Charlie Rose

BobLud  04/28/2010 09:50 PM Report

Your comment that we need to raise taxes and cut entitlements was on the mark. The following is an analysis I recently completed.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Patriots Day April 19, 2010

I have recently completed an analysis of the 2007 IRS Tax Statistics for returns filed by Individuals and supplied a summary to Senator #41 to convey my views of current tax policy. A copy of these “Scott Brown Memos” is attached should you have an interest.

The facts that were most noteworthy to me were the following:

• The filers with over $10 million of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) have the lowest tax burden of the tax paying classes

o Their 28% average tax burden is less than the median rate and only 75% of the class of payers with the highest tax burden

o The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) only adds 1.3% to their tax burden, higher only than those with an AGI of less than $100,000.

o Their total wealth exceeds the Federal Budget and results in a tax to wealth ratio of 2%, the lowest average rate of all tax paying classes.

o Their wealth guarantees their salary as reported for eternity.

• 46 million tax returns were prepared, filed & processed although no tax was due

o Cost of this administrative process bears no filing fee

o A minimum tax of $500 would raise as much revenue as the AMT

o OASI continues to be paid regardless of need or income level, while Salaries of $700 billion incur no payroll tax levy

• The total reported AGI is $8.7 trillion, of which $6.5 trillion has minimal supporting documentation (W-2s, etc.)

o The remaining $2.3 trillion requires dozens of forms and hundreds of lines of detail information

o Approximately $2.7 trillion is allowed as reductions to AGI in the form of deductions and credits built on decades of increasing complexities and filing requirements and now representing 30% of the AGI reported

o [Image the administrative cost of these two offsetting bullet points]

o Tax revenues could be increased 15% with no hardship, or, disruption to the current Tax Code.

The tax policy changes suggested in the “Scott Brown Memos” would establish a more realistic graduated tax, establish equitable taxation based on ability to pay (or benefit received), have positive impact on Social Security & deficit reduction, while redirecting the effort expended to avoid payment of taxes. There are better ways but they require leadership, political fortitude and a small dose of common sense.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Bob Ludovico

12 Independence Road

Acton, MA 01720

Dear Senator Brown: April 7, 2010

Congratulations on your success in reading the mood of the MA voters. As an Obama voter I welcomed the opportunity to elect someone who is searching for improvement in the way government is working. I am a strong believer in the tenants upon which our country was founded and the principles upon which we harness the collective strength of the American people.

Reviews explaining your success, however, seem to be spun sound bites, rather than clear defined voter reasoning. Frustration and fear are terms often used but they lack explanation of what may be their cause. In my case it is a deep concern that public servants fail to grasp the intricacies of the policies they put in place. After some thought I concluded that if I explained my position it might possibly help you to “find a better way.” I'm not the expert that others claim to be, but I do have opinions about how we have arrived at our current juncture.

Our nation was founded on the belief that taxation had gone awry and change was warranted. I believe that fundamentally we have again arrived at a point of taxation policy that requires comprehensive analysis and innovation because of taxation’s invasive nature into every aspect of our economy. (Jobs, Executive Compensation, Healthcare, Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Business Pricing Practices, etc.)

You have asked for time to rethink the agenda of government and I endorse that strategy. Most voters of Massachusetts would not articulate what I have set out to express, but I believe the same concepts are embodied in their beliefs. As an example; 1) The US has a graduated Income Tax Rate Structure under which the average sum of Federal & State taxes is 33.4% of the Federal definition of taxable income for 147 million tax filers. The 18,400 Tax filers, whose taxable income exceeds $10 million, pay 28.2% in Federal & State taxes, on their average $27 million taxable income. No frustration or anger yet, but this doesn't meet my definition of a graduated tax rate structure, from which we need to raise $2 Trillion in taxes from individuals. (Source: IRS.gov/taxstatistics/2007Individuals/) I believe strongly in the concept of a graduated structure, but this situation is less than equitable…… and there has got to be “a better way.”

Again, congratulations on your victory and I plan on providing additional commentary on a regular basis.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 8, 2010

I previously wrote to you and started to articulate my thoughts on the Tax Regulations under which we raise $2 Trillion dollars from American Individual taxpayers. I pointed out that the Taxpayers with the highest income levels pay an average of 28.2% of their income in taxes to Federal & State bodies, a rate that is less than that paid by any other income class.

