The above statement should be readily identified as "true" when you look at the fact that the Republicans have all signed this stupid oath saying they'll never raise, and only lower taxes, and that the Democratic party talks a big game about increasing revenues, but never raises taxes, thus looking like pussies in the process.
This brings us to Reason #9 that explain why America is NOT Number One (and hasn't been for a LONG time):
<hr>
9.) What We Believe: America has a rigidly progressive tax system where Americans pay a higher percentage of their wealth as they make more money.
Reality: Taxes are much more complicated than that, and have been since Republicans tried to "simplify" the tax code by lowering the effective personal income tax rate, lowering corporate tax rates, and lowering the capital gains tax rate - all while maintaining the number and amount of deductions you can claim without tying them to the lowered tax rates. To boil that down to something more understandable, the basic premise is, "When you make more money, you are now able to say you're paying an effective tax rate that is higher than everyone else, when you're actually pay 1/3 to 1/2 of what you're supposed to be paying, and often making money off of their idiocy."
It's actually much more complicated than that, and how tax issues are viewed is really dependent upon your political affiliation rather than relying solely on facts.
There are a number of tax myths (read: outright lies) that exist as a result of the political parties' obfuscation of fact and figures. Why they choose to hide or lie about tax issues is dependent, again, on party affiliation and political and fiscal ideology.
The first greatest of these myths is that America has the highest effective corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.
It's no surprise that this assertion originated with the GOP. It should come as no further surprise that this is, in fact, false.
38% must sound extremely high...if that's what they were actually paying:
"A comprehensive study released on [November 3, 2011] found that 280 of the biggest publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to 18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years — little more than half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their competitors in many industrialized countries."
Now, of course lower tax rate zealots (AKA - Grover Norquist) insists that companies still pay too much in taxes because they are taxed on profits made outside the U.S. It is telling, however, when the GOP and Norquist talk about how awful it is when companies outsource jobs...and yet, the CEOs responsible for the vast majority of outsourcing jobs are often members of the Republican party. Worse, they do so specifically to avoid paying taxes.
Unfortunately for Norquist and his cadre of brainwashed tax dunces, the facts do not align with their pseudo-reality.
They love to make lots of excuses for why these facts, which are publicly available, aren't accurate, ranging from, "Well, when a company loses money, they pay less in taxes; it doesn't matter that they made a profit" to, "Why should an American company pay taxes on profits made overseas?"
Again, the answers to their anti-tax assertions are generally divided along partisan lines, and frankly, neither side will ever convince the other of the validity of their arguments. As I've said before, it's hard to argue facts with people who argue faith, and Reaganomics has never been a matter of fact, but a matter of faith...often misplaced.
The theory behind Reaganomics is that if you allow the "job creators" to keep more of their money by lowering taxes, it will allow them to hire more people, and the money will just magically "trickle down" into the rest of the economy. Unfortunately for the tax wizards who thought this up and their followers who place their faith in this fantasy, that never happened.
So, we're going to look at three different charts:
While this chart is slightly confusing, it makes abundantly clear that some of the most storied, profitable companies in the U.S. actually end up paying less than zero in taxes. For that to happen as an individual, you have to make so little that you are exempted from paying the 10% tax that is levied on the lowest tax bracket ($0-8,700 for a single person)...and still doesn't exempt you from paying sales, gas, or food taxes.
So, basically, if you're rich, you can pay as little as you want.
Yes; these two charts are, in fact, accurate. To break it down for ya': Thanks to the GOP redefining for the U.S. our concept of economics and taxes, corporate income tax now stands at roughly 1% of GDP, and likely even less, now, given that in 2010, corporate income tax made up a little more than 9% of the Federal Tax Revenue.
Basically, if you call yourself a corporation, move the most profitable parts of your company overseas, and employ cheap foreign labor (while pretending to be pro-America), you can pay virtually nothing when compared to your total income/profits.
Reactions to this injustice once again fall along partisan lines. For those of us who believe that our nation should require everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, this is a travesty; for those who believe that profits come before people, this is just the way of the "free market."
Ironic, then, that even though the Citizens United ruling that deemed corporations people, these "people" aren't audited and brought up on charges of tax evasion.
<hr>
Obviously, we have repeatedly redefined how we perceive taxation. We fought a war to escape "taxation without representation," a phrase that describes being taxed without having a local representative acting in your interests to the governing body who is collecting said taxes. The phrase does not, however, apply to Americans paying taxes to the IRS, much to the chagrin of the Tea Party people...well, it would be if they understood taxation or representation.
