History US tax rate history - A return to the glory days

[Vanadium 50]

Tax the red line...

We do. 40% of the income tax collected in 2007 (the last year for which data are available) came from that 1%.

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Why not raise taxes only on this 1%? That way, 99% of us can get the better government services that have been promised us, and we don't have to pay for it. The 1% do.

Assuming the 2007 fractions are constant, in 2010, the top 1% paid $360B of taxes on $1.6T of income. To balance the budget requires $1.96T in income taxes from these people (the $1.5T deficit plus the $360 already collected). Even if the government took every last dime of their income, it would not be enough.

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

 

[mheslep]

...

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

If the strategy referred to here is about the deficit, then only the Right has proposed a strategy that is mathematically capable of balancing the budget, that is, including cuts in spending and in particular reforming entitlements which must be done to zero the deficit. From what I can gather, Obama proposes only raising taxes; raising taxes on the top 1% of US earners to take all of that group's income, i.e. a 100% tax rate, would provide a theoretical http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" they already paid, and thus still would not balance the current $4T budget/$1.6T deficit even if that income quantity stayed constant under such a rate, which of course it would not.

 

[OmCheeto]

In previous messages, I have pointed out who the "rich" are. If we want to tax our way to a balanced budget, the 91% bracket has to kick in at an income of about $70,000 a year. That's a perfectly valid choice, but we need to understand what that choice is.

I don't think aspiring to make $70,000 a year is "Santa Claus".

Actually, my "Santa Claus" delusion theorem was from another thread, where my bartender an his bar-back said they had no problem with someone getting 9 billion dollars, and not having to pay any taxes on it. Even though that person had done nothing to make that 9 billion dollars, except be born, to the right person.

The only thing I have every heard "double taxation" referred to is capital gains taxes. ...

"DOUBLE TAXATION!" was the first response from the two above.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that the value of a company was not taxed, and there never was a "first" taxation.

I get tired of dealing with delusional people sometimes, and just let them dream, about being billionaires.

Ha!

Next time, I'll just tell them next time to move to Zimbabwe. It only costs 27 bucks to be a http://compare.ebay.com/like/320563874874?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar" !

 

[SixNein]

You're equivocating opportunities to rights, which are different things. Same rights, yes - opportunities can be dependant on lots of other different things. To start, a middle-income family in Detroit will have different opportunities than a middle-income family in LA. They're in different places, and thus different opportunities. The same can be said of an individual living in a rural environment versus a suburban environment versus downtown-urban environment.

Even if we had raw and total income redistribution in the country - would that change either of those factors? No, and I would suggest that there is no need to change those factors. Individuals grow up differently and have different opportunities presented in different ways.

Perhaps I'm speaking of the right to pursue happiness.

Opportunities are not the same thing as income. If two people apply for the same job, and one is more qualified for the job than the other, but the employer picks the other person because the employer doesn't like the race of the more qualified person. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Another example would be with government funding and legislation. Let's say there are two public schools in a town that are funded by the same government. One is in a poor area while the other is in a middle class area. The politicians do not think poor people are worth their time, so they better fund the middle class area school and neglect the poor area school. Is this what one wants in a nation?

 

[Al68]

Perhaps I'm speaking of the right to pursue happiness.

Opportunities are not the same thing as income. If two people apply for the same job, and one is more qualified for the job than the other, but the employer picks the other person because the employer doesn't like the race of the more qualified person. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Another example would be with government funding and legislation. Let's say there are two public schools in a town that are funded by the same government. One is in a poor area while the other is in a middle class area. The politicians do not think poor people are worth their time, so they better fund the middle class area school and neglect the poor area school. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Those are both strawman examples. Nobody around here is arguing for either of those, so it serves no purpose to introduce such examples to argue against them.

Except that by arguing against things nobody is arguing for you get to win the argument. Congrats!

 

[SixNein]

I'm taking a libertarian's position.

Libertarianism? How close to anarchy do you want?

