlton, 45, of Smithville, said she took the day off of home-schooling her three children and brought them to the rally to teach them about civic duty. Knowlton, a critic of the Social Security system and the United Nations, said she felt camaraderie at the demonstration. "The movement is growing stronger," she said. "You're not alone." So do you guys think when inflation hits and the economy gets much much worse, will they secede?

Will Texas Secede? Their Governor Said They Might.? Read This Article: Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!" An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt. Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package. Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that. "There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede. Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that. Perry is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican. His anti-Washington remarks have become more strident the past few weeks as that 2010 race gets going and since Perry rejected $550 million in federal economic stimulus money slated to help Texas' unemployment trust fund. Perry said the stimulus money would come with strings attached that would leave Texas paying the bill once the federal money ran out. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also Republicans, have been outspoken against the federal economic stimulus spending and were supportive of tea parties in their states. The protests were being held throughout the country on federal income tax deadline day to imitate the original Boston Tea Party of American revolutionary times. In an appearance at the Texas Capitol last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in pushing a resolution that supports states' rights protected in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He said the federal government has become oppressive in its size and interference with states. Since then, Perry has been featured on the online Drudge Report, and other conservative commentators and citizens have latched on to his words. After praising veterans in the cheering crowd Wednesday, he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you." Perry said he believes he could be at the center of a national movement that is coordinated and focused in its opposition to the actions of the federal government. "It's a very organic thing," he said. "It is a very powerful moment, I think, in American history." For her part, Hutchison issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill. "On April 15 — Tax Day — some in Congress may need a reminder of just who is underwriting this spending: the American taxpayer. I am deeply concerned over the swelling tax burden that will be imposed on all Texas families," she wrote. The crowd at the Austin tea party appeared to be decidedly anti-Democrat. Many of the speakers were Republicans and Libertarians. One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats. Rebecca Knowlton, 45, of Smithville, said she took the day off of home-schooling her three children and brought them to the rally to teach them about civic duty. Knowlton, a critic of the Social Security system and the United Nations, said she felt camaraderie at the demonstration. "The movement is growing stronger," she said. "You're not alone." So do you guys think when inflation hits and the economy gets much much worse, will they secede?

Why do so many Canadians think they are taxed more than Americans? I'm a Canadian living in the U.S. and don't believe this to be true when all things are considered. For example, when comparing the amount subtracted by the Canadian government for universal health care, you'd be shocked to hear about the deductions from my paycheque for my employee medical insurance, not to mention, every time I visit the doctor I have to pay a "co-pay" fee. Another example, property taxes in Vancouver for a $1 million dollar house are about $4,500; while in Houston,Texas property taxes on a $200K home are $7,500! Now that I live in the U.S. and have been researching for my move back, I quite honestly think we Canadians have had a misconception for years. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_brackets_and_tax_rates Thanks for the feedback everyone. I found the most interesting part of the Wikipedia links to be the taxes on wages... I thought I might move to a higher tax bracket when I return to Canada, but I'll only be taxed 1% more (assuming my salary remains the same). Income tax is especially similar contrary to popular belief. Good comment about taxes on gas, but despite that, the average U.S. price for gas is about $4.50 per gallon (places like California, Hawaii, and Alaska are really high with the southern U.S. being about $4) I don't know how much of that includes taxes, but1 US gallon = 3.78541178 liters so the difference isn't so high. For a fact, buying goods in Canada is more expensive because of our added GST; but one could argue health care in the U.S. offsets that if you happen to be lucky enough to have health insurance via your employer, not everything is covered, and the cost of the insurance is higher than OHIP. Yes, I suppose my point was that although Canadians are taxed quite a lot, income taxes are relatively the same, and the amounts taxed for u-health care is still less than what Americans pay willingly to their insurance companies and even with employer assistance with certain services being an additional charge. So basically I am taxed in certain areas now that I live in the U.S. and I spend more in the U.S. than I was taxed for the same services in Toronto. Caroline, insurance really depends on shopping around - I used to pay $2,400 per year, then I got fed up and shopped around, it reduced to $1,500. Income taxes in Canada max out at 29%, so if you have a high income (over $129K) then you are taxed at most 29%. In the U.S., over $164K is 33% and over $357K is 35%. I agree with chuckles saying that those with low incomes fair better in Canada; but I stop there because those with high incomes are also better off in Canada too, just looking at income tax. Those in the mid-range have their income taxed similarly, so then, the other factors come into play in order to determine which country is less expensive.

Who would vote for Mitt Romney on his record? I have one prescription that costs more than the insurance cost in Mass.

facts and myths? MYTH Undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes or contribute to the U.S. economy, and instead take advantage of social welfare programs. “Controlling illegal immigration is also an issue of fairness to American taxpayers. Is it fair if people are using public services like schools and roads, but are not paying taxes?” --Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, May 4, 2006 FACT The myth of “lazy” immigrants cheating U.S. taxpayers and living off welfare couldn’t be farther from the truth. According to a 2004 study by the Urban Policy Institute, virtually all undocumented men--96 percent--and 62 percent of undocumented women are in the workforce. According to a March report from the Pew Hispanic Center, of the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 7.2 million were employed in March 2005, making up approximately 4.9 percent of the labor force in the U.S. Overall, immigrants--both documented and undocumented--are a huge boon to the U.S. economy. And as for what’s “fair,” the U.S. government takes far more from undocumented immigrants than it ever gives back. In 2001, then-Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that in the state of Illinois alone, "[undocumented] workers pay $547 million in taxes yearly, compared to $238 million in services used"--a net “profit” for Illinois of $309 million. And according to a report in last year’s New York Times, each year, undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $7 billion more than they get from Social Security and $1.5 billion more than they get from Medicare. The Internal Revenue Service issues “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” (ITINs) to allow undocumented workers to pay income taxes. Since 1996, 9.2 million of these numbers have been handed out. According to the Los Angeles Times, last year, 1.2 million people paid taxes using ITINs.

Question about FAFSA & income? I filled out my FAFSA and entered my parent's adjusted gross income for 2008 and the income tax for 2008 when i got an error message stating that the 2008 income tax was too high as compared to the income tax from 2007 when taken in relation to the adjusted gross income. What does this mean? And compared to the income tax from 2007, 2008's income tax is only about $1000 more while my parent's gross income is about $3000 more. Can anyone explain to me why this is so? I correctly entered the numbers from the IRS 1040 form that FAFSA was asking for. My parent's AGI was about $65000 something and the Income tax for 2008 was $3000 something

Really need help with ECONOMICS! :(? 3. last year, David Nash, a computer programmer received two bonuses from IBM. He was surprised at the end of the year that his yearly salary was much less than he had expected it would be. Because of the bonuses, IBM had deducted more money from his checks to pay additional _____________ a. bonus taxes b. income taxes c. sales taxes d. excise taxes 4. The Phoenicians received silver in exchange for the products they bartered with Spain. Soon Phoenicia was very wealthy. When a nation receives goods from another country, the goods are: a. exported b. a windfall c. imported d. transported 5. Which of the following is NOT a consumer responsibility? a. report defective goods b. report wrongs c. maintain adequate credit d. Do Not Steal e. give correct information 6. The government lowered the income tax to stimulate the economy. This is an example of __________ a. monetary policy b. military policy c. corporate policy d. fiscal policy e. welfare policy 7. the graph comparing the income a consumer makes over a lifetime with the expenses over a lifetime is called the time – probability _____ 8. Which of the following are types of product trade-offs? a. energy consumption b. price c. required maintenance d. availability e. all of the above 9. Items which satisfy needs for peer group acceptance are called _______ needs products 10. What happens when a company is monopolized? a. that industry’s product prices are reduced b. free enterprise is destroyed c. business generally prospers d. all of these things happen 1. All of the following are examples of growing consumer awareness of responsibilities, EXCEPT _________ a. turning thermostats down to conserve energy b. recycling papers, cans, and glass c. decreasing gasoline consumption to reduce oil imports d. increase consumption of throw away bottles e. refusing to buy aerosol spray cans that contain fluorocarbons that damage ozone layer 2. Which of the following is a relatively scarce resource to the individual in question? a. sand to children at the beach b. timber to a lumberjack in organ c. water to a camper in death valley d. salt of homemaker shopping for the week’s groceries e. water to people fishing in atlantic ocean 3. If the money supply declines while the amount of goods remain stable, will each until of money be more or less valuable? a. less b. more 4. Division of Labor is important to the production process because __________ a. it determines human wants b. it reduces dependency on specialization c. it allows labor to be most productive d. it allows smaller nations to compete effectively with larger nations e. it allows workers to be unskilled 5. Economics refer to the process of making something as “production.” a. false b. true 6. Gasoline is an example of ________ a. basic raw material b. essential service c. major factor of production d. scarce goods e. all of the above 7. The identification of responsibilities and obligations of partners to one another and to the children is called ___________ commitment a. contract b. economic c. social d. moral e. legal 8. people consume particular goods or use particular services, because the goods or services have _________ a. capital b. abundance c. utility d. comparative advantage e. stated value 9. the use of goods and services to satisfy human wants and needs is known as ______ a. general welfare b. value c. rebate d. consumption e. standard of living 10. In a trading economy, the society soon has goods left over after it has paid all its expenses. This surplus is called “____________” a. sound economy b. oversupply of goods c. profit d. good management

Where can I find a list of U.S. tax rates for 2008 by state? I'll hopefully be moving to the west coast in the summer, and am very curious to compare the tax rates of the different states. What's the definitive authority on current tax rates? I'm curious about all the nuances, from income tax to food tax.

Why have churches sold out to the government? Obtaining Corporation Status (501c3) is Against God The word "church" is not meant to refer to any physical building, but refers to the worldwide body of believers in Christ. The word "church" (ecclesia in Greek - called out ones) does not refer to any organization, no matter it's name or legal status. Keep that in mind when reading this article. It is time for Christians to wake up and turn back to God. We need to turn to the Lord and repent of our sins that we have committed against Him. We need to ask for forgiveness of tolerating idolatry that removes His Sovereignty over His Church. To see that the Church is in grave danger we must have a clear understanding of what a corporation is. We also need to realize what the courts have ruled about corporations and that a corporation has no rights, only privileges, granted by the "estate." To become a corporation removes the authority of the Lord over a corporate church and puts it under the bondage of man's law. According to man, The State is Sovereign over its Corporations 1. "A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitation of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and ascertain if it has exceeded its powers" (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43) 2. "[A corporation is] an artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal entity.... The corporation is distinct from the individuals who comprise it (shareholders).... Such an entity subsists as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members." Black's Law Dictionary West Publishing Company, 1991; 6th Edition, page 340. 3. "A corporation derives its existence and all of its powers from the State and, therefore, has only such powers as the State has conferred upon it. Power is used here to mean the legal capacity to execute and fulfill the objects and purposes for which the corporation was created, and the source of this power is the charter and the statute under which the corporation was organized." Len Young Smith and G. Gale Roberson, Smith and Roberson's Business Law, West Publishing Company, 1966, page 796. A corporation derives its existence and all of its power from the State. The church on the other hand was created by and is the body of Christ. We belong to Him and we are subject to Him and His Laws. The source of any church's power is supposed to be the Holy Spirit; it's authority to function solely from God. 4. "Corporate existence is a privilege granted by the sovereign upon compliance with specified conditions" Len Young Smith and G. Gale Roberson, Smith and Roberson's Business Law, West Publishing Company, 1966, page 931. . 5. "Corporations are not citizens.... The term citizen... applies only to natural persons... not to artificial persons created by the legislature" Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 177; see also the Opinion of Field, J., in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall.36,99 The Word of God teaches us that Christians, His Holy Church, are citizens of the household of God (Eph.2:19). 6. Every corporation has obtained a charter from the State of Incorporation. This charter is simply permission to exist given to the corporation (by the State!) without which, its operations would be considered illegal. In addition to the charter are the articles of incorporation: "The objects or purposes for which a corporation is formed are expressly stated in its articles of incorporation, which delineate in general language the type of business activities in which the corporation proposes to engage" Smith and Roberson's Business Law, West Publishing Company, 1966, page 798. 7. "Instances of non-profit corporations are educational institutions, athletic clubs, library clubs, fraternities, sororities, hospitals, and organizations which have exclusively a charitable purpose" Smith and Roberson's Business Law, West Publishing Company, 1966, page 789. (Note: The purpose of the church is not "charity," nor is it's purpose exclusively charitable. Charity should be a function of every church, but is certainly not it's purpose. Offering worship to God, evangelism to the lost, and the fellowship and equipping of the saints are among church's exclusive purposes. (gm) The Lord is Sovereign over His Churches : Jesus is the Head of the Church, not man Paul compares the special relationship of Christ and His church to the God giving relationship of man and wife. What can be closer or more special then this? Would you bring another person into your marriage to control it with worldly principles? I hope the answer is no. Then why would you bring in a "fictitious entity" no less created by the state and man i.e.: corporation, to run and regulate something that belongs to the Lord? The relationship with Jesus and His Church belongs to Him alone. He is the Head of the Church and as such He governs it with His Laws, Principles and Directions. After all He is our King and is Sovereign over His Church. To become a corporation in effect divorces the church from Christ. We also commit idolatry by putting something before Him. Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Christ is the Saviour of the body (the church); not the state. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. The church is subject to Christ not the state. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Christ has purchased the church with His own blood. The State can give nothing for the church and should give nothing to the church. 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. The church should be holy and without blemish, to mingle the church with the state/worldly system is to bring spot and wrinkle to the church because of what the state/world does and says, homosexuality, abortion, adultery and many other things are acceptable, they pass laws making them that way. This goes against God; should the church be partakers of that? 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: The Lord nourishes and cherishes the church. Throughout history the state has tried to destroy the church. It still does through legislation trying to control all aspects of the free and corporate church. 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. The church is a living organism with a living head and body. Therefore the church is not a religious organization. It is possible to be a religious or charitable organization without being a church. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. The church is to be joined unto Christ. In Matthew Jesus used the word cleave. I do not see that the church is to be joined to Christ and the state. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. He speaks of the relationship that the church is supposed to have with Christ. One that is supposed to be holy and true. One, that's with each other without interference, blessed. Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church Christ is to be all things to the church. He is in Charge and Head of the church not the state. The state is under His feet, it is the footstool of the Lord why put it ahead of Him? 23 Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. KJV There are more Scriptures that would support that Jesus is the sole authority over the church. Most of us Christians know this and believe this. I challenge my brothers and sisters to find them. Study them, to see if the Truth is being brought forth. Jesus Christ Should Be The Head Of The Church - Why Then Incorporate? Many people for some reason think that a church has to. This is far from the truth on a few different levels. Here in the United States of America a church does not have to incorporate at all to be recognized as a local body of believers. (Not sure why they would want recognition from the state anyway.) I know some of you are thinking "Well, Romans 13 says..." Most of us have been taught that whatever the government says, goes. Wrong! If the government passes a law that interferes or contradicts one of Gods law we are not bound to follow it. There are examples of this in the Bible ; we have all heard the story of Daniel and the lions' den. To think Christians are bound by the laws of men, when it comes to the work of the Kingdom, is just stupid. If this were the case the church in Russia, China, Middle East and other places - if they listened to Romans 13 the way it is applied now - would never have seen growth. How about the brothers/sisters that smuggled Bibles into the old Soviet Block, China, Cuba and others? Whose law did they break? Man's. The local government's. They may be held accountable for their actions by men, they might even lose their lives. Guess what? God will reward them for their actions. They were doing the work of the Kingdom. I know most of us have heard that Federal law supercedes state law. State law supercedes county, city and town law, and so on and so forth. Guess what? The law of God supercedes all of man's law when it goes against His own (Acts 4:18-19). The point is even if there was a law requiring churches to incorporate we would not be bound to do so. In doing so we would be removing the Lordship of Jesus and giving it to the state. Thank God we have not reached this point yet in this country but don't be fooled, its coming. Why then do churches incorporate? 1. They think they have to. 2. They feel it gives them some benefit. 3. They think it gives them prestige. 4. Asset protection. 5. Think it's the only way gifts are tax deductible. 6. Think its okay with God. 7. They have always done it that way. The list could go on, I'm sure we could all find some earthly reasons why we think incorporating would be a good idea. We Still Think It's The Law - Show me Otherwise If you still think it's the law and that would make any difference to you in your relationship with the Lord, I will show you differently: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (U.S. Constitution, First Amendment). According to the Internal Revenue Code, "a church, its integrated auxiliaries, and conventions and associations of the church are excluded from taxation." United States Code, Title 26, 508(c)(1)(A). Section 508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of Section 501(c)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions. Churches are automatically exempt from Federal income tax, and contributions to churches are deductible by donors under section 170. Elsewhere, the IRS states: "Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, such an organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption (Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization, IRS Publication 557). Just what "advantage" is there for a church in obtaining 501(c)(3) recognition and thereby exchanging its sovereignty for a subordinate status in relation to the federal government? Most people would answer that such grants the church exemption from taxation. However, we have already seen that the federal government has never been able to tax the Church of Christ; the Church is not exempt from taxation, it is immune. The "advantage" is something else entirely: "By establishing its exemption, potential contributors are assured by the [Internal Revenue] Service that contributions will be deductible" Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization, IRS Publication 557. The tragic irony of all this is that, according to the Internal Revenue Code, financial donations to an unregistered, unincorporated church are automatically tax-deductible (26 USC 170-B). The government has no constitutional authority over the Church. It is not allowed to violate the First Amendment protection that the constitution provides. In fact the government may not infringe on any of our constitutional rights at all. They have found a way around this of course. To hold out an unbiblical advantage hoping an ignorant clergy person will take the bait and bring the church into voluntary compliance by forming a 501( C )(3) corporation, thus placing the church under the authority of the state. Once the church has been transformed into a corporation it then becomes subject to control by federal and state governments. In truth an incorporated church is no longer a church!! but merely a non-profit organization. Once a church incorporates the new non-profit organization is subject to total control by the government. You will be controlled on who you hire, what you can and cannot preach. You cannot conflict with public policy nor assault the hearer's sense of mental well being, self-esteem, sexual orientation etc. You can be sued. The IRS prohibits such organizations from "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (26 USC 501-C-3). This prohibition extends, not only to the endorsement of a political candidate, but also any other attempts to "influence legislation," including taking a public stand against such government-protected abominations, such as abortion or homosexuality. Now, the church is discovering that favors from Washington, DC have strings attached. In this case, the string is a rope that is being used to throttle her once-powerful voice, to squeeze out her very life and, eventually, to hang her by the neck until dead! History Of Our New Nation: One of the reason people came to the new land was to get away from the entanglements of the old world. Quite a few of the reasons dealt with the issue of church and state. People where fleeing a repressive regime where there was a state-sponsored church or the church was running the governments. It was bad enough that people picked up and left. Now we seem to be returning to what our forefathers left on our own free will. We are taking a license to preach from the state, being told what we can and can't say. One of the things that inspired Patrick Henry's speech "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" was, he saw a man being beaten for preaching the gospel without a license. If we forget history we are doomed to repeat it. We as Christians need to wake up and take a stand. One thing that sticks in my mind is when I got married : "By the power vested in me by God and the State of California I now...." What Do I Do Now? (This section will not be favored by corporate Pastor/Ministers.) 1. You became incorporated, become unincorporated. 2. Talk to your Pastor/Minister about this important issue. 3. Rescind your membership in an incorporated church. 4. Don't incorporate. 5. Don't support incorporated churches. 6. Find an unincorporated church. 7. Start an unincorporated church. 8. Study Your Bible Daily. 9. Pray for the Body of Christ. 10. Witness and lead people to a personal relationship with Jesus. I know finding an unincorporated church will be a real chore, as there are not many out there. There is also a real need to hear and study the word. If you must go to an incorporated church I suggest not becoming a member. I know this is not the norm but we have to remember who the head of the church is, and especially, that we are not join to ourselves to a harlot. Churches which have (knowingly or not) substituted the authority of Christ with sinful man's demonically-influenced word system fit this description. This issue has weighed on my spirit for a long time. I'm guilty of idolatry for finding things to put before Him in the writing of this paper. I was led to write this and now it's almost done. I only pray that God will get the glory, eyes and hearts will be opened and His Will be done. I realize this paper will not make me many friends. I know this, but that was not the point. I pray people will take the time to search out what The Word has to say on this issue. I'm certain many people will come to the same conclusion and we can restore the Lordship of Jesus Christ to his rightful place over HIS church. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. KJV A Servant of the King, Yashua Ha Mashiach, Jesus, the Messiah What Now? For more information on this topic go to http://www.theantichurch.org/501c3churchinfo.htm All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. No warranty of accuracy is intended or implied, but merely reflects the best of my current non-professional research into these matters, to date. Nothing here should be interpreted or taken as legal advice, as I am not an attorney, and Guy Malone - who has posted it, but not written it - assumes no responsibility for any actions resulting from believing or acting upon this material; everything presented should be thoroughly researched against the Holy Bible, U.S. and State laws for your area, and with God and your conscience before taking any action from reading this material

Please Read - - This is a very important topic !!!!!!!!? I live in nice suburban area in Ohio, and the Cleveland City Schools are pathetic!! I studied education and think it is very unfair that students who reside in low income districts are held to the same standards (proficiency testing) as students who attend very wealthy, comfortable, safe and well equipped schools. These students have new computers, new textbooks, state of the art science labs and gorgeous gymnasiums etc. Do you think it is right to compare students who attend a school with rats, leaky roofs, outdated books, poor heating and have old or no computers to students who attend schools that are so very advanced. Do you think that all of the taxpayer money should go into one pot and be divide up equally to each school district. As the children should not be held accountable for school's that are in such poor condition. I understand that we are in a higher tax bracket and have paid in more money. However, we are all a part of this country and I for one would like to see all children treated equal and given the same opportunities!!