Thanks to Saint Ronald of Reagan, the GOP Patron Saint, we lowered capitol gains, corporate income, and the top personal income tax rates so that they could create jobs. Unfortunately, that has never seemed to be enough.
"Taxes are still too high," say those who are now paying the lowest effective tax rates in the last 70 years. "If we just paid less in taxes, we'd bring back those jobs!"
It will never happen, just like Reaganomics will never "trickle down," and horses are unlikely to fly of their own volition. In fact, the irony of the last thirty years is that the best economic period has been under a Democratic president (Clinton) who increased the number of taxes and regulations, while the worst period of job growth and economy have been under the two major Republican presidents, (Reagan and Bush II).
And this is why America's approach to taxation makes us not "number one," and until we get some legislators in office who are sane enough to reverse course or brave enough to raise taxes on their biggest donors, we're going to continue losing revenue like a sieve, the economy will continue to be stuck in the doldrums, and nothing will improve.
<hr>
Up next, Reason #8: Religious Influence in Politics - How the Land Who Would Not Establish a National Religion Has Been Overrun by Christian Dominionists.
Kocieniewski, D. (November 3, 2011) . Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says. The New York Times Online Edition. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/business/280-big-public-firms-paid-little-us-tax-study-finds.html
Kroll, A. (June 2, 2011) . GE, Exxon, 10 Other Major Corporations Paid Negative Tax Rate. Mother Jones Website. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate
Masters, J. (April 5, 2012) . U.S. Corporate Tax Reform. Council on Foreign Relations - Renewing America. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-corporate-tax-reform/p27860
PART 1
ReplyDeleteThis is fun Marcus! Hopefully more people will join the discussions.
What I am finding from your discussions is that you aren't truly Democrat and definitely not Republican but you are very much against the typical Republican ideologies. I believe that stance is a great intellectual stance to take. Unfortunately, your sarcasm towards Republicans in general is so dripping I am sure it will discourage most people (like myself) who typically lean that direction from participating in the conversation. Honestly, it's one of the reasons I AM participating. I was initially inclined to turn away because of the negative tone towards one side but I find your insight to be valuable and concise. Your assertions are helping me to look deeper into my stance on each subject and make informed decisions that INCLUDE information from a differing viewpoint. I am not going to fail to participate simply because of discomfort.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, our political system no longer does this. It simply denigrates people of the opposite or different mind set and dismisses their thoughts as invalid. Speech is not free if you are afraid to speak for fear of reprisal or ridicule. If one way (Democrat) or the other (Republican) truly worked in and of itself, everyone would lean in that direction. I think our politicians KNOW that neither way is perfect so therefore they have to convince people to vote for them by speaking to them in a language they understand: hate and anger. I personally believe your arguments and presentation are enough to make me think through my position without me having to convince myself to ignore the not so veiled insults hurled at the people you clearly don't like. I CHOOSE to like you regardless of what you do. I saw greatness in you years ago and I refuse to believe anything else. Not everyone will have the background with you that I do and your insight is too valuable to be dismissed simply because someone becomes turned off by the typical political anger / sarcasm. You are a brilliant man with a lot to offer intellectually. I hope that a disdain for a particular ideology will not lead you to hate the people who lean towards that ideology. Once that happens, the ability to see everyone including yourself as less than perfect but still valuable becomes impossible.
I truly wish corporations like GE were not demonized because of a system that was put in place by elected officials not themselves. The funny thing is GE is not in trouble with the IRS. They have followed the system. If that makes them pay no taxes, it's not their fault. I know they pay out the wazoo for accountants to find loopholes in the tax code so they will pay less in taxes. I would much rather feed a family directly by paying their salary as an accountant than pay it to the government who has a storied record of mismanaging funds. Why are the corporations attacked and not the tax code by itself. I'm amazed that a President is allowed to say negative things about a corporation that hasn't broken any laws. Focus on the tax code, not the people who are following the tax code. I don't see this President saying negative things about himself because he is paying 15% less in taxes than what his tax bracket is SUPPOSED to pay. He also just this week said he will not pay the extra. He is simply following the tax code. The focus should be on the tax code itself and not the people following the tax code to the letter. GE and others should not be demonized for this. It is not the corporations fault that they are only taxed on profit and not every penny that rolls through the door.