 

[Al68]

Libertarianism? How close to anarchy do you want?

It seems you gave my answer right before the question. I'm a libertarian.

But libertarianism is a long way from anarchy. A libertarian government exists to protect liberty, not to control, shape, "better", or manage society.

Non-authoritarian government isn't necessarily anarchy. Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

 

[turbo]

Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men. Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

 

[SixNein]

We do. 40% of the income tax collected in 2007 (the last year for which data are available) came from that 1%.

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Why not raise taxes only on this 1%? That way, 99% of us can get the better government services that have been promised us, and we don't have to pay for it. The 1% do.

Assuming the 2007 fractions are constant, in 2010, the top 1% paid $360B of taxes on $1.6T of income. To balance the budget requires $1.96T in income taxes from these people (the $1.5T deficit plus the $360 already collected). Even if the government took every last dime of their income, it would not be enough.

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

The current annual budget is very high right now because of the recession which has caused government revenue to decline rapidly. And this is occurring throughout the federal system. Although a lot of people seem to focus on the central government, state governments are in deep too. Unless one assumes that this recession is a permanent feature of the economy, government revenue will increase as the economy pulls out of recession.

On the topic of the central government, yes, taxes on the top %1 percent must increase. The bush tax must go. But you are correct in that both sides of the government's cash flow must be worked on. On top of that, there are many reforms needed in several areas that will be politically difficult.

 

[mege]

The current annual budget is very high right now because of the recession which has caused government revenue to decline rapidly. And this is occurring throughout the federal system. Although a lot of people seem to focus on the central government, state governments are in deep too. Unless one assumes that this recession is a permanent feature of the economy, government revenue will increase as the economy pulls out of recession.

On the topic of the central government, yes, taxes on the top %1 percent must increase. The bush tax must go. But you are correct in that both sides of the government's cash flow must be worked on. On top of that, there are many reforms needed in several areas that will be politically difficult.

Something to consider, there were a few articles which detailed this phenomena recently on WSJ (CNN and Fox parroted the article as well): states that are doing the worse, financially, had the most progressive taxes. Reasons for their failure are that they relied on the 'rich' whom have far more to lose in a down economy than the middle-class or poor. Many 'rich' stopped earning money and declared losses (and thus didn't owe taxes, at least not much compared to when their earnings are in full swing).

And I'm full in agreeance that tax cuts shouldn't be given... to anyone. The amount of deductions that are allowed is amazing (why does 1/2 the country not owe federal taxes? and even more gets back a significant refund from their witholdings?). If everyone paid taxes 'properly' (without possibility to game the system for cuts) then I think the average tax burden would be lower - rather than the disproportioned tax burden now.

 

[SixNein]

Those are both strawman examples. Nobody around here is arguing for either of those, so it serves no purpose to introduce such examples to argue against them.

Except that by arguing against things nobody is arguing for you get to win the argument. Congrats!

These examples where stated to aid in defining my position on inequality and what is meant by opportunity. I didn't define your position; therefore, no strawman was used. A strawman occurs when I change your position in order to win an argument. It would have went something like: "Your saying that black people shouldn't get the same kind of work as white people; therefore, you are wrong."

 

[Al68]

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men.

Yes, those are straw-men, but I did not pretend that sixnein, or anyone else here, had those positions. My straw-men were specifically set up to illustrate the difference between anarchy and libertarianism, not to argue against the straw-men. I purposely used straw-men instead of legitimate positions as examples so that the focus would be on the point I was making instead of the positions themselves.

There's a big difference between using a straw-man and using a fallacious "straw-man argument".

Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

 

[Al68]

These examples where stated to aid in defining my position on inequality and what is meant by opportunity. I didn't define your position; therefore, no strawman was used. A strawman occurs when I change your position in order to win an argument. It would have went something like: "Your saying that black people shouldn't get the same kind of work as white people; therefore, you are wrong."

It's funny that you say that, since I was explaining the exact same thing to turbo1 above while you were writing that. (except that a straw man was used, but not a fallacious "straw-man argument").

