A mandate for taxes?
November 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm in News by Dustin Siggins 54 Comments
The dust has barely settled since Tuesday’s election, and already a prominent member of the Washington establishment is talking about raising taxes on the American people. From ABC News:
“On the tax issue there was a clear, a clear sort of mandate about people coming much closer to our view about how to deal with tax policy,” Biden told reporters during a question and answer session on Air Force Two.
Biden added that he hopes there’ll be “some real soul searching” in the Republican party “about what they’re willing to cooperate on.”
And cooperation is key if the administration plans to address the fiscal cliff with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Biden said he did not want to speculate on any deal to avoid the automatic tax increases and spending cuts.
What we know from Tuesday is that the American people voted for more gridlock in Washington. Media manipulation and a wishy-washy establishment Presidential candidate made sure the American people failed to see the dangers in continuing big government spending and taxation. It now falls on us to step up and hold the line. Spending cuts and no tax hikes is the mantra as Congress comes back next week to debate the so-called fiscal cliff. We’ll have more details as we get closer to when the vote takes place, but for now, know that the Washington establishment is already preparing to raise your taxes instead of working on real spending and tax reform.
The Democrats intend to increase the taxation on the portion of the population paying all the taxes for everyone else, and increase the benefits to those not paying taxes. In short, they plan to use your money to buy votes for themselves.
This will do nothing except reduce the percentage of the population that is a benefit to the economy. Since its the economy that pays for everything in the government, it will have a net effect of reducing revenue.
The Democrats will do anything to avoid downsizing the government, which has grown to a proportion where there just isn’t enough money in the economy to pay for it. When this plan fails and the government is on the verge of default, the Democrats will institute “emergency” measures to compensate for a problem their policies created. These “emergency” measures will, no doubt, include government seizure of control of economic elements.
We cannot support the level of social programs we currently have. It’s a no-brainer we won’t be able to support an increased level of social service. The Democrats are doing everything possible to prevent the population from becoming motivated to become self-reliant.
Social Security. Let’s fix Social Security right here and now:
IF YOU DIDN’T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON’T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
If there is a desire to give those disabled sustenance, include funding for that in legislation and budgeting for the disabled. Don’t use Social Security as a catch-all welfare program. It was originally “Social Security INSURANCE”. “Insurance” is something you purchase. If you didn’t purchase Social Security Insurance, you don’t get a benefit from the Social Security Administration.
Now that we’ve fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
We have to make the government smaller. The government has to spend less money.
We cannot borrow our way out of this situation. We have to cut spending, because… contrary to the Democrats’ basis for their economic model, money doesn’t grow on trees.
DBWriter:
I would respectfully submit the conclusions you reach in the first part of your post are based upon a false premise and an assumption as to intent. You conclude a future result that hasn’t been determined yet.
I tend to agree with your conclusion we cannot support the level of social programs we currently have. With that having been said, we need to evaluate what programs are truely necessary to support basis human needs and root out and prosecute abuse within the system. I do not advocate doing away with the programs completely, but they can be much more efficient.
Regarding your opinion of Social Security. Please keep in mind that the term “Social Security” is an umbrella turm covering many different programs. Some of those programs are within the scope of the original intent while others have evolved over many years. You point out, rightly, the the Social Security Program is an “insurance” program not a welfare program. Are you aware that in order to receive Social Security Disability, you must have contributed to the SS Program for a period of (I think) 20 or 25 quarters of work. If you fail to meet that criteria, you fail to qualify for the disability program. So, even for disability, the applicant HAS paid for the insurance. Receiving SSD benefits isn’t automatic. It is a long and arduous process. Approximately 70% of all first time applicants are denied benefits. There is a reconsideration process available, and approximately 50% of those are denied. Further there is an Administrative hearing allowed if a claim is denied at the first two levels. That Administrative hearing occurs approximately 2 1/2 to 3 years after initial application and then only about 30% to 40% of those are approved.
The reality is that, regarding SS Retirement and SS disability it is already true that “..If you didn’t purchase Social Security Insurance, you don’t get bemefit from the Social Security Administration.” Your solution has already been in effect for many years! To be fair, I am not aware of the criteria for AFDC or other SS programs, so I can’t comment about them.
