Search This Blog

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Civility and Taxes

Today I am again reminded that we need more civility in our discourse.

Mitt Romney lost. Obama won. That doesn't mean that anyone should crow over anyone else, that anyone should shout out obscenities at anyone else, that anyone deserves to be treated as less than a human being. I'm talking to both sides, here. There is NO reason to be uncivil. To quote other civility advocates: sure, you have the right to say anything you want. But it doesn't make it right to say anything you want. If we start listening to each other, we might just learn something.

Thanks.


Meanwhile, I stand by what I say in that we are doomed. We have to raise the debt ceiling again, already? And be downgraded again? How long until the government checks start bouncing? Obama spends our money like water - in fact, he's more careful with water! Obama admitted a long time ago that he wants Taxmageddon to remain (rather than get to real spending cuts other than defense) even though he publicly says he is waiting on Congress. All that means is he wants to blame the taxes on Republicans. That is not compromise or even a desire for compromise. That's politics.

Be prepared: the FICA reduction expires Jan 1, 2013, and you'll pay 6.2% again. Not to mention all the other taxes that hit every single American in Taxmaggedon. Read it and weep. And call and plead with all your Congressmen and women to cut spending now. Ironically, if Congress does absolutely nothing, according to the CBO the economy will be impacted immediately but we'll recover from it quicker because of the spending cuts detailed (which Democrats might otherwise eliminate). I fully expect this level of tax increase to throw us immediately into a recession, if not depression. And there will be no way out without cutting spending (meaning no way out for four more long years with a president unwilling to compromise).

Government is too big, takes too much from us, is too big of a burden, so it must be cut down to size. There is no other way.

5 comments:

  1. " Obama spends our money like water"

    Did not work for Romney did it? Why?

    Because singling Obama out for a cesspool created since the 1980s, and corrections to the same abandoned in 2001 does not work.

    "Mitt Romney lost. Obama won. That doesn't mean that anyone should crow over anyone else, "

    And it also does not mean that you repeat the same failed pablum, either.

    Obama's spending is no different that Bush's or Reagan's

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obama's spending is actually considerably worse than Bush's and Reagan's. I'm certainly not defending Bush's $5T in 8 years, but Obama didn't even try to live up to his promise to reign in the deficit: he spent over $5T in just 4 years. You've gotta realize that accelerating spending is asking for problems. Is this "failed pablum?" It sure seems to me that Obama fails.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And let's remember that Obama did NOT "inherit" the mess, as if someone unexpectedly dumped it on his lap when everything was going so well. He asked for it, he campaigned for it, said he was the man who could fix it. Trillions of dollars later, we are no better off, and many are much worse off. And you must be living some high life if you think TWICE as much spending is "no different." At least Reagan fixed his economy, and Bush paid for two wars (disagree with them or not). We literally have nothing to show for the money Obama spent. As a taxpayer, and someone who has to watch every penny spent at home, this greatly offends me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Government check cannot bounce. The United States cannot run out of dollars. Worst case scenario is that the dollar loses value relative to other currencies. Its clear you do not understand how the money works, the government finances and your household finances are not analogous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but do you think that the government can write checks forever? They can and they will eventually bounce. Downgrades mean consequences for government. Are you actually advocating that government continues to spend well beyond its means, contributing to the general inflation - what you might call a 'cost-of-living tax' - instead of reigning in spending and preserving programs for the future. While I grant you that the two comparisons are not strictly analogous, it would be far better for Americans if it was treated as if it were.

      Delete