You are right even though I have to work it is still a great day.

A what’s all this jibberish about “behind the curtain”? What’s any of that got to do with the fact that it sounds like Montana, just like six southern red states, cut budgets and services so fast that they threw thousands of their citizens onto welfare. Sure, they balanced their budgets and feel so good about themselves, these nitwith GOP numbskulls who haven’t learned that you don’t severly cut spending during a downturn – otherwise you end up just like Europe, which is the only sector of the world still in deep recession: and why?? Because they tried the same austerity nonsense as the GOP and their economies are in another tailspin: just like Montana. So you Montana folks feel good about yourselves because like these 6 other red states in the south that lead the nation in needing help from Washington by sucking over $2 in welfare monies for every dollar they pay in taxes??? And you’re proud of that?? Goes to show just how low some people can get in Montana, doesn’t It???? Take a look again at the charts and find those 8 blue states you want to denigrate that are even now prosperous enough to pay the most taxes in the nation (really supporting the nation), and yet getting the least welfare monies back for the taxes they pay – many of them less than 75 cents back for each dollar they pay in taxes. Why, BEHIND THE CURTAIN do I need to look at to say that you’re so full of crap you’re swimming in it!!!!

Bullshit. Montana has all of 2 interstate highways, and is so sparsely populated that almost everyone driving them is coming from — and heading to — some other state. The biggest town is Billings, for Christ’s sake — and that’s hardly more than a village.

Are you trying to tell us that a state with no real cities needs as much funding as a REAL state with REAL cities and a REAL need for funds to repair heavily-traveled highways? We aren’t talking about donkey trails here — we’re talking about states that actually have destinations with people who want to go to those destinations.

Please come up with a better story.

So what is your point? That Montana also sucks up more than it’s share of federal highway funds? If that’s your point I don’t see how it helps your argument. Yes, Montana does indeed slurp up more that it’s share of federal highway funds. In 2009 Montana contributed $135 million to the Federal Highway Trust Fund Highway Account, but received $423 million. In other words, Montana received $3.12 for every $1 it contributed.

How does this help your argument? The expense isn’t large enough to argue that this is the reason that Montana snorts up far more in federal funds than it contributes. The real reason that Montana needs to slurp up revenue from other states is clearly the oversize portion of individual payments going to Montana citizens. This means things like food stamps, disability, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. In other words, a great many Montana residents appear to just love TAKING money from the federal government — even while they squeal and whine about other people ‘freeloading’.

You have no ‘point’ with respect to the interstate highways in Montana — self-explanatory or otherwise. The interstate highway system is a valuable part of American infrastructure that is worth a great deal to American businesses of all kinds. I dare you to claim that you don’t rely on the existence of that infrastructure — both for business and personal purposes. At any rate it doesn’t account for Montana’s excessive consumption of federal funds — I’ve already pointed out that the reason is federal payments to individuals, which is a matter of public record.

I didn’t miss your allusion to demographics in Montana — I’m just waiting for you to make a point. Since you seem to believe that it’s important, my guess is that this is perhaps one of your excuses for Montana’s over-consumption of federal funds. The problem for you is that Native Americans aren’t found in Montana alone, but can be found in every state in the Union. Are you trying to claim that 78,000 people are responsible for Montana’s federal funding deficit?

Montana’s food stamp use grew at a lower rate than New York, eh? What is your point? New York takes in far less in federal funds than it contributes. In fact, New York pays in $4,502 more for every resident than it uses, while Montana receives $4,149 more for every resident than it pays in. Ironic, isn’t it: New York pays enough to subsidize Montana’s overuse of federal funds with money left over, yet it’s Montana that’s chock-full of tax-snorting rednecks who blame federal spending on ‘liberals’.

That’s not all: New York also has a Native American population of 221,000 — nearly 300% of Montana’s Native population — yet STILL carries Montana’s weight and then some. How does any of this help your argument?

I must say that I wonder about your claims that you are a successful businessman. Not only do you make outrageous assertions that you run businesses that are successful solely because of your ‘entrepreneurial skill’ — without any need for infrastructure, finance, a customer base, an established economy or legal stability — but you also deny your part in federal spending even though I know you have and do receive federal funds. As if that wasn’t hypocritical enough, you express jealous rage at the poorest people in society, and now the victims of historical crimes to boot.

Is there any person poor enough or unfortunate enough that you don’t begrudge the air that they breathe? Do hungry babies infuriate you and paraplegic veterans draw your scorn for being too lazy to walk?

