OBAMA's huge victory

[Medusa]

Now......if the federal government stops going to war, stops trying to bail out and send aid to other countries...I bet we would have a huge surplus in the budget every year to help every American. It really bothers me that we help poor, starving and sick people in what seems like every third world country but yet there are people in the US that don't have health care, or food or housing or anything. I don't get it?????!!!!????

Ok enough of my soap box.......

What kind of arrogant, ignorant, populist, demagogic, selfish and utterly unqualified statement is this?

E.g. the United States are the largest donor of ODA (official development assistance) - in absolute numbers - but the smallest among all the developed countries in terms of percentage of its GDP. Look here under donor performance. So the US paid 21.8 billion in 2007, which makes 0.61% (ODA/GNI ratio).

Compare that to the Military Budget of 460 billion $ in 2007. This is just the budget for the department of defense, it does not include the funding of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan nor the nuclear weapons program. Here is a graphic of what the US pay for their Military in comparision to what the World pays

Of course this is just a statistic and especially the numbers from China and Russia should be judged with caution in my opinion.

But how can it be possible? How can it be possible that the entire World spends one and a half trillion US$ in one year only to have the means to kill and attack? Compare that to the budget of International Development Aid! And the US spends half of this one and a half trillion.

I am fairly certain that a country, so insanely rich as the United States of America, has the resources to feed its people and give them the (health) care they need. It's probably a matter of redistribution - you know, spread the wealth? Ooops, now McCarthy will have my head. But then again, I don't live over there but in my elitist, socialist, uberliberal and decadent little European Country.

It really bothers me that we help poor, starving and sick people in what seems like every third world country
I am deeply sorry that you feel this way. Perhaps you should send those people who are apparently so undeserving of your attention, help or anything else - a letter and explain your reasons for not giving a damn about them. Tell them why it bothers you to prevent them from dying. Tell them what makes them so much less of a person than your fellow citizens.

 

[bekalc]

money.

Now......if the federal government stops going to war, stops trying to bail out and send aid to other countries...I bet we would have a huge surplus in the budget every year to help every American. It really bothers me that we help poor, starving and sick people in what seems like every third world country but yet there are people in the US that don't have health care, or food or housing or anything. I don't get it?????!!!!????

I wonder if you realize how selfish that sounds? Especially when you consider in several of those countries, American companies exploit those poor and starving people...

Frankly I vote that we cut defense spending. We don't need those thousands of bases around the world. I think that we could probably cut our defense spending to let's say 300 billion a year, and have a lot more money to spend on things like health care and we'd still be outspending everyone else, but at a much more reasonable level.

Don't get me wrong, I do think our country's responsibility is to help it's own citizens first, but seriously we can freakin do both. And helping the poor in other parts of the world, does wonders to create good will and make a more peaceful world...

 

[decker]

McCain's plan for tying reimbursement to results would have been a step in the right direction. I am not sure how exactly it would have worked, and it certainly wouldn't solve all problems, but its would've been a good start IMHO.

So do you believe that you should get stuck with the tab if a treatment doesn't work as planned? Or do you believe that the doctor should get stiffed? And where is your proof that the poor outcome is the doctor's fault? Or do you just assume that incompetence and malevolence are the only possible reasons a treatment could fail?

What about public facilities? You're going to force them to treat anyone who presents and then refuse to pay them when -- big shocker -- they don't get the swooshy results seen at private hospitals that cherry pick patients?

This is not a start in the right direction. It's a totally subjective nightmare.

Susan

 

[SeaniBu]

What kind of arrogant, ignorant, populist, demagogic, selfish and utterly unqualified statement is this?

The hate, the belligerence ... I think the question should be poised upon yourself.

. Perhaps you should send those people who are apparently so undeserving of your attention, help or anything else - a letter and explain your reasons for not giving a damn about them. Tell them why it bothers you to prevent them from dying. Tell them what makes them so much less of a person than your fellow citizens.

If a country is not aking care of the poeple that is is elected to to do so ... It is "Give us your ....." not let them stay in your country while we over exsend ourselves so we really can't provide but sub-par to you and ourselves. Just the basics of that argument are an oxymoron.

The best argument - which is still pathetic - is that "we exploit them so much ..." but how about spending so much to exsplote them in the first place.