Our “progressive” government intends to destroy what’s left of free markets- and that’s not much.
We already have a government of men, not a government of law. The Constitution is nothing but a quaint historical document.
When our economy collapses (along with the world economy), the “progressives” intend to be in charge of everything so they can start (continue?) work on their creation of the Marxist paradise they envision.
Of course, since this isn’t actually practical (experience has shown it just doesn’t work), they’ll probably settle on something like the Chinese model, where the ruling “progressive” party controls everything, but allows just enough economic freedom to produce wealth for them to steal. Expect lots of crony capitalism with the financial sector and major industry as virtual parts of government, and enough economic freedom PERMITTED (no individual rights in their model, it’s just “collective” rights) to prevent famine and economic collapse.
It might even look like it’s “working” for a while. Of course a lot of people who believe in government limited by law, God given individual rights and economic liberty will have to be killed- most people like that can’t be “re-educated”.
The biggest problem we will face is the results of our population becoming astoundingly ignorant.
The most significant event of the previous century was the Cold War, in which we were a primary participant and the ultimate victor. After which, the vast majority of the American population couldn’t even define “Marxism”. That had to have been the result of a plan.
Marxism is diametrically opposed to the genetically programmed instinct of humans to stratify its societies. To condition humans to live in such an unnatural existence, it has been necessary for the ruling elite of Marxist states to brutally condition their respective populations to accept the unnatural Marxist existence. The most common method used was mass murder.
The Democrats intend to impose a Marxist system for the masses here. Naturally, as is the case with all Marxist systems ever employed, they intend to excuse themselves and place themselves in the elite class which Marx mentions, but never dictates how they should govern their societies.
Our Democrats will be no different than any other bunch of elitist Marxist zealots. They will use the same tools.
I noticed nobody is mentioning that Obama procured 750 (that’s seven hundred and fifty) million rounds of ammunition for the FBI, BATF and DHS. Comparre that number with the fact that two nations such as France and Germany that go to war with each other consume about 70 (that’s seventy) million rounds a year.
It’s crystal clear what the Democrats are planning. All you have to do is look at what they are doing now, like stockpiling enough ammunition to use on the population of the country for two major nations to fight a full-scale war for ten years.
We cannot afford any retreat from any position today.
And, we cannot allow the Democrats to start seizing elements of the economy for any reason whatsoever.
It’s all or nothing today. We must stand firm now.
We need a new Speaker, someone who won’t back down and will speak loudly.
Paul Ryan should be the next Speaker of the House.
Its obvious the Takers out number the Givers, i think we should embrace them as we all go over the cliff together. Secession is sounding better.
The fiscal cliff is a reality whereby we have no option but to make the best out of a bad situation. The die was cast last summer with the sequestration vote and putting the Bush tax cuts off until after the election. The ONLY way to avoid what’s going to happen was to defeat the President. That didn’t happen.
The problem stems from the fact that the Bush Tax cuts will expire WITHOUT any action. This means the Democrats are in a very strong negotiating position. All they have to do is to do nothing! On January 1st, the cuts will expire and ALL tax rates will go up. On January 20, the new Congress will (probably) pass tax relief on those making less than $250K abd make it retroactive to January 1, 2013. Essentially, the Dem’s get what they want and,if the Repub’s fight the effort, they hurt their brand!
I am a firm believer in fighting for what you believe in, However, I don’t believe in fighting an obvious losing battle. It would be far better for the Republicans to gain as much as possible out of a bad situation and live to fight another day.
As a residual benefit, this is an opportunity for the Republicans to force the President’s hand on spending cuts. They need to press for as much in cuts as is possible. When the smoke clears and the facts are known, we will see exactly where the Dem’s stand with regard to controling spending and getting the deficit under control.
Jesus is sending me to protect the presedent from racist. Guess what? Jesus had dark skin and wanted tp help the poor. Read the book. I have. I am armed with it. I am comming. Ready yourself.
Show me where the New Testament commands governments to take from soem people and give to other people.