Will Texas Secede? Their Governor Said They Might.? Read This Article: Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!" An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt. Perry repeated his running theme that Texas' economy is in relatively good shape compared with other states and with the "federal budget mess." Many in the crowd held signs deriding President Barack Obama and the $786 billion federal economic stimulus package. Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that. "There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede. Texas did secede in 1861, but the North's victory in the Civil War put an end to that. Perry is running for re-election against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a fellow Republican. His anti-Washington remarks have become more strident the past few weeks as that 2010 race gets going and since Perry rejected $550 million in federal economic stimulus money slated to help Texas' unemployment trust fund. Perry said the stimulus money would come with strings attached that would leave Texas paying the bill once the federal money ran out. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also Republicans, have been outspoken against the federal economic stimulus spending and were supportive of tea parties in their states. The protests were being held throughout the country on federal income tax deadline day to imitate the original Boston Tea Party of American revolutionary times. In an appearance at the Texas Capitol last week, Perry joined state lawmakers in pushing a resolution that supports states' rights protected in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He said the federal government has become oppressive in its size and interference with states. Since then, Perry has been featured on the online Drudge Report, and other conservative commentators and citizens have latched on to his words. After praising veterans in the cheering crowd Wednesday, he said: "I'm just not real sure you're a bunch of right-wing extremists. But if you are, we're with you." Perry said he believes he could be at the center of a national movement that is coordinated and focused in its opposition to the actions of the federal government. "It's a very organic thing," he said. "It is a very powerful moment, I think, in American history." For her part, Hutchison issued a newspaper opinion piece Wednesday criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for spending on the stimulus bill and the $1 trillion appropriations bill. "On April 15 — Tax Day — some in Congress may need a reminder of just who is underwriting this spending: the American taxpayer. I am deeply concerned over the swelling tax burden that will be imposed on all Texas families," she wrote. The crowd at the Austin tea party appeared to be decidedly anti-Democrat. Many of the speakers were Republicans and Libertarians. One placard said, "Stop Obama's Socialism." Another read, "Some Pirates Are in America," and it showed photographs of Obama, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wearing pirate hats. Rebecca Knowlton, 45, of Smithville, said she took the day off of home-schooling her three children and brought them to the rally to teach them about civic duty. Knowlton, a critic of the Social Security system and the United Nations, said she felt camaraderie at the demonstration. "The movement is growing stronger," she said. "You're not alone." So do you guys think when inflation hits and the economy gets much much worse, will they secede?

What do you think of Irish tax on income compared to that of France? French middle class are running away from their country because they think that earning little bit more in France means working more for the state. What do you think?

Why do so many conservatives live in a faith based reality instead of a fact based reality? It's all pretty straightforward to me. If you want to know what the scientific consensus is on man made global warming, you get a list of all the well established SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS (not pundit websites) engaged in climatic, geologic, and meteorologic research. You then go to their official website to see where they stand. The vast majority support man made global warming. If you want to know whether Keynesian or Supply Side Economics is better you get historical economic data in the form of real GDP, inflation adjusted median incomes, poverty rates, tax revenue, etc, and compare the percent growth over keynesian and supply side periods of time. I did. Keynesians do better. If you want to know whether Chavez truly was elected or not, you get yourself a list of international observers who were there (the European Union, the Carter Center, and the Organization of Latin American states) and PRIVATE FOREIGN polling companies and see what they found. Chavez was indeed elected, international observers certified the election, and even PRIVATE FOREIGN polling companies found that most Venenzuelans planned on voting for Chavez (about 60% against 40%). You don't go, well I don't like Chavez so I don't believe he was elected and screw the facts!

Why do Blue States have higher unemployment than Red States? I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and then compared their information against a map of the 2008 Presidential Election results I found at Wikipedia. Here is what I found: 8 of the Top 10 US States for Unemployment are Blue States If you count DC (not actually a state), then 9 of the Top 10 are Blue States. 42% of Blue States are below the national average for unemployment 63% of Red States are below the national average for unemployment Why is this? Somebody told me that income level has an effect... which I'm not sure is relevant as you either have a job or not, but I compared two states (Alabama (Red) and Rhode Island (Blue)) just to see the differences. Here is what I found: 2007 Median Household Income (I couldn't find 2008 numbers): Alabama: $49901 Rhode Island: $54735 (A 9.6% lead for Rhode Island) Cost of Living Difference: 35.06% This makes Alabamas $49901 equal to $67398 in Rhode Island. A 23% lead for Alabama. Alabama has a 2.5% lower unemployment rate meaning you have a better chance of having a job to earn that money. Those numbers don't consider taxes. Alabama has 2-5% income tax Rhode Island has a 3.75-9.9% income tax. Meaning you keep more of those dollars in Alabama that are already worth more than in Rhode Island. That doesn't count a hose of other taxes like gas tax (20.9 cents per gallon in Alabama vs. 31 cents per gallon in Rhode Island) The clear winner in this first examination is Alabama. I would also like to know what those Blue Politicians are doing with all those tax dollars. Higher Taxes + Higher Incomes = More Tax Revenue. So why is their crime and unemployment still so high? ?: No you did not touch a nerve. What you did do was find some interesting information about my randomly selected states. Thanks! John Q: Higher populations means nothing. Standard of living? Do you have proof? Bash: Actually I did provide a source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics the 2008 Presidential election. Thanks for playing. Yes, SC is in the Top 10 worst states for unemployment (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics). One of two red states to make that list. Again thanks for playing. t79a: I selected two states at random. I'm sure similar we could compare California and any red state. The blue states traditionally always have higher populations. So unemployment numbers should by your logic be worse in the Red States. luap: your logic is faulty. Higher populations is not relevant. Unemployment rates are based on a percentage of total population. Therefore a state with a lower population should be more vulnerable to higher unemployment numbers. Mark T: Like Obama you said a lot but never answered the question. You talked about overall revenues, but revenue is useless. What matters is how far that revenue goes. For example if a steak is $1 in Alabama, and $5 in California, who is better off .. the guy making a $1 an hour in Alabama or the guy making $3 in California? Tax revenue is also not relevant. The lower cost of living means that the value of the lower incomes in most red states casues their actual value to be higher than in blue states. Add to that the fact that most blue states have higher taxes and you have a real problem. Next you have lower unemployment in red states that means you have a better chance of actually having a job at all. You want to say that red and blue have no meaning, but due to the consistant nature of the data, I have to say I disagree. Hmmm... don't you think that the political preferences in those areas dictates who the political leadership is and therefore dictates policy?

Aj lets go why do u hate texas? just research texas and compare to other states same with texas citys. and one idot said houston has become a slim and crap. well that aint true its one of the best citys there are. it sure is better then califrornias citys. and new york city and dallas and phoenix. READ TEXAS OFF WIKIPEDIA AND HOUSTON AND EVERY OTHER CITYS> BEST STATES IN THIS ORDER TEXAS,FLORIDA, ILLINOIS, MARYLAND, CALIFORNIA Aj lets go why do u hate texas? let me tell texas is one of the best states there is. A great economy great citys. we have everything in texas plus more great history everything. research texas and it off wikipedia read it and houston and all the texas citys. know our great citys and wonderful people just rock. okay cali and new york suck. new york better then cali though most of its 19 million population lives around in then newy york city metro area of 18 million people/ know to diss califronia and why i think it stinks alex gMember since: June 29, 2007 Total points: 109 (Level 1) Points earned this week: --% Best answer alex g S in california one of the worst freaking *** places ever well compared to the ******* freacking *** rocking universe. or the united states i rank cali as 5th best state. after like maryland. In this order TEXAS< FLORIDA< ILLINOIS< GEORGIA, MARYLAND. CALIFORNIA for most people its is nice weather this be true. and a nice place but **** west coast. last thing till japan. most people havent been to cali and some people for some reason say they would want to live there . which i find odd. know i see great weather and u can see snow in one day then desert that is tight,. but then the freacking economy okay. and the people then the freacking natural distaters. wildfires, outrageous home prices. crappy goverment i think. to many liberals 4 of the most polluted citys in america. know earthquakes and like every thing. okay then the in los angelas. the huge ghetto shitty almost everywere. there many few beautiful places. exspensive homes i mean to get something desent it like a million. and because it has been established as high prices plus like celberities. then LOS ANGELAS smog, partical pollution, the worst. worst traffic, a huge illegal population After decades of mass immigration, California is no longer able to absorb a constant flow of immigrants and still maintain a decent quality of life for its residents. Currently, one in ten Americans is foreign-born, with about a third of the foreign-born population arriving in the past 10 years. Since California receives about 25 percent of the nation’s flood of immigration, our state’s numbers look a little different, with an astounding one in four Californians being foreign-born. In addition, nearly all of our state’s growth is now due to immigration and higher-than-average fertility rates among new immigrants. If current legal and illegal immigration trends continue, an estimated 60 million people will call California home by 2050. There are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in our country. All of the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States legally, having entered on temporary visas. California is home to at least 3.2 million of those illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who take low-paying jobs don't pay enough in income taxes, if they pay at all, to reimburse taxpayers the $5,000/per student annual cost of educating their children. Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California $10.5 billion a year for education, health care, and incarceration. Illegal aliens constitute 15 percent of our state’s school population. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals were forced to close from the financial burden of providing free health care for uninsured illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who enroll in the University of California system are charged in-state tuition. Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of persons unlawfully crossing U.S. borders to work and to receive public assistance, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Such entry is a misdemeanor, and if repeated becomes punishable as a felony. Illegal aliens from Central America have been allowed to remain in the United States so long that their homelands have grown dependent on the billions of dollars a year they send home in remittances. 300,000 people who have been ordered deported are still in the country because their deportation orders were not enforced. Census Bureau estimates say 115,000 people from terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern nations live in the United States illegally. Some illegal aliens from terrorist nations pay as much as $50,000 each to be smuggled into our country. Approximately one-third of all foreign-born U.S. residents are illegal aliens. Over half of all Mexicans living in the United States are here illegally. In the last decade, 80 to 85 percent of the flow of Mexican immigrants has been illegal. A strategy of attrition through enforcement could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics. IT says if u read most of californias population increase is do to illegals. who suck the **** of of tax payers and watever. for the poor californians makeing it so exspensive./ so better to live there poor. know so many people moving from exspensive citys of cali florida and texas for cheaper and more resonable life style. know okay los angelas hey i think of tight graffiti from awr, msk, nasa crew, tko, know i am know toy and dont care for west coast nut awr, and msk , took **** to the exstreme. okay. and i think of tight rappers such as dr dre. snoop dogg, tupac and nwa. know east coast rap better orgial and there first. SO STUPID PEOPLE ONLY SOME< Lots of gay liberals and high crime, in some areas. run down areas. high prices and shitty traffic i think of one of the shitty citys with some exseptions. in a nice state but know shitty and over run with illegals problems legal stuff. high pollution and crime. and just to many damn liberals and crappy health care, and crappy school systems ONE GOOD THING OF LOS ANGELAS GREAT SHOPPING FOR GIRLS AND HUGE MALLS. AND FOR MY STUFF AS A GUY. AND WELL THE CLIMATE. AND THE NIGHTLIFE. OTHER THEN THAT AN OKAY PLACE TO VIST JUST FOR A COUPLE DAYS. BUT EVERY CITY HAS MALL AND NIGHTLIFE LA HAS SOME OF THE BEST THOUGH ONLY GOOD THING

HELP WITH ECONOMICS!!!!!!!!!? 3. last year, David Nash, a computer programmer received two bonuses from IBM. He was surprised at the end of the year that his yearly salary was much less than he had expected it would be. Because of the bonuses, IBM had deducted more money from his checks to pay additional _____________ a. bonus taxes b. income taxes c. sales taxes d. excise taxes 4. The Phoenicians received silver in exchange for the products they bartered with Spain. Soon Phoenicia was very wealthy. When a nation receives goods from another country, the goods are: a. exported b. a windfall c. imported d. transported 5. Which of the following is NOT a consumer responsibility? a. report defective goods b. report wrongs c. maintain adequate credit d. Do Not Steal e. give correct information 6. The government lowered the income tax to stimulate the economy. This is an example of __________ a. monetary policy b. military policy c. corporate policy d. fiscal policy e. welfare policy 7. the graph comparing the income a consumer makes over a lifetime with the expenses over a lifetime is called the time – probability _____ 8. Which of the following are types of product trade-offs? a. energy consumption b. price c. required maintenance d. availability e. all of the above 9. Items which satisfy needs for peer group acceptance are called _______ needs products 10. What happens when a company is monopolized? a. that industry’s product prices are reduced b. free enterprise is destroyed c. business generally prospers d. all of these things happen 1. All of the following are examples of growing consumer awareness of responsibilities, EXCEPT _________ a. turning thermostats down to conserve energy b. recycling papers, cans, and glass c. decreasing gasoline consumption to reduce oil imports d. increase consumption of throw away bottles e. refusing to buy aerosol spray cans that contain fluorocarbons that damage ozone layer 2. Which of the following is a relatively scarce resource to the individual in question? a. sand to children at the beach b. timber to a lumberjack in organ c. water to a camper in death valley d. salt of homemaker shopping for the week’s groceries e. water to people fishing in atlantic ocean 3. If the money supply declines while the amount of goods remain stable, will each until of money be more or less valuable? a. less b. more 4. Division of Labor is important to the production process because __________ a. it determines human wants b. it reduces dependency on specialization c. it allows labor to be most productive d. it allows smaller nations to compete effectively with larger nations e. it allows workers to be unskilled 5. Economics refer to the process of making something as “production.” a. false b. true 6. Gasoline is an example of ________ a. basic raw material b. essential service c. major factor of production d. scarce goods e. all of the above 7. The identification of responsibilities and obligations of partners to one another and to the children is called ___________ commitment a. contract b. economic c. social d. moral e. legal 8. people consume particular goods or use particular services, because the goods or services have _________ a. capital b. abundance c. utility d. comparative advantage e. stated value 9. the use of goods and services to satisfy human wants and needs is known as ______ a. general welfare b. value c. rebate d. consumption e. standard of living 10. In a trading economy, the society soon has goods left over after it has paid all its expenses. This surplus is called “____________” a. sound economy b. oversupply of goods c. profit d. good management

Why is it that on average Red States receive more government handout and contribute less to Federal income tha? On average Red States receives more government funding and contribute less income to federal government, compared to Blue States which receives less and contribute more income to Federal Government (Texas is the notable exception): http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars

CA part-time resident income calculation? I moved out of California (to WA) for a job in '07. How do I calculate my income earned in CA for my state tax return? Is it a simple pro-rating of my total income compared to how long I lived in CA? Or do I need to figure it paycheck by paycheck?

Who Sopposed to pay Taxes the poor? First of all, who is supposed to pay ? The poor ? With what ? Next, the rich DO gain something from maintaining a civil society, with services and justice for all; Not having the poor, who always *greatly outnumber* the rich, string up the rich from light poles, or having the rich being guillotined. Ask anyone from The French Revolution how their distribution of wealth worked out for them... "Today, ther 10% of the richest people in America pay 75% of the taxes. Half of Americans pay, all together, about 5% of the taxes. How much more do you want the "rich" to pay?" They clearly missed the part where it turns out that the rich also have that same proportion of wealth. See: "If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%) "If the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).[11]" However, MonaLisa's claim misses the fact that income taxes are NOT the totality of the tax burden that tax payers face. There are withholding taxes, so that: "Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is a regressive tax on income with no standard What do you think?

Apparently, immigrants given legal status pay more taxes than other Americans...? What do you think about that? Immigrants who become U.S. citizens typically pay more in taxes than do native-born Americans. Drawing upon data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey, the CRS recently found that families with an adult, foreign-born, naturalized citizen actually have higher adjusted gross incomes-averaging $40,502-than families with U.S.-born citizens only ($35,249). The immigrants' taxable income average $32,585, compared with $27,076 for families with all native-born members. The federal taxes paid by families with naturalized citizen average $6,580 per year, compared with $5,070 for U.S. born-only families. By conservative estimates, in 1997 immigrant households paid an estimated $133 billion in direct taxes to federal, state, and local governments. I asked only because of the fuss about proposed "amnesty". We only have a limited number of options. Shipping everyone home would cost money. Letting them pay taxes would be good for everybody. I think this is the first time I have agreed with the President! Tarotpete, you can verify the numbers yourself... Joseph...not at all! Just a little info to hopefully enlighten Americans who think immigrants come here to "sponge". There is no free lunch in the US! So almost all the illegals here just want to make a go of it. Since we don't seem able to control the border, I say make it easier for them to pay taxes! It makes me a little mad (I worked really hard to get my legal status here), but since the system is obviously broke, I'm for whatever plan brings us the most money!

MA State Tax For Non Residents? I am resident of TX and where we dont have State Tax. But I am in consulting and have source of income from MA. I travel from TX to MA every week for work. Now my employer has with held the MA State Tax in my pay check. Should I pay MA Tax? 1. If I have to pay MA Tax, how much? Will it be less or more compared to being resident of MA? 2. I need to evaluate this information for sake of relocation? My company pays for expenses in travel so It really dont matter if I have to travel.

Can someone compare the three UK parties to US parties? What are their stances on: separation of church and state gay marriage abortion free market tax - low, middle, high income Can you say who supports stronger market regulation? Thanks in advance.