But in each of your examples, you asked "Is this what one wants in a nation?", which at least suggests that others here might have those positions.

 

[mege]

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men. Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

Or what health insurance to buy...
*What substances I can/cannot own are two big ones that come to mind.
*The government does have a say in whom I can hire - I cannot discriminate based on a list of protected catergories.
*I have to wear clothes... the government doesn't tell me what color, but I am required to wear them!

(I know these seem like rediculous examples, but they are all laws which restrict our actions - weither or not we really want to exercise those rights (which are taken away) are another thing, but they are restrictions put on our life)

 

[mege]

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

Post #337

 

[Al68]

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

Post #337

My assertion in post 337 was very different from the assertion turbo1 was asking me to back up, that I didn't make. My assertion in post 337 was that those libertarian positions did not constitute anarchy, not that "most Americans" didn't share those positions, as turbo1 suggested.

 

[SixNein]

It seems you gave my answer right before the question. I'm a libertarian.

But libertarianism is a long way from anarchy. A libertarian government exists to protect liberty, not to control, shape, "better", or manage society.

Non-authoritarian government isn't necessarily anarchy. Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

There are different groups of people who call themselves libertarians. Some groups want no government what so ever, and some groups what a very minimal government that is so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub.

Personally, I'm very critical of libertarianism. Here is a bit long winded view of my opinion on libertarianism and in particular the libertarian party.

Libertarianism exchanges government regulation for private market regulation where the owners of private property have absolute control. Because of absolute control, monopolies could and surely would emerge in the marketplace since libertarianism tolerates anti-competitive behavior. The super-rich would control all of the important land, infrastructure, resources, currency, and other items that are vital to the well-being of society, and they would have absolute control over those items. Libertarianism would replace a government of the people with a plutocracy.

In addition to plutocracy, the libertarian doctrine resembles the noble and peasant structure of the middle ages. Under libertarian system, the wealthy class would provide services such as police, fire departments, and other forms of protection since the government would no longer be providing these services. And the wealthy class could, in turn, demand anything for such services, and those demands could be quite high. While the wealthy class would enjoy the luxuries provided by concentrated wealth, the working class would live in utter poverty.

Outside of the wealthy, the working class would not have any rights to safe working conditions, fair wages, or equal opportunity. Libertarians believe that an agreement is made between the employer and employee, so the responsibility falls upon the employee to negotiate an agreeable contract; however, the argument is flawed because the working class would not have bargaining power in such negotiations. The wealthy class could flood the labor market with cheap foreign labor, use child labor, outsource the work, or price fix the labor market. The working class would most likely be forced to accept any kind of contract or face starvation, and certain racial groups could face starvation simply because of discrimination.

Besides rights for workers, certain groups could be alienated from society because of the http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php" . Businesses and people could deny services to individuals because of skin color, sex, or any other form of discrimination. The denied services could be anything from food, health-care, work, or anything else essential to an individual's livelihood. While libertarians oppose violence, they leave the door open for groups to be completely shut out of the society through denied services and work because of discrimination.

In addition to discrimination, libertarians call on the dismantling of public education. Such a move would not only guarantee a high degree of inequality, but it would also render a nation irrelevant on the world stage. Labor markets need people with strong science, mathematics, and interdisciplinary skills because of globalization, and people need a strong public education system to acquire these skills. Without a skilled labor force, businesses would have little choice but to outsource all work to foreign nations where a skilled labor force is maintained.

According to libertarians, the ultimate goal of libertarianism is freedom for the individual; however, the libertarian philosophy ties freedom with so called free-market principles. Because libertarians link freedom with a pure free-market, freedom is relative to the wealth of the individual. Since wealth could and surely would be concentrated at the top, libertarianism sacrifices the freedom of the majority for an ultimate freedom for a minority. The libertarian philosophy is incompatible with individual liberty because it puts economic gain ahead of freedom.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Perhaps you do not subscribe to that group. How close are your views to theirs?