A lot of this thread is coming out as trying to justify putting the cart before the horse. How about just putting the damn horse in front of the cart like it is supposed to be and then go about helping others.

The road to hell is paved with good intent.

Grow up America, it is necessary and so far behind it is now that much harder to do than if it was just done correctly in the first place.

Very interesting to me that as I watched the "red and blue mapping of votes" going to ... " 80% were the little "rural areas" going red and the populated areas went blue. I guess the people who are responsible for the decisions that effect those areas made the realization but the ones the "big cities" that inevitably dictate their future still haven't got the message and a remarkably out of touch /reality bases.

Yes it is evident - particularly after reading some of the comments here - and the bazaar way the facts are ATTEMPTED to be convoluted in their favor - simply makes it ever so clear there is a LOT of need that has been overlooked in this country and we should make ourselves a priority FIRST and then help.

Ah another old saying, "you can't truly love others until you love yourself." When is America going to love and care for itself so it can actually provide QUALITY help instead of sneaky tactics that really don't do anyone any good EXSEPT the "World bank." We should be helping because we CAN and Want to, not because we feel guilty. Guilty for what? Something we *F.ed up" in the first place.

It is often no surprise that the state of the union is the way it is when I hear such influenced opinion going around. At least there is hope again, it has been a long time since there has been hope in this country - well except for a large amount of rich people.

 

[Tonichelle]

I'm one of those ignorant rural people that doesn't have a dime in her pocket. and I have no more or less hope for my future than I did last monday. maybe I had even a little more.

now my hope is - "I hope my way of life up here doesn't change, because if it does, I'm screwed." They do like carter and clinton did and close up more of Alaska and not only will I feel it, and my family feel it, but the Native Alaskans will once again get the short end of the stick because they "won't advance into the 21st century." Alaska doesn't trust teh fed. government - that's why it goes Red... every time the country's gone blue we've had a heck of a fight.

My HOPE is Obama keeps his promise that he will be 'our president, too' and that he will listen to Alaska and not try to 'fix' our way of life. My HOPE is that he isn't just another politician. But I'm jaded and will believe it IF I see it.

 

[Blades of Passion]

They do like clinton did and....

Give the country a booming economy and peaceful foreign policy?

Yeah, that's not at ALL what the USA needs.

Please.

With conservatives it always seems like it's a matter of them being scared of change/diversity and only understanding life in the context of their closed-off worlds, and/or being well-off and wanting tax breaks to make even more money to feel good about themselves.

If Alaska's economy truly did wane during Clinton's administration...well, I actually don't care when looking at the whole picture. The other 49 states became more productive. Anyone who's being objective would say that it's FAR more important and beneficial for the country to have 49 states be better off than 1 state which incidentally also has a very low population (less than .01% of the whole country's total population).

Conservatives are so eager to jump on the "American pride" rhetoric and say that they are "true Americans", but I often feel like they don't understand or care about what is actually best for the country and the World as a whole.

 

[SeaniBu]

My HOPE is Obama keeps his promise that he will be 'our president, too' and that he will listen to Alaska and not try to 'fix' our way of life. My HOPE is that he isn't just another politician. But I'm jaded and will believe it IF I see it.

I agree with this comment whole heartedly, and also must point out you deemed yourself as ignorant. And as nice as you are and enjoyable to most extents "out of touch really" maybe the substantial comment I made when I hear what you are saying regarding your personal state's stake. I don't know for sure how involved you are but the comments of "Alaska" are substantiating the point I was making about caring about yourself before over extending to others. And Alaska is a part of the USA, not a separate entity and the needs of the whole country should not go by the way-side because one state would benefit while the rest of them suffer or have temporary gain that benefit for a generation or two leaving the rest of the resources depleted in the future.

And Toni I do respect you so please do the same in the fact of not putting words into my comments that I did not say. I would appreciate the attention to factual rebuttals rather the construing them to make a insulting comment that I did not make. I do not think ignorant is the correct comment and I chose not to use it. I believe there are facts that make up your decisions, however I think those decisions are not taking into consideration the future of generations we will not be alive to see. But our choices now and of the past - at least 12 years - have left us overextended and disliked by many cultures. No matter we are there "helping" THEY see it differently yet we sit in America thinking we know how they "Should feel." ???