Blue states VS red states Bureau of Labor Statistics, why red is better? Bears and partisans are exuberant about the August employment report, which recorded a loss of 4,000 jobs in a labor market that employs 138 million. Employment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was “essentially unchanged,” with losses concentrated in the manufacturing (-46,000) and government (-28,000) sectors. This was no surprise: Manufacturing has contracted in August in eight of the last ten years, dating back to the Clinton era. Employment is a broad economic indicator, and last Friday’s less-than-stellar report deserves attention. But another monthly BLS report on regional and state employment offers a view of the jobs market through an alternative lens. In particular, this report allows one to compare employment growth between the so-called Blue and Red states. Political pundits identify 18 bona-fide Blue states, which backed Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and 29 clear-cut Red states, which supported Republican President George W. Bush both times out. Blue states are said to be “liberal,” and Red states “conservative.” But there might be another reason to term certain states “blue”: weak employment growth in a period of expansion. Total Blue-state employment growth has been only 3.3 percent during the current expansion, which began in November 2001, compared with the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, total Red-state employment growth has been 7.5 percent, more than double that of the Blue states. In baseball terms, one might say the Blue team is hitting only 5-for-13 for a mere .277 average, while the Red team is slugging 18-for-29 for a league-leading .621. Here’s a closer look at the stats: Job growth has trailed the U.S. average in 13 Blue states. California, the largest Blue-state labor market, fell behind by the narrow margin of less than a half-percent, while growth has been slower in Rhode Island (5%), Minnesota (4.1%), Wisconsin (3.1%), New York (2.8%), New Jersey (2.7%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Vermont (2.3%), Maine (2.1%), Connecticut (1.5%), Illinois (1.1%), Massachusetts (-0.2%), and Michigan (-5%). The job losses in Michigan and Massachusetts have been the most severe, falling below 2001 levels. Regionally speaking, this blue-streak continues. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, all predominantly Blue, have trailed the U.S. jobs-growth average. The only Blue region to beat the average has been the West, fueled by above-average jobs gains in Hawaii (15.2%), Washington (9.5%), and Oregon (9%). Two other Blue states — Delaware (5.8%) and Maryland (6.1%) — also have bested the U.S. average. Now for the Red team: Of 29 certified Red states, a full 18 have topped the U.S. jobs-growth rate. And here an interesting trend appears: Red states with no income taxes — Nevada (25.7%), Wyoming (15.2%), Florida (13.9%), Alaska (10.2%), Texas (9.1%), South Dakota (8.3%), and Tennessee (5.5%) — have all witnessed above-average job growth. Not surprisingly, three of four Red regions have led the U.S. in job growth: Red states in the West have expanded 15.9 percent followed by the Plains (7.7%) and the Southeast (7.5%). The only Red region to trail the U.S. jobs-growth average has been the Midwest (1%). This trend is not new. It has merely been overlooked by the mainstream media. Labor is colorblind in the political context of Red and Blue states. And as long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

Why on average Red States receive more government handout & contribute less to Federal income than Blue States? On average Red States receives more government funding and contribute less income to federal government, compared to Blue States which receives less and contribute more income to Federal Government (Texas is the notable exception): http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars

moving to portland possibly. tell me everything you can and also how it compares to seattle.? Tell me about portland, the websites only say the good stuff I need other info from people who have moved there.? I might move from the ft lauderdale, fl area where I have lived my whole life, to the portland area. If I move I will be going with my truck driver dad, waitress mom, high school aged sister, and my older sister. Also, I will have just graduated from college with a degree in journalism. Does the state income tax really hurt a person that much in oregon? (Both florida and washington dont have state income tax) Is the weather less or more gray/damp than seattle? How is the crime rate (in comparison to a place like south fl which is pretty high)? What about jobs? What kind? I know there are more in seattle, but are there a sufficient amount in portland anyways? Is Buying a house is expensive, what about apartments? I dont care about living downtown, are the suburbs/commute okay? what is it like compared to seattle? Ive heard there are a lot of hippies, less jobs..

Questioning my 2007 tax return numbers? Can someone please explain to me why my return for 2007 is so low compared to my 2006 return? I'm so confused... 2006 W-2 statement [filed jointly since I got married, but while I was working at this job I was listed as single, no dependents]: 1 (Wages, tips, other comp) = 5012.86 2 (Federal income tax withheld) = 403.11 17 (State income tax for OH) = 48.68 2007 W-2 Statement [married, no kids]: 1 (Wages, tips, other comp) = 4895.24 2 (Federal income tax withheld) = 55.05 14 (Other) = 29.37 SDI 17 (State income tax for CA) = 25.03 Also, my husband and I are about to get divorced. We haven't filed any paperwork yet, should we file separately or together? Also, what does the Box 14 (Other) = 29.37 SDI mean? State disability insurance?! I'm not disabled though! .... wtf...

Why does Warren Buffett think his income taxes are too low? Aren't the rich suffering from disproportionate taxation? "The taxation system has tilted toward the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years," Buffett, the nation's third richest man, told Brokaw. Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%. "There wasn't anybody in the office, from the receptionists on, that paid as low a tax rate," Buffett stated, noting that "I have no tax planning, I don't have an accountant, I don't have tax shelters." http://rawstory.com/news/2007/NBC_Warren_Buffett_wants_more_taxes_1030.html

Is the cost of living high in Arizona? How much does it cost to register a car in Arizona? How does the income tax rate in Arizona compare to other states? Is homeowners insurance very expensive in Arizona?

Moving to portland, tell me if/why its better than moving to seattle? Tell me about portland, the websites only say the good stuff I need other info from people who have moved there.? I might move from the ft lauderdale, fl area where I have lived my whole life, to the portland area. If I move I will be going with my truck driver dad, waitress mom, high school aged sister, and my older sister. Also, I will have just graduated from college with a degree in journalism. Does the state income tax really hurt a person that much in oregon? (Both florida and washington dont have state income tax) Is the weather less or more gray/damp than seattle? How is the crime rate (in comparison to a place like south fl which is pretty high)? What about jobs? What kind? I know there are more in seattle, but are there a sufficient amount in portland anyways? Is Buying a house is expensive, what about apartments? I dont care about living downtown, are the suburbs/commute okay? what is it like compared to seattle? Ive heard there are a lot of hippies, less jobs..

Can you check my compare and contrast essay please? Business owners and employees make up most of the people we see around us. Both spend money and pay the required taxes to the government and they are key elements to our economy. There is a point in ones life where they are faced with a choice of whether to work a job, or have the others work the job for you. Perhaps most people do choose to become an employee for their lives. It is the most secure way to provide an income isn’t it? Some may believe the answer to the question is yes. Were we really born to live for unyielding security? The risks involved in being a business owner are not too different from being an employee. The United States government gives income tax benefits to the owners of businesses. They do this because businesses are a very important factor in our economy. Businesses are what create jobs to provide many people with a source of income therefore fueling our economy. Small businesses alone make up 50 percent of the private sector workforce in the United States. This, in turn, is what our government depends on for the collection of taxes. Employees receive benefits from the government too. The government provides economic security to individuals also known as Social Security. As one works a job, social security is then collected from their paycheck to be given back starting at the age of 62. The government does offer the option of waiting more years before collecting so one could receive more money. Some may ignore this benefit because of recent problems with this government program, but employees will still get some money. Business owners are able to expand their businesses, therefore increase profits. If a business owner decides to do so, they can design a plan. Owners do not have a set salary or hourly wage like employees do. The business as a whole has its income measured accurately, and then the employees and taxes are paid. The owner keeps left over profits for his/herself. This can generate much more of an income because it was in their control. Owners do not have to ask a boss for a raise, they simply ask themselves, how can I be more profitable? On the other hand, employees do not have much of a choice as to how much they make. Some rarely argue with an employer when an offer is made. The employee has the choice to search more jobs or take what is available to them. They are paid what the employer believes is just enough for them to stay, and just enough so they don’t quit. Employers are the ones in control at the workplace. They can terminate an employee from the business at any time. Even if one has been working for a business for many years, one can still lose his/her job. It is beneficial for employers to do this because other prospective employees for the same job may want lower pay. This in turn puts more profit in the owner’s pocket. Though employers can do this at any time, employees are given the right to withdraw from a job at any time and may also sue for unlawful practices in the workplace. Both businesses and employees are very important to our economy. Without employees, a business would not be able to function to its best and most profitable abilities. Without businesses, people would be limited to jobs and therefore would decrease the United States’ economic status. Risk and security are the two main factors of why some may decide to work as employees. But, the desire for security in some people’s lives tends to blind them from the many opportunities that pass before their eyes. “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”

Maryland citizens...? do you get charged a state income tax AND a local income tax? and what is the percentage of each if you make 40K. how does that compare to dc and virginia?

taxes in singapore? Are the individual income taxes in Singapore really high as compared to United States and Canada? Or are they relatively low?

American Corporations pay the HIGHEST TAXES in the world...liberals, how is that "Corporate Welfare"? http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/us_companies_pay_the_highest_t.html It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes. The 41.6% maximum rate is scheduled to rise to 46.2% in 2010 when President Obama's promised tax increases are implemented. Compare that to socialist France where companies pay only 34.4% in taxes, to China where the rate is 25%, or Russia which levies a mere 24%. Corporations in Ireland, Europe's fastest growing economy for the last 18 years, pay just 12.5% in taxes.

Why do Blue states have poorer economy? Blue-State Employment Blues As long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way. By Greg Kaza Bears and partisans are exuberant about the August employment report, which recorded a loss of 4,000 jobs in a labor market that employs 138 million. Employment, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was “essentially unchanged,” with losses concentrated in the manufacturing (-46,000) and government (-28,000) sectors. This was no surprise: Manufacturing has contracted in August in eight of the last ten years, dating back to the Clinton era. Employment is a broad economic indicator, and last Friday’s less-than-stellar report deserves attention. But another monthly BLS report on regional and state employment offers a view of the jobs market through an alternative lens. In particular, this report allows one to compare employment growth between the so-called Blue and Red states. Political pundits identify 18 bona-fide Blue states, which backed Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and 29 clear-cut Red states, which supported Republican President George W. Bush both times out. Blue states are said to be “liberal,” and Red states “conservative.” But there might be another reason to term certain states “blue”: weak employment growth in a period of expansion. Total Blue-state employment growth has been only 3.3 percent during the current expansion, which began in November 2001, compared with the U.S. rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, total Red-state employment growth has been 7.5 percent, more than double that of the Blue states. In baseball terms, one might say the Blue team is hitting only 5-for-13 for a mere .277 average, while the Red team is slugging 18-for-29 for a league-leading .621. Here’s a closer look at the stats: Job growth has trailed the U.S. average in 13 Blue states. California, the largest Blue-state labor market, fell behind by the narrow margin of less than a half-percent, while growth has been slower in Rhode Island (5%), Minnesota (4.1%), Wisconsin (3.1%), New York (2.8%), New Jersey (2.7%), Pennsylvania (2.7%), Vermont (2.3%), Maine (2.1%), Connecticut (1.5%), Illinois (1.1%), Massachusetts (-0.2%), and Michigan (-5%). The job losses in Michigan and Massachusetts have been the most severe, falling below 2001 levels. Regionally speaking, this blue-streak continues. The Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and New England regions, all predominantly Blue, have trailed the U.S. jobs-growth average. The only Blue region to beat the average has been the West, fueled by above-average jobs gains in Hawaii (15.2%), Washington (9.5%), and Oregon (9%). Two other Blue states — Delaware (5.8%) and Maryland (6.1%) — also have bested the U.S. average. Now for the Red team: Of 29 certified Red states, a full 18 have topped the U.S. jobs-growth rate. And here an interesting trend appears: Red states with no income taxes — Nevada (25.7%), Wyoming (15.2%), Florida (13.9%), Alaska (10.2%), Texas (9.1%), South Dakota (8.3%), and Tennessee (5.5%) — have all witnessed above-average job growth. Not surprisingly, three of four Red regions have led the U.S. in job growth: Red states in the West have expanded 15.9 percent followed by the Plains (7.7%) and the Southeast (7.5%). The only Red region to trail the U.S. jobs-growth average has been the Midwest (1%). This trend is not new. It has merely been overlooked by the mainstream media. Labor is colorblind in the political context of Red and Blue states. And as long as the Red states let Americans keep more of what they earn, jobs will unevenly flow their way.

Why do the middle class in USA pay less taxes when compared to other countries? Taxation Statistics > Statistics > Contribution by middle 40% (Latest available) by country Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom) #1 Denmark: 37.2% #2 Germany: 36.5% #3 Netherlands: 36.1% #4 Norway: 36.1% #5 Sweden: 35.8% #6 Finland: 33.4% #7 Canada: 33.4% #8 Belgium: 32.6% #9 United Kingdom: 32% #10 Australia: 31.1% #11 Italy: 31% #12 Ireland: 30.3% #13 United States: 28.4% #14 France: 23.5% DEFINITION: Proportion of taxes paid by the broad income group - middle class 40% . Taxes include all direct income taxes, including employee social security contributions. Income groups were built on the basis of final disposable adjusted income. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_con_by_mid_40-taxation-contribution-by-middle-40

The dems and reps are in power have the control should they bear the responsiblity for their mismanagement? For people who are making fun of those who claim everything is about oil. There's also this little fact: The Alaska state constitution claims common heritage rights of ownership of oil and other minerals for the people of the state as a whole. Citizen dividend checks are distributed every year in Alaska out of the interest payments to an oil royalties deposit account called the Alaska Permanent Fund (APF) created in 1976 after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The APF is a public trust fund - a diversified stock, bond and real estate portfolio - into which are deposited the oil royalties received from the corporations which extract the oil from the lands of Alaska. The first citizen dividend check from the interest of the APF was issued in 1982 and was for $1000 per every person for everyone in Alaska who had resided in the state for at least one year. Annual citizen dividends have been issued every year since then, for a total of more than $23,000 per person. In 2003, each of the nearly 600,000 Alaska US citizens (residents of Alaska for at least one year) received a check for $1,107 from the APF. The total amount dispersed was $663.2 million. The $25 billion investment fund's core experienced stock market losses which led to the dividend's decline this past year compared to the several previous years. The amount was $433 less, a 28 percent drop from the 2002 pay out of $1,540, and a 44 percent decrease from the all-time high of $1,964 in year 2000. The amount changes based on a five-year average of APF investment income derived from the bonds, stock dividends, real estate and other investments. Alaska relies on oil for about 80 percent of its revenue and has no sales or income tax. Alaska state government is mandated to invest 25% of its oil revenue into the APF while the other 75% of oil royalty revenue is dispersed to other government funds to finance education, infrastructure and social services. If 100% of Alaska's oil royalties had been deposited into the APF, it is conceivable that the CD this year could have been about $4,400 or $17,600 for a family of four. But then there would have been no funds for roads, education and other public services and no funds available to run the state legislature - a libertarian dream fulfillment or a social and economic disaster, which one we will never know. If state services were to have been maintained while 100% of oil royalties were deposited in the APF, there would of course have been the need for income, sales and other taxes on wages and production. Source(s): http://www.earthrights.net/docs/oilrent.... Oil is just 1 of thousands of commodities, with all the thousands of commidities in your state why aren't you getting paid? With feds resources why can't feds pay 50 times better than Alaska? Kuwait pays this way $58,000 y no rent, utilities, phone, hospital bills Dubia pays this way Norway I've heard has a similar system I hear Nigeria is working on doing this HOW FAR WILL YOU, YOUR KIDS, AND GRANDCHILDREN GET LEFT BEHIND IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE IF THE US DOES START A SYSTEM OF THIS KIND FOR THE US PEOPLE? ARE WE TO BE PAUPER THIRD CLASS WORLD CITIZENS WHEN YOUR GRANDCHILDREN START TO WORK? DO WE SLIDE FROM THE RICHEST NATION TO THE POOREST IN YOUR LIFETIME BECAUSE YOU LACK THE COURAGE, NERVE, OR BACKBONE TO TAKE ACTION NOW WHEN IT'S NEEDED? VOTE! VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT DEMS OR REPS! THEY ARE IN POWER AND HAVE THE CONTROL THEY MUST BEAR ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISMANAGEMENT!

Will taxes on the wealthy create less jobs? Did you know — better, would you have guessed? — that the top income-tax rate in India, which is the home of breast-fed socialism, is a mere 30 percent? That is down from 60 percent in 1979. How does that compare? Well, in the United Kingdom it is down from 83 percent in 1979 to 40 percent today; in the United States, from 70 to 35. In all three cases, it has been cut roughly in half. But not all the economic news is good, and we hear, especially from upward-bound Democratic leaders, about the loss of manufacturing jobs for American workers. This is attributable, of course, to a variety of causes, some entirely bad (lax immigration laws), others good in themselves though with bad side effects (free trade, the decline in the power of the labor unions). The most alluring comparisons would be with Japan and Germany, which have the reputation of carrying their solicitude toward the domestic working classes to extraordinary lengths. In fact, in the last dozen or so years (1992-2005), U.S. manufacturing jobs have dropped by 20 percent. In Japan and Germany the drop in such jobs is comparable. Alan Reynolds, in his masterly study Income and Wealth, unpacks some of the assumptions. "Anxiety about deindustrialization or downsizing is usually linked to international trade through catch-words like 'globalization' or 'offshoring,'" Reynolds writes. "The United States is widely imagined to have 'exported jobs' to countries that export more than they import, such as Japan and Germany, even though manufacturing employment declined even more dramatically in those countries where overall job growth has been abysmal." How to cope with all the thunder about U.S. trade policies? Since Japan and Germany have run chronic trade surpluses for many years, Reynolds notes, statistics showing greater loss of manufacturing jobs in those countries than in the U.S. "contradict all trade-related explanations for the (unproven) belief the United States has long been suffering wage stagnation or increasing wage inequality." It is illuminating to learn that wage-earners in manufacturing in the United States take in less, sometimes far less, than wage-earners in other spheres. Those who work in utilities take in on average $27 per hour; in education, $17; in manufacturing, $16. U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost through automation, but this is so in every major industrial economy. The question to ask is: Have those who have lost employment on that account found jobs elsewhere? The answer is that yes, it is so in the United States, where a large number of those who have lost their jobs in manufacturing have moved to higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs in service industries. "As we discovered with the 'vanishing middle class,'" Reynolds points out, "a rising percentage of American families left the middle class manufacturing jobs by moving up." "Income and Wealth" (published by Greenwood Press) is stunning in its revelations and its deflations of popular Democratic superstitions. On page 203, for example, Reynolds lists the most popular superstitions of the derogating class, including the assertions that 80 percent to 90 percent of U.S. households have experienced no increase in real income for 25 years, and that only the top 1 percent to 10 percent have received any significant benefits from the growth of productivity. "Not one of those statements is even remotely close to being true," Reynolds writes. "It is difficult to imagine how so many of the nation's leading economic journalists and economists claim to believe not just one or two of these incredible ideas, but the entire package." Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is an economist of acute precision. For years he has defended the capitalist way of doing things, and this volume is a high tribute to his championship of basic American ideas.

Compare and contrast Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, Austin, TX? Going by my research--Y! Answers, the cities' chambers of commerce, etc.--this is what I've found: Seattle: Largest job market, beautiful and expansive skyline, mildest climate, no income tax, expensive cost of living, closest to Canada Portland: Smaller job market, urban growth boundary limiting sprawl, no sales tax, full service gas stations, slightly cheaper cost of living, income taxes aren't outrageous Austin (I've been there): Very friendly people, Longhorn football is huge, 6th St., hot summers, mild winters, no income taxes, "Keep Austin Weird!" A little about me: -Lifelong Kentucky resident looking for a change in culture and scenery -Have appx. $3000 set aside -Will have B.A. degree in Political Science soon! -Politically conservative, but not nearly a Falwell or Dobson -Straight male who is polite and pleasant -Looking for federal gov't job; I already have experience interning for different agencies in Ky. state gov't. Help, please! Thanks!