Two points need immediate clarification; first, what is the rate of taxation that other income level taxpayers incur and second, how did we arrive at this juncture? The former question can easily be addressed by reference to the same IRS 2007 tax statistics but the latter is much more complex and will require extended commentary.

As to the rates of Taxation that Individuals pay, the simple summation would be as follows:

• Tax filers with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) between $20,000 and $75,000 pay approximately 30% of their defined “Taxable Income” in Federal and State Taxes.

• The rate then escalates slowly to those whose AGI reaches $500,000, topping out at 37.2% of their “Taxable Income.”

• It then moderates downward to a rate of 32.3% for filers with an AGI of up to $10 million.

• For the 18,398 tax filers whose AGI exceeds $10 million, the average rate of taxes declines further to 28.2%.

To those that advocate a flat tax, the current system provides a reasonable approximation of that concept. To those that advocated a graduated tax rate structure they have inherited a system that has the highest income levels paying the lowest rates.

Let’s be clear on the data being presented; Taxes are the total of all taxes paid being compared to the Federal definition of “Taxable Income” and not some subset of taxes as compared to “Total Income.” Therefore, for those filers whose AGI is less than $20,000, whose “Taxable Income” has been attained by subtracting defined exemptions and who incur the full burden of non-income taxes as well as all applicable income taxes, their rate of taxation exceeds all other classes when measured against the defined “Taxable Income.” Conversely, if the measure was AGI rather than Taxable Income, those tax filers exceeding $10 million of income would have a lower tax rate than anyone whose AGI is more than $100,000. There has got to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 9, 2010

I have written recently to articulate my thoughts on the Tax Regulations under which we raise $2 Trillion dollars from American Individual taxpayers and suggesting that the Taxpayers with the highest income levels pay disproportionately lower taxes than most other classes of tax payers. Not to be overlooked, however, are 46,709,055 tax returns that are filed with NO liability for Federal Income Taxes!

The number staggers my imagination and introduces so many issues that I find it almost impossible to focus on resolution or redirection. That number does not represent individuals, only the number of returns which would conservatively translate to 100 million people. I’m sorry, but in a nation that has 99% of households with TVs, and multiple numbers of TVs at that, I can’t but conclude something is wrong with this picture. Whining about taxes has become a national past time. Embedded in this enabling mentality has got to be the root cause of our politicians’ conduct.

As a taxpayer who has contributed $millions in taxation I can’t help from feeling grateful to have had the opportunity to live in a country that has provided the opportunity to provide for my family in an environment of security, freedom and happiness in a world dominated with hunger, disease, repression and lacking in human dignity. Until the tax rate goes over 100%, get out of my way and let me at ‘em because I get to keep the residual. I wish I could have paid a $1 Billion in taxes!!!!

Where does one begin? How about a minimum Tax liability of $500 to help establish the concept that there are dues to be paid for the US system of governance? Letting folks buy into the club with no membership fee is enabling the psychology of freeloading. How about national service that puts youths or unemployed into mandatory military or social work, which might provide healthcare facilities with lower-cost service providers (by providing unemployment benefits and a modest wage) to initiate diagnostic health clinics? If providing jobs wasn’t benefit enough, at least it would foster an understanding of the requirements to keep a country operating. At a bare minimum, a tax of $500 per tax return would raise $23 Billion, or, an amount equal to the AMT. There has to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 10, 2010

When I wrote last, I had covered the topic of filed tax returns which did not reflect any tax liability, while noting that a minimum tax of $500 would yield the same tax revenue as the complex AMT provisions. As we pass by the topic of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) we need to recall that the intention of this particular piece of tax legislation was to ensure that the high income taxpayers did not escape from payment of any taxes.

So who pays this $24 Billion tax and why has it caused so much negative reaction? Starting with the tax returns that show no AGI, the AMT raises approximately $106 million or about $56 per return filed. Other than Self Employment taxes this group of 1.9 million tax payers does not have a liability for Federal Income taxes. The remaining filers in the groupings of an AGI of <$100K, <$1 Million, <$10 Million and >$10 Million have additional taxes of 0.006%, 2.0%, 1.5% and 1.3%, again, note the declining impact the AMT has for the highest level of AGI filers.

If the average taxpayer was to have comfort in the fact that the AMT will level the playing field, the tax rates for this tax would have to be increased significantly and also not focus on the income elements that are concentrated at the <$1,000,000 AGI tax filer.