If you want to actually know what the New Testament has to say about the person and their relationship with the government, read Romans. Then, you won’t appear to be so obviously ignorant when you post here.
But, let’s take a look at what you infer. You infer that goodness is directly related to taking care of the “poor”. Perhaps in your next post you’ll tell us how much someone like, oh, say, Romney, for example, gives to the poor and compare that to polilticians like Obama and Biden. (You actually ahve to put numbers in your post to answer this.)
Here’s the bottom line. Money doesn’t grow on trees. There isn’t enough money in the economy to pay for what the Democrats are promising. And, this is very important….
THERE ARE NO POOR PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.
Thos people you call “poor” eat every day, have enough money to buy booze and drugs and tatoos, have cable television, and HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING IDLE ALL DAY. And, poor people don’t have a mobile phone.
If you’re referring to the so-called “homeless, thanks to the contributions form people you hate, there are more beds and meals waiting than there are homeless. But, let’s go further. Most of those beds remain empty. Why? Because you can’t bring your booze and drugs into those shelters. Let’s get back to the point that a poor person doesn’t have enough money to buy booze and drugs.
How abou tthis inconvenient fact:
During Clinton’s tenure, it was discovered that 2 of every 3 homeless men were Vietnam-era veterans. Vietnam-era veterans comprised about 3 percent of the total population, yet accounted for over 60 percent of the homeless.
How did this happen? What do you think?
After this was discovered by the Clinton administration, the vital statistic of veteran status ceased to be collected when the homeless were studied.
Well sir. Since I will not be getting any social security when I retire, I propose the younger generations stop paying for it and let you selfish baby boomers fend for yourselves. You are the problem with this country. The world will be a better place when the worst generation is gone.
The only reason Social Security could go away is because the weak Republican leadership has allowed the Democrats to hijack it and turn it into a catch-all welfare program.
Let’s fix Social Security right here and now:
IF YOU DIDN’T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON’T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we’ve fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
We need a new Speaker of the House.
Paul Ryan.
Mark:
I understand your frustration with the SS system. In my view, it is way too premature to make a definitive statement like you have (“…I will not be getting any social security when I retire…”) The SS system is, obviously, in serious financial difficulty (for many reasons including abuse by previous congresses). However, I believe it is so deeply ingrained in ur society that measures will be taken to keep it functional in long term. Changes will be made (at this point, who knows what those changes will be), but the safty net will be there for you and for all Americans.
Your proposal to have the “younger generations”(whoever they may be) simply stop paying for it would lead to a disaster of eppoch proportions and, essentially, destroy the country.
I respectfully disagree with your final sentenance. The world will be a better place when all generations can focus on coming together to solve problems rather than fight over alternatives.
Joe, it’s a Ponzi scheme. Those who got in early did very well. Those who got in later did OK. The baby boomers, adjusting for inflation, won’t break even.
Young people today will pay in much,much more that they can possibly ever get back.
There isn’t any way to “fix” Ponzi schemes.
Abuse by previous Congresses has nothing to do with it. Taxes paid into S.S. were always used to buy government bonds, then the actual money was put in the general fund and spent. Payouts to S.S.recipients always came from current tax receipts. Cashing in bonds requires current tax receipts. The “trust fund” was never anything but a stack of bonds, basically I.O.U.s from the government to itself.
The demographic reality is, there aren’t enough people in the current generation to pay for the baby boomers. S.S. has been paying out more than it takes in for some time no, and it’s getting worse rapidly.
Of course “means testing” will be the next “fix”. What do you have then? Wealth transfer from those who create wealth to those who don’t. Or, rewards for those who don’t save and invest, taken from those who do save and invest. More perverse economic incentives, more socialist welfare state.
Are you off your medication again?
That question is directed at Sheila.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
Shut the government down. The government spends a whole lot less money when it is shut down than when it isn’t. If the government can’t decide what and where to cut, then let it shut down until there is enough revenue to pay for it. Make them find ways to bring some fiscal sanity back to our government.
No more debt. Not for any reason.
That’s really good thinking. I bet there’s no problem you couldn’t solve with that kind of thinking. We used to call it “I’m taking my ball and going home!” when I was a kid.
