|
01-22-2012, 01:52 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieLion
Thanks for the apology, but it wasn't necessary. It's only conversation and not a personal matter between us. I appreciate the graciousness never the less.
OK; in regard to the rest of this post.
Much of it seems a bit convoluted and containing what I think of as convenient terminology.
"Tax Reform": you are using this term to condemn the Republican Congress, and specifically in your OP, the Tea Party Caucus. Why don't you and the media and the rest of the Democrat Establishment say what you really mean.
You mean tax increases. Tax reform is just the convenient term so that you don't appear asking for what you're asking for.
Thankfully, at least for a time, the Tea Party Caucus' rising influence caused the Republican Establishment leadership, which is complicit in overspending as you point out, to step back and stand on a "firm" ground of "no new taxes". Unlike you, I take this as a good thing.
These tax increases, or new taxes, are always so "reasonably" presented as being coupled with "spending cuts". The rub?; these spending cuts are projected to come into play incrementally over time, and the tax increases are immediate and permanent. In the years ahead the spending cuts are systematically discarded, by and large, while the tax increases (new taxes) are with us forever.
The President's budget? You're speaking about the same President who ballooned our debt and deficits? The same President who is asking for over a Trillion Dollars more debt ceiling. God help us.
|
Some brief responses... - Tax Reform…I mean a total reform of the taxation system, including the elimination of lobbied (bought and paid for) benefits to corporations; the elimination of subsidies, like all of the agricultural subsidies; a re-do of the tax rates, probably lowering the corporate tax rates; modification of the tax code that permits U.S. corporations to escape paying taxes on foreign earnings (thereby encouraging moving business outside the U.S.); and yes, an increase of the taxation of the wealthiest Americans (letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a good start).
- "the President who ballooned our budget"…once again, the POTUS can't sign one check issued by the Treasury. He has two shots at fiscal policy--his budget proposal and then whether he decides to veto the spending and taxation legislation ultimately passed by Congress. It's the Congress that does all the damage, not the President!
- The Tea Party…I agree with much of what they stand for, but not their approach to achieving it. It seems to me that by assuming a stance of compromise, moving towards their goals over a period of time, they could have become a more important factor in the House and in the Congress. But their "my way or the highway" approach to legislation, according to most of the election watchers, has turned off the public and may well result in the return of control of the House to the Democrats.
- The disconnect between tax increases and spending cuts?…I've negotiated lots of contracts in my day. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if agreed upon spending cuts fail to materialize while tax increases immediately become permanent, it's because the Congress did a crappy job of writing the legislation. You want my guess why that happens? Because that's the objective they actually intended--continued spending and more money to do it with!!
- The President's budget?…let's watch and see what he proposes in about a week. And then watch how the Congressional demagogs respond. We both know what's going to happen. I would only hope that he has the cajones to veto what they come up with and send them back to do a more responsible job. If that means shutting down the entire government for awhile, I'll go along. I can live without my Social Security check and I just won't fly if there aren't any air controllers.
|