 

[SixNein]

It's funny that you say that, since I was explaining the exact same thing to turbo1 above while you were writing that. (except that a straw man was used, but not a fallacious "straw-man argument").

But in each of your examples, you asked "Is this what one wants in a nation?", which at least suggests that others here might have those positions.

There are many libertarians who have that position.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php

 

[Al68]

Libertarianism exchanges government regulation for private market regulation where the owners of private property have absolute control.

Nonsense. The owners of private property have control only over their property. The word "ownership" means the right to control, after all.

Because of absolute control, monopolies could and surely would emerge in the marketplace since libertarianism tolerates anti-competitive behavior. The super-rich would control all of the important land, infrastructure, resources, currency, and other items that are vital to the well-being of society, and they would have absolute control over those items. Libertarianism would replace a government of the people with a plutocracy.

All nonsense. Monopolies cannot exist in a free market. This is far off topic, but has been discussed in other threads.

In addition to plutocracy, the libertarian doctrine resembles the noble and peasant structure of the middle ages. Under libertarian system, the wealthy class would provide services such as police, fire departments, and other forms of protection since the government would no longer be providing these services.

More nonsense.

...Because libertarians link freedom with a pure free-market, freedom is relative to the wealth of the individual. Since wealth could and surely would be concentrated at the top, libertarianism sacrifices the freedom of the majority for an ultimate freedom for a minority. The libertarian philosophy is incompatible with individual liberty because it puts economic gain ahead of freedom.

All simply false. And I'm truncating much of your post instead of responding to every point, but it's all simply false.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Perhaps you do not subscribe to that group. How close are your views to theirs?

Very close. But nothing resembling your representation of it. This subject has been discussed extensively in other threads, and I don't want to hijack this thread by rehashing the same exact points.

You'll find many posts by me in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=443042&highlight=libertarianism". And you might try a forum search on "libertarianism".

 

[Al68]

There are many libertarians who have that position.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php

Nope. At least not according to your link. Unless the libertarian position is grossly misrepresented. Failure to use force against someone to control their actions is not equivalent to "wanting" that person to do whatever choose to do.

 

[mege]

There are many libertarians who have that position.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php

From the (ultra-collectivist) TPM: "If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman (for the Libertarian Party), Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."

The problem spirals. Why can't I be racists/biggoted/whatever in a free society? As long as I am not violent and not searching out this hatred, what is the fault if I have a sign that says 'Blacks only' on my store front? If being biggoted was really that bad then if people believed I was being evil, they wouldn't support my business, etc.

I make that point to assert another (relevent to the discussion at large): why is it OK to tax the wealthy more? Isn't that discrimination based on success? What makes race, gender, lisp, hair color, whatever more worthy of protection than past success (or family origin)?

The Libertarian ultimately trusts the individual more than it trusts the government. Libertarians see any policy snowballing into something worse and getting out of control. The US is far from being Libertarian because we babystep (sometimes leap - ala Obamacare) ourselves into overregulation constantly in the name of fairness. We've done so with our tax code, that there is now a Government-created maze that imbalances the tax collection.

(as an aside I prefer to use the term 'collectivist' instead of Liberal in dealing with modern politics because, after all, liberal really is related to libertarian which is very far from the American perspective of modern liberalism - which now means 'more control and government in an attempt to protect' not Liberty)

 

[mege]

Failure to use force against someone to control their actions is not equivalent to "wanting" that person to do whatever choose to do.

This basically why I'm not going to address Sixnein's long winded post regarding Libertarianism - there's an overriding premise in there that Libertarianism = Coercian, which isn't true.

And that this thread is about tax history... not the finer points of libertarianism, except as they apply to taxation

 

[SixNein]

Or what health insurance to buy...
*What substances I can/cannot own are two big ones that come to mind.
*The government does have a say in whom I can hire - I cannot discriminate based on a list of protected catergories.
*I have to wear clothes... the government doesn't tell me what color, but I am required to wear them!