How about, we’re going to play the game by the rules.
Rule number one: MONEY DOESN’T GROW ON TREES.
How about rule number two: YOU CAN’T SPEND MONEY YOU DON’T HAVE.
How about rule number three: THE CONSTITUTION GIVES ONLY CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND MONEY.
How about rule number four: IF WE CAN’T GET GOOD LEADERSHIP, THEN WE’LL DO WHAT WE DID IN 2010 AND TOSS SOME RINOs OUT ON THEIR USELESS ASS.
… ready to play? Tighten your chinstrap. It’s going to get rough.
Or, how about you go play where you belong… in the “B” league.
Makes perfects sense – to someone who has no understanding of economics.
Your understanding of economics is probably confined to the list of economists promoted by the so-called “progressives” that think there wasn’t an economist in human society between Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, who thinks the more money you spend the more money you have, with the exception of Karl Marx.
How about we put a little Thorstein Veblen logic into our economic plans. How about people get rewarded in accordance with what they do to contribute to the economy.
How about we take a look at the economic debates-in-text between Malthus and Ricardo, and see if what is known as the “Malthusian Effect” might be contributing to our urban social problem, and all the government’s ideas is doing is propagating it.
How about you get an education in economics before you open your ignorant mouth.
Big fan of Veblen. I never realized that Marx actually believed “the more you spend the more you have.”
You should work on your ability to read and comprehend the written English language. If you read the post again, you should see:
“…so-called “progressives” that think there wasn’t an economist in human society between Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, who thinks the more money you spend the more money you have, with the exception of Karl Marx.
Please tell us how you interpreted this sentence to mean Karl Marx thinks the more money you spend the more money you have.
If you’re such a big fan of people individually being rewarded in accordance with their contributions to the economy, how the **** can you support Obama’s Marxist legislation?
Veblen is diametrically opposed to things like me having to pay the “tax” for anyone else so they can receive a benefit ordered to be provided by private entities by any government.
Time to Chose Winning as A Strategy
Fiscal Cliff Battle
We are going to lose on this issue no matter what. The only way not to lose is let it go. A strategic retreat. It doesn’t matter because letting taxes go up will not cause a recession – we are already in one. Wait for the 4th quarter numbers they will show negative GDP.
IMO what we need to do is agree to let all “Bush” Tax cuts expire. Even if some are kept the result will be a deepening recession going into the 1st quarter of 2013. Not caused by the Tea Party, but do to the “Obama Tax Increase” and “ObamaCare Implementation”.
If Obama does not call for a cut in Taxes by 2nd Quarter it will get even worse. We will then slaughter the Progressive movement in 2014. If we are Branded as “Obstructionist” which they have been very good at doing we lose in 2014.
My point is the country is going to lose no matter what. So take it as a fact and position to win.
I am tired of retreating. We need a new Speaker. We need someone who won’t cower like a weakling.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
The problem isn’t not enough revenue. The problem is the government spends too much. Let the fiscal cliff come. If Congress is incapable of doing their job, then let it become obvious to everyone. They need to cut spending. It’s up to them to decide what to cut. If they can’t decide, just cut every goddam line item in the government an arbitrary 10 percent until we get the government down to a size the economy can afford.
If the current Republican leadership can’t, or won’t stand up for this, then toss them aside like a useless trinket and get some real goddam leadership up front.
By the second quarter? Have you been in a coma the past 4 years? Obama doesn’t have anything to do with our government. He’s just riding the gravy train. If you’ve been paying attention to anything going on in our government, you’d know Obama is clueless. Ignore him. The real authority is Harry Reid and Vallerie Jarrett. Go after them. Treat Obama like what he is, a cardboard cutout advertisement to make it appear as if we actually have a president.
Paul Ryan should be the new Speaker of the House.
Mark Rubio should be the new Minority whip in the Senate.
We make those changes and we’ll begin to get a lot more results than we’ve been getting with the impotent people we currently have in those positions.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN IF YOU HAVE TO.