This is an interesting argument, primarily because it is one that never really occurred prior to the 1980s. History is an interesting lens through which to view the American tax system because the evidence is counterintuitive to every way we have come to believe the U.S. economy functions..
DeleteThe reason I specifically focused on the corporate tax rate in this post (and not the marginal/personal income tax rate) is specifically because one party (and very clearly one and only one party) created this grand mythology about the corporate tax rate.
"Let's lower the effective corporate tax rate by almost 50%, and that will allow them to create more jobs."
This sounds like it could really work...except that it didn't, nor has it since we cut the effective corporate tax rate. That believe lives in a world of altruistic intentions free of greed that just doesn't exist. I know it sounds cynical, but there has yet to be any long-term, quantifiable evidence that this approach to corporate taxation has ever come to fruition the way we were promised it would.
The irony of this outcome is that it wasn't a novel idea. In fact, it was general practice for many nations, including the U.S., throughout most of the time prior to the mid-20th century. I think it is relatively fair to say that, prior to the post-Depression/post-WWII economy, real poverty in the United States was not only widespread, but common. With the sole exception of healthcare (which was comparatively cheaper because there were no large pharmaceutical or insurance companies gaming the system), goods were neither cheap nor plentiful, and jobs were considerably scarer than they were in the 1950s.
Much of this has to do with education, increased levels of viable transportation, and (much to the chagrin of a single party's economic ideology) considerably high effective corporate and marginal tax rates. We're talking in the 90% range. By 1980, the corporate and marginal tax rates were around 78%...and within less than five years, it was cut in half to 35%.
Now remember, this was done so that job creators could provide jobs, as we were in one of the worst recessions in recent memory.
DeleteThe irony of the largest tax cut in American history was that, during the 1980s, labor unions were broken (thus doing away with job security, retirement pensions, and many safety standards that came along with union jobs), poverty actually increased, the number of citizens on Welfare & Food Stamps (which at the time were still separate entities) increased exponentially, and the ability to find good paying jobs decreased.
Additionally, they removed "onerous regulations" that prevented them from building America's future, saying that the cumbersome regulatory system was getting in the way of creating jobs.
Now, there is, however, an upside. For a span of five years after these tax cuts, tax revenues increased exponentially, as well. And then...the bottomed out.
There are a number of possible reasons why, one of which I think goes highly unmentioned. Since the 1980s, there has been an almost entirely wholesale replacement of goods made in America by cheaper, foreign goods...where it's "cheap" to do business. When you think about it, U.S. cars were maybe one of a handful of produce made (rather than just assembled) in America that people continue to purchase.
But...wasn't cutting their tax rate in half, lowering the capital gains tax to 15%, and getting rid of those onerous regulations supposed to make it cheaper for those businesses to continue making American-made goods?
I guess it didn't make it cheap enough.
Ironically, when Clinton came into office, one of the very first things he did (prior to the Gingrinch Who Stole Congress coming into office) was raise those tax rates up to roughly 39% and increase regulations. These actions were, in part, what led to the Republican Revolution of the 1994 election cycle, primarily because large corporations threw a fit and donated all of their money to the other party.
But, something magical happened...even that tiny raise in taxes turned out to help improve the economy and turn it from stagnant to a boom economy. The only other time this occurred in American history was after WWII, when the corporate and marginal tax rates were put in the 90% range (but still allowed for deductions).
So, then we get into the 00s, when W. Bush once again cuts the taxes to 35%, and gives them an even bigger (entirely unpaid-for) series of tax cuts. I say "unpaid-for" because they did not cut spending, instead entered into two wars, introduced the Medicare legislation, and increased spending everywhere else).
DeleteWhat happened immediately after those tax cuts was that we started to see the economy take a nosedive.
Now, at this point, it was clear that the vehicles being made my the U.S. automakers were rarely worth 1/2 of the asking price, and I can't even tell you the last purchase I made that was "Made In the U.S.A." It was likely in the 80s.
But, we did everything the job creators asked for - we gave them tax cuts, we gave the more deductions, we did away with many of the onerous regulations, and we even gave them tax credits for creating jobs in America.
The last part is why I find the argument so ironic - aside from the small businesses who actually create local jobs - the job creators really were able to create more jobs...elsewhere.
DeleteThey basically outsourced their jobs to anywhere but the U.S. because apparently we didn't cut their taxes enough. Imagine, however, if they did what they promised to do and actually created jobs in America. If the number of U.S. jobs created was in any way tied to the job creators' taxes being lowered, we should have double the jobs we had when we cut their rates from 75% to 35%, right?