I thought the violence in Iraq was subsiding/ ABC NEWS "continued violence strains $100B construction in Iraq" Which is it? Less or more? I thought the surge was working? Do you think the payments to the American contractors are strained? "State Dept. promises immunity to Blackwater USA against prosecution" Volunteer hired guns making $1/4M a year recieves immunity but they will prosecute the soldiers who are ordered to go and making $25-30k p/y. Warren Buffet /NBC NEWS: last 10 years tax rates have changed to favor the rich: Billion/Millionaires pay 0-17% income tax compared to their middle class employees who pay over 30% That darn liberal media, to blame for all that is wrong in the conservative party.Can one be any more child like, always blame someone else for their actions, never liable for your own actions. I find it interesting Samatha's husband watching tv w/ the terrorist, maybe thats why he walks around w/ no fear. I suppose it's easier to just blame someone else for their parties short comings instead of demanding a change. However, I guess if one is uncapable of self-thinking and has been brainwashed to the point that no matter how wrong their parties policies are defend them anyway no matter how asinine it makes one seem. When one believes it's appropriate to impeach a Pres. for lying about a "blue dress" but not for lying to go to war speaks volumns of one's mind set.

Gas Price Whining Forces Rush to Explain Capitalism Yet Again? Gas Price Whining Forces Rush to Explain Capitalism Yet Again RUSH: I went to the MoveOn.org website today. You know what they're all up in arms about today? High gas prices. They're sending out an action e-mail to all of their members asking people to sign a petition to get Congress to do something about high gas prices, and Congress is going to do something about high gas prices. Have you heard this? They are going to sue OPEC! They are going to sue OPEC for high gas prices. Why aren't they suing Big Oil, I wonder? The House voted yesterday to allow the government to sue OPEC over oil production quotas. They ought to sue themselves! They're the ones standing in the way of our energy independence. You know, high gasoline prices, high oil prices today are partially due to the fact that back in the Clinton administration and since the Democrats have prevented any drilling in, say, ANWR or anywhere else for our own supplies of oil. They have all this dramatic talk about alternative fuels and so forth, which is a pipe dream. There's nothing down the road that's anywhere near something that's going to solve whatever problem we have. But I find it interesting they want to sue OPEC and not Big Oil. This is, again, something that will go nowhere. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: "The jump in U.S. gasoline prices this year has so far drained consumers of an extra $20 billion, or about $146 for each passenger car in the country, the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Tuesday." That's also known as the GAO. "The national price for regular unleaded gasoline hit a record $3.22 a gallon this week, and is up $1.05 since the beginning of February, according to the Energy Department." Now, get this. "The added expense is taking money away from consumers to spend on other goods and services." Yes, it is. "Spending billions more on gasoline constrains consumers' budgets, leaving less money available for other purchases." Why don't you people think about this on tax cuts, for crying out loud? If you want to cut prices on gasoline, cut the taxes, the state, the city, the feds, whatever else. It adds up to 60 cents a gallon. It's all profit. We've been over this I don't know how many times. Mrs. Clinton said something about doing something to increase the supply, lower the price, I forget what it was, and I'm sitting there thinking, if you are Big Oil and you are a global concern, your market is the world, why in the world would you invest heavily in -- I think this is about refineries, we need to be building more refines -- who's standing in the way of building more refineries? Environmentalist wackos. And who are they aligned with? They're aligned with the Democrats and left. But if you're Big Oil, why would you even consider investing gazillions of dollars in a country that is trying to ban your product? Somebody needs to ask that question besides me. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Mike in northern Wisconsin somewhere you're next on the EIB Network. Hello, sir. CALLER: Hey, Rush, how's it going? RUSH: Fine, sir. CALLER: I got a tanker up here, a gas tanker, and I'm not going to tell you who I drive for -- RUSH: Wait, wait, hold -- time-out, time-out, I want to hear -- you driving the tanker? CALLER: Yes, I am right now. I'm going to get another load of that precious liquid gold. RUSH: Yes. CALLER: (Laughing.) Anyway, what I wanted to say was, I just delivered in a store here, and they were lined up at two stations, the one I was at and one across the street. The prices -- for granted, let's say they're just high, okay, whatever. RUSH: Right. CALLER: We can't keep gas in the ground, people are buying it as fast as we can put it in the ground. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just telling you it doesn't seem -- if the world is going you know where in a handbasket and everything is going bad, people seem to be buying gas and going on vacations up here and -- RUSH: We know this is true. Your little story here is anecdotal, but we know it's true. There have been surveys. Something came out yesterday that driving went down for a while, on a percentage basis from the previous year. But from what you're describing, people waiting in line for your truck to show up to refill the tanks at the station? CALLER: There was people there waiting, and I pulled in, and I had to block the road just so I could get in and unload this thing, and we ran all weekend. We had trucks out all week running. Now, if the economy is so bad, how come people keep buying all this gas and the motorcycles and their motor homes and -- somebody's making money somewhere putting this gas in their tanks. RUSH: You are really shrewd, I have to tell you, and plus you have the benefit of being an eyewitness to this. This notion the economy is in bad shape and that people are fretting over gasoline prices is simply manufactured news, manufactured news from the Democrat Party, and they're trying to compare it to food prices, which it is a necessary. We all have to eat in this country. I had somebody ask me the other day, "Rush, let me ask you a question, you once said, and you're right, that that you go to the grocery store and the profit markup in a grocery store on basic foodstuffs is 1%, grocery stores make their money selling the stuff at the checkout counter and the magazines and the candy and all this sort of stuff and the mops and the spic-and-span, whatever's in there. But on basic foodstuffs, profit margin is 1%, because people have to eat." He said, "Well, why doesn't Big Oil look at it that way. People have to drive to get to the grocery store to eat." I said, "Well, both prices, both profit markups, both businesses are constrained by the market forces in which they operate. People do need gasoline, and that's why they're driving." They're not going to slow down and they're not going to stop going to work and they're not going to get on the light rail train. We have some of the ugliest light rail trains I have ever seen in my life right down here in West Palm Beach. I don't go over there much, but sometimes I have to get to the airport. You get stopped sometimes, when I come in late from a flight getting home, midnight or one o'clock, that seems to be when these things are moving, and nobody's on them -- wait, no, that's the freight trains. Take it back. These are the transit, the rush hour, little all-day-long light train. They're supposed to be painted to look like Florida blue with the palm trees. They don't look like that. They look ugly. They look like they're unfinished, looks like they bought used train cars and they haven't done anything to them. But the thing I noticed, they're always empty. I scour, I look in the windows, you might see one or two people on a three-car train. They're empty. People don't want to get on these things, and they don't want to get on buses, outside of New York, where this is standard form of transportation, cabs and buses and subways and so forth. But around the rest of the country they want to drive their cars and they're going to and they're going to pay whatever it costs. They might complain but they'll pay it. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Darren in Billings, Montana, I'm glad you waited as we get back to the phones. Welcome to the EIB Network. CALLER: Hey, Rush, it's great to talk with you. Mostly dittos from Montana. RUSH: Thank you, sir. Never been there and would love to go. CALLER: I'd say, we'd love to have you up here sometime. RUSH: I'll make it at some point. CALLER: There we go. Hey, the problem with the analogy of the oil company and the grocery store is that the oil companies own the product from the raw stage to the retail stage. And the grocery store is actually the true showcase of the free market, where they're buying products from different places and different manufacturers and wholesalers, whereas the oil companies are controlling it all. RUSH: So? CALLER: Well, this is the reason that gas is the price that it is. They're the ones handling that. There is no free market in the oil business. RUSH: Okay. There's no free market in the oil business? The prices in the oil business are fixed? Democrats in Congress conducted an investigation, I think it was Senate Democrats might have conducted an investigation after Hurricane Katrina to find out if there was price fixing. The Democrats couldn't find any evidence of it. CALLER: No, I wouldn't say that there's price fixing. RUSH: Well, if you -- CALLER: I simply don't think that there is the true free market that we see in all the other industries. I don't see any other industry that controls things from raw material to retail sale. I don't think that the supply-demand -- RUSH: Well, then tell me how it is that the prices in this country are lower than they are anywhere else in the world? CALLER: I don't have an answer for you right off on that. RUSH: Well, you know, I've got limited time -- CALLER: I don't know how all the other countries are working. RUSH: You're a great guy, you're a nice guy. There's no free market in gasoline. Propaganda works on this every time the price starts going up, and I don't get it. I just don't. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: When you get otherwise intelligent people saying there's no free market in the price of gasoline, after all of the countless years of detailed attention paid to the subject, the painstaking research, the patient presentation of facts by me, I often throw up my hands. Let me try, because I know that the gas price is one of these things that when it comes up, it goes up, people think that there's some suspicious or conspiratorial reason behind it, they just cannot accept the fact that the free market works in gasoline. So let me ask a question. Or let me ask many questions. Let us speak of many answers. How many oil companies are there that sell gasoline in the United States of America? How many are there? Take a wild guess. I don't even know the answer, but it doesn't matter because there's more than one. If you don't think they are competing with each other, then you don't know the world. ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and whoever the others are, they compete with one another. That's number one. I realize that some of you might think they all get together and set the price and so forth. Second thing is, how many companies are there selling gasoline in this country that are not American? Citgo is one, there's Hugo Chavez. British Petroleum. Do you think that ExxonMobil and BP and the rest are getting together with Hugo to set prices in the United States? Remember, now, these people are the world market. Now, where does this oil come from? Gasoline is oil first and there are a bunch of different places it comes from. All over the world. Comes from Canada. In fact, that's the number one country we get oil from. That's our number one importer. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia. The oil companies do not own this oil as it is. I don't know if you've noticed this, but Hugo Chavez just kicked the oil companies out of Venezuela. He's nationalizing everything. He's taken it, screw you, if you want to stay here and run the wells and so forth we can work out a little production deal, but, ha-ha-ha-ha, this stuff belongs to Venezuela because the oil is ours. Same thing happened in Saudi Arabia and Rockefeller got his change before that happened, but same thing happened there, basically. "We don't need you anymore." So tell me how it is that oil, which starts the whole price timeline, coming from so many different places in the world, ends up as refined gasoline with no free market determining the price in this country. I want to know how this is possible. I want to know how it is that BP, ExxonMobil, Citgo, name other companies, the size that are out there -- hell, I don't know -- Conoco's merged with somebody. I want to know how they're getting together with the Russians and with the Saudis and coordinating this. Then I want you to tell me, the guys playing the futures market in oil on the commodities market, I want you to tell me how they are involved in this so that the price is set by one person from the time it comes out of the ground 'til it gets to your car as gasoline, the idea that that's true is false. All these companies compete with one another at the retail level, they are competing with each other to find oil all over the world. We have to buy oil from all these different countries, and we have to refine it here. All of these aspects have market circumstances that rein in the desire for people to charge more than what they can get for it. Then you've got the stockholders of these publicly traded companies who are demanding profits as big as they can be. They're publicly traded companies and if the managers of these companies don't get as big a profit as they could or if they get too little a profit, there's going to be hell to pay from the shareholders. Now, I want to know how in the world anybody can genuinely think that the oil companies, who are citizens of the world, own every bit of oil that comes out of the ground and then every bit of the processing before it becomes gasoline, then it becomes gasoline and goes into your tank, I want to know how this happens. This is news to me. And why is it that the Democrats in the Congress are suing OPEC in order to do something about the rising gas prices. Why aren't they suing Big Oil? And how is it that OPEC isn't Big Oil and how is it that Hugo Chavez isn't Big Oil and how is it that Russia isn't Big Oil, and how is it that British Petroleum and ExxonMobil and Conoco or whoever else, how come they are? I'm sitting here mystified by all this. This is not to say that I'm insensitive to the price, but the idea here -- oh, and one more question. Have you heard of a country called China? I'm sure many of you have. We refer to them here lovingly and affectionately as the ChiComs. Well, despite their best efforts over there, they are having an expanding economy. There are now multimillionaires in China and more and more people have access to automobiles that use gasoline, and they are putting a lot of pressure on the worldwide supply of gasoline, and in this country, your friends, the Democrats, are standing in the way of this country finding any more oil on our property; be it Alaska; be it off one of the coasts, they won't let it happen, while at the same time they're talking about energy independence. So I want to know how it is, at that Big Oil, which earns 30% of its income from operations in the United States, I want to know how it is that Big Oil and all these companies competing with one another somehow control the product around the world from the moment it comes out of the ground. I want to know how they own Saudi Arabia. I want to know how they own Russia. I want to know how they own Iran. I want to know how they own Venezuela. Niger, Big Oil -- there's oil coming out of the ground everywhere but here. I want to know this. If you can answer these questions, with all the pressure on the supply, the worldwide supply that the rising Chinese economy is put -- and the Indian economy, by the way, they're going bonkers as well, if you can tell me how Big Oil controls every drop from the time it comes out of the ground until tends up as gasoline in your tank, then I can maybe accept your -- but you can't tell me because it's not possible, because it isn't true, because it doesn't happen. If you want a shocking statistic, I've forgotten the actual numbers here. Going to have to go back to my website tonight to the archives, I gotta remember the date and find this. Maybe Koko can search for it real quick when he hears what I'm talking about here. I was playing golf with a guy who had just had a conversation with an energy expert and he was passing the story on, secondhand. I didn't hear it from the horse's mouth, but the numbers of people in the world who don't have electricity would stun you. Who don't have running water, stun you. Don't drive, don't have automobile, would stun you. It's a vast, vast majority. If those people ever got -- by the way, you people like flipping on the light switch at home. You like when the air-conditioner works? Where do you think that comes from? They won't let us do nuke power, so it's coal and it's oil. I haven't even scratched the surface of the oil industry here. I haven't even begun to scratch the surface, the costs in finding it, drilling it, bringing it up, transporting it as crude across the oceans and pipelines and so forth. I literally am amazed that somehow the truth and the facts of the oil business, economics of the oil business, escape people when the economics of most other things are never questioned. Well, I'm not totally mystified. You've got the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media routinely telling people they're being gouged, and you've got Democrats talk windfall profits taxes and so forth and so on. I'm blue in the face trying to describe to you how much every gallon you buy goes to your state, local, and federal government as total profit. Nobody ever complains and they're talking about raising those taxes, by the way, in the midst of all this, yeah, because, you know what, as the price goes up, some people are buying fewer gallons of gas, and that's less tax money. So the roads may not be repaired, bridges may not be prepared and so forth. So all these people out there wanting you driving these little windmill hybrids. I'll tell you what, if everybody did that, and the consumption of gasoline went down big time, you think the taxes wouldn't go up to make up the loss to the government? It would. This market is so complex, it's like the climate, although it's not nearly as complex as the climate, it is profoundly complex, and to try to control it and corner it is impossible. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I have a little chart from the year 2001 from the Wall Street Journal. The source of this chart is Energy Intelligence Group. It's a chart of oil companies by size of crude production. The largest oil company in the world: Saudi ARAMCO is the number one oil company in the world in 2001, producing 8.3 million barrels of oil a day. Next is the National Iranian Oil Company, NIOC, at 3.77 million barrels of crude a day. The third largest oil company is PEMEX, that's Mexico, 3.56 million barrels, and they just announced a huge find in the in the Gulf of Mexico off of their shores. The fourth largest oil company by crude production -- and this is going to be a small number now given what's recently happened there -- is Venezuela. The company is PDVSA, three million barrels of crude a day, but they've just nationalized a bunch of oil down there, they claim, so they're going to be higher than that. Number five is ExxonMobil at 2.54 million barrels of crude a day. So you got Saudi Arabia at 8.3 million barrels a day. There's ExxonMobil at 2.54. ExxonMobil's market share of the world oil market is 3%. Don't anybody call here again and tell me about Big Oil engaging in price fixing and controlling every bit of the oil from the ground to your tank as gasoline.

Why did I get less tax refund this year as compared to last year? I got a job in June 2007 and filed taxes in April 2007 as Married filing jointly. My wife doesn't have any income. The W-2 that I got at that time showed my wages around 21200 $. My federal tax withheld was around 1700 $ and State tax withheld was around 530 $. I got 1315 $ federal refund and 60 $ State of Illinois refund so total of 1375 $ in 2008. Now this year, I continued the same job. The W-2 that I got shows my wages around 43,000 $, federal tax withheld was around 3400 $ and State Tax was around 1170 $. No change in our status. I still filed as Married Filing Jointly this year. My wife doesn't have any income. I have Miscellaneous income around 700 $ this year. When I filed taxes with H&R Block, I only got a federal refund around 270 $ and State of Illinois return around 20 $. So in total of I got it around 290 $. How come I got so much less refund this year when I made more money? It seems that amount of wages and federal tax withheld are approximately double this year compared to last year. Everything else is status quo but then I am getting much much less this year. I calculated it on Turbotax and it also shows around 350 $. But when I put it on H&R Block calculator, it shows around 1500 $ and IRS calculator showing around 2600 $. Can someone help me with that? Am I putting some wrong numbers there? I already filed taxes with H&R block and I believe that H&R people should be right as they are professionals. But I just want to understand how this thing happened because it was kind of a shock for us. Thanks in advance.

