I pesonally have taken the following stance:
The government uselessly spends an incredible amount of money. Just wastes money every day with no regard to the future ramifications. Without specifying a single program to cut/trim/eliminate I refuse to back highger taxes on ANYONE without the government figuring out how to do with less.
The government (current administration included) has no intnetion of cutting the spending or being fiscally responsible... NONE. Obama and the Democrats do not want taxes raised to balance budgets or cut deficits, that is not in the works, not at all. They want more money to spend, more ammunition to buy votes through new government programs and giveaways. The voters told the Democrats NO in the mid term elections, the GOP is telling them NO through what you call obstruction (what I call listening to their constituents) and you know what... they push on, because they know what is better for us than we do.
I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately. You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is. Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the governemnt will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good? Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.
JBS, I actually do not disagree with your first paragraph. I do not believe that spending does not need to be reduced. I have not said that, and in fact, have said the opposite. You may see the R’s as totally altruistic, however I do not. I believe this is all about hurting Social Security as hard as they possibly can, and not some noble goal of reducing the national debt. Sure, that might be a part of what eventually needs done, but why the Republican way always have to be on the backs of workers?
I don’t understand why you and the far right wingers persist to know what I think better than what I think and say. I do not single out the rich as you accuse. I say why can’t they be a part of the solution? Why do they get preferential treatment and nice tidy little deals that ultimately are going to make the sacrifices of the workers even worse?
I don’t know what the mid terms said. Maybe your GUESS is right. My guess is more in line with history and they voted that the economy sucks, jobs are gone, and they want it fixed. The exact same thing as when Obama won. He failed to do what they wanted and fix the economy, so they voted AGAINST the party in power, not FOR any vague idea other than fix the economy NOW!
I don’t object to a party trying to stop or more favorably negotiate what needs done on many things, but gosh J, ALL things. It is almost impossible to pass anything when you have to have 61 votes and the minority only needs 41. You see it as a good thing to do nothing and let the economy drag down in the pit as long as possible. If they are so dog eared about cutting spending and the D’s wanted to do something to encourage the economy... why didn’t they make a deal and do both instead? You think the D’s would refuse to deal to get something passed? I don’t. It is just like this recent tax debacle. The R’s agreed to a temporary reduction in the middle class tax rates as long as they were paid for out of SS, Why out of SS? TO cut into the fund so the cry to slash SS even further happens. You see altruism in spending cuts and I see an ideology that wants to give the country away to the rich and leave the rest as peasants.
“I would rather the mess be fixed by the government spending and budgeting rationally and taxing EVERYONE appropriately. “ Exactly what I say… Why do the rich get rewards and the workers get punishment?
“You would rather isolate a small group of people, punish them for having more than you, and make them pay through the nose so that the government can push on as is. Push the top rate through the roof duck, see what happens, the rich will take their money and stop spending it and then the government will once again have to do what it has done before, change the definition of "rich"... $100K/year sound good? Raise their taxes too, I think they can afford it.”
Again I ask, why do you misrepresent what I say? Does it make your point seem valid then? It seems to be a trend lately, tell others what they think and make pretend it helps your own spin. Show me any quote that I made that says I want the rich to pay every penny they make to the government. Frankly, saying that about anyone is rather silly. I would be tickled to death to have an economy filled with well paying jobs that allowed the workers to live with respect, then the rich could pay less than the workers for all I care, as long as the working people didn’t have to carry the burden while the rich had far less of a burden.
Far too many of the decent jobs were shipped out of the country because gosh, if they do that then they make more profit. Doesn’t matter that THIS economy is crap because of it. They are still raking in record profits. The argument for lowering the highest marginal rate was so they can create more jobs and they did, just in other countries. Why should I show any loyalty to that? Why should I care if they pay more when they are making RECORD profits while the majority of the country wallows in a near depression? Why does voiding this country of decent jobs deserve a reward?
AS I said, I am not “anti rich” I am anti down on your knees worshipping the rich like they are the gods. Last I looked, they are a part of this country too, and do not deserve the preferential treatment that the right demands that they receive. Why do we have to return to the feudal days of dirt poor peasants with an ultra rich aristocracy? Because, sir, I suggest that the spending cuts and changes you believe the right demands will accomplish exactly that instead of creating decent jobs for the other 98%.