Letting them expire, even if we let all of them expire, does not amount to a "tax hike," let alone an "Obama tax hike." It simply would revert the tax rates to what they were in the 1990s, a time when rich people were getting along just fine, thank you very much.
Today, the Senate is supposed to vote on 1) an extension of the middle-class (below $250,000 per year) tax cut, and 2) an extension on monies made above a quarter million dollars per year. Republicans are expected to filibuster both of them. I'm curious how they will spin voting against tax break extensions for the entire country. No doubt, it will still be the ridiculous spin we've been hearing on the issue on the Sunday talk shows for months now. There is no legitimate reason for them to block these votes. They could simply vote on both--attempt to extend both--and have zero political fallout. But they probably won't. So they'll have to rely on their--admittedly effective--considerable spinning skills to save their bacon.
I for one don't really care if any of the tax breaks are extended. For someone in my tax bracket, the savings from the Bush tax cuts is negligible anyway. And if we're being honest, and are really concerned about the deficit/national debt (I really could use a little help knowing the difference, as could most politicians and pundits) all of the tax cuts should probably expire. That would save a helluva lot of money, and would make an extension of unemployment benefits a non-issue.
Massive reductions in Government will save money.
ReplyDeleteGet rid of Dept of Education. Bigger than Pelosi&Reid Tax changes.
Get rid of DEA. Prohibition didn't work, and it just created gangsters.
End the Fed. Hang the thieves. Sell tickets and TV rights.
See how easy this is?
Zero funding for Alchohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Sell the rights to the name for a convenience store.
None of the money "belongs" to the government. It is our money, and they have been wasting it. Fixing the laws and defunding these agencies is the fastest way to restore the COnstitution and restore the balnce in our budget.
.
Actually, saying "None of the money 'belongs' to government. It's our money. . ." isn't entirely accurate. Unless you live in a self-sustaining commune in some sort of unincorporated, non-legislated piece of land, you are using things that need to be paid for. I agree with you about cutting waste, though I think you go wayyyy too far. But SOME of our money is due if we want nice roads, bridges, cops, fire fighters, the military, schools, traffic lights, safe food, clean water, buildings that don't fall down in earthquakes, etc., etc.
ReplyDelete"some of our money"... the crux of the biscuit.
ReplyDeleteHow about sticking to the agreement specified? The Constitution enumerates a few specific powers to the Federal government, and reserves everything else for the people and for the individual states.
"Safe food" is not an enumerated power, so HELL NO.
Besides, it has been working fine without gov control. Look at Stalin or Castro or Mao, to understand what gov control of food is about.
Same with most other examples.
Roads are needed for defense, so Eisenhower established a few federal roads. The kleptocracy expanded that beyond the mandate, so we're re-negotiating that; either through collapse, or through restoration of Constitutional limits.
Same with the remaining examples provided.
The 'abalnce' has been agree4d to in a document that empowers the government. When they grossly exceed their mandate, "we the people" recall them. The last election is such an attempt. If voting doesn't work, then the Founders specified other means.
I think if the Sofa version of the USA came to pass, it would give the future in The Terminator series a run for its money. Your utopia is my dystopia.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? You are not a leech, living off others. Why accept that behavior from states or from fed.gov? They have stopped helping, and they are sucking the lifeblood out of society.
ReplyDeleteI have several children. Maturity for each was when they accepted responsibility for themselves. Had they stayed immature and dependent forever, they would have missed the empowerment of self responsibility, and they would have held back others in the family, in a cycle of dependency. Lose, Lose.
We supported them, and empowered them. As fully empowered adults they benefit them,selves and many others. Everyone gets to do what they want, what they can. Win, Win.
My vision is that you may do as you please, until you interfere with others. Your vision of telling others what to do, is called tyranny; the same vision shared by Mao and Stalin, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Mugabe, Castro.
If I have that wrong, explain how what your proposing isn't forcibly taking from others, and telling everyone what to do. Is the only difference-- that your intolerance is ok because it's based on your ideals, instead of someone else's?
Tyranny is Tyranny.
Being a friend of Tyranny is dangerous, like with the 'friends' of Stalin: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/king-commissar.html
Yeah, right, I'm exactly like Mao, Stalin. BS. Republicans are often authoritarian, and even want to poke their government nose into my bedroom. I'd venture to say in many areas, my side of the political aisle is less intrusive than yours (although YOUR polical position may be in a different dimension, on a different plane, or something).