please help!!personal finance!!I cannot afford to get any wrong!!!! giving away as many points as possible!!!! 1. Which of the following might not be an option for increasing your present income? (1 point) Quitting your job to find another Requesting a merit increase in pay Requesting a promotion Looking for a better job without quitting your old job 2. Which of the following is true about a merit increase in pay? (1 point) It is based only on how long you have been with the company. You have prove that you deserve it more than your coworkers. You might have to wait for a certain anniversary date to get it. You automatically receive merit raises every year. 3. Corporate structure may be defined as _____. (1 point) the way a corporate building is structured whether a company pays corporate taxes the method a company uses to pay its employees the way a business is organized 4. Your resume should include all of the following information EXCEPT (1 point) contact information. personal history. education background. qualifications. 5. The single best way to increase your income is to get an education. Why? (1 point) You automatically make more money if you are educated. You can obtain jobs that have higher starting salaries. You automatically get promotions if you are educated. You will automatically receive better benefits. 6. Which of the following will probably earn a higher level of income? (1 point) A female file clerk with a high school diploma and a year of college. a male file clerk with a high school diploma and a year of college. A male accountant with a Bachelor's degree. A female accountant with a Master's degree in business administration. 7. The term "educational attainment"means _________________. (1 point) you have earned a degree whatever education you have earned you are attending school to earn a degree you have earned the highest degree possible in your field 8. Which of the following is not a core module of accounting? (1 point) accounts receivable accounts payable debt collection purchase orders 9. What is a general ledger also known as? (1 point) a normal ledger an enumerated ledger a nominal ledger none of the above 10. Which of the following is not one of the three types of business arrangements in the United States? (1 point) sole proprietorship partnership corporation sole partnership 11. With a sole proprietorship, who pays the taxes? (1 point) the shareholders the company the owner both the shareholders and the owner 12. Which one of the following would not be considered an advantage of a sole proprietorship? (1 point) Decisions can be made quickly without having to consult others. A proprietor is also responsible for his or her own health insurance. There are no legal formalities if the business dissolves. All of the profits from the business go right to the owner. 13. What can a proprietor do to minimize personal risk and liability? (1 point) change his/her name form a limited liability proprietorship form a limited liability partnership form a limited liability company 14. Why are partnerships often favored over corporations? (1 point) They have more power. A partnership structure eliminates the dividend tax levied upon profits realized by the owners. They are more successful. none of the above 15. Why are partnerships often favored over corporations? (1 point) A partnership structure eliminates the dividend tax levied upon profits. They are more successful. They have more power. none of the above 16. What are the two types of partnerships? (1 point) limited and general limited and sole general and private private and limited 17. Which of the following would not be considered an advantage of a partnership? (1 point) A partnership usually involves low start-up costs. Each general partner is deemed the agent of the partnership. It's easy to form a partnership. You can share the responsibilities with your partners. 18. As a generic legal term, __________ means any group of persons with a legal entity. (1 point) partnership business corporation proprietorship 19. Who regulates a corporation? (1 point) the bondholders the government of the state, province, or national government with which it is registered the corporation's founders the corporation's union 20. Which of the following is not a legal characteristic of a corporation? (1 point) transferable shares perpetual life legal protection from lawsuits limited liability 21. When claiming dependents, they must meet the following criteria EXCEPT: (1 point) the dependent must be a relative. the dependent must reside with you. the dependent must be under nineteen years of age unless he or she is a full-time student. the dependent was unable to provide over half of his or her support for the year. 22. If you opt to put money in a medical flexible spending account rather than trying to amass enough medical expenses to itemize on your tax return, you are taking advantage of ___________________. (1 point) an exclusion a credit a deduction withholding 23. A form of taxation in which everyone pays an equal rate of taxes is called a _____________. (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax net tax flat tax 24. A form of taxation in which the highest income earner pays the largest percentage of taxes is called a (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax flat tax net tax 25. A form of taxation in which the lowest income earners pay the largest percentage of taxes is called a ___________________. (1 point) progressive tax regressive tax flat tax net tax 26. Which of the following best defines health insurance? (1 point) An annual contract between an insurance company and an individual a type of insurance that protects your personal property if you are unable to pay your bills. a type of insurance whereby the insurer pays the medical costs of the insured a type of insurance that assists your loved ones in the event of your death 27. Which of the following illustrates the main difference between Medicare and Medicaid? (1 point) Medicare helps to insure the elderly, while Medicaid focuses on low-income individuals and families. Medicaid helps to insure the elderly, while Medicaid insures low-income earners. Medicaid helps to replace lost income for the poor. Medicare is available only to those over the age of 65. 28. What is life insurance? (1 point) Health insurance that covers you for the rest of your life Insurance that supplements your income if your life is threatened Insurance that assists your loved ones with income in the event of your death Insurance that protects you in the event of an unexpected illness or accident that prevents you from working 29. Which of the following statements is not true about HMO insurance? (1 point) It is a managed health care system. In an HMO you can choose your own primary care physician (PCP), but specialists must be referred by the PCP. In an HMO , you are assigned a primary care physician. The letters stand for Health Maintenance Organization. 30. Which of the following might be considered positive aspects of HMOs. (1 point) Free choice of primary care physician Care from non-HMO provider not covered Out-of-pocket expenses are usually low Easy to receive specialized care 31. Which of the following might be considered a negative aspect of HMOs? (1 point) Out-of-pocket expenses are usually high. Not easy to receive specialized care HMOs focus on preventative care Free choice of primary care physician 32. On average, compared to a person with good credit a person with poor credit will pay __________ for insurance. (1 point) 5% to 10% more 10% to 15% more 20% to 50% more 55% to 70% more 33. How long does it take to rebuild your credit history? (1 point) 7 years 8 years 9 years 30 years 34. Secured debt means a lender gives you money in exchange for what? (1 point) collateral credit report principal interest 35. When an asset, such as a car, decreases in value over time what is it called? (1 point) depreciation financing equity leasing 36. If you miss one payment on a credit card, what's generally the penalty? (1 point) a late payment fee a higher interest rate a lower available credit line a negative notation on your credit report 37. If you miss two payments on a credit card, what's generally the penalty? (1 point) a late payment fee and a lower available credit line a higher interest rate and a late payment fee a late payment fee a negative notation on your credit report 38. What are expenses that do not change called? (1 point) stable costs fixed costs variable costs known costs 39. What is the margin of safety? (1 point) How much sales can fall before a business starts making less than 5% profit How much sales can fall before a business makes less than 15% profit How much sales can fall before a business starts taking a loss none of the above 40. The two components of ______________ are variable and fixed costs. (1 point) entire cost required cost complete cost total cost 41. What are expenses that change as conditions change? (1 point) changing costs fixed costs moderate costs variable costs 42. What can be the best type of safety net in hard times? (1 point) Gambling Mortgage Rental property None of the above 43. Real estate is considered a(n) _____ investment. (1 point) illiquid liquid sure partially–liquid 44. Individual mortgage interest rates are generally determined by what? (1 point) The economy The individual's credit score The property value The state the property is located in 45. What is PMI? (1 point) Personal mortgage issuance Personal mortgage investment Personal mortgage insurance Personal mortgage interest 46. Why is investing in gold beneficial? (1 point) It is easy to mine. It is considered a stable investment. Gold is more expensive than stocks. The value of hold is subject to inflation. 47. What is an entrepreneur? (1 point) a sole proprietorship a corporation one who opens a new business a bank that loans money 48. Which of the following is the best definition of probable operating costs? (1 point) Amount of money required to start a business Amount of money required to market a business Amount of money required to purchase business equipment Amount of money required to keep a business running 49. Which of the following is a start–up cost associated with opening a business? (1 point) Equipment Legal fees/licensing Insurance All of the above 50. Which of the following is an example of an unsecured bank loan? (1 point) Credit card debt Bank overdrafts Corporate bonds All of the above

Which Country Is Left, Which Is Right? Please compare any of these 8 of these: Japan, Germany, France, Italy, UK, Russia, Spain, South Korea OR any two of these 4 countries: China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan in terms of which is more on the right & which on the left and explain your conclusion. No two countries have the same tax burden or income inequality, some are more centralised, some have more redistribution, more state involvement in schools/doctors/the disabled, etc - people's vlaues & viewpoints vary, some are more religious, some are more suspicious & laissez-faire, others more caring/assisting, others more independent, some are more multiethnic, others more willing to do things communally. Freedom & prosperity mean different things to lefties & righties. Some think all are best served by a ruling elite, others want empowerment of the working classes. So all in all, which countries would you say better fit which descriptions? I have left out the US & Nordic states because I think their comparison is obvious.

How many do not realize that you cannot compare the handling of an individuals finances with that of a nation? I keep seeing questions/rants stating that spending by the Government to stimulate the economy is the same as a family spending more to get out of debt. Do they realize how moronic that is, those 2 things fit like a square peg in a round hole. Stimulus spending by a nation puts money into the economy on a large scale, which in turn jolts businesses and saves or creates jobs, this in turn brings more tax payers to the table. Comparing this to a single families income and spending power is at best disingenuous and at worst retarded. As usual I got the 1st wave of thoughtless insults disguised as answers from the Repubs in the 1st 5-6 minutes. These I always disregard. The next wave will include moderate,respectful Republicans and Democrats. The last wave is usually those that are on my contacts and got the question later.

Why has Barack Hussein donated so heavily to Wrights Black Power Church in recent years? The royalties from Barack Husseins books went to the Black Power church of Rev Wright? LOL While Barack Hussein now claims that he supports few, if any, of the platforms which Reverand Wright had at the time, his tax returns SHOW that when he decided to run he began donating heavily. So Obama, now claiming he was oblivious to what goes on in the church, kept on funding it regardless? What were those donations to Wrights church buying Barack Hussein? "..the couple gave $27,500 to the church in 2005 and 2006." "..the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007. This compares with charitable donations as low as $1,050 a few years ago" "2004, before going to the Senate, the Obamas reported $207,647 in taxable income. That compared with an overall taxable income of $1.6 million in 2005 and $983,826 in 2006. As a United States senator, Mr. Obama earned $157,082 in 2006." details http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin I know what Tithing is, but check the dates on the payments- the payments ramped UP dramatically when he made the run. Was Michelle not a party to this Tithing deal in all the years prior to the run because 10% of her income and Barack Husseins combined would be a LOT more noticable on those returns. Maureen S "Hate begats Hate" ? I KNOW- thats why Barack Husseins association with a hatemongering nutjob in a Black Power church is an ISSUE!!

why do so many people say cali tight and then never been there? california is beautiful and is nice but here this dude joe m hit the nail on the head so i copied and pasted his comment and i have many things i typed like this . so here u go his then mine CALIFORNIA IS THE WORST STATE BY FAR! HERE ARE EXAMPLES OF WHY: MORE NATURAL DISASTERS THAN ANY OTHER STATE, THEY HAVE SOMETHING(FIRES,EARTHQUAKES,SO... ATLEAST EVERY OTHER MONTH. OVER-PRICED, OVER-CROWDED, OVER-CRIMED, DIRTY, TOO MANY MEXICAN-AMERICANS(DIFFERENT THAN IMMIGRANT MEXICANS) WITH SHI**Y ATTITUDES LIKE YOURS. THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY SO ROTTEN, AND MAKES THE REST OF THE WORLD HATE US. I KNOW I WAS IN IRAQ WITH OVER 100 PEOPLE(AND I USE THE TERM LOOSELY HERE) FROM FRESNO. THEY WERE NOTHING BUT CRIMINALS. BESIDES, IF CALIFORNIA IS SO GREAT, WHY DO ALL THE CALIFORNIANS MOVE TO ARIZONA(KINGMAN/PHOENIX MY HOMETOWNS) AND JUST RUIN THOSE USED-TO-BE-LOVELY PLACES? WHY DON'T THEY STAY IN CALIFORNIA IF IT'S SO GREAT? IN FACT IF MEXICO IS SO GREAT WHY AREN'T THEY A WORLD POWER? WHY ISN'T THEIR GREAT ARMY HELPING TO SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ? WHY? I'LL TELL YOU WHY. FOR THE SAME REASON THIS JOKE WAS MADE. WHY DOESN'T MEXICO HAVE AN OLYMPIC TEAM? BECAUSE ANYONE WHO CAN RUN, JUMP OR SWIM IS ALREADY IN AMERICA. SO DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND GO BACK TO YOUR GREAT NATION OF MEXICO, AND GET THE F**CK OUT OF MY COUNTRY! Member since: June 29, 2007 Total points: 76 (Level 1) Points earned this week: --% Best answer alex g S in california one of the worst freaking *** places ever well compared to the ******* freacking *** rocking universe. or the united states i rank cali as 5th best state. after like maryland. In this order TEXAS< FLORIDA< ILLINOIS< GEORGIA, MARYLAND. CALIFORNIA for most people its is nice weather this be true. and a nice place but **** west coast. last thing till japan. most people havent been to cali and some people for some reason say they would want to live there . which i find odd. know i see great weather and u can see snow in one day then desert that is tight,. but then the freacking economy okay. and the people then the freacking natural distaters. wildfires, outrageous home prices. crappy goverment i think. to many liberals 4 of the most polluted citys in america. know earthquakes and like every thing. okay then the in los angelas. the huge ghetto shitty almost everywere. there many few beautiful places. exspensive homes i mean to get something desent it like a million. and because it has been established as high prices plus like celberities. then LOS ANGELAS smog, partical pollution, the worst. worst traffic, a huge illegal population After decades of mass immigration, California is no longer able to absorb a constant flow of immigrants and still maintain a decent quality of life for its residents. Currently, one in ten Americans is foreign-born, with about a third of the foreign-born population arriving in the past 10 years. Since California receives about 25 percent of the nation’s flood of immigration, our state’s numbers look a little different, with an astounding one in four Californians being foreign-born. In addition, nearly all of our state’s growth is now due to immigration and higher-than-average fertility rates among new immigrants. If current legal and illegal immigration trends continue, an estimated 60 million people will call California home by 2050. There are an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in our country. All of the 9/11 hijackers were in the United States legally, having entered on temporary visas. California is home to at least 3.2 million of those illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who take low-paying jobs don't pay enough in income taxes, if they pay at all, to reimburse taxpayers the $5,000/per student annual cost of educating their children. Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California $10.5 billion a year for education, health care, and incarceration. Illegal aliens constitute 15 percent of our state’s school population. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals were forced to close from the financial burden of providing free health care for uninsured illegal aliens. Illegal immigrants who enroll in the University of California system are charged in-state tuition. Each year the Border Patrol makes more than a million apprehensions of persons unlawfully crossing U.S. borders to work and to receive public assistance, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Such entry is a misdemeanor, and if repeated becomes punishable as a felony. Illegal aliens from Central America have been allowed to remain in the United States so long that their homelands have grown dependent on the billions of dollars a year they send home in remittances. 300,000 people who have been ordered deported are still in the country because their deportation orders were not enforced. Census Bureau estimates say 115,000 people from terrorist-sponsoring Middle Eastern nations live in the United States illegally. Some illegal aliens from terrorist nations pay as much as $50,000 each to be smuggled into our country. Approximately one-third of all foreign-born U.S. residents are illegal aliens. Over half of all Mexicans living in the United States are here illegally. In the last decade, 80 to 85 percent of the flow of Mexican immigrants has been illegal. A strategy of attrition through enforcement could reduce the illegal population by as many as 1.5 million illegal aliens each year. Currently about 183,000 illegal aliens per year depart without the intervention of immigration officials, according to DHS statistics. IT says if u read most of californias population increase is do to illegals. who suck the **** of of tax payers and watever. for the poor californians makeing it so exspensive./ so better to live there poor. know so many people moving from exspensive citys of cali florida and texas for cheaper and more resonable life style. know okay los angelas hey i think of tight graffiti from awr, msk, nasa crew, tko, know i am know toy and dont care for west coast nut awr, and msk , took **** to the exstreme. okay. and i think of tight rappers such as dr dre. snoop dogg, tupac and nwa. know east coast rap better orgial and there first. SO STUPID PEOPLE ONLY SOME< Lots of gay liberals and high crime, in some areas. run down areas. high prices and shitty traffic i think of one of the shitty citys with some exseptions. in a nice state but know shitty and over run with illegals problems legal stuff. high pollution and crime. and just to many damn liberals and crappy health care, and crappy school systems ONE GOOD THING OF LOS ANGELAS GREAT SHOPPING FOR GIRLS AND HUGE MALLS. AND FOR MY STUFF AS A GUY. AND WELL THE CLIMATE. AND THE NIGHTLIFE. OTHER THEN THAT AN OKAY PLACE TO VIST JUST FOR A COUPLE DAYS. BUT EVERY CITY HAS MALL AND NIGHTLIFE LA HAS SOME OF THE BEST THOUGH ONLY GOOD THING

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

Towards a White Minority? Towards a White Minority Did you see those demographic stats in the New York Times last week? The Census Bureau estimated yesterday that from July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006, the nation’s minority population grew to 100.7 million from 98.3 million... Nearly half the children under age 5 are Hispanic, black or Asian... 80 percent of Americans over age 60 are non-Hispanic whites, compared with only 60 percent among those in their 20s and 30s, and 58 percent among people younger than 20... (Some of the quotes in what follows are from the NYT story; the others are from the actual U.S. Census Bureau news release from which the story is abstracted.) It is not news that white Anglo (i.e. white non-Hispanic — I am using “Anglo” just as a linguistic marker) Americans are heading for minority status. Bill Clinton was exulting over the prospect a decade ago. Interesting to see the numbers in detail, though, and the state-by-state disparities. Four states and the District of Columbia are “majority-minority.” Hawaii led the nation with a population that was 75 percent minority in 2006, followed by the District of Columbia (68 percent), New Mexico (57 percent), California (57 percent), and Texas (52 percent). The economic sidebars are interesting, too: [Demographer Dr. Mark] Mather said the three most homogeneous states — Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia — spent the highest proportion of their gross state product on public education. This reinforces a number of findings from recent years suggesting that people are much more willing to be taxed for the benefit of people like themselves than for the benefit of the Other. Old people already grumble about paying taxes to support extravagant educational establishments. As the racial generation gap opens up, with the oldsters being noticeably more white and Anglo than the kids being educated, the grumbling will escalate into action — most likely, the simple action of yet further residential segregation, the old and white-Anglo living here, the young and dark Hispanic living there. Though, of course, the unwillingness to be taxed to support the Other cuts both ways. How will a majority nonwhite young workforce feel about paying out income and Social Security taxes for the sustenance of old, white Anglos? I don’t know about you, dear reader, but I, at least, have looked forward glumly to my last days, most likely spent stuck, incapable, in some cruddy nursing home with a bunch of other helpless white geezers, my daily needs in the hands of resentful black and brown orderlies whose educations featured long catalogs of the wrongs done to Them by Us. Back of all that is the question: As white Anglos decline into a minority, will we see the rise of white-Anglo race consciousness? The common understanding at present is that open expressions of race consciousness are taboo for white-Anglo Americans, but just fine for everyone else. A leading black presidential candidate subtitles his best-selling biography “A Story of Race and Inheritance”; the main lobbying organization for Hispanics carries the proud title “National Council of the Race”; and so on. This word is, however, not available to white-Anglo Americans in reference to themselves, and white-Anglo Americans are indoctrinated from childhood to believe, or to pretend to believe, that race is an empty category. This taboo is left over from the old pre-1960s order of unassailable (as it then seemed) white-Anglo supremacy. It was really just a form of noblesse oblige, a patronizing courtesy from the vast-majority race, who owned and ran pretty much everything in the U.S. up to about 40 years ago, to minorities about whom they nursed a mildly guilty conscience. Noblesse oblige is a wonderfully satisfying, self-flattering attitude: “Look at me — not only powerful and rich, but gracious and kind, too!” Whether it can survive as white Anglos dwindle to minority status is not clear to me. It might: it runs strong today among the white-Anglo inhabitants of Washington, D.C., even though they are (see above) only 32 percent of the population there. I suppose it depends how the economics shakes down. Hispanics accounted for almost half (1.4 million) of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2005 and July 1, 2006... The Hispanic population in 2006 was much younger, with a median age of 27.4 compared with the population as a whole at 36.4. It is quite possible that Americans alive today will live to see the nation become majority Hispanic. Did anyone ever think this would happen, prior to a few short years ago? Well into the 1960s, Mexico was an inconsequential place, a joke place, while the other Central American nations simply did not register at all. You went to Acapulco for an exotic vacation, got a nasty case of Montezuma’s revenge, and came home with some colorful handicraft trinkets to put on your mantel shelf. That aside, you never thought about Central America from one year’s end to the next. The highest level that Mexicans rose to in the American imagination was the vaguely sentimental portrayals in the works of southwestern writers like Willa Cather. The inconsequentiality was numerical, too. In midcentury there was one Mexican per four or five Americans. The place was underpopulated. The few thousand Mexicans who drifted across the border looking for work could easily be rounded up and deported if they became an inconvenience, as in Eisenhower’s famous “Operation Wetback.” There were no limits at all on legal immigration from the Western hemisphere until the 1965 Immigration Act, none being thought necessary. An annual quota of 120,000 was imposed by that act; but this was just a low-value bone thrown to key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Everett Dirksen and Sam Ervin) by Teddy Kennedy to get the bill through. Nobody cared about Hispanic immigration; no-one thought it consequential. Now there are 110 million Mexicans to the U.S.’s 300 million, with corresponding numbers of Hispanics further south. If you count the 20 or 30 million Mexicans actually living here, legally or illegally, the Mexican-American ratio must actually be about one to two. Unfortunately Mexico’s great late-20th-century population boom was boomier, and longer-lasting, than that nation’s economic boom, which fizzled out around 1980. Not only were mid-20th-century Central American populations numerically insignificant until recently; the economic gap between their sleepy, stagnant economies and our vibrant one was less then that it is today, after several more decades of sleepy stagnation on their part, vibrancy on ours. And so white-Anglo America slips into minority status. Probably we never wanted it to happen. Probably, if asked around 1970 whether it ought to happen, most of us would have said no. The topic never rose to the status of a major political issue among the mass of Americans, though. The coming presidential election will be the first in my lifetime to have immigration as a major theme. If Americans minded what was happening, they didn’t mind enough to stop it. To be sure, their indifference was aided and abetted by the late 20th-century browbeating campaigns by cultural elites on behalf of “diversity,” “political correctness,” and racial guilt; but Americans didn’t seem to mind those much, either — not enough to rebel against them in any significant way. If there is any large general historical lesson to be taken from all this, it is that a population as prosperous, secure, well-employed, and well-entertained as the white Anglos of late 20th-century America, and as confident of its own cultural superiority, cannot be made to care much about matters of ethnic identity, and may altogether lose the habit of thinking in such terms. Whether this ethnic insouciance will survive the coming great demographic changes, I don’t know. Things have gone so far now that there is very little we can do but wait and see.