I can only assume here which is inevitable, but the topics I have heard mention from you in the past are things that would fix things to some degree in Alaska temporarily but our future course of action would leave the problem for Alaska 2 generations from now. The resources that are going to be valued in 100 years of Alaska are things that will be depleted when the change in energy comes. Hence leaving Alaska with less of a resource to the USA.

Also I did not say it was the correct thing (the red and blue mapping) but it speaks volumes for what America is saying / attempting to do. And the short-sighted (50 year plan) is exactly what is perpetuating this dilemma in the first place. What is your brothers grandchildren going to have if they stay in Alaska when the environment is depleted and oil is not a commodity as it is today?

The whole point of patriotism is future, positive / supportive attitudes, changing for the better and belief in your countries system - I also doubt the ability of the new administration to come YET sharing the exact same "hope." I see and believe you have the last point covered, but what about the rest? You are patriotic IMO, but limited to one factor. What is lacking IMO is the ability to see what is needed is a different approach so we are ALL not left out to dry.

Great example is Mexico. We improved trade and their economy in effect with these actions yet they are still leaving in droves because what we gave is nothing we had to give. Hence it did come out looking good to the people just the politicians. We see the repercussions yet deny responsibility because we have "good intent." Maybe the best way to say it - "the Bush / Clinton admin's were the era of good intents." But I do believe Clinton only had two major flaws anyway - NAFTA bill and slutty behavior.

McCain's ad campaign said it all. "Proven." Proven to not be working. Obama's said "Untested" yet "red party" would like to say it will not work. How can that be if it is not tested? And why continue a path of "proven" not to work? Is this how this party makes their decisions?

Reagan was the last "red party" I had any faith in and that was hind sight because at the time I believed the derogatory comments and direction of the "blue." But here we are facing a future like we have not seen. Doing the same thing and expecting different results. I can see I was wrong in many ways about Reagan as president - not all though - (and I think you are WAY WAY WAY off on recognizing the achievements of Carter considering the *s__t stick* he was given to work with - what China relationship with the USA is today is clearly his responsibility and exploited by others INCLUDING Clinton's miss use of that relationship) but perpetuated by the Bush admin by giving HUGE tax breaks, and allowing such a offering our (USA) jobs to them on such a large scale, it negatively impacted the USA. "Trickle down to ...?" who, China? Yet so many hate to admit the falter in their dedication, Clinton's remedy of NAFTA was one of those "road to hell is paved with good intent" actions IMO. But does negate the good he did achieve in office. I feel the same about Bush and this attempt to extend his administration. I really believe if McCain would have been in there would have been improvements, but only for 25% or so. That is the problem. And those 25% did vote for him - but I can't help but think that is selfishness at it's finest. Again, If I only care about my "arms" than why am I bitching when my legs don't work right?

I am not going to try and say that the "reds" don't love their children too. I am sure we all do but often loose site of the goal when pain is so overwhelming in the present. But when there is only "mutton" being distributed to the larger percentage, and the majority of the "lamb" continues to go to only a few - when we all "raised the lamb" - as well the ones who had NO part in raising but get so much, I do not wonder why so many feel "hungry." Including the ones I disagree with.

It doesn't matter how much some will try and say they are behind this administration with "hope." Undermining dissension will be recognized in this point in American history. Actions will now speak louder than the words. No one is listening as much as they are watching / results now. And saying one believes (not saying anyone in particular, just saying SOME people will) yet perpetuating the lack of faith no matter what is "said" will only drag us all down.

Jaded hope is practically as good as no hope at all, it is something that I feel I need to change in myself, because I realize it will never be taken seriously and is truly not patriotic as well. If my personal economy falter some and I see the whole of the country get better I will recognize the change will soon benefit us all. I realize where we have been and will not be surprised if we all have some more suffering before it gets better for us ALL.

 

[Tonichelle]

I'm not worried about Alaska economy, I'm worried about the subsitence. Everyone always thinks we're such a *rich* state... and we are, but not with $$. Why we can live the way we do is through fishing and hunting. And yes. I'm white. Yes. I live in Anchorage, AK the biggest city in the state. And yes. I get it. Alaska doesn't matter in the big scheme of things.

But then neither do the Native Alaskans to the fed. government. When Carter took office he closed off huge chunks of Alaskan land to everyone - including the native population who could no longer hunt or fish in the areas they had for generations. Clinton came in and took it a step further trying to take away subsistence fishing, whaling, and hunting. To Alaskans of all walks of life and color that just wasn't gonna fly, the government was overstepping its bounds. Our Governor Tony Knowles (D) was ready to bring a case AGAINST the federal government for the Native Alaskans' fight.