CORRECTION:
Mark Rubio should be the new Minority Leader in the Senate
No taxes for ANY reason!!!! Like paying for the 2 wars that George W got us into. Like paying for our veteran’s benefits. Like paying for Paul Ryan’s health insurance. Or Marco Rubio’s salary. Or Michele Bachmann’s pension. Or jails, courts, schools, bridges, social security, etc.
Which two wars would you be talking about? Who were the enemies of these supposed two different wars?
Got a problem there, don’t you? Seems we were fighting the exact same enemy in the supposed two wars you referenced. How can there be two wars against the same enemy?
The truth is, it didn’t matter where we went. The Islamic jihad was going to go there to fight us. We would have fought the exact same Islamic jihad if we went to Yemen, or Egypt, to Morocco, or anywhere to fight the war they started in their own back yard.
I suppose you’re one of those ignorant fools that wanted us to do the exact same thing in the exact same place against the exact same enemy as the Soviets, and somehow you’re so ignorant you would expect a different result than what the Soviets experienced.
I’m not a big fan of Bush, but I don’t fault him there. He did it differently than the Soviets. The Soviets lost. Bush won. Mission accomplished.
By the way, why do you think the Democrats supported Bush’s idea of going to war in Iraq?
I’m thinking you’re an indoctrinated dupe and don’t even know this happened, or if you know, you don’t know why the Democrats supported Bush’s war front in Iraq.
I’ll give you a hint: It’s related to how the Democrats’ subprime housing mortgage underwriting program collapsed our economy after 2 years of oversight by a Democrat-controlled Congress.
So you supported the war against the Taliban and the 2nd war against Saddam Hussein. You just don’t think we should have to pay for them?
Are you sure you’re talking about events on this planet?
As I recall the events of history, the supposed “second” war you refer to was fought against the Islamist jihad. I don’t recall fighting against Saddam Hussein. There just wasn’t much fighting involved in removing him. Bush ordered him removed, and in a couple of months it was MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Afterward, there was a very significant war fought against the Islamic jihad from all over the Arab world, which Bush crushed. This Islamist jihad was going to appear anywhere we chose to fight. Our only choice was to choose the best place to fight them. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was like killing two birds with one stone.
Now, back to the issue you are running away from.
Why do you think the Democrats supported the war fought in Iraq?
(That is one of the events of history on this planet, if you’re confused about that.)
and another thing….
We should have slaughtered those Marxists in this election. Chris Christi sabotaged the election by snubbing Mitt Romney in one motion and sucking up to Obama with the very next step. That single action caused a 5-point swing. That action caused the Republicans to lose this election.
I don’t hear any RINOs speaking up about this. So, who needs them?
Paul Ryan should be the next Speaker of the House. We’ll stop retreating then and begin to get back to sanity in our government.
We did not slaughter them because we did not all show up to the polls. Three million less votes than McCain. Before the campaign I would never endorse Christi and he should just change parties now. Rubio and Ryan are great guys. Paul Ryan however does not have the killer instinct to be Speaker. We need someone more like a Peter King. In the Senate, I would pick DeMint. We need Rubio to get ready for 2016 and we need to pick one of our Female Governors to run with him.
As for the past several years I have certainly not been in a coma. Let me ask you where have we won any battle outside of the 2010 election so far? Politics is run on the concept of game theory.
Here is my point. The “Progressives” will take any win and count it as a gain. Their objective is to not lose any ground after that and wait for an opening for the next win. If we want to win on the issue of Taxes then we need “Bush” out of the way. Those getting taxed at higher rates know how to avoid paying more for awhile. We will not win by not raising the Debt Ceiling. Instead we need to only allow this is small steps with wins for spending cuts. Want a Trillion cut another Trillion this is a + win. Don’t allow any spending increases this is a net sum gain, we won our spending decrease so we are still ahead. They will need another debt increase then we go for a + gain.
We should say get rid of Bush Tax Cuts. Replace them with Progressive Tax increases, Democrats are waging a war on Middle Class. They will then lose the spending cut battle.
Yes! Paul Ryan! A disciple of the atheist Ayn Rand!
I didn’t realize any “Marxists” were running!
Another dupe that pretends to be ignorant….