Below is an issue that is being swepped under the carpet by all British politicians, and the British media? Fifth anniversary of means-tested benefit is nothing to celebrate Britain’s biggest pensioner organisation, the National Pensioners Convention (NPC), has marked the fifth anniversary of the introduction of the means-tested Pension Credit by highlighting its failure to reach the very poorest older people. The latest official figures from the Department for Work and Pensions[1] reveal how ineffective the Pension Credit has been at tackling pensioner poverty: There are up to 1.8m pensioners who are eligible, but do not receive the Pension Credit (ENR - eligible non-recipients). This represents a take-up rate of between 59%-67% - significantly below the government’s stated target of 73%. 35% of these individuals (ENRs) are aged 80 or over. 67% of the 1.8m pensioners (ENRs) are living on incomes below the official poverty level. In total, 2.5m pensioners in Britain are said to be living in poverty. Up to £1.3bn in Pension Credit goes unclaimed. The Pension Credit take-up rate is the lowest in the East Midlands, London, the North West, South West and Wales where the number of pensioners who are eligible but don’t claim is higher than those actually receiving the benefit (see table below for regional breakdown). The DWP study also offers a number of reasons as to why pensioners are reluctant to make a claim. These include: Feeling that the process of claiming is demeaning Being unaware of the rules and/or a belief that they are ineligible to claim An unwillingness to disclose personal information A complicated and off-putting claiming process Dot Gibson, NPC vice president said: “When Gordon Brown was in opposition in 1993, he claimed he wanted to be the first Labour chancellor to end the means-testing of Britain’s elderly, yet he has been the architect behind the biggest expansion of means-testing of pensioners since WWII. After five years. The Pension Credit still fails to reach 2m of the country’s poorest older people – because they are unwilling to take part in what they see as a demeaning process. It’s time the government realised that pensioners and means-testing simply don’t mix. What older people want is an end to means-testing and a decent state pension which is set above the poverty level of £151 a week and rises each year in line with earnings.” ---------------------------------------------------------- I was 60 this past April, ive been campaigning on hehalf of Britains pensioners for 20 years, see my profile. I believe the UK s stae pension should be £250 a week per single pensioners, and £300 a couple. Also that pensioners should not have to pay tax, because they have already paid their share of tax. And before some bright spark asks, "whose going to pay for this increase" ?????????. These people ask this because they are selfishingly thinking of themselves, they forget that they would not be here today if it was not for our war veterans efforts during World War 2. The answer is this. The Government means test system is costing over 10 times more of income tax payers money than it would cost to restore the state pensions link with national average wages. The government are sitting on a "surplus" in National Insurance contributions exceeding £40 billion, that is set to increase to £74.1 billion in 2012, and the Government use just 5 per cent Gross National Product on the state pension in this country, compared to European countries where their Government's use more than double at 12 per cent, because EU state pensions are higher.

Does anyone else see a problem with this or is it just me? Border agents recruited for Iraq duty A military contractor is recruiting current and former agents with the U.S. Border Patrol to teach Iraqis how to secure their national borders. The U.S. State Department has asked Virginia-based DynCorp International to find 120 people with Customs and Border Enforcement experience to go to Iraq for the training. The company already has 700 police trainers in Iraq. The department made the request for border security trainers in late March. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said she was worried that DynCorp's effort is distracting from security along the U.S.-Mexico border. She and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wrote President Bush this week to say the deal "makes no sense." "We should be focused on supporting our nation's security efforts along the Mexican and Canadian border instead of hampering (the Customs and Border Patrol) by sending our best agents to a war zone in Iraq," the governors wrote. Agent Shannon Stevens, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, said the number of personnel DynCorp is looking for is "a very small number compared to the agents we have." DynCorp is offering recruits $134,100 for a one-year stay, plus a $25,000 signing bonus. The first $90,000 in income is tax free, and housing and food are free, company spokesman Gregory Lagana said. Border Patrol agents with at least two years' experience make roughly $55,000. Arizona's Tucson sector employs 2,600 agents, and there are more than 13,350 nationwide It seems contradictory. OK there but not here. And yes I want the war over. Some great answers

guys can you please help me summarise this article with words i know so i can understand it better? Poverty level rising in Colo. By ASSOCIATED PRESS - August 28, 2007 Colorado’s poverty rate is below the national average and its median income is higher, but the percentage of people without health insurance tops the U.S. average, according to new estimates from the Census Bureau. Tough limits on who can receive insurance from the state and fewer employers who sponsor health coverage may explain why 16.6 percent of the population is uninsured, said Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute analyst Adela Flores-Brennan. Nationwide, an estimated 15.8 percent of Americans didn’t have health insurance last year. “Colorado has a really lean Medicaid program, so some people who might not be able get insurance on the private market also can’t qualify for public assistance,” Flores-Brennan said. A panel working on ways to expand health care in Colorado estimates 791,000 residents are uninsured. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey estimates the Colorado poverty rate at 12 percent in 2006, compared with 9.3 percent in the 2000 Census. The Census Bureau reported the national poverty rate at 12.3 percent in 2006, based on the Current Population Survey. Poverty level A family of two adults and two children would be considered at the poverty level if their household income was $20,444 or less in 2006. However, families in the Denver area might need twice that amount just to live without any public or private assistance, Flores-Brennan said. The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute has recommended restoring earned income tax credits and opening up eligibility for the Colorado State Children’s Health Insurance Program, among other ideas, to help struggling working families. Meanwhile, wages are going up, but not all Colorado workers are seeing the same increases. Gary Horvath of the University of Colorado Leeds School of Business said wages in the Denver metro area grew much faster the past two years than elsewhere in Colorado. “If lower wages are going up at a lower rate, versus higher wages going up at higher rate, there’s going to be a disparity there,” Horvath said. “We’ve always got to be very careful in how we go forward in that we look at bringing the whole population along, so there’s not a larger spread between those with and without,” state demographer Elizabeth Garner said. “Although we look good, you still have to be very careful you’re looking for opportunities for your entire population,” she said. Census estimates show Douglas County had one of the highest median incomes ($92,125) and lowest poverty rates (1.9 percent) in the nation for counties with at least 250,000 people. Median income for Colorado was $52,015 last year, below the estimated median income of $57,118 in 1999, before the recession. The Census Bureau said the national median income was $48,200. Denver Daily News

Salesperson with some major tax issues!!? I made $99627.86 this year. My withholdings were: $12203.77 Federal $6045.00 Social Security $1444.60 Medicare $6228.09 NY state My question is that I have many deductions which I can file, but I wanted to know is there a limit? I am married and will be filing jointly. I know the withholdings are low compared to my income, how much in taxes should have been withheld if I didn't file EXEMPT for a couple of months??? any guidence would be greatly appreciated....

Does Anyone Still Think We Can Tax Ourselves Into Prosperity? When there is so much evidence that it's the opposite of what we need to do. Take a look at this article comparing Texas and Ohio. Ohio has the 3rd largest corporate tax rate and the 6th largest income tax rate. Texas has no income tax. "Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians -- and thus its employers -- are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers. Ohio is a "closed shop" state, which means workers can be forced to join a union whether they wish to or not. Many companies -- especially foreign-owned -- say they will not even consider such locations for new sites. States with "right to work" laws that make union organizing more difficult had twice the job growth of Ohio and other forced union states from 1995-2005, according to the National Institute for Labor Relations. On the other hand, Texas is a right to work state and has been adding jobs by the tens of thousands. Nearly 1,000 new plants have been built in Texas since 2005 http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1103

Does anyone else see a problem with this or is it just me.? Border agents recruited for Iraq duty A military contractor is recruiting current and former agents with the U.S. Border Patrol to teach Iraqis how to secure their national borders. The U.S. State Department has asked Virginia-based DynCorp International to find 120 people with Customs and Border Enforcement experience to go to Iraq for the training. The company already has 700 police trainers in Iraq. The department made the request for border security trainers in late March. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said she was worried that DynCorp's effort is distracting from security along the U.S.-Mexico border. She and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson wrote President Bush this week to say the deal "makes no sense." "We should be focused on supporting our nation's security efforts along the Mexican and Canadian border instead of hampering (the Customs and Border Patrol) by sending our best agents to a war zone in Iraq," the governors wrote. Agent Shannon Stevens, a Border Patrol spokeswoman, said the number of personnel DynCorp is looking for is "a very small number compared to the agents we have." DynCorp is offering recruits $134,100 for a one-year stay, plus a $25,000 signing bonus. The first $90,000 in income is tax free, and housing and food are free, company spokesman Gregory Lagana said. Border Patrol agents with at least two years' experience make roughly $55,000. Arizona's Tucson sector employs 2,600 agents, and there are more than 13,350 nationwide It seems contradictory. OK there but not here. And yes I want the war over. Thank You -some really added to this-very interesting

Is the education system in this country going to the dogs??? I live in nice suburban area in Ohio, and the Cleveland City Schools are pathetic!! I studied education and think it is very unfair that students who reside in low income districts are held to the same standards (proficiency testing) as students who attend very wealthy, comfortable, safe and well equipped schools. These students have new computers, new textbooks, state of the art science labs and gorgeous gymnasiums etc. Do you think it is right to compare students who attend a school with rats, leaky roofs, outdated books, poor heating and have old or no computers to students who attend schools that are so very advanced. Do you think that all of the taxpayer money should go into one pot and be divide up equally to each school district. As the children should not be held accountable for school's that are in such poor condition. I understand that we are in a higher tax bracket and have paid in more money. However, we are all a part of this country and I for one would like to see all children treated equal and given the same opportunities!!