IF Obama brings the nation out of debt and out of a economic nightmare, more power to him.

What is your brothers grandchildren going to have if they stay in Alaska when the environment is depleted and oil is not a commodity as it is today

Educate yourself on the issue and area - there's no way the environment is being depleted up here. ANWR - which is the main source of oil not being touched here in AK - doesn't even make up 1% of the state. And the ALASKAN companies that have run the oil for all these years have not destroyed the environment. The caribou population has not been depleted, the tundra is not melting any faster because we put an oil rig up.

A lot of Alaska is not hospitable and will stay pristine. I think it very arrogant of the country we're apart of tell us that we ALASKANS don't know enough about our state to be intrusted with our land, which is EXACTLY what the feds have done for at least the last 30 years. There's a reason a lot of talk has been made by lifelong Alaskans that maybe statehood wasn't the best thing. and it has nothing to do with red or blue.

I am very much looking to the future of my state. And apparently my great nieces and nephews (I find it interesting you mention my 'brother's grandchildren' when I'm just as capable at having a family... ). I don't want them to be unable to use the land as it was used in their grandfather's time, or his grandfather's time. Fishing, hunting, living off the land. I can't think of something more 'green' than that. Moose, fish, bear, caribou, sheep, goat, all are more 'organic' than something that was raised on a farm and shot with a bunch of hormones and vitamins. They're more healthy. And they're how my family has sustained itself for the last umpteen years.

All I'm saying is leave the state alone if you're not willing to learn about the way of life up here. In my life time, I haven't seen it happen by 'the other side' Bush (both of them) seems to care less that we're here other than to tell us we're wasting our time getting the dems to change their mind about ANWR (again because in the feds minds we're too stupid to take care of our environment - that may not be what they're saying, but all actions point to that being what they're thinking). I'd rather they remain indifferent than overly interested in 'changing' us and 'bringing us into' their way of thinking. A lot of it just can't work up here (without destroying our environment. most of the Native Alaskans can only get into Anchorage a couple times a year because there ARE NO ROADS. You fly, boat, or snowmachine)

 

[SeaniBu]

I'm not worried about Alaska economy, I'm worried about the subsitence. Everyone always thinks we're such a *rich* state...

Alright I just had to stop there for semantics are b.t.f.o.o.m on that one. Disassociation AND knowing what everyone thinks all in one statement? *Deep breath Seani.*

I and conformably others (via discussion recently with them about Alaska due to Sara) do not think such a thing - completely contrary 100% of my coworkers and acquaintances unless you are speaking of environment or CURRENT untapped resources - and would say that is the first big assumption that is a catalyst for all the others that might be coming here after in your post. I am going to go take some relaxation exercises before continuing to read for I can only fathom that if it is starting out that was the assumption are sure to pounce my better reasonability and at this point I still think you can be a reasonable person I do respect. I just can't handle anymore people selling reality short - today anyway. Sorry I am being hypocritical in assuming that will be the way of the post, I should be more optimistic considering how much I do like you Toni. Just fearful and trying to take a rest from the postpartumm issues that I am dealing with here on the fore front.

Hope you understand. But I also know you commonly say "I don't care" to my rebuttals so I hope it is not an issue I respond and am hypocritical at the moment. I don't mean disrespect by not reading the entire post right now. I am trying to show respect and come back to this later.

OMG - I just did what I wish I didn't and read some, eegad woman why don't you just succeed from the union already. I guess Alaskan first and American second is your modo. OOF the sadness.

 

[Bennett]

True. US has to get out of this financial crisis before doing anything. So at least the next two years, the health care system won't change.

There are always more immediate, more urgent, and more important crises "before doing anything" to help the poor, aren't there? But don't think that the poor and their health are the ones that are most affected by the financial crisis?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Clinton came in and took it a step further trying to take away subsistence fishing, whaling, and hunting. To Alaskans of all walks of life and color that just wasn't gonna fly.

Uhh, during Clinton's presidency commercial fishing and hunting was limited by the federal government - in order to allow natives to live off the land better!

I think it very arrogant of the country we're apart of tell us that we ALASKANS don't know enough about our state to be intrusted with our land.