These data begin to require an understanding of the nomenclature used to convey a meaning to the different economic levels of taxpayers. These descriptive labels more than any other single item are the cause of confusion, resentment and frustration.

Being labeled Middle Income or High Income while you are struggling to meet your economic needs or goals is not helpful. Being dragged into the AMT morass at AGI levels which are 50-75% lower than filers subject to a lower tax rate is demoralizing if not unethical. Unfortunately policy designers allow personal values to get intermingled with greed, political influence and ethics to the point of confusion, lack of concern and bad policy. A phenomenon inherent in government rule that pre-dates our tax code.

There has to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 11, 2010

In this note, let us attempt to clarify the term “Middle Income Tax Payers” as it pertains to filers who pay Federal Income Taxes.

• The IRS AGI data is organized in levels from <$5K to >$10M, yielding an arithmetic mean of >$5M, not the popular definition of Middle Income.

• The median of the IRS 18 AGI data levels is $75K, a definition resulting from the grouping design. (9 groups to either side of $75K)

• The IRS data sum for the reported AGI is $8.7 trillion and the median of that sum is an AGI level of $115K, dependent on the definition of AGI. (50% of the population on either side of $115K)

• The IRS data sum for the total Federal Income Tax Liability is $1.2 trillion and the median of that sum is at AGI level of $260K, dependent on the definition of Taxable Income. (ditto 50%......$260K)

• The IRS data sum for the total Salaries is $5.8 trillion and the median is at an AGI level of $88K, dependent on the definition of Income. (ditto 50%......$88K)

• The IRS data sum for the total Taxable Income is $6 Trillion and the median is at an AGI level of $150K, higher than the AGI measure, lower than the tax liability measure and certainly out of the range of the IRS data levels.

Summation-The definition of Middle Income can be defined based on tax filer AGI, the number of tax filers, or the taxes raised from tax filers, but it doesn’t dismiss the fact that 85% of all filers have defined AGI as less than $100,000 and 97% are below $200,000. The problems still remains, the Highest & Lowest Income levels have lower tax rates than any defined middle class. The middle group is bearing both of these problems and realizes nothing is being done to change the situation. In addition, it does not help to imply that the definitions of Middle Income Taxpayers and Middle Income Americans are synonymous. Some twit in the Washington Post observed that the top 50% of the filers pay 97% of the taxes! Duh, if 33% of filers pay no taxes that leaves 17% of the filers paying 3% of the taxes based on their AGI of <$10,000. He must favor squeezing a little harder.

More to the point, the problem is not that the >90% caught in the middle want to lower their taxes as much as to stop the whining at both ends of the spectrum and to achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden.

There has got to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 12, 2010

In my last note we amused ourselves with the statistical distribution of taxpayers amongst several measures of their status. Unfortunately that maze pales in comparison to the authorized deductions and credits that are provided by the tax code. After five years of tax experience I concluded there was a better way to earn a living and I have never regretted that decision. American taxpayers are not as lucky and are stuck filing an annual return, but I got married and delegated the task to my wife!

My analysis containing the IRS summary database of tax statistics contains over 80 lines of income related data. One line is the total AGI of $8.7 trillion and a second is Salaries of $5.8 trillion. The remaining summarized definitions are the Product of Congress’s attempt to fund the financial requirements of our government, henceforth referred to as POC. Unfortunately there are another 80 lines that are the Product of Congress in dealing with credits and deductions. 160 “SUMMARY” lines report on the tax statistics for the year 2007. Let’s give it a try!

Observation #1 Healthcare expenses are limited as a POC to a % of AGI, thus denying a deduction to the highly compensated. Not true of any other of the itemized deductible expenses. Taxpayers with AGI in excess of $500 Million benefit from $200 Billion of reductions to arrive at their taxable income as a POC. Assuming their real estate taxes are determined on an equivalent basis of all taxpayers, those with an AGI >$10 million cover their housing costs 10 fold as compared to filers with less than $100K of AGI as a POC. The >$10 Million income group is denied any deduction for their healthcare expenses due to the income limitation as a POC.

Observation #2 approximately 30% of all Foreign Tax credits are claimed by those with an AGI >$10 Million, a group that only represents 0.7% of all filers as a POC, and yet they assert higher taxes will reduce their ability to invest in America and create jobs!?