(I know these seem like rediculous examples, but they are all laws which restrict our actions - weither or not we really want to exercise those rights (which are taken away) are another thing, but they are restrictions put on our life)

I'm not free to kill anyone I dislike.

I think the difference here is one of liberty and independence. Some people want liberty where some things are sacrificed in order to protect other things. Others want an independence where nothing is sacrificed but nothing is protected.

 

[SixNein]

Nope. At least not according to your link. Unless the libertarian position is grossly misrepresented. Failure to use force against someone to control their actions is not equivalent to "wanting" that person to do whatever choose to do.

from the link...
"If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman, Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."

Failure to enforce justice is what would take place in such a society.

 

[mege]

from the link...
"If some private business discriminates we think that's unfortunate, but we don't think the government should get involved in banning it," said the spokesman, Wes Benedict. "That's just a negative that we have to tolerate in a free society."

Failure to enforce justice is what would take place in such a society.

The quote is speaking of tolerance for all sorts of people (including potential racists). So, we are only required to tolerate the groups for which the law dictates? I think I'll open a resturaunt, and only allow people with blonde hair to eat there. That's not a protected quality, so I am free to do so (as long as I am handicapped accessable, of course). Besides, what is 'justice' in this sense? It's not just to FORCE someone to limit their qualifications for a customer/business transaction/whatever.

You still haven't answered my question from a few posts back - because it's relevant to your anti-libertarian tangent and the thread at large:

why is it OK to tax the wealthy more? Isn't that discrimination based on success? What makes race, gender, lisp, hair color, whatever more worthy of protection than past success (or family origin)?

 

[SixNein]

Nonsense. The owners of private property have control only over their property. The word "ownership" means the right to control, after all.

They have not only have control but absolute control. If they want to dump chemicals into the ground, they are free to do so. If they want to dam up the water, by all means if it flows on their land. The government does not regulate these things under the libertarian philosophy.

Monopolies cannot exist in a free market.

I think you have a misunderstanding of power. Power is kind of like energy. It can't be created or destroyed. We give the power to the government that it uses for authority. If you take away the government, the power still exists in our hands, and a great deal of that power will go to the wealthy. Monopolies can still exists because the same money and relationships that influence government can be used to influence owners of private property.

More nonsense.

In medieval Europe, peasants would go to nobles for protection. In fact, its one of the defining characteristics of medieval Europe.

If the police force is in the hands of the market, you don't think a similar structure would occur? If no, why did it occur in medieval Europe?

All simply false

You don't believe there is a direct link between wealth and freedom in a libertarian society?

Wealth not government would protect freedom in a libertarian society.

Very close. But nothing resembling your representation of it. This subject has been discussed extensively in other threads, and I don't want to hijack this thread by rehashing the same exact points.

Fine, we'll end the conversation about libertarianism. But I do suggest you do some searchings like "Criticism of libertarianism" and read some arguments against the view.

 

[SixNein]

The quote is speaking of tolerance for all sorts of people (including potential racists). So, we are only required to tolerate the groups for which the law dictates? I think I'll open a resturaunt, and only allow people with blonde hair to eat there. That's not a protected quality, so I am free to do so (as long as I am handicapped accessable, of course). Besides, what is 'justice' in this sense? It's not just to FORCE someone to limit their qualifications for a customer/business transaction/whatever.

You still haven't answered my question from a few posts back - because it's relevant to your anti-libertarian tangent and the thread at large:

Discrimination on physical characteristics in general is protected.

To answer your question,

The reason it is ok to raise taxes on the wealthy is because they consume a great deal of the infrastructure those taxes go to pay for. A great example, the military has been in large part protecting their interests globally. Just look at the oil interest in the middle east.

 

[mege]

Discrimination on physical characteristics in general is protected.

To answer your question,

The reason it is ok to raise taxes on the wealthy is because they consume a great deal of the infrastructure those taxes go to pay for. A great example, the military has been in large part protecting their interests globally. Just look at the oil interest in the middle east.