do u want better life? The Wisdom in Prohibiting Usury in Islam Translated by :Mai Ahmad Abul Ola Allah says in Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) verse 275: ( Those who charge usury are in the same position as those whom the devil hath prostrated by (his) touch. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury” whereas Allah permits trade, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his case is for Allah (to judge); but whoever returns (to usury) - Such are the rightful owners of the Fire. ) It is reported that Gabir transmitted that: " TheProphet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cursed those who pay usury, those who receive it, those who write a contract based on it, and those who witness such a contract, and said they are all equal." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition of usury: Usury means “growth” or “addition”, and what is meant by “addition” here is what is added to the capital. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its legitimacy: It is prohibited in all religions and strictly forbidden in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Usury is mentioned in the Old Testament: 25 "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest ". Exodus 22 And in the New Testament: 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much. 6:35 But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. (Gospel of Luke) Besides, the Church declared usury unlawful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usury is Harmful to Economy, Individuals, and Society The Psychological and Moral Effects: Allah sent religion to the people to guide them to the right path, and to raise them to highness and perfection so that they can get rid of the corruption of their souls with its hopes and ambitions. Islam’s aim is to purify both people’s hidden souls and visible acts, and the legislations of Islam are working on those two things as Allah mentions in the Qur’an the words “Purification” and “sanctifying.” In Surat Al-Tawbah (Repentance; verse 103): (Take alms from their money to purify them and sanctify them. And pray for them; surely your prayer is an assuagement for them; and Allah is the All-Hearing and the Omniscient) Allah (Exalted be HE) swore on seven things in Surat Ash -Shams (The Sun; verse 9) that the successful is he who purifies his soul and the failure is he who corrupts it: “ He is indeed successful who purifies it. And he is indeed a failure who corrupts it.” Usury deviates man from the right path; as the usurer becomes a slave to money of which glitter blinds him. He always seeks to gain money regardless of the means. That is why, he preserves no value, exceeds all the proper limits and violates sanctities. Usury also fills the human soul with avarice and thrift that soon corrupt it and fill it with laziness and cowardice. For, usurers are cowards and know nothing about courage or intrepidity. Thus, “waiting” is the craft of usurers and those who follow their examples; as they give money only to those who invest it and wait for the money to “grow”, and then take the price of their waiting. Moreover, usurers are indolent and inert; they do not make anything useful but rather wait for the others to work in order to steal the fruits of their efforts. The following verse refers to this meaning: (That which ye give in usury so that it may increase through the property of (other) people, will have no increase with Allah; but that which ye give in charity, seeking Allah's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward manifold.) (Surat Al-Room (The Romans; verse 39)) The verse is referring to the fact that usurers give their money to people so as to increase through their money. The Qur’an describes usurers as follows: (Those who charge usury are in the same position as those whom the devil hath prostrated by (his) touch. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury” whereas Allah permits trade, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his case is for Allah (to judge); but whoever returns (to usury) - Such are the rightful owners of the Fire) (Al-Baqarah (The Cow; verse 275)) Allah (exalted be He) asserts that He takes away any blessing from any money gained through usury. (Allah makes usury to wane and makes almsgiving fruitful, and Allah does not love the always ungrateful the always sinner) (Al-Baqarah (The Cow; verse 276)) Usury has malignant effects on usurers, their souls, actions and appearances. Physicians see that economic instability that results in avarice causes many heart diseases, hypertension, myocardial infarction, blood clotting, brain damage or sudden death. Dr. Abdel-Aziz Ismael, the master of the internal medicine in Egypt, said in his “Islam and Modern Medicine” that usury is the main reason behind the spread of heart diseases. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usurers’ Disorientation: The Qur’an describes the state of the usurer as the one whom the Devil has exhausted and prostrated by his touch; Allah says: (Those who charge usury are in the same position as those whom the devil hath prostrated by (his) touch. That is because they say: "Trade is like usury” whereas Allah permits trade, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his case is for Allah (to judge); but whoever returns (to usury) - Such are the rightful owners of the Fire.) (Surat Al Baqarah (The Cow), verse 275) This state is called in Arabic (Takhabbut) which means, according to Al-Nawawi (may Allah rest his soul), a clumsy movement. When we say (Khabata Al-Jamal), this means that Al-Jamal(the camel) hits the ground by its hooves. Also when a man is acting awkwardly, we say in Arabic that he (Khabata Khabt Ashwaa) i.e. he is acting blindly; as the Arabic word (Ashwaa) means (a poor-sighted female camel.) The Devil’s touch here means his call for seeking pleasures, satisfying desires, and being occupied by anything but Allah. Thus, whoever follows him, he is then Motakhabbet (disorientated): At times the Devil degraded him to his whims and desires, and at other timesThe King guides him to piety and religion. That is why there is no steady movements or actions, and this is the Takhabbut(disorientation) caused by the Devil. However, this state from which usurers suffer is not confined to what has been mentioned but it extends to include his mental and psychological state. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Reflection of Usury on the Human Societies: Human societies are based on people’s unity through cordiality and love which are the product of mercy, vouching and brotherhood. The individuals in the society, or any group of people, who do not care about the pains, suffering and ordeals of their brothers in the same society are exactly like the paralyzed organ that has nothing to do with the other organs in the body, or like those who are doing the donkey work because their aims and ambitions are only centered around their own interest. That is why; they do not care about those who are bereaved of their children, or the moaning of the sad people or the suffering of the orphans. They know nothing about the miserable and the needy except that they are a priceless prey whose blood has to be sucked. In the past, the merciless usurers used to enslave the insolvents who were not able to pay off their debts or the interests of these debts. Moreover, Abu-Lahab compelled Al-‘as Ben Hisham to fight on his behalf in the battle of Badr because the latter was owed to him. How can a society prosper while usurers fill it trying by every possible means to loot people’s money? How does intimacy spread in a society that lives under a usurious system in which the rich crushes the poor? How can we expect that those whose money was stolen can love those who stole them? In such societies, there is nothing but hatred, grudge and ill-feelings. In such societies, hearts are full of malice, and tongues are cursing those who dispossessed people of their money and wealth. It is not only that, but sometimes people plan for fatal rebellions that crush usurers, their properties, and homes, and ruin everything in their way. Al Maraghi, may Allah rest his soul, said: “ usury results in hatred, enmity, wrangles and hostility. It makes hearts devoid of mercy, and it takes away chivalry and good deeds among people. Hence, cruelty replaces mercy to the extent that the poor are starved to death because they do not find what keeps their body and soul together. That is why, the usurious societies are always suffering from social problems; as workers, and all those who are suffering under the same circumstances, often rally against money lenders and go out on strikes. Ever since the spread of usury in the Egyptian society, both mercy and cooperation have disappeared, people are no longer trusting even the closest persons to them, and refuse to lend anything unless there is a contract and witnesses (whereas lenders in the past were keen to give money, even to the foreigner, without telling anybody, and borrowers could easily get their rights without demanding or suing.” The meanness and immorality of the Jews led them to conspire against the societies that opened their doors for them and for the world at large. They always ignite the flames of war and they do their best to corrupt this land. Allah tells us in (surat Al-Ma’edah {The Table} verse 64) about their dreadful nature: (The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out in bounty, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly cause many of them to plunge deeper into transgression and infidelity. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till doomsday. Whenever they ignite the flames of war, Allah puts them out. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah does not love corrupters.) Many trusty writers drew our attention that the Jewish Emperors of money are the main reason behind the wars broken out last century, it were them who ignited the flames of those wars. Consequently, much blood was shed, and millions of money were squandered. All of this was in order for the Jewish money to grow and their power to increase. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Imbalance of the Society due to the Inequitable Distribution of Wealth If money is confined only to the rich, the rich and the poor will both suffer. Usury centralizes money in the hands of the few and deprives the majority of this money, and this is what is called the inequitable distribution of wealth. Dr. Schacht, the former president of Bank of Germany, said in a lecture delivered in Syria 1953, “It becomes obvious, with an infinite mathematical calculation, that all the wealth would end up to the hands of usurers. That is because debtor usurers always profit in every deal whereas creditors are liable to profit and loss. Hence, all the money, by mathematical calculation, will end up to he who always gains.” That is why, the Jews insist on dealing through usury and spreading it among people. Moreover, they are keen on teaching such a “profession” to their children in order to take hold of the money and hoard it in their safes. This inequitable distribution is a blight that baffled doctors; even eminent economists in the West, including Charles Rist, acknowledged that. Charles Rist, according to the Muslim economist Issa Abdu – may Allah rest his soul - is an authority on the history of economic doctrines, and the founder of an unexampled school in the West. After he reached the acme of his experience, he said: “Now, I’m about to retire, and I want to give a piece of advice to the younger generation concerning this issue. (After all these efforts, we became in an incessant confusion. For, all of us suffer from the uneven distribution of wealth and income. This is either because of minor issues like that of usury and interest or major issues like that of class division. We got so exhausted but to no avail.” Don’t you think that Rist said the inevitable end of whoever turns away from the Divine laws? “We became in an incessant confusion… all of us suffer from the uneven distribution of wealth…we got so exhausted but to no avail” this is the wretchedness of the present life, and the wretchedness of the Hereafter is far worse and everlasting. Allah says in (Surat Taha): (And whoever turns away from the remembrance of Me, verily he will have a miserable life, and we resurrect him blind on doomsday (124) He will say: "O my Lord! Why did you resurrect me blind, while indeed I was a seer (before) (125) (Allah) will say: “you forgot our revelations when they came to you, In like manner you are forgotten this day. We thus recompense him who transgresses and refuses to believe in the Signs of his Lord. And verily the retribution in the Hereafter is far worse and everlasting.” (126)) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usury Destroys Societies: Usury afflicts the human soul with diseases, the economy with plagues and causes an unequal distribution of wealth which result in the destruction of the human societies. The author of the economic encyclopedia said that usury had a great role to play in the collapse of the primitive societies, and in the emergence of the slavery-based economies. Because of the fact that loans were guaranteed by the borrower himself along with other guarantees, the end was always the centralization of the “real-estate ownership” in the hands of the few. This is the effect of usury in the past, and the writers who could see the hidden reality of things was able to realize the effect of usury on these societies; but most of them think that the usurious interest nowadays does not have the same effect on the primitive societies. In the past, usurers turned people into slaves working in the very farms stolen from them. Till today, usurers seek to take hold of the fruits of people’s labour and to steal their sweat and money. The ages of filthy usury haven’t ended yet; this is a mere fiction, as the British list of money lenders in 1927 allows usurers to impose an interest of 48%. This is the apparent rate but in fact it was far more than that. Anwar Al-Qorashi tells us incredible things, which were happening in Great Britain in the 1st quarter of this century through a report prepared by a joint committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons concerning moneylenders letters of exchange in 1923, and through finding the bad effect of money lending in Liverpool in 1924. Those who prepared the report reached the fact that the interest, in some loans, could be up to 250%, 260%, 400% and 433% and sometimes, according to the report, 866% and 1300% per year. What is mentioned in the report of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the greatest country at that time was not an individual case. The representative of money lenders union of the joint committee said: “ money lending is a huge mission and I will prove this by figures. Is it too astonishing for you to know that there are more than 300 of money lenders registered in these countries?” the report tells about 1380 of those usurers in Liverpool , and if we compare this number to that of the people, we will find that there is a usurer for every 730 person. The case in America, according to Al-Qorashi, is not better than in Britain. He mentioned reports and facts to prove that usurers were receiving rates of interest up to 20%, 40%, 100% and more. If we have a look at a developing country like India, suffice it to say that the farmers of the district of Punjab were paying interests that equaled two times the land yield (1). It could be said that today is different as interests are now fixed and exhaust neither individuals nor institutions and governments, but I see that this is a short-sightedness as the interests of the usurious banks and finance houses at the beginning of this century were not more than 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% or 7% at the very most. However, nowadays they reached 18%, 20%, and now 10%, 11%, 12% and in some dealings in Kuwait 800% which caused what is called “ Climate Crisis.” Those who know the details of the crisis say that the amount of money that was behind this crisis was 27 billions (9 billions were accumulated because of usury), but those who did not charge usury were very far from the effects of this crisis. What proves that people are still afflicted with this plague is that what is known as the third world countries are now overburdened with debts and even its exports cannot help to pay them off. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Economic Repercussion of Usury Usury, when blights economy, spreads like cancer, and as doctor failed to cure cancer, men of intellect, politicians and economists fail to cure the plague of usury. What is astonishing is that some people believe that usury is good for people. In this, they are exactly like those who think that the body swelling that results form certain disease is a good sign for health while not every swelling in the body is a sign for health. Cancer is an abnormal growth of cells in the body; a growth that is not in the benefit of the human being but rather it is devastating and killing. The same can be said about usury as all what results from it is not for the benefit of the society but it is very harmful to it. The problem is that the effects of usury do not appear in the structure of the society and economy all at once. Al-Razi said, “Although it appears that usury is increasing, it is in fact decreasing” and this is taken from the Qur’an in(Surat AL-Baqarah (The Cow), verse 176): (Allah makes usury to wane and makes almsgiving fruitful) “Waning” means that something is gradually decreasing. This meaning is taken from the waning of the moon; as when the moon wanes, its size is gradually decreasing one night after another after being full. Those who are dealing through usury think that it is profitable while what the Omniscient and the All-knowing, and also reality, tells us is that usury causes any profit to wane and destroys economy as it afflicts economy with malignant diseases that could baffle the skilled physician. Usury is not a blessing and prosperity, but a chronic disease that takes away money and decreases it. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) said: "Though usury seems to be increasing, it is in fact turns towards decrease" Narrated by Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him); Ibn Majah transmitted it. Hadith No.2827 of Mishkat Al-Masabih. Our Muslim scientists that knew the truths through Hadiths and Qur’an realized this fact. Al-Maraghi said: “usury results in havoc and ruin; as we see many people whose money was lost and families were broken up because they charge usury.” Al-Qasem said; “ there is no blessing in any money comes through usury because it is the result of violating divine laws. That is why its end is always fatal.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Economic blights caused by usury are so many and the following are the most important ones: 1) Hindering Human Power: Usury hinders the productive human power as it encourages people to neglect their works and to be lazy, and human life gets advanced and civilized only when people pool their physical and intellectual efforts towards construction and development. Usurers who find it easy to increase their money through usury get used to laziness and hate forced labour and anything that requires hard working. The thing that deprives people of their livelihood; as it is well known that construction, crafts, and trade are the pillars of people’s life. Moreover, it is not only usurers who stop being a productive power but also many workers and businessmen could leave their works because of the difficult economic problems that usury causes to them. Those who suffer under the capitalist system find no body to help them but usurers who lend them money at exorbitant rates of interest that takes away the fruits of their labour. These economic problems have a very passive effect on the workers’ productivity. Besides, usury results in economic recession and unemployment which hinder the working power in any human society. 2) Preventing Money from Circulation: As usury hinders part of the productive human power, it prevents money from circulation. Money circulation to society is exactly like blood that circulates in the body, and water that runs in orchards. Preventing money from circulating has very bad effects on the society just like arteriosclerosis or the blocks that prevent water from running. Allah (exalted be He) frighten those who hoard money and threaten to give them a painful retribution: (Those who hoard the gold and silver, and do not spend them in the way of Allah, promise them (O Muhammad) a painful retribution (34) The day will come when their gold and silver will be heated in the fire of Hell, then used to burn their foreheads, their sides, and their backs: "This is what you hoarded for yourselves, so taste what you have hoarded.) (35) (Surat Al-Tawbah {Repentance}) Allah sent us divine laws to guarantee the continuous flowing of money to all the members of the society, and not for it to be monopolized by the rich. Allah says in surat (AL Hashr, (Exile), verse 7) : (Thus, it will not remain monopolized by the rich of you.) Usurers, because of their cowardice and their desire to earn as much money as possible, do not contribute in useful projects or economic business except with the amount that guarantees that money will be back tenfold. When they feel that they are in danger or that they wish for a higher interest in the long run, they keep their money from people. That is why people fall in a great distress when they became short of money. Besides, they do not lend money unless they guaranteed a profit more than the interest of the debt. 3) Inflation: “ Inflation” means a continuing increase in the prices of goods and services because their amount does not keep up with the demand for them, or a surplus without the ability to expand the amount of supply. Inflation has direct and indirect causes, and usury is one of its indirect ones. This is because usurers, although they demand high rates of interest, compel the owners of commodities and services to increase the latter’s price. It goes without saying that inflation is very harmful to people especially those who have fixed salaries such as employees and workers; as their actual salaries decrease. If the government tries to find a way out by increasing salaries, this increase happens neither quickly nor in the proper time. That is why, men of intellect, politicians, and economists should work on fighting inflation especially the one that economists describe as “rampant inflation.” In this kind of inflation, prices increase in an exorbitant way, and usury is one of its main causes. Therefore, fighting inflation is exactly like fighting a serious disease. 4) Recession and Unemployment: When there is a great increase in the prices of commodities and services, people stop buying them either because they cannot afford the price or because the price will exhaust their budget. When people refrain from buying, goods will remain unsold in the stores and shops. In this case, factories will reduce their production and, as a consequence, they will get rid of some of their workers and employees; or factories may stop their production completely and, as a consequence, workers and employees will be a surplus labour. At this point, when usurers feel that the market is declined, they add salt to injury and stop lending money or withdraw it altogether, which brings about economic convulsions. This is really astonishing because money is available but it is hoarded in the usurers’ safes. In spite of that, people have to buy their needs but they cannot afford the price, and workers need to work but there is no place for them in factories or companies either because the latter are in bad a need for money or because they need to sell their goods. Usury has a bad effect on the trade cycle. That is why, Islam prohibited it in order to maintain this cycle, and it made a lot of legislations to prevent the centralization of money in the hands of the few. Today, America; the master of capitalism, is suffering from a frightening terrorism crisis. When the nations are shackled like this, they keep working and working and working and get nothing; as their efforts end up to usurer's safes. That is why, individuals in the society cannot get all what they need. However, the government imposes more taxes and increases prices in order to reduce the deficit in its payments. As a result, many revolutions broke up, people died, and all what is happening in the world is not satisfying. Sometimes, the country fails to pay off its debts and decides to write them off exactly like what happened in Cuba in 1961, and in North Korea in 1974. Dr. Stuart Greenbawn, the professor of banking and finance in the university of North Western, said:" Imagine yourself as one of the dictatorial rulers in Latin America, and you sank heavily in debts. Then, if you agreed to the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and decreased the imports, for example, you will be attacked through protest demonstrations and rebellions, and; on the other hand, if you refused to pay off your debts , you will be renounced by the international community and the international loan markets. Hence, When you get dead sure that the first solution will hang you on a tree branch, you will, inevitably, go for the second one." 5) Economic Deviation: Moreover, one of the bad effects of usury is that it deviates economy from its normal course. Usurers pay to those who give them more profit, and the one who takes the usurious loan do not invest the money except in the fields that give him a profit that exceeds what is imposed by usurers. That is why, the issue is an issue of cupidity which takes people away from the useful projects that works for the good of the society, to invest their money, instead, in the more profitable projects. 6) Extravagance and Taking risks: It is too easy to get money through usury as long as the usurer guarantees that he will take his money back. That is why, those who have no experience become greedy and take usurious loans and get involved in projects that could be doomed to fail or in business which has more to do with gambling rather than clean business. When this kind of business spreads, it harms the economy of the nation. Usurers do not refrain form lending money to those people because they do not care about the means through which they will invest their money, but rather they care about getting their money back with its interests. Islam orders us to prevent extravagants from spending their money as they pleases for the nation's wealth not to be lost. Allah says in surat Al- Nesaa (Women, verse 5) : (Do not give extravagants the properties that Allah has made a means of support for you) Notice here the word "Your" which means that the money of extravagants is a collective ownership and the nation may make use of it. For, usury centralizes the nations' money in the hands of adventurers and ignorants who waste it. what is worse is that usurers can take hold of the people's houses, farms, factories and stores. The easiness of the usurious loan encourages people to be extravagants and to waste their money. The American "Time" mentioned, in its study concerning the Third World debts at the beginning of this year that Liberia sank heavily in the usurious debts as a result of hosting the meetings of the Organization of African Unity. The " Time" also mentioned that Central African Republic spent over 5 million dollars (i.e. the half of its annual budget in 1977) during the coronation of Emperor Bokasa. Al Maraghi said because borrowers can take money without an immediate exchange, The Devil tempts them to buy luxury goods, which leads to the increase of their debts to the extent that they became overburdened with them. Hence, when the time comes for their debts to be paid off, they keep procrastinating till the debtors put their hands on their properties and they become poor and destitute. Allah is right when he says: (Allah makes usury to wane and makes almsgiving fruitful) 7) Putting the Muslims Money in the Hands of their Enemies: The most dangerous thing that could befall the Muslims is the depositing of their money surplus in the usurious banks; as this could divest them of the tools of economy and of the force majeure in the exchanges and put it in the hands of the Jewish emperors of money who gained full control over the money markets . Besides, the interests that usurers pay us is considered to be the price of their (the Jewish emperors of money) control over the international liquidity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References : R. Esaa ABDW (1) Ser. Malcolom lwbal draleng book

why do people like ANN COULTER?

please answer my question about the constitutional convention? TeachingAmericanHistory.org Homepage Register Online About Us Search Site Seminars & Institutes Historical Documents Library Audio Lectures & Discussions Constitutional Convention Home > Constitutional Convention > Introduction to the Constitutional Convention by Gordon Lloyd Introduction to the Constitutional Convention by Gordon Lloyd See Also: Convention: Introduction to this Site | Introduction to the Convention | Four Act Drama | Day by Day Summary | Major Themes | Madison's Notes | Selected Correspondence Delegates: Age of Framers in 1787 | Educational Backgrounds | Continental Experiences | Delegates by State | Alphabetical List | Interactive Scene at the Signing of the Constitution | Interactive Map of Philadelphia | Entertainment of George Washington at the City Tavern The Call for a Grand Convention On May 15, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, is so can you answer my question?

Survive in America DIE in Europe!!! Just how much better is American MEDICINE?? ALOT!!!!!?