Observation #3 Social Security includable in taxable income reaches the $1 Billion level when AGI >$20,000 and 50% is includable at >$40,000 as a POC. $167 Billion is included as taxable income as a POC. Social Security represents 0.36% of those with AGI >$10 million and they received 16 times that sum from their pension/annuity!

POC-Congress has limited deductions by income level, allowed deductions regardless of income levels and provided deductions for the benefit of specific income levels. Congress has provided income by income levels, limited income by income level and removed income by income levels. However, Large Bonuses can not be singled out and taxed at higher rates. There has got to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 13, 2010

With over 80 lines being required to provide a statistical understanding of the Income being reported by tax filers it can be a trying exercise, especially if you assume these summary lines are supported by schedules that average greater than 30 lines each! To simplify, I’ve reduced the database to three defined areas that comprise the $8.7 Trillion of reported AGI; Salary ($5.6 trillion, no detail reporting), Taxable Pension Benefits ($.8 Trillion) and Investment Income ($2.3 Trillion, comprising all of the detailed reporting.)

80% of Salaries are earned by filers who have reported less than $200K of AGI

• >$10 Million AGI filers could lose their salary and retain 84% of their income

• >$1 Million AGI filers could lose their salary and retain 67% of their income

• <$200K AGI filers losing their salary would be catastrophic--97% of all filers

The dispersion of Investment income expressed as a percentage of AGI level is dramatic.

• <$100K = 5%, <$1 Million = 25%, <$10 Million = 66% and >$10 Million = 84%

• Assuming the filer with >$10 Million of AGI had experienced a 7.5% yield, their portfolio size would average $350 Million.

• As a group of 18,398 filers their collective portfolio value is $6.6 Trillion, or about 1.7 times the proposed Federal Budget.

• Keep in mind we are only reviewing the reportable income and not any tax protected investments held in a variety of non-taxable holdings.

• And also recall that the 18,398 filers have the lowest rate of taxation.

The Alternative Minimum Tax resulted in raising the tax rates of filers who reported >$75,000 of AGI. The additional tax rate that the AMT produced is shown for the three highest AGI levels.

• <$1 Million + 2.0%, <$10 Million + 1.5% and >$10 Million + 1.3%

These results reflect the fact that Dividends and Capital Gains are treated equally across all income levels, the outcome of intense philosophical debates during the last half century, especially so when Tax Code changes impact previous investment decisions. A graduated AMT rate structure of 1% increase for each $1 Million of AGI would yield a several fold increase in additional Tax Revenue making it possible to remove all filers with an AGI of <$250,000 from this tax and still create additional tax revenues.

.

There has got to be a better way.

Regards,

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 15, 2010

Having reviewed the quagmire of Investment Income definitions, let’s tackle the defined allowable deductions & exemptions that reduce AGI of $8.7 Trillion to a Taxable Income of $6.0 Trillion. This $2.7 Trillion reduction is split between Itemized deductions and the Standard Deduction / Exemption, $1.3 and $1.4 Trillion respectively. Most of the angst of tax preparation originates in itemizing deductions for tax preparation which also ramps up enforcement costs. At a 20% tax rate, the $2.7 Trillion of reductions translates to $540 Billion of Tax relief as follows:

• The Standard Deduction and Exemption allowances benefit filers of <$200,000 of AGI with >98% of these allowances. An increase at the lower levels of AGI and a phasing out in the higher levels of AGI would provide cost of living adjustments.

• The Itemized deduction benefit ($1.3 Trillion) to the same group of <$200,000 filers is approximately 72% of the total, composed primarily of State Taxes and Mortgage interest. Rising state & local taxes subjects the income of these filers to double taxation. An increase to Exemptions for the lower AGI Levels mitigates this problem.

• The Itemized deductions for filers with >$200,000 of AGI does have a large component of State Taxes but Investment Interest and Contributions are larger components than Mortgage Interest. Phasing out all Itemized Deductions at the highest levels of AGI is the most expeditious resolution, especially since the top 12% of filers pay 50% of deductable tax preparation fees seeking to avoid taxes.

Having waded through the complexities of deductions to reduce AGI to Taxable Income and determined a tax liability of $1.2 Trillion, the next hurdle is to determine the beneficiaries of the $64 Billion Tax Credits. They divide along these lines:

• Education and childcare entitlements are 66%, or $42 Billion

o primarily to filers with AGI <$200,000, or 97% of the population

o Of which 33%, or $14 Billion, is provided to filers with no tax liability.