Just pay your bills and stop being a hypocritical deadbeat. Try to get the rest of your state to work harder at pulling their own weight while your at it. And please — for the love of God — stop your pathetic whining.

Of course you use the interstate system. If you didn’t have interstate highways, businesses in Montana would be at a disadvantage to businesses in states that did. But that’s only one public benefit that you use — there are countless others.

Just out of curiosity — how would you know whether a given reservation in New York is ‘better’ than a given reservation in Montana? It’s my opinion that you really don’t have a clue, rather, you are simply talking out of your ass again. You clearly wish to lay the blame for your state’s over-consumption on the Native Americans — how novel. But false. Show me the evidence that 6% of an already tiny state population is responsible for doubling the consumption of federal funds.

The ‘entrepreneurial stuff’ is all you. You are the one who claims that businesses spring up wherever you walk without the need for anything from anyone (except you, of course). I know better, and I say that any successful business you may have started may not have even been possible (never mind successful) without the contributions of generations of Americans.

In fact I HAVE seen useless bureaucrats who are a waste of space, but no more than any other vocation. But you aren’t complaining about waste — you just don’t want to pay for anything — not even what you use, apparently. You continuously rant about poor people using government funds, but you seem to forget about the many millions who aren’t poor and use government funds — such as yourself.

I don’t need to call you names to boost my ego. I don’t become enraged at the mere mention of Warren Buffett — as you do. I don’t need to insinuate with every post that I’m more successful than you. I’m quite satisfied with my success in life, and I don’t mind paying my share if I believe it’s reasonable. That’s where we differ: You don’t want to pay your bills no matter what, and that’s known as being a ‘deadbeat’. Well, I’m afraid you have no choice in the matter. I hope that clears it up for you.

Yes, of course you use the Interstate system — I never doubted it. I’m certain that you use each and every public benefit that you feel is, well, beneficial to you. You speak of the government as if it is some onerous monolithic entity. Allow me to offer you a bit of news: The US government is owned and operated by the public at large. Indirectly, perhaps, but it’s owned and operated by the public nonetheless. Those ‘government’ funds are in fact ‘public’ funds.

You assume far too many things for your own good. I have, in fact, been to a reservation in Montana — more than one. I don’t dispute that they are little more than outdated concentration camps located on the most useless land that could be found at the time they were formed — this is true of most reservations. But this doesn’t help with any of your arguments at all — it just shows that you are willing to talk about things that you know little about.

Yes, you and every other American had benefits and opportunities available that were provided by generations of hard-working and very often generous citizens. A great many of these Americans were thoughtful, knowing full well that their hard-earned dollars would be used by people they would never even meet. Even so they were willing to pay their part to ensure that America was a land of opportunity. I’m inclined to respect your dislike of ‘corporate welfare’ for the reason that corporations do not have human needs. I DO NOT respect people who claim to be wildly successful yet begrudge those in poverty receiving some assistance. A person who supports spending almost half of the world’s total defense cost for the sake of a single country while there are hungry children is (in my opinion) a shameful hypocrite.

I don’t remember you offering to make your tax returns public, so you can spare us all your bullshit on the subject until you do. It’s no secret that taxes are the lowest they’ve been in over 60 years, so instead of your pitiful whining you should be grateful that you are getting off easier than countless Americans before you.

Look, it’s a matter of morals and character. Advocating enormous unnecessary defense expenditures when there are so many Americans having a hard time of it is irresponsible and morally corrupt. That goes double for tax breaks for millionaires. I don’t expect you to understand the importance of morals and character — that’s something that you should have learned as a child. It may be too late for you to learn anything new, but it’s not too late to make you pay your share. America has decided, and it’s now your reality.

Once again you make far too many assumptions. I am not retired, nor am I yet retirement age. My family was solidly middle class, but my parents did not believe in assisting their children with tuition, so that means that a) I did not qualify for government grants because of my parents’ income, and b) I had to arrange for tuition on my own. Consequently my education was paid through my own income and private loans. I did not have to deal with any health issues as serious as polio. I was also lucky enough to be born in the richest country on Earth where there was enough opportunity (provided by previous generations) for me to achieve success. My ‘share’ is a good deal more than you think.

If you want to pursue your ‘behind the curtain’ argument then you need to apply it with equal fervor to situations that you’d like to ‘assume’ are such that the argument benefits you. Looking into Montana’s excessive consumption of federal funds did not benefit your argument, and you have yet to explain how the ‘red-state-sucking-up-blue-state-taxes’ argument is false in this case. You may find some examples that support your argument if you look hard enough, but when you take the totality into consideration I believe that you’ll find the ‘red state/blue state’ argument to be generally true.