ReplyDeleteWe have elected officials in this country, who are charged with legislating. They appoint judges (or sometimes we vote for them). We are a representative republic, and yes, there are laws and regulations which tell us what to do.
I do not consider any of this tyranny. And I think your anarchy/dystopian wish for our country is itself un-American.
'Sides of the Aisle' is beside the point. The government draws is claim of authority from the Constitution. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void. All governments repugnant to the Constitution nullify their authority.
ReplyDeleteTyranny is against the law. Both 'sides of your aisle' are repugnant to the Constitution. They have far exceeded their mandate and now resort to brute force to compel submission.
You can submit, and argue about who is submitting more or less.
I'll take Liberty.
"Everything Hitler did was legal."
ReplyDelete-Martin Luther King
You are arguing that elections grant virtue, that laws supersede reality.
Everything King George did was legal. He was the King and all his laws were legal.
All Stalin's murder of 45 million people was in accordance with the law. And Castro, and Mao, and Pol Pot.
I am arguing that virtue, is virtuous. And evil is evil.
What I wish is that evil had not come upon our land. But it has.
***
I am reminded of a passage in J.R.R. Tolkien’s famous trilogy, The Lord of the Rings.
It is an exchange between Frodo the hobbit and Gandalf the wizard, and it concerns the perilous quest on which Frodo and his friends have been sent.
Frodo says: “I wish it need not have happened in my time.”
Gandalf responds: “So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
You can hate what has happened.
You can hide and pretend it is not so.
But it is here.
My wish would be that evil never came, and that my country remained healthy, vibrant, rich, and free.
If sides of the aisle are irrelevant, than why have you cheered the most recent election as some sort of turning point? Especially when some of the "new class" of legislators consists of lobbiests, and the very same sort of politician that has been in there before?
ReplyDeleteHow exactly do you think America is going to get to your ideal state of being?
I for one have ZERO confidence that things will get better under Republican rule, but I think Democrats could do it if they'd only show some backbone. They capitulate. Anyone with a fever dream that Democrats are ruling with an iron fist has not been paying attention. Cartoon characters like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner keep getting what they want.
As long as people can be made to fight against one another, and against 'the other side of the aisle'-- they are preoccupied, and not looking up. The GOP and Dems together brought us where we are now. They are two wings of the same party; they both want control at the expense of the people. Control of money, banks, roads, food, medical care, speech.
ReplyDeleteAmerica yearns to be free.
.
Inherent in your posts, is your desire to serve a benevolent master who provides for you. A big brother who will give you what you want, and punish the people you disagree with. Federal enforcers who compel people to work for what you desire.
ReplyDeleteYet you yourself want to be left alone to do what you want.
Good luck with that.
.
Sofa, you're full of it. Where have I said I want a benevolent master who provides for me? I've never said any such thing. I've used unemployment insurance for a total of five weeks in my 44 years. One time, fourteen years ago. I've never used government assistance for anything else outside of things like roads, and other commons.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think there should be a social safety net. It keeps people from starving and you know, dying.
Your positions are extreme, Sofa, you are at least aware of that, right? That you exist on a political spectrum that most people can't see? When you're the only person marching in step, you MIGHT just be out of step yourself. Just sayin'.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Sofa, good luck with your ongoing Chicken Little interpretation of current events.
ReplyDeleteJames- My positions are traditional American positions, consistent with the founders.
ReplyDeleteCasting normalcy as 'extreme' is one of Alinksky's methods: You know that, right?
"Inherent in your posts, is your desire to serve a benevolent master who provides for you. A big brother who will give you what you want, and punish the people you disagree with. Federal enforcers who compel people to work for what you desire.Yet you yourself want to be left alone to do what you want."
ReplyDelete"Where have I said I want a benevolent master who provides for me?"
Question: What does 'Inherent' mean?
***
GNOP- Your sky is falling. Sorry for making you aware of it.
No, Sofa, your views are not traditional. You're apparently one of a kind.
ReplyDeleteI've never read Alinsky, nor do I care to.
As for what is inherent in my posts, you are reading things between the lines that are not there. I've learned in life that my biggest disagreements with people I know have stemmed from assuming their motives (or their assuming mine) and being WRONG. You are assigning motives to me that do not exist. And YOU are wrong.