Perhaps you didn’t read the books Obama supposedly wrote. Perhaps you missed the part wher ehe talks about Frank Marshal Davis. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that Davis worked with Vernon Jarrett in Chicago in communist front organizations. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that Davis moved to Hawaii after that to organize the Comunist Party USA there. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that Davis met Obama’s father and mother through the Communist Party USA there. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that Obama moved to… you guessed it… Chicago where Vernon Jarrett lived. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that Obama began his political career in the home of William Ayers, who describes himself as “a communist with a small ‘c’”. Perhaps you’re ignorant of the fact that the daughter-in-law of Vernon Jarrett, Vallerie Jarrett, has the office immediately adjacent to the Oval Office.
That’s a trail Inspector Clousseau could follow.
I’ve got just one question:
Why do you pretend to not know Obama is a Marxist? What’s the plan?
You cause something Saul Alinsky said:
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing.”
The truth is Obama is a Marxist communist… among other things.
Bucky Badger, please take your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes and stop being ignorant. This is our country at stake!
The problem with that is, “progressives” plan tyranny. They’ve been planning it for a long time. Destroying “capitalism” (free markets) has always been part of the plan. Destroying the U.S. has always been part of the plan.
What makes you think there will be elections in 2014? Maybe there will be, but nobody will be on the ballot except “progressives”.
Hello and greetings from Germany.
Just as an introduction Im a politicaly interested mid-twenties male from ger trying to learn more about the Tea party. Ive read a lot about u guys in various media both american and german but ultematly wanteed to go to the source because u can trust the media only so far.
Now to begin with u should realize that as a european I stand on the liberal side on many issues concerning the role of government. BUT i wanna focus on what i think u guys, me and a vast majority of germans (though not europeans) agree on: Government Debt (at least in those huge amounts we see nowadays) is bad, even dangerous.
So far as I understand it(please correct me if Im wrong) this is the most important issue drawing Tea Party activists together.
My main problem in understanding your position concerns the solution to this debt problem. The deficit (in the US as well as many european countries though not ger) is so huge that i cant see how to get rid of it without raising taxes on some level. If i get it right most of you want to hold government as small as possible and are for that reason against any tax hikes, fearing that once government has the money itll spend/waste it. What about any deals though that specify clearly that any new revenue cannot be spend and has to go into deficit reduction? Would you be opposed to (just an example) a deal that cuts 200 billlion and at the same time increases revenue by increasing taxes(which one/s is always up for debate)100 billion. I mean this is hardly a growing of government(in fact the opposite as it cuts the actual spending by 200bil). If so please explain why and more importantly how to solve the debt problem instead.
Finally I wanna make clear that I come here seeking to understand your postions not to argue or convince anyone (Ive been flamed enough at in the internet and I know this can lead to very heated discussions)
Thanks in advance for any reaction and please forgive any typos english isnt my native language.
Hello. Germany has been an impressive nation for a very long time. That it is the German economy holding up the value of the Euro under the stress of the unwise social programs instituted by many Euro-member nations is impressive. The TEA Party admires this.
Naturally, there have been some events in history when Germany succumed to very evil forces. It should be noted that Hitler ranks only number 4 on the list of the worst mass murderers in the history of civilization. Mao Tse Dung ranks first numerically. Joseph Stalin ranks second numerically. Ho Chi Minh had over 12 percent of the population under his control murdered, which makes him statistically the worst mass murderer in the history of civilization. Hitler is number 4 on the list.
Yet, the so-called “mainstream” media ignores these facts.
To understand the TEA Party, you need to understand that the TEA Party realizes that the so-called “mainstream” media is intent on misleading the population of the United States with a campaign of misinformation, and sometimes outright lies they are well aware are false.
To fully understand the TEA Party, it would be helpful to read our Constitution. It was written so the average person can easily read and understand it. This fact is diametrically opposed to what the vast majority of politicians in our government want the population of the United States to believe.
Welcome. Please give Merkel our best regards.
Hi — perhaps the best way to answer you is to check out this article: “The Proper Post-Election Agenda: Cut Spending, Then Taxes:” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/proper-postelection-agenda-cut-spending-then-taxes
How’s your European Union social welfare state working out? Maybe you should devote your time and effort to solving your own problems?