Top researchers and scientists know far more about the environment and the effects something will have on the environment/ecosystem than regular locals do.

In South America, natives continue to destroy the rain forests. They don't think it's a problem. They don't understand how it hurts the environment.

I'm not saying it's the same situation in Alaska, but your idea is certainly incorrect.

 

[jennylovskt]

There are always more immediate, more urgent, and more important crises "before doing anything" to help the poor, aren't there? But don't think that the poor and their health are the ones that are most affected by the financial crisis?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't change the health care system to cover the poor. We should. Just from my selfish perspective, I don't like that system becaus I have had a comfortable health care insurance which I like. Besides, I am not sure how it is going to play out? Considering the people who have already had health care insurance would keep the original insurance, and the people who don't have the insurance would be insured by the government health care system. Sounds very good but will this be practical? I don't know. Will more and more companies not carry health care insurance for their employees because it's too expensive for the companies, and the companies say that the employees could always get the insurance from the government? And therefore, we will have more and more people who don't have insurance and will have to rely on the government insurance? Still from the government's perspective, they should consider all the people, rich and poor. So it will be back to the arguement about the patriotism, about spreading the wealth, ...... It will go on and on.

There is no system that is perfect. In order to give the poor people the health care insurance, maybe the middle class, mostly the rich people should give up a little, if that is called spreading the wealth or patriotism, I am fine with it. I think it's too selfish to not give the poor the insurance they need because one doesn't want to give up something. (I am not even an American, Talking about patriotism.)

To be honest, John McCain's, or we should say the Republicans', health care plan won't give the poor the health care they need. It's like Bush's tax cut, that $5,000 for purchasing the health care insurance will be gone in no time as soon as the people get it, not to mention that it's far from enough to purchase the insurance.

 

[SeaniBu]

destroyed and depleted, two different words and meanings.

again Alaska is a part of the USA, not it's own country. And if you want to be left alone then that would be in times of crises and economic need also. Wait a minute you are saying it is due to you being a part of America Alaska has these issues - whoops. Hope you stay earthquake free for a while

If you don't matter in the big scheme of things than why do you have an issue OR say to begin with.

your economic impact comments I think are best adressed by the prior post on what you are not getting.

and with the comments of "my / our state" I must question which is it? And is it yours? Or your parents http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wa...s/2008/11/alaska_turnout_results_raise_q.html

Also note the turn out rate, maybe a little warmer up there kept people in - but of course that has nothing to do with global warming. And maybe the ones who could afford to drive are the ones that showed up. Who knows. Love the picture.

All and all it does not sounding like the understanding is quite realistic as of yet. But things are becoming apparently clear as we look into this issue more.

The bother getting married comment was due to his age ( I know he is much younger than you), but interesting you bring up your own stake in that. Hope it works out.:yes: I hear men are abundant up there. As well so are the "strip clubs."

To add to Blades of Passion's eloquent words, you would barely see the true impact we have on the environment expediently anyway - not because you live in the big city but due to that impact takes time.

Sigh... I'm so tired of the back & forth in regards to this election... The US is 50 states that are interdependant on each other - why is that so hard to grasp? I blame Karl Rove...

UNITED States / "Independent"

Sorry but really, how can someone miss that?

 

[Kwanford Wife]

Sigh... I'm so tired of the back & forth in regards to this election... The US is 50 states that are interdependant on each other - why is that so hard to grasp? I blame Karl Rove...

As for me - I must admit that as a black woman with a son, I cried on Tuesday. Cried like a baby. But on Wednesday morning, I had nothing but prayers for him because the country's a mess - a hot mess. Recession. Two wars. Bad image across the globe. You name it - we're struggling with it. But it also reignited in me a desire to work a little harder, do a little more and speak up a bit clearer. We can do better than we've been doing for the past 8 years. January 20th cannot come fast enough...

As one of those Hillary people who doesn't support her as much as worship at her feet I wasn't a big Obama supporter for the longest time and only came around when Sarah Palin hit the stage at the RNC convention.

One - she's no Hillary Clinton and I was insulted that she was put up as a replacement. The sneer about "community organizers" was simply too much for me. Second - the whole Joe Sixpack thing.... (my husband has barred me from spewing my venom about Joe the Plumbler...) I don't want a "regular" person holding the codes to the nukes - I want the brightest & best. We've just suffered under 8 years of the most inept administation in modern history and enough is enough. Give me someone with a vision that aligns with the country's best interest and the well being of its citizens - not some one who can dismiss those on the front lines truly attempting to make a difference in troubled communities - how can you sneer at that?!?