We don't. And that sounds like me being cynical, but we just don't. The numbers aren't there. The jobs aren't there. The regulations we did away with didn't help them create more jobs - they actually ended up leading to a pretty awful economic collapse, from which we aren't really recovering (Glass-Steagal Act, as that relates to financial institutions). Monopoly laws have been all but done away with, allowing certain areas (including cities) to be beholding to one provider of consumer services, without the choice to go elsewhere.
Now, I know it sounds like I am biased against one way of thinking, and while that is largely the case, it is because in my 30 years of being alive, I have watched those policies in action. Were this prior to the 1960s, I very likely might have been a Republican. But, there's NO chance in hell I would ever cross those lines, now.
To be fair, there are very few Democratic candidates for whom I've ever actively campaigned, Hillary Clinton being the last (because she's an emasculating ball buster who doesn't take any shit and gets things done...whether they like it or not).
DeleteI was never a fan of Obama, because I never bought in to his whole "Hope" and "Change" campaign when he had very little experience running things. And I certainly would never have voted for McCain (in 2008) because the man seemed to go into some Vietnam flashback, or something, that rendered him an entirely different candidate than the 2000 version of John McCain. Obviously, I could NEVER vote for any ticket involving Sarah Palin. It's not because she's a woman, or even because she's a...Conservative? (I honestly don't know WHAT she is)...but because she's an idiot.
The most interesting development I've seen in the last decade is this "Washington Outsider" meme that political candidates have taken up. That may play well with people who are "sick of Washington," but politics must be the only field in America where having no experience falls into the "Plus" column.
Imagine hiring an instructor at a Top Ten Div. I drum corps who had absolutely no experience in the system, or with teaching marching music; no track record of success. It doesn't seem smart to do it, there, and it certain doesn't make me want to vote for the "guy I'd most like to have a beer with."
Ultimately, I understand from where you're coming. Being a small business owner is ROUGH, and part of why the tax rate from the 50s worked so well was because there was a clear delineation between large corporations and small business - their tax rates and codes were different because the business models were different.
DeleteUnfortunately, that's one of the things that got gutted from our tax system in (I believe) the 1970s, and if not then, the 1980s. Were those still in place, it would make your life a whole lot easier in terms of income. I don't envy anyone who wants to run a small business.
Also, I apologize if my venomous take on a particular party shows through a lot. I have allowed myself to become embittered over the last twelve years, moving from state to state, and watching my income crash in every state led by that particular party, only to increase in those run by other parties.
We must remember, however, that at one time, paying taxes was a patriotic duty. When those higher post-war tax rates were introduced, both sides of the aisle (which were basically switched, back then) voted to pass them. There was very little uproar because paying more to ensure that everyone in America could benefit from the increased Federal tax revenue. It is not a Socialist screed to believe in a progressive tax system, nor is it a Socialist theme that all people should benefit from the success and share in the losses of our nation's economy.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen much of that since the 80s (exempting the mid-90s). The rich have gotten exponentially richer, but the wealth hasn't trickled down, and they haven't created jobs. Altruism does not apply in matters of taxation, because individuals are inherently greedy. When the economy crashes, the rich say they suffer - their idea of suffering is that they can't afford a new house, or have to cut their staff, or can't go on three vacations, this year. Everyone else, however, has to choose between rent, food, utilities, clothing...the list is infinite. The shared suffering is not. And frankly, the ones who helped create this mess aren't shouldering much if any of the repercussions, and many still collect multi-billion-dollar bonuses for failing at their jobs.
I guess, for me, that is the defining line between right and wrong; between lowering corporate and marginal tax rates, and paying the price for acquiescing to demands without requiring any reward for losing that revenue.
Be well, my friend. :-)
-Marcus J. Hopkins
Rock On. Agreed Agreed Agreed. I must admit it feels weird to dislike both of the past two administrations and Congresses the same amount. I agree on the lack of experience issue with Obama from the 08 campaign but man, who in their right mind would have chosen McCain / Palin over Obama / Biden. I just didn't vote. I didn't want either but we would probably be worse off now had it gone the other way. I just wish the people drawn to the Executive position were interested in being Executives and not social engineers. We need someone who at the very least will not make things worse for large sections of the population at the expense of others. If they can make it better, than so be it. But man, don't make it worse. hahahahaha
DeleteI