Understanding others and other points of view can often help one find solutions to your own problems
Aside from that our european welfare state is working quite fine here in Germany, just check our Import/Export national deficit and unemployment stats(lowest in almost 20 years). That doesnt mean everythings fine here though and certainly things are quite problematic in some of the other european countries.
This reminds me of another piece of legislation on which your opinion would interest me.
In 2007, even before the crisis started, Ger amended its constitution to include a so called debt brake which is basically a soft balanced budget requirement(you have to be balanced of longer periods but can make debt during times of crisis). By now allmost all other EU countries have or are in theprocess of adopting this as well.
I understand some of your states have balanced budget requirements but what about something like that on the federal level. Is there any discussion about this in the US/ is this one or something similar one of the Tea Parties demands?
UM… as a european looking from a distance most of the comments on this site baffle me. how can it make any sense at all to try and stop the government of your own country from functioning? isn’t that the way people behave in places like somalia?
and what does it say for democracy when a small lunatic fringe that probably represents no more than 20% of the voting population tries to stop a democratically elected government from doing what it was elected to do?
@jonbod,
I love it when a European talks about how to run a democracy. He perhaps forgot about the great model of democracy in the early 20th century, the Weimar Pepublic. History shows that often the majority, at the moment, does NOT represent the best course for nation. The cowards in pre-WWII Europe failed to speak up, and what a mistake that was. It’s not easy to say what you think is the truth when so many others disagree, but that’s what true democracy needs,
when a minority thinks it has the right to force its plans because it believes the majority is wrong then you’re on a fast-track to dictatorship.
either that, or you need to come up with an alternative system of government. but right now you’re living in a democracy and you need to play by those rules ,
We are properly a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
When our government acts outside the powers the People have given to it in the Constitution, it is not acting as the legitimate government of the U.S.
We want our government to function, we just want it to function within the limits we’ve placed on it.
Jonbod, you asked a serious question but you haven’t yet received a serious answer. Here in America about 20% of adults are deeply alienated from society: embittered by their own personal poor financial prospects, frightened and jealous of those of a different skin color, intolerant and frankly hateful of those of a different sexual orientation, religious fanatics who not only believe that a cell is a human being but who also hold that everyone else must believe the same. These folks…the lunatic fringe which every society has in greater or lesser numbers…have been ably organized and empowered by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and Peter Peterson. They’ve been told that all their personal problems are the fault of that colored boy in the White House and his Democratic friends. They’ve been told that America’s majority party, the Democrats, are communists, radical muslim sympathizers, and bent on destroying America, whereupon we will gleefully dance in its ashes. And, like low-information have-nots down through the ages, they’ve eagerly bought into this cynical finger-pointing. “Oh thank goodness my unfulfilling life isn’t my fault, it’s somebody else’s fault!”
Obviously you can’t expect a lot of closely reasoned logic from such scape-goaters. You’re quite correct in your Somalia analogy; if Americans took these guys seriously, America would become a failed state overnight…and, of course, they’d blame it on the Democrats. And now we see the very lunaticiest fringe of the lunatic fringe calling for secession of states from the Union and for states’ nullification of Federal laws…in short, folks so devoid of historical perspective that they actually wish to return to 1862 and the catastrophe that was our Civil War. Like I say, you can’t expect a lot of logic from such folks. We just try to keep them some place safe where they can’t hurt themselves or others.
There’s a 20% lunatic fringe in the U.S. alright, they call themselves “progressives”, and they actually believe in Marx and Keynes. They have a belief system that refuses to accept reality, including the consistent and disastrous failure of their proposed system for organizing societies and economies.
They are the opposite of progressive. They want to return us to the ancient systems where the great mass of people are ruled by self proclaimed elites.
Winston…You complete me.
It would help if Boehner’s would better hold the line:
“They hadn’t even finished counting the ballots in Florida when House speaker John Boehner indicated that Republicans were preparing to surrender on issues ranging from taxes to health-care reform.