Also - I'm a soccer mom. The same as hockey moms, just better weather and those pitbull moms are scary, mean and a litt too "vicarious" for my taste or patience level - if that's who she identifies with, then no thank you! Its one thing to get yellow carded at little kid soccer games because some mom thought it was ok to scream at my child - but I'm pretty sure they'd bring me up on federal charges if it was the Governor of Alaska...(you betcha...)

Second - health care is my main issue. It makes no sense to me that working families who are struggling or just getting by can see their whole future disappear beacause they don't have health insurance. Is national health care the answer? I think so but even if its not, we should provide a safety net for those who can't afford a major health crisis. Also, how many of us make job decisions based on the health care package? I know I do. My son keeps me at the doctor's office & urgent care and I can tell you that I'm quick to ask about health care long before salary in job interviews. (And my plan costs 12k a year - where was the other 7k that McCain kept talking about?)

I also think its a sin that a college student, like Toni, who is obviously bright and will make a contribution to society post graduation has to pay out of her pocket if she gets sick. Now that might not be a problem when going for a flu shot or sinus infection. But what if God forbids she get's really sick? Should her whole future be put in jeopardy? I might not have the stats that many of you have access to, but my heart bleeds everytime I think about the precarious situation Americans are in each and every day.

I also have similar feelings about the bailout... I'm sorry but its hard for me to feel bad about the banks when my neighbors are struggling to pay their mortgage. Or lose their jobs. I remember when my husband & I moved from Detroit to Richmond in 2004. We thought we were dodging a bullet by leaving the town that the Big Three built. But each day in Richmond there are new layoffs. Milk costs $4 a gallon and unemployment is like $300 a week. Hell, my intern can't live on that... What are these families supposed to do? Wait for the money to trickle down?

This is why I'm a liberal. I simply cannot support a party that refuses to take responsibility for their mess and clean it up... That leave those they are charged to protect stranded on roofs as the levees break. Pick fights with sovernign nations because they can. Peer through bedroom windows. Claim to be tough on crime but do nothing about getting guns off the streets. Claim to be tough on terrorist by Bin Ladin is still hanging out. Claim that all service people are heros but refuse to take care of them or their families when they finally return home. Claim that individual responsibity is the way out of the housing mess, but give banks billions of dollars, our tax dollars, to ensure Wall Street continues to hustle & bustle with their $500 wing tips & Jimmy Choos with pin stripe suits. Its just wrong. Sick & wrong and on so many levels. We should be prasing God that January 20th will be here soon...

War, Guns and God this is the GOP platform (and does anybody else see the problem with putting God into the mix with war & guns???) They can't be trusted with money, power or my values. Now for my pro-life / anti-gay / drill baby drill / culture war friends I know these issues tend to be deal breakers on switching parties - but ponder this: is the federal government a congregation or a quasi company? Based on US history - do you really want the government, this government to concern itself with your morality? And if you do, how's that working out for you?

 

[antmanb]

Here is the U.S. federal income tax schedule.

Tax Rate ----- Single -------------- Married Filing Jointly

10% -- up to $8,025 ------------------- up to $16,050

15% -- $8,025 - $32,550 ----------- $16,050 - $65,100

25% -- $32,550 - $78,850 ---------- $65,100 - $131,450

28% -- $78,850 - $164,550 --------- $131,450 - $200,300

33% -- $164,550 - $357,700 -------- $200,300 - $357,700

35% -- Over $357,700 ------------- Over $357,700

There are a slew of exemptions, adjustments, etc.

This does not include paying into the social security and medicare funds. (These are not "taxes." Just money taken out of your paycheck and given to the government to run federal programs. The government, acting on our behalf, "invests" these funds by "loaning" them to the United States treasury. The treasury pays back the loan from taxes it hopes to collect in the future. )

The total tax burden including state and local taxes varies from state to state but is about 33% for the average taxpayer.

Thanks for the info MM - i was just curious about it. In the UK we also have extras in the form of "National Insurance Contributions" which are deducted directly too - both employers and employees have to pay these.

Ant