While I disagree with the premise that the wars in the Middle East are just about oil (the 6 supermajors, only half are American companies, are <6% of the worlds oil), I'll argue on your premise anyhow. I think everyone should taxed proportionately to their income - based on a percentage based tax (as opposed to a 'flat tax' like every person owes $5000/yr regardless of income - remember, % based is already a step progressive and contributing according to wealth). Why does it need to be skewed more than that? How can you justify a wealthy individual potentially contributing tens of thousands times more than a middle-american? A 'big exec' earns 10mill/year. A 'middle family' earns 150k/yr. For simplicity sake, these are the rates: <250k - 30%, >250k - 70% (similar to proposed rates a few years ago when collectivists took congress). The middle family will owe about 45k. The big executive will owe 7million dollars. That ratio is 7,000:45. 155x different for only ~60x the difference in income. Under that tax system, the 'big exec' is paying 2.5x more per dollar earned than the lower family. That is called success discrimination. Oh, and that's before state taxes - if this executive lived in California - he'd have less than 1million dollars in take home income. 1/10th of what he made. You may be jealous and mock 'boo hoo', but he took risks, got a little lucky, and was able to be successful with his life. Why does the government need to take that away?

Also, by your justification, someone obtaining direct government assistance (welfare, medicaid) should be required to pay more tax as well. Lastly, these major companys, when reporting profits, do generally pay tax on the company's income. So wouldn't extreme taxes on the heads of these companys represent a multiple taxation - if one is to assume your reasoning?

Again, using your 'protecting oil' premise, if taxes increased to that point - it's likely these executives wouldn't have assets to worry about internationally any more. The remaining 6% of the world's private oil industry would just be ceeded back to the Middle East. We would still need oil, but have no one to contribute. If you're really interested in obtaining tax money - look at the profitable corporations which paid no taxes this year, like GE. Basically they took enviro-collectivist special interest 'tax benefits' and ran with them to make several billion dollars in profit and owe $0.00. Now, I do also agree that the oil/ethanol subsidies are also out of hand (I can't find a source, but remember hearing that big three each paid about 15% in tax, down from a nominal rate of ~22% for the industry because of subsidies) - they should be fully taxed as we don't need to be subsidizing any of this.

And again, you're the one making the argument that the wealthy are 'worth more' to the government. So, if that's the case - then why shouldn't they have a larger say? If the wealthy are taxed proportionately higher, then shouldn't they have a proportionately higher say in the givernment as well? See the figures above - maybe the oil executive should have 155 votes for the middle family's 1 vote?

(I don't think that someone should have more votes intrinsically based on wealth, but just extending the premise to illustrate my point using your analogy)

 

[mege]

Oh, and physical appearance isn't really protected (see the various failed lawsuits against Hooters, Abercrombie, etc). "Race, color, religion, sex or national origin" is what is on my fair employement poster. Body type, hair color, clothing choice are not protected. (see malls banning things like: helmets, hats, baggy clothes, padding, etc)

The idea of discrimination in private institutions is going to be heavy challenged over the next decade because of the amount of states allowing same-sex marriages. NY State is being critisized enough for not having sufficient protections for churches to only marry those they wish. I'm generally agnostic on the issue of gay marriage in practice (when it was on the ballot in MI, I didn't vote on it), but the above issue is one of my main reasons that I lean and generally argue in opposition of it. You create a reverse discrimination by forcing a belief on a particular group.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The current annual budget is very high right now because of the recession which has caused government revenue to decline rapidly.

No. The recession can explain why revenues are low, but it cannot explain why expenditures are high. Expenditures are high because Congress voted to increase them. Some of that increase, the "stimulus" was in response to the recession, to be sure, but stimulus was a choice. Perhaps a good choice, but a choice nevertheless.

Also, a budget that is balanced in boom times but not in bad is not, in my mind, "balanced".