With regard to taxes, Boehner signaled that he was once again open to a “grand bargain” to avoid the looming fiscal cliff. While he kept an increase in tax rates off the table for now, Boehner said that he was open to “additional revenue” as part of a deal. Such additional revenue could, of course, take many forms, such as closing loopholes, raising fees, or counting on increased economic growth. But by preemptively conceding on revenue, Speaker Boehner takes the focus off the need to cut spending.”
From Boehner’s Blunder: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/boehners-blunder
We need a new Speaker, someone who isn’t a coward and will take a stand. Boehner is the Democrats’ dream of what they wished for in a Republican Speaker in their wildest dreams: someone who is weak and part of the big-government problem.
Paul Ryan should be the next Speaker.
No more debt. Not for any reason. Get the government back to a size the economy can actually pay for.
The bottom line is that we MUST speak up. Since we cannot get our voice heard through the election cycle, we must stand up to any representative that even thinks about agreeing to raise revenue by raising marginal tax rates. The soft Republican leadership who is always trying to be so politically correct and not actually working for the voice of the people. This is such a huge problem. We have to be the ones to stand up and give them the backbone to fight against the propaganda of the Obama administration.
Secondly, we must start standing up to the media. We all state that we know what a huge problem they represent. But now we actually have to start doing something about it. But how do we go about it? Everyone start brainstorming and come together on this fight. There has to be something we can do to make them accountable to tell the truth and stop feeding the public liberal talking points day in and day out! They must be held to account or face criminal charges. Whatever happened to Defamation of Character for instance? We must do something!
If the people voting for Obama, are supposedly calling for Higher Taxes, then I suggest they pay the taxes. This is ex-actually why we need a Flat Tax. If the Obama Regime really wanted more Tax revenues, they’d stop putting people out of work, and start creating jobs.
Amnesty Is Not Immigration Reform!
Sign the Petition at:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/amnesty-not-immigration-reform/33SNW1gj
I do not feel like we are facing a political problem with the machinery politics of the Democrats, although that is definitely part of it. What we face is a cultural shift toward tyranny. What causes men to willingly give up their freedom? Deception and fear- men fear a loss of security so they accept a false bargain to exchange that freedom for a promise of greater security.
I am afraid it will not do to criticize those on food stamps, medicare, medicaid, or student loans as non-productive. People enroll in these programs, whatever we might think, because they are afraid and someone has promised them some form of security.
I do not feel that the Tea Party can overcome the rot of liberalism through political channels, not in Washington, anyway. But here are our secret weapons:
(1) business- we can teach poor people how to start and maintain one. Train people in sales. Train people in trades. Train people in promotion and marketing. You’d be surprised how many poor people can fry chicken that you would pay 50 dollars to eat. I would gladly pay 20 dollars to watch some of the pick-up games of basketball that poor men play just for fun. We must endow our countrymen with a sense of their economic worth and the knowledge of how to bring their unique abilities to market.
(2) entertainment- we need more YouTube videos, songs, films, games, and other diversions which empower people rather than enslave them. By the way, I nominate this to be the real definition of conservatism: that which empowers you at your own expense.
(3) Education- I mean curriculum, not finances, which is what the debates are truly about despite what we may like to believe. For heaven’s sake, will somebody come up with a home and public school curriculum which makes kids able to read, write, add, use tools, and be soldiers? We can do this. It’s not hard, and you’d be surprised how little resistance it would get in a state like Texas.
I am aware of that. If people weren’t being indoctrinated to forget exactly what it is in the world that is still our enemy and trying to end our existence, I wouldn’t remind them with a photo from the actual history of this conflict they started in their attempt to end our existence.
Every time you think about Obama inviting the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House, you should remember this photo and know this is the very same element being invited to the White House and influencing our government.
When the American people again realize that the war the Islamist jihad started on 9/11/2001 is still a fact of current events, and they celebrated the beginning of this war on 9/11/2012 with coordinated attacks on many US embassies, I won’t attempt to remind them with a photo of what the real enemy of the people of the United States is.
The real enemy isn’t what Janet Napolitano wants you to believe. The real enemy of the people of the United States isn’t the average American. It is the Arab Islamist jihad that has explicit support of a growing number of countries in the Arab world. This is one of the changes since Bush left office. This is a fact of history now.