I’ll guess that you’re being facetious when you ask if high taxes are trying to ‘even’ the outcomes — no serious person actually believes such a thing. To use a theory that I’m sure you’ll enjoy, it can simply be viewed as a matter of supply and demand. If you need funding you go where the money is. You don’t look for revenue where the money isn’t. In practice this is progressive taxation. You may not wish to spend money at all, but then that’s a different issue. Society as a whole decides when and how much to spend, albeit in a roundabout way.

There are many reasons why progressive taxation makes sense, not the least of which has to do with working and middle class purchasing power being the primary engine of economic growth. If you get regressive enough with taxation then you will eventually strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs (so to speak), and then everyone is screwed. The best economic growth in this country’s history was achieved during periods where taxation was more progressive and somewhat higher than it is today. I believe you’ve already acknowledged as much. Perhaps then you can explain why this country should continue to kill off the middle class, yes?

You aren’t very good at paying attention, are you? I said that my family was solid middle class. This means my parents had a middle class income when I was a child.

You aren’t going to get off that easy on the red vs. blue state issue. The states that tend to vote Republican are famous for being the same states that receive more than their share of federal funds, Logic tells you that means that Republican voters tend to use more federal benefits and contribute less in taxes. The opposite tends to be true for states that tend to vote Democrat, so logic again tells us that Democrat voters tend to contribute more in taxes than they use. If you want to dispute the obvious you need to provide some proof that can be verified. An alternate approach would be to admit the obvious.

It’s clear to me that when you start talking about taxes you immediately start offering lies in place of facts. ‘Evil rich’, ‘even outcomes’, and ‘redistribution’ are all lies created by those who are greedy deadbeats not wanting to pay their share. Nobody believes in ‘evening outcomes’ or ‘redistribution’. Likewise, nobody considers the wealthy in society to be ‘evil’ merely because they are wealthy. These are just lies constructed to exaggerate the reality of the situation: If funding is needed one goes where the money is. It’s not ‘punishment’, ‘redistribution’ or ‘jealousy’ — those are just lies fabricated by deadbeats.

Flat taxes are neither fair nor economically sound. Taking 20% of your income will not leave you in a situation where you cannot feed yourself, but for lower income people this may be exactly the result. There are two ways to solve this problem: a) use progressive tax policies, or b) reduce spending until the resulting ‘flat tax’ will not cause even the lowest income individuals to suffer any more hardship than the higher income individuals. For the latter to work, however, the voting population must be willing to reduce government services and other benefits (including defense) to a level that such is feasible. Currently the public is NOT willing to reduce services that much, so that more or less means that (a) will be favored whether you and I like it or not. That’s called ‘democracy’.

It’s a good bet that you don’t earn your living as an economist. Tax cuts have NEVER resulted in any significant economic expansion. In fact, the post-war period that you cite saw marginal tax rates above 90%. This was also a period of significant government investment including the Interstate Highway System, among other large projects. It should also be noted that unions were quite strong during this period, which helped to grow the middle class. The growing middle class in turn fueled economic expansion. What did NOT happen during this economic ‘boom’ was significant tax cuts. Another thing that did NOT happen was serious cuts to government spending. Since both of the major things that you advocate were NOT part of the post-war boom, I have to guess that you aren’t really all that interested in economic growth.

So let’s see: What is it that tax cuts HAVE produced that you like so very much? There are only 2 things that I can think of: deficits and income disparity. Reagan set us off on this course by initiating runaway spending. Taxes have been cut so much that they are the lowest they’ve been in over 60 years. Well, what have we gotten from all of these tax cuts, including 10 years worth of the Bush Tax Cuts? Deficits and income disparity is the answer. Since you CLAIM to dislike deficits, then I’d have to guess that it’s income disparity that you like so much. Makes sense — that’s simple greed without regard to the potential for long-lasting economic damage. I could have told you this without even engaging in a debate, and, in fact, I believe that I did.

Well, I’m sorry if I confused you for being middle class.

Logic tells you that Republicans, people who generally believe in self-reliance, take more from government and pay lower taxes? And that same logic tells you that Democrats who like big government giving them things, pay more in taxes than they receive from government?

You need to get with Obama and get him clear on using the word, ‘redistribution’. By the way, ‘fairness’ in Democrat language means the same thing as ‘even outcomes’.