!!*!!*!! Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Reduce Child Poverty 2/28/2008 !!*!!*!!? 2/28/2008 Giving Every Child a Chance Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Reduce Child Poverty Fighting to give every child the chance to live up to his or her god given potential is the cause of Hillary’s life. It is the reason she entered public service as a young staff attorney working for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children Defense Fund. It has been a driving force behind her commitment to serving her country for the past 35 years. But when nearly 13 million children go to sleep every night living in poverty, it offends the core notion of America as a land of opportunity. Despite our country’s wealth, the U.S. has the highest rate of child poverty among all industrialized countries. Today, Hillary is offering a plan to address this blight on our nation’s conscience and our economic future. She announced two bold new goals an ambitious agenda to deliver real solutions for children in poverty and their families. Hillary’s plan will move America towards: Cutting child poverty in half by 2020 - lifting at least 6 million children above the poverty line. Ending child hunger by 2012, providing nourishment to the 12.4 million children who currently go hungry. To achieve these goals, Hillary will: Close the early opportunity gap with a comprehensive Zero-to-Five education initiative, including nurse home visits, early Head Start, child care and universal pre-K; End child hunger by strengthening the food stamp program, improving our food safety net and providing greater access to healthy, fresh food; Provide economic opportunity to low-income families by raising the minimum wage, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit and new job training opportunities; and Strengthen our families by working to prevent teen pregnancy, support responsible fatherhood, and make sure child support payments go to help lift children out of poverty. GIVING EVERY CHILD A CHANCE Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Reduce Child Poverty The Problem Today, 12.9 million children live in poverty and roughly five million children live in extreme poverty - that is, in families with incomes of less than half the poverty level. Child poverty has actually increased under the Bush Administration. Poverty is especially prevalent among African-American and Latino children. One third of all African American children and 28% of all Latino children live in poor families, compared with 10% of white children. Nevertheless, 35% of all poor children are white, making them the largest group of children living in poverty. And while we celebrate America as a place where an individual’s circumstances of birth should not determine his or her life chances, the fact is that economic mobility is now in decline in America. Children born in poverty are likely to live in poverty their whole lives. A Pew Charitable Trusts study found that the United States now has less economic mobility than most advanced nations. The policy initiatives outlined below are designed to restore America’s commitment to economic mobility and give every child a chance in life. Hillary’s Plan A $1 Billion Child Opportunity Fund to Promote Innovative Solutions to Reducing Child Poverty. Across the country, communities and states are overcoming odds and finding innovative ways to reduce child poverty and strengthen families’ economic circumstances. Yet too often these programs remain isolated in one region or community because there is neither the capital nor the communication necessary to bring them to scale. To address this issue, Hillary will create a $1 billion Child Opportunity Fund, which will identify and invest in the most promising practices and apply rigorous evaluation approaches to ensure tangible results. The fund will be designed as a public-private partnership. The government will leverage federal dollars by soliciting contributions from private sources and requiring that states provide a match for projects supported through the Child Opportunity Fund. And the fund will be run based on social venture capital principles, challenging promising programs to go to scale and produce real results. Setting a Bold Goal of Ending Child Hunger by 2012: 12.4 million children in America - 17% of all children - live in households considered to be food insecure. Research shows that preschool and school-aged children who experience severe hunger have higher levels of chronic illness, anxiety, depression, and behavior problems than children with no hunger. As President, Hillary will formally charge the Secretary of Agriculture with developing and implementing a plan to end child hunger by 2012. She will recommend several steps to achieve toward that goal, including: Fixing the Food Stamp Program. The average benefit in the food stamp program is only $21 a week per person and many people end up receiving only $10 a month. The take-up rate is far too low - about one-third of eligible families aren’t enrolled in the program. And because of out-dated asset rules, many low-income families have to spend down all but $2000 of their assets before they can qualify for food stamps. Hillary will reform the food stamp program. She will raise benefit levels, reform the asset test rules, and ensure that the program allows families to access a healthy and complete diet. Making the School Breakfast Program Universal for All Children in Lower-Income Communities. Ensuring that children have breakfast in the morning is vital to reducing child hunger and improving student learning. Research confirms that students who eat school breakfast increase their math and reading scores and have improved memory in cognitive tests. The current School Breakfast Program provides much-needed support to some children, but many who are eligible for the program do not participate because they don’t want to identify themselves as poor. Hillary will make the School Breakfast Program available on a universal basis for all children in low-income communities, serving an additional four million children. Hillary’s plan would make expand access to school breakfasts to 350,000 children in Ohio. Doubling the Summer Feeding Program. Hunger doesn’t take a summer vacation. When school lets out for the year, millions of children lose one or two of their major sources of food. The Summer Food Service Program helps meet that need but today it serves only 1.9 million children, compared with 9.6 million in the School Breakfast program and 17 million in the school lunch program. There is a tremendous amount of unmet need. Hillary will double funding for the program over time, and invest a portion of the expansion in outreach campaigns to make sure families in eligible communities know that meals are available for their children. Getting the Junk Food Out of Schools. For low-income students, junk food in schools often displaces healthier food because they have more limited food budgets and are less likely to obtain healthier food elsewhere. Unfortunately, junk food contains virtually no nutritional value, contributes to higher rates of obesity, and reduces students’ ability to concentrate, learn and be successful in school. Hillary will require schools that participate in the school lunch or breakfast programs to make available only foods that meet or surpass USDA nutrition standards. In doing so, she will ensure that children living in poverty receive at least one nutritional meal per day. Hillary will also provide financial assistance to help schools make the transition to healthier food. Make a Comprehensive Commitment to Zero-to-Five Education and Family Support: Hillary knows that the only way we are going to give every child a chance in life is to start them out right. As president, she’ll launch a major Zero-to-Five initiative that includes: Nurse-Home Visitation for Every New At-Risk Mother. Building on her long history of working to expand home visiting programs in Arkansas and First Lady, Hillary will expand The Nurse Family Partnership program, one of the most proven interventions for improving child outcomes for at-risk children. This program sends qualified nurses to meet with first time, at risk, pregnant women to help them maintain their prenatal health and develop their parenting skills. Over fifteen years this program has achieved stunning results: 48 percent less incidence of child abuse and neglect; an 83 percent increase in workforce participation by low-income unmarried mothers; 69 percent fewer convictions at age 15; 56 percent fewer doctor and hospital visits due to childhood injuries through child age; and a 25 percent reduction in cigarette smoking by mothers during pregnancy. As president, Hillary will ensure that every new at-risk mother is offered access to this valuable intervention. Tripling Early Head Start and Growing Head Start Enrollment by 160,000 Children. Early Head Start and Head Start provides comprehensive services for young children (ages 0-3) and their families living in poverty. These programs provide home visits, health, nutrition, pre-literacy and a strong focus on children’s social and emotional development. As President, Hillary will triple enrollment in Early Head Start, which she helped create when she was First Lady, and grow Head Start’s enrollment by 160,000 children. Providing Universal Pre-K. Hillary will provide $10 billion to create a federal-state partnership aimed at making high-quality pre-kindergarten available to every four year old, starting with those living in poverty. Hillary’s plan will enable states that have achieved that benchmark to spend the money on other early childhood development initiatives. Expanding Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care. The Bush Administration has essentially frozen the level of child care funding for the last eight years. As a result, the real purchasing power of child care subsidies has fallen significantly. According to the Bush Administration’s own estimates, 300,000 children will lose child care assistance by 2010, and 150,000 have already lost child care assistance since 2000. Hillary will increase child care funding through the Child Care and Development Block Grant and return the program to it’s original intent: to serve working families. She will also work with Congress to reform the Dependent Care Tax Credit to address its shortcomings. And she will improve the quality of child care by investing in: Helping states improve and enforce licensing and safety standards; Supporting innovative public-private partnerships that increase the supply of affordable, high quality child care for working families; Promoting and supporting quality rating systems that help families evaluate programs; and Supporting workforce initiatives that help child care providers get the right training. Enabling Working Parents to Take Leave to Stay Home with Their Children. Hillary has long supported giving every parent a real choice about whether to stay home and care for their children full time or work outside the home. That is why she is proposing to allow qualifying, low-income parents who want to stay at home rather than place their children in child care to receive child care subsidies through the Child Care Development Block Grant. This program would award grants to states to support stay-at-home parents. Currently, only parents who place their children in child care are eligible to receive assistance to the Child Care Development Block Grant. Strengthening Economic Circumstances. In order to address child poverty, we have to strengthen the economic circumstances and provide greater opportunities for children’s parents and caregivers. Hillary will enact a series of economic policies that will reward work, make work pay, and help every worker earn enough to support themselves and their families by: Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for Families. The EITC is widely seen as the most effective anti-poverty program in the U.S. today. Yet because the EITC offers the same size credit for all families with two or more children, it does not do enough to reduce poverty among larger families. More than half of children in poverty today are in families with three or more children. Indeed, the poverty rate for families with more than three children is 26% - more than double the poverty rate for families with one or two children. Hillary will create a third tier in the EITC for families with three or more children to help lift the children living in larger families out of poverty. This will provide at least 3 million families with $1,000 in additional income. Increasing the Minimum Wage. Hillary was a strong champion of recently passed legislation that provided the first increase the minimum wage in a decade, raising the take-home pay of 13 million Americans and providing 6 million children with better food, better healthcare and better opportunities for the future. But she believes we have to do more for hardworking Americans at or near the minimum wage so that we don’t face the same problem of its eroding real value a decade from now. As President, Hillary will oppose any future Congressional pay raises until Congress passes legislation to incrementally increasing the minimum wage as well. Enacting the Employee Free Choice Act. Hillary will fight for and sign into law the Employee Free Choice Act, which will make it easier to join a union and increase the number of unionized workers in America. Unions help secure better wages, benefits, and job protections for their workers. Union membership has been declining in the U.S. and Hillary will implement policies that will grow their numbers and thereby, the middle class. Strengthening families. Individual responsibility also plays a role in overcoming economic circumstances. As President, Hillary will adopt policies that create incentives for people to make smart decisions that lead them to be better prepared to take care of their families by: Enforcing Child Support Payments. Child support payments lift more than one million children out of poverty each year, and enable 300,000 families to leave public assistance. To support responsible fatherhood and economic opportunity, Hillary will reverse the Bush Administration's deep cuts to the child support enforcement budget, which will reduce child support payments by $11 billion over the next decade. Hillary will also provide incentives for states and counties to pass on every dollar of child support to the custodial parent so that it benefits children. Research demonstrates that fathers pay more of their child support and develop deeper bonds with their children if they know that those payments are going directly to their children. Hillary will also encourage states to take more realistic, cooperative approaches to managing arrears, so that fathers leaving prison are not immediately saddled with unrealistic payment obligations. Increasing child support enforcement is a wise investment: every dollar spent on child support returns $4.58 in child support payments. Preventing Teen Pregnancy. When poor teenagers become pregnant, their children are much more likely to grow up to be poor as well. According to an analysis by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, teen pregnancy costs taxpayers $9.1 billion annually in child welfare, public health, prison, and forgone tax revenue. As President, Hillary will create Teen Pregnancy Reduction Grants to States. This program will provide incentive grants to states that reduce their teen pregnancy rate below a baseline of the state’s rate in the year the program is enacted. Overhauling the foster care system. The 518,000 children living in foster care are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are far less likely to graduate from high school and go to college and much more likely to drop out of school and become a teen parent; their children are also much more likely to grow up in poverty. Yet, our foster care financing system is out of date and does not provide for services that would either prevent the child's removal from the home, swiftly reunite them with their family, or move them into another permanent home. The system is driven by procedural rules rather than outcomes and emphasizes foster care more than prevention or post-adoption services. As President, Hillary will overhaul the federal financing mechanisms to facilitate faster movement of children from foster care into safe, permanent homes and to reduce the need to place children in foster care; establish subsidized guardianship programs to allow children to move into relatives homes; ensure that children who are adopted out of foster care continue to receive the health and social services they need to succeed; and launch a major adoptive parent recruitment and retention effort. These new initiates build on the programs that Hillary has announced throughout this campaign to fight poverty and provide economic opportunity for all Americans. Together, this comprehensive commitment will help Hillary reach the bold goals of halving child poverty and ending child poverty that she outlined today: Healthcare Provide Quality Affordable Healthcare to Ever American - No One Left Out. Hillary believes that achieving truly universal healthcare is one of the most important steps we can take to reduce poverty in America. Today, 11.5 million uninsured Americans are living in poverty today—including 2.5 million children - and millions more uninsured Americans are just one illness away from falling into poverty as well. Her plan would lower costs, improve quality and cover every single American. Ensure that Lower-Income Americans Can Access All The Healthcare Services The Need: Hillary will allow single adults without children - a group that is currently unable to access Medicaid - to receive health care from the program. She will also extend access to family planning services, often the only form of health care women receive, to all women who are eligible for pregnancy-related care. And she will strengthen public hospitals and community health centers that provide critical services to low-income and vulnerable populations. Economic Opportunity Help Every American Save and Build Wealth for Their Future: Hillary understands that building wealth is often the key to helping working Americans move out of poverty and into the middle class. Her plan would offer lower-income workers up to $1000 in matching incentives to help them save and invest for their future. Provide Job Training for 1.5 Million At-Risk Youth in High-Growth Sectors of Our Economy. Hillary understands that young people who are out of work and out of school need more than a minimum-wage job--they need the skills and self-confidence to land high-paying jobs in their own communities. As President, Hillary will provide new job training opportunities to 1.5 million new youth over the next decade, principally focused in urban communities. Create at Least 5 Million New Green Collar Jobs to Provide Ladders Of Opportunity for Low-Wage Workers. Hillary’s energy plan will make aggressive investments in clean energy and energy efficiency to help create at least 5 million new, high-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced. Many of these jobs - in weatherization, construction, electrical installation and other fields - will offer exciting new prospects for lower-skilled workers to move out of poverty. Strengthening Communities and Families: Make a National Commitment to Rebuild New Orleans: In one of her first major policy announcements of the campaign, Senator Clinton outlined a detailed, 10-point Gulf Coast Recovery Agenda. Among many other proposals, she called for the creation of a Gulf Coast Corps - thousands of skilled workers from the region and across the country tasked with rebuilding public infrastructure and restoring New Orleans and the region. And she focused on the pressing needs of the people who have been abandoned by their government -- the need for affordable housing, the need for access to health care - including mental health care -- and quality education for their kids, and the need for safe streets and restored public works. Reduce Homelessness among Veterans. In 2006, nearly 200,000 veterans were homeless on any given night. Hillary will establish a pilot program on homelessness prevention for veterans that will provide subsidies, eviction prevention, and one-time assistance for veterans who fall behind on their rent. She will also expand rental assistance for veterans by calling on Congress to fund an additional 20,000 housing choice vouchers exclusively for homeless veterans. Support City and Community-Wide Efforts to Take Responsibility for Disconnected Youth: Hillary believes it will truly "take a village" to address the overlapping educational, economic and social challenges facing disconnected youth. She will call on mayors and other local officials to convene leaders from the education, business, non-profit, religious and workforce development sectors to develop comprehensive, locally-owned strategies to reengage at-risk youth. The federal government will support this process by awarding $250 million per year in competitive grants to lower-income cities and communities. Close the Prison Revolving Door by Helping Ex-Offenders Become Productive Members of Their Communities. Hillary understands that we cannot tackle the problem of poverty in America if we do not take on the tough challenge of reintegrating the nearly 650,000 ex-offenders that are released from prison each year She has called for creating new community based Reentry Partnership Grants to provide comprehensive services and opportunities to ex-offenders, including job training and placement, education toward a high school degree, housing assistance, meaningful service opportunities, and drug and mental health counseling. Housing Take Aggressive Action to Keep Families in Their Homes: Hillary understands that foreclosures are wreaking financial havoc on millions of families. When families lose their homes, they are far more likely to fall into poverty. She believes that we cannot fix our urgent economic problems without a comprehensive solution to the housing crisis. That’s why she has called for a 90-day foreclosure moratorium, a 5-year interest rate freeze on subprime mortgages, and $30 billion in assistance to states to help at-risk families and communities. Support Affordable Housing Trust Funds: Hillary introduced legislation to establish a $1 billion fund to support housing trust funds established by state, county, and municipal governments. Housing trust funds expand the supply of subsidized rental housing, safety net housing, and other affordable housing initiatives. Hillary believes this legislation is more critical than ever as housing is now a severe cost burden for nearly 16 million low- and middle-income households. Education Cut in Half the High School Drop-Out Rate for African American and Latino Students: Hillary has laid out an aggressive agenda to cut in half the drop-out rate among African American and Latino students. Currently about one-half of African American and Hispanic students do not graduate from high school within six years of entering. Hillary will provide financial incentives to attract and retain outstanding teachers and principals to high-need areas; invest in proven initiatives like multiple pathways to graduation and Early College High Schools; and ensure that all schools are measuring their graduation rate the same so that we can begin to make measurable progress and ensure that every child lives up to his or her potential. Increase Pell Grants and Enact a Student Borrowers Bill of Rights: College is increasingly the ticket to a middle class life, yet its cost has risen by 40% in the last five years alone. Federal aid has not kept pace and predatory private student lenders are filling in the void. Almost 90% of college graduates who received a Pell Grant had student loans, compared with about half of non-Pell recipients. Hillary has proposed a Student Borrowers Bill of Rights to ensure that students can obtain loans with affordable monthly payments and where they will receive full and transparent information about the terms. She’s also committed to ensuring that Pell Grants keep pace with the rising cost of college. Hillary Clinton’s Lifetime Record on Fighting Poverty From early in her career, Hillary has worked to alleviate poverty and address its root causes, and to provide the same life chances for all children. Helping Abused and Neglected Children:While in law school, Hillary worked at the Yale New Haven hospital helping to develop a protocol to help identify children who are victims of abuse and neglect, and ensure that they received the help and treatment they deserve. Providing Legal Services to the Indigent: As a law student she volunteered at the New Haven Legal Services offices, providing free legal aid to low income people, in need of assistance. [Living History, pg. 49-50] Working for the Children’s Defense Fund: Hillary’s first job out of law school was working with Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project in Washington, DC (later the Children’s Defense Fund). She walked door-to-door in New Bedford, MA, identifying children who were out of school as a result of a disability or indigence. Her advocacy helped lead to the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Working to Enfranchise Low-Income Individuals: In 1972, Hillary headed up voter registration drive in Austin, Texas for McGovern campaign, focusing on registering black, Hispanic, and young voters. In Arkansas, Hillary dedicated her life to working to create opportunity for low-income and disadvantaged individuals, especially children. Running a Legal Aid Program: Upon moving to Arkansas, Hillary ran the University of Arkansas's legal aid clinic and prison projects providing legal assistance to the poor and incarcerated. [Living History, pg. 70] Reforming Arkansas’ Education System: Hillary chaired the Educational Standards Commission to reform Arkansas’ education system to better prepare young people, particularly those living in low income areas, to thrive. [Associated Press, 1/27/93] Improving Rural Health Care in Arkansas: In 1979, Hillary chaired the Rural Health Committee in Arkansas, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas. Bringing the Home Instruction for the Parents of Preschool Youngsters to Arkansas - Hillary helped bring this model parent involvement program to Arkansas to help educate new parents living in low-income communities about building literacy skills. Created a Scholarship Program to Help Single Parents: Hillary was the founding board president of the Arkansas Single Parent Scholarship program, which was designed to help single parents access higher education and better jobs so they could better provide for themselves and their children. Founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families: Hillary founded this non-profit organization to advocate for public policies that help children and families achieve their full potential and live healthy lives. Chair of the Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors: The Legal Services Corporation provides legal services to indigent individuals. Hillary served as the Chair of the LSC’s Board of Directors from 1978-80, a time of expansion for LSC. [Living History, pg.83] Chair of the Board of the Children’s Defense Fund: Hillary joined the Board of the Children’s Defense Fund in 1972. She served as Chairperson of the Board of CDF from 1986 to 1992. CDF is a major advocacy force for poor children. As First Lady, Hillary worked to: Create the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) - SCHIP provides health care to six million children from low-income families. [New York Times, 3/14/07] Double Child Care Spending, Expand Head Start, and Create Early Head Start - Hillary advocated internally for a much more significant investment in child care subsidies in order to help low-income working families become self-sufficient. Hillary’s advocacy helped lead to the enactment of Early Head Start, which provides comprehensive services to babies and toddlers and their families. [PL 103-252, signed 5/18/94; The Washington Post, 10/7/98; USA Today, 10/27/98] Increase Funding for After-School Programs: Hillary fought to increase grow the federal after- school program from a pilot program of $1 million to a $1 billion formula grant program. This program provides funding to create safe opportunities for at-risk children afterschool. [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/28/98] A Commitment to Fiscal Discipline: Hillary will finance her Child Poverty Agenda without increasing the deficit by taking common sense steps to close the tax gap - the tens of billions of dollars in owed taxes that go uncollected each year. Specifically, Senator Clinton would increase third-party reporting of capital gains and improve tax compliance by requiring credit and debit card companies to report reimbursement payments made to merchants.

Response to the US Vs UK military questions? Just read this article. It came out of the most anti-American newspaper in the world. The Guardian... That being said, even these idiots can not deny the scope of American power. Oh yeah...There is no way Britain could even begin to dream about winning a (hypothetical) war against America. Read up on the US Military - no one even comes close. This isn't opinion...its fact. -------- American power -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Armed to the teeth Is Bush's awesome increase in military spending a reasonable response to the afermath of September 11, or is he creating a force almost too powerful for its own good? Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy report Is America too powerful for its own good? You can have your say online here. Observer Worldview Sunday February 10, 2002 The Observer There is a United States special forces dog-handler who meets journalists, diplomats and aid workers off the UN flight to Kabul. His job is to search luggage and ensure the security of US troops in Afghanistan. He is short, gingery and aggressive. His skills at persuasion are limited to shouting at the milling crowd: 'Stand back! Stand back! My dog will bite!' Last week that phrase had become the defining motto and operating credo for the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration. Already President George W. Bush has put Iran, Iraq and North Korea on notice as terrorist-sponsoring nations at the centre of an international 'axis of evil', despite the CIA's recent evidence that none of them was in the business of threatening the United States at present. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Monday, to back that explicit threat, he announced an increase in US military spending of 15 per cent, the biggest in 20 years, more than double the military spending in all of the European Union. The rise will be $36 billion (£26.5bn) this year, $48 billion next year and $120 billion over the next five years, rising to a staggering two trillion over the next five years. Even this is not enough for General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They want the US defence budget to increase at an even faster rate. What all this means is clear. Troubled by the 11 September attacks and buoyed by the ease of the war against Afghanistan, Bush's message to the 'evil doers' of the world is that he has a dog; that it is very big, getting bigger, and certainly it will bite. The puzzle about the latest rise in defence spending is that America at the beginning of the 21st century is already not so much a superpower as a behemoth on the world stage. Economically dominant, it enjoys military and cultural power unrivalled since the days of the Roman emperors, as the American author Robert D. Kaplan reminds us in his new book, Warrior Politics. Typically, it has been left to the French, traditionally suspicious of US global hegemony, to find the best words to describe it. Gigantisme militaire they call it, in a phrase that describes both the scale of America's ambitions and also a pathological condition: an organism grown so large it is sick. The question the rest of the world is asking itself is: Who is the enemy America is arming itself so against? And why? 'Ostensibly,' says one European diplomat, 'this is about security. But quite how a massive increase in defence spending is supposed to prevent another terrorist attack remains unclear. Instead this seems to be about repairing the bruised American psyche after 11 September. America's powerlessness in the face of this attack requires big gestures and reassurances, even if they are counter-productive and meaningless.' Indeed, some analysts say, if it is security that America seeks it is better sought in dialogue with potentially threatening states, rather than in reinforcing the idea already held by many anti-US groups that it is an evil empire bent on world domination. Cynics have identified more overtly self-serving strands in the Republican obsession with America's defence. The 'war' rhetoric, as some US liberal commentators have pointed out, serves a purely domestic Republican agenda in the post-11 September mood of national paranoia: to win Bush a second presidential term and, in the shorter term, regain Congress. The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back. The requirement that US armed forces be able to fight two fully fledged wars with two separate adversaries simultaneously may recently have been dropped, but only because it would be hard pushed to find two such equal foes to fight. A single US nuclear-powered carrier group - which forms around the USS Enterprise, for example, with a flight deck almost a mile in length and a superstructure 20 storeys high - concentrates more military power in one naval group than most states can manage with all their armed forces. America has seven of these battle groups. It is not just the scale and power of these weapons systems. The reach of US arms, too, is awesome. When the USS Kitty Hawk was sent with its accompanying warships from Yokohama to the Gulf for the war against Afghanistan, it covered 6,000 miles in just 12 days to be transformed into a vast floating forward attack station for thousands of US special forces. Its B-52 bombers can fly and refuel across the world armed with cruise missiles that can be fired hundreds of miles away from hostile skies, the missiles themselves directed to their targets by satellites in orbit. And America's supremacy in bombs, planes, satellites, tanks and real-time intelligence have made the prospect of US casualties remote, except in the event of cock-up or disaster. And, significantly, as the world's only economic hyper-power, it can afford this level of militarisation. But against all this even the manufacturers of America's arms - like the aviation giant Lockheed-Martin - have been struggling for a decade or so to define the threat its top-shelf jets will be battling in the skies, being forced in one memorable presentation to show the European Eurofighter as a potential adversary. So why the need for more and better military power? Even military analysts are baffled. 'The rise in US military spending,' says Dan Plesch, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, 'ought to be compared to the decision in the First World War to order up more cavalry when the first wave had been mown down by machine-guns. 'The US has no competitor in high-tech military equipment. And what it is spending its money on is mostly irrelevant against the knives used to carry out 11 September. The bombing of Afghanistan has created the illusion of victory.' Professor Paul Kennedy at Yale University calculates that the US now spends more each year than the next nine largest national defence budgets combined. Indeed America is responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's military spending. The new defence expenditure will be paid for by a freshly dug deficit and cuts to every other federal spending programme - including social security, Medicare and urban renewal - apart from tax breaks loaded heavily in favour of the upper-income brackets. Amid all this, military might has emerged as the central tenet of America's new power, the defining feature of the Bush administration. Already it is causing alarm, even among America's closest allies in Nato, where Lord Robertson, the usually unflappable secretary-general, has been moved to warn some members that unless the declining European defence expenditure is reversed then Europe - and the Europeans in Nato - are in danger of becoming military pygmies. It is not a prospect likely to worry the military hawks in the Bush administration, who favour unilateralism over alliance. Indeed the Nato alliance, built to counter the rival superpower conflict of the Cold War, is already almost redundant, some diplomats claim. 'Will the Americans ever fight a war through Nato again?' asks Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister. 'It's doubtful. The United States reserves the right to itself to wage war, and dumps on others the messy, expensive business of nation-building and peace keeping'. And the Afghan war has not only put the US in sole command of the world, but fundamentally reshaped the architecture of international alliances. Central Asia is splattered with new American fortresses; the Pacific and Indian oceans are patrolled by aircraft carriers and accompanying fleets of awesome size.

Old rationales for government growth (discredited) and terrible time of recruiting employeess : GOOD¡? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. More from Lew: $25 Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, for supporting the Mises Institute financially and morally, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lew Rockwell