• Investment related entitlements are 26% or $16 Billion

o primarily to filers with AGI of >$200 Million, or 3% of the population

o Including foreign investment tax credits, as discussed previously.

Recognition of cost of living changes and establishing phase out levels to avoid unintended tax avoidance practices is needed for this $64 Billion reduction to Federal Revenues.

There has got to be a better way.

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown April 16, 2010

Having gone through the data contained in the annual filing of Income and Expenses, the foundation has been laid to step back and examine the drivers that produce these annual results. The major component of AGI is Salaries, which are a function of $Trillions of invested capital and is not part of this review. The other elements of AGI are comprised of pension, annuity and investment income which can readily be translated to the underlying asset values from which they are derived. Assuming a modest rate of return, individuals have amassed over $50 Trillion of personal wealth. In addition, if Tangible Property taxes are also translated to their underlying asset valuation, almost another $10 Trillion of real property value has been acquired.

Before reviewing how this wealth is distributed amongst tax filers, mortgage and investment interest must be translated to the underlying debt from which they result. That calculation will yield a debt in excess of $9 Trillion, thus leaving approximately a net $50 Trillion of tax filer wealth. Once again recall that non-taxable assets are not included in this model and that these data points are statistical averages.

There are two simple points to be made about the wealth data; first is that the wealth of tax filers with AGI of <$200,000 have less liquidity than those with greater levels of AGI and second, the burden of taxation to these filers compared to their net wealth is double that of filers in higher brackets. The liquidity issue is a function of the wealth being concentrated in retirement plans and residences as compared to liquid investment portfolios. The Investment portion of tax filer wealth is as follows; AGI<$100K = 36%, <$1Million = 55%, <$10 Million = 93% and >$10 Million = 99%.

The tax burden measured against the net wealth of these four AGI classes are; 4.7%, 4.7%, 3.0% and 2.0%, once again reflecting the impact of an income tax structure that is not graduated. The Debt ratios of these four AGI classes are 24%, 16%, 3% and 3%, indicating an inverse capacity to absorb the taxation structure currently in place. This capacity can be illustrated with this example; if the net wealth of the AGI filers >$10 Million ($7 trillion) was invested to yield 1.5%, their salaries would be covered for eternity. In simple business terminology this could be categorized as “excess capacity.” There has got to be a better way.

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown April 17, 2010

I’m reminded, as I plod through this fertile field of IRS data, that perhaps I made a math error, or two, but I take solace in the fact that a half dozen calls to the IRS for clarification of a tax issue will result in an equal number of answers, which statistically may not contain the correct answer either. The concerns and issues I’ve outlined demand solutions so I offer my view of how I would modify the current tax process.

1. Modify the AMT to include an alternative FICA tax for salaries >$250,000

2. Impose a 100% tax on SS for any AGI filer >$500,000

3. Impose a minimum tax of $500 on every tax filer

4. Create an AMT tax rate structure of 1% for each $1Million of AGI-Max 25%

5. Remove SS payments from taxation for all filers with AGI <$100,000

6. Increase child care credits 15% for AGI<$250,000, phase out credit >$250,000

7. Reduce Foreign Tax Credit by 50% for AGI>$250,000

8. Eliminate Deductions for Taxes & Interest to AGI>$1 Million

These changes will result in an additional $280 Billion of tax revenue, a 15% increase to the current tax burden, and it will have the following impact:

• Modify the AMT to relieve lower income from needless administration

• Limit SS to income levels that require social assistance

• Build an awareness and responsibility for government

• Help refocus the investments of AGI Filers >$10 Million

• Provide tax relief to those dependent upon social support

• Focus child care to the neediest income levels

• Emphasize investment in America

• De-emphasize tax avoidance time consumption

These changes will have the beneficial effect of a more equitable distribution of the burden of taxes and align taxation with the prosperity that has been provided by our form of government. The changes for AGA filers of <$100,000, <$1 Million, <$10 Million & >$10 Million would be as follows:

• Current tax rates on Taxable Income = 31%, 36%, 34% & 28%

• The rates will be modified to = 32%, 38%, 45% & 59%

----------------------------------------------------

• Current tax rates on Net Wealth = 4.7%, 4.7%, 3.0% & 2.0%

• The rates will be modified to = 4.8%, 5.0%, 3.9% & 4.3%

These changes are obviously not utopian solutions to the myriad of tax complexities in place, but offer a change in direction and in my view are on the path to “a better way.”

Bob Ludovico

Dear Senator Brown: April 18, 2010

I am not an expert but I hope this simplistic overview of the federal income tax process has provided some insight to developing a “better way” and that I have conveyed what I, and likely many others like me, are trying to communicate to Congress. If there is fear, frustration or anger being expressed in our vote, it is provoked by the actions of those elected to govern.

We are a nation of taxpayers generating $9 Trillion of reportable income and the Congress has seen fit to set aside $3 Trillion of that income in ways that are illogical and out of touch with today’s requirements. To compound that absurdity, they have created a graduated tax rate that allows billions to go untaxed and the most highly enriched to arrange their wealth in ways that mock the institution that has afforded them the opportunity to generate their wealth. How much additional wealth is secured in trusts and tax-free instruments that were wrought from opportunity inherent in our style of government? Where is the gratitude, respect or acknowledgement that their fortune was a by-product of that style of government? Have we rung it out of the electorate?

As our national debt rises to a level that is measured by a decade’s worth of tax revenues, it is apparent that some fundamental changes are required. First and foremost, our elected leaders must demonstrate leadership. Second, they must provide a fiscal governance that reflects the realities of the world as it exists; if we are at war, we need to tax on a war footing, if we are absorbing the world’s down-trodden, we must provide for their needs, if we are threatened by an aging population shift, we must shift our taxing and entitlement practices, for to ignore the shifting demographics would be the cruelest of political outcomes. We have the will, the hope, the technology, the energy and, I hope, we have the Leadership. That is the foundation of my fear, my anger and my frustration Senator.

Bickering and parliamentary ploys may have use, but not as a routine in the nation’s functioning, and, not what those who have given their life for this country deserve. We have come a long way and as I approach my retirement years, I hope this bumpy path is the correct one. My vote for you entrusted that belief to your care. My prayers are with you because there has to be a better way.

Regards and God bless you and this great country,

Bob Ludovico

robdverity  04/28/2010 05:28 PM Report

We as a country surely have supplied more than our share of war-lovers (prorated to pop. or not), particularly the preemptive sort (Spanish, Vietnam, Iraq, yadda yadda). Largely attributable to venal capitalism. Want a war? Buy it. Keeps our lobbyists in sports cars. (And the pols.)

Question is will they be like the salt and sugar purveyors, the pesticide and fertilizers sellers, along with the arms merchants when the reach of their products have the potential of reaching the sellers themselves (a la nukes).

Our epithet can read, "It was the best quarter ever!"

DavLev  04/28/2010 03:26 PM Report

He has is wrong. The President was elected to do a job.

The country is not unreasonable, his approach towards solving problems is. He is basically a left center liberal, who thinks the government is a full partner in our lives and is willing to spent trillions of our shekels to prove it. He is a nice guy, bright, funny at times, and an over achiever. But he is no Roosevelt (both), or Eisenhower, or

Washington, Lincoln or Truman. We are not fighting the Germans, Japanese, No. Koreans, Chinese. We are protecting one warlord against another, one faction of the Taliban against another, one corrupt govt against one that wants to be in power. We do not have 20m men and women under arms.

Let's not get carried away. There are no Waffen SS Divisions poised to attack US. The Muslims have no Rommels.

He has the advantage of majorities on both houses. So!

His cabinet is made up of people like Hillary, who rubber stamps everything he wants. He got a majority vote caus

he wanted to change government from the bottom up, and go across the aisle. I mean come on.

After over 1 year, a stripped down health plan was approved., absent his real intent, a single payer.

He is listening to the most defeatest and irrational

foreign policy pundits immaginable.

Sure, the volitle stock market has rebounded..but that's the market for you. Did anyone think the USA would really

collapse over AIG's insurance and Wall Street's casino

like policies..betting on people paying mortgages that they could not afford?

No, my friends, it's not that the American public is not reasonable., it's the President's policies and view of

important issues facing us that is unreasonable.

REMant  04/28/2010 01:44 PM Report

This is why I like Evan Thomas. "Muscular Christianity," it has been called, explored some years ago by T. Jackson Lears in No Place of Grace. We set a pretty good example for Germany and Japan and ppl forget that.