Tax cuts not resulting in economic expansion? I guess the historical record is a lie, then. And yes, taxes are the lowest they have been for over 60 years. And when they were initially lowered, they resulted in record income to the government as business flourished. Government revenue went down because of job loss created by the housing bust.

I’d have to say equating not liking deficits with greed is something I’ve not heard before. I never thought that when I was finally able to pay off my credit cards and pay off my mortgage, that I was being greedy. By paying cash for everything, I was damaging the economy. I didn’t know that.

Care to cite your verification?

So ‘redistribution’ is not evening out incomes? I firmly believe in helping people who need help and do. Government believes in creating dependency.

You know, just claiming something isn’t true and then using coarse language, doesn’t change facts. Facts that can easily be looked-up.

You are right on one count. The economy has always been the most prosperous when the middle class was doing well. Now, can you figure out why they were doing well?

You have a penchant for putting together to completely unrelated items to try to make a point. However, if tax money is used appropriately, then every time I buy gasoline, I’m paying to use the Interstate Highway System.

We’d be happy to remove the interstates and put in a toll road for you out of state types that would like to cross Montana. We know how to get around with them.

Apparently, you don’t remember Barack Obama’s reply to Joe the Plumber.

Nope. Tax cuts are only indirectly responsible. Thriving businesses are responsible. If tax cuts and less regulation allow business expansion, then the middle class will expand and do well. If businesses cut back and hold their place, the middle class with similarly be cut back. I guess it will be up to you to decide whether business if currently flourishing. And if not, why.

I’m sure all the people I employ would have a good laugh at your ‘giving’ comment.

We’ve talked about Buffett before. He looks out for himself. Bill Gates? I guess when you can give away billions and still have billions left, you can be liberal. Oh wait, he didn’t give his billions to the IRS, he runs foundations. Wonder who heads up the foundations? There is a nice subject you can look into. How to set your relatives up for life by making them heads of foundations.

Who came first, the business or the employee? And you find that a hard question to answer? Well, here’s a clue. No business, no employees. The rest of your post is just as out-to-lunch, as well.

Here’s another clue. A business can exist without employees. I have a couple. But an employee cannot exist without a business. Also, my businesses that don’t have employees, also don’t have customers. I’ll leave you to figure out what those businesses do.

Disagree. If the boy offers his services to the neighbor, he is an employee of his own business. He may not run it like a business, but it is a business none-the-less.

It seems to be beyond your comprehension that a business can create a product that people want to buy, whether it is a service or a physical entity. In your mind, that seems to be ‘fleecing taxpayers’.

Accumulating wealth is usually a by-product of doing something you really like to do. Of itself, it has little to do with the attributes of a person. In your world, anyone who does that is forcing children to go hungry because you do not live in the real world.

The minute I said I was wealthy, you formed a negative opinion that fits your world. Got to go now. Time to get out on the sidewalk and use my bullwhip to force more customers into my shop where I have trained burly clerks forcing them to empty their wallets.

Oh, and riddle me this: I’ve seen many employees create a business. How many businesses have you seen create an employee?

I see that I’m talking to somebody who lives in an alternate reality. In Scroogeland, businesses pop into being all the time. No doubt this is why you believe that you can fashion successful businesses at whim without anyone’s help.

In your magical greed-world, picking somebody’s pocket causes a business to appear *poof!* the moment the wallet leaves the victim’s pocket. No doubt you will tell me that this ‘new business’ has just served it’s first customer by providing a service to ‘lighten his load’, yes?

But even in your magical kingdom (Scroogeland), the person doing the pick-pocketing existed for quite some time before the, ahem – ‘business’ — that is, unless you are claiming that newborns often form businesses this way. Is that your claim?

I’m quite sure that you’d find a way to respond if there were a couple of pennies to be made. Try listening to your own arguments, where 12-year old boys mowing lawns are now ‘businesses’, or businesses can magically create their own employees. Talk about out to lunch.

Which people? We know Montana doesn’t have a lot of blacks, but it does a have a pretty large, poor minority population.

You never did answer me about how much your ‘fair share’ turns out to be.

Hillbilly. Yup, that about says it all. The facts on food stamps are easily found on government internet sites. You don’t own a company or run a business, so you are clueless about the impact of regulations. Unless you own an insurance company and have actual knowledge about their finances, you are repeating propaganda. There are lots of sites that will give you full information on the impact of Obamacare. You will find that, for the vast majority of us, there is nothing good about it.