Taxing investment at a 90% rate is flat out wrong and immoral in a free society. That is the stuff of dictatorships. JFK knew that in 1960. Regardless, we can't go back to the world of the 1950's and early 60's even if we want to, that world is gone. Times change, and we have to change with them. That involves the creation of policies that will enable America to stay competitive in the world. The rest of the world has learned from America's success, caught up, and in some ways surpassed America (such as the Japanese auto industry or the Chinese taking over manufacturing). We can either adapt or watch our jobs and economy lag, resulting in a further erosion of the middle class. High tax rates and an oversized government are part of the problem. They are not a solution to anything. The idea is not to coalesce funds to Washington D.C. in order to create a larger welfare state. The idea is to thrive and compete. As the rest of the world embraces free markets and low corporate tax rates (lessons they learned from America), in our own country, we are shrinking from those things (one political party in particular). That is a counterproductive and regressive attitude. Witness the Democrats aversion to CAFTA, which only harms America by keeping an unfair tariff exchange in place for our exports. It is positively backwards thinking.

FICA withholding has to keep increasing due to the scam nature of SS, as I have already pointed out. Ponzi schemes are not sound financial models. If we had a good SS plan, the rate would NEVER have needed to be increased. It's a ripoff.

We agree that neither party is fiscally responsible, but we disagree that Democrats are more responsible than Republicans. In general, that is false. It's not even close. If you are talking specifically about Bush, however, then you have a point.

Dems spend like the wind. Look at any bill that comes up in Congress and you will see the Dems advocating more spending than the Republicans. The one exception to that is defense spending.

The fact that Congress spends our SS funds IS the problem. That's the crime. It nullifies the Trust Fund and turns the SS payroll tax into an ordinary hidden income tax, and SS into an ordiany hidden welfare program.

And when government says it guarantees SS monies, all that means is that they can force us taxpayers to bail their scam out at some point in the future. That is a second crime, necessary to cover up the initial crime.

You will NEVER get there by voting for liberal Democrats though, frank. Dem policy is antithetical to limiting government, which is what must happen in order to have low taxes and economic prosperity. It won't be long until all the entitlement programs swallow up the whole federal budget, requring more enormous tax increases. Yet, when you listen to the current Dem presidential candidates, they talk about more and more and more federal spending. They will bury us. The Dem "tax the rich" talking point is just a charade. You surely know that. Those taxes get passed right back down to the little guy quicker than you can blink. It's a fool's paradise. High taxes only make America less competitive. We used to have nearly the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Now we have nearly the highest. Our rates didn't really rise that much, but the rest of the world learned and lowered their rates to gain a competitive advantage. We didn't learn, and we're paying the price.

Regarding SS, we have financial manipulation and corruption extraordinaire now with SS, so what would be different, other than the money would actually earn interest and grow ? I don't see the problem of private investment as being that big. The government could still back it, and the investments would have to be conservative and long term. Needless to say, we wouldn't invest it in pork belly futures or anything of that nature. In fact, I see SS privatization as being a big boon to our economy. I think opponents are mostly engaging in scare tactics, because the big government types don't want their scam to end. It covers up the extent of their criminality. The people who have their mitts on our SS money now don't want to let it go, that's for certain. We are going to have to disagree on SS privatization. There is no more risk to doing that than there is to SS now. Only in case of an absolute american financial meltdown would SS monies be threatened, and they would be threatened whether they were invested privately or not. The US government isn't going to let our banking system collapse unless the US government is itself collapsing.

I agree with you on the unemployment figures. They are bogus. In theory, if the entire country was unemployed for over six months, the unemployment rate would be 0%. I don't see any real bad intent there on the government's part, however. The unemployment figures signify a trend in motion, so they are useful, if only in the short term.

At least Bush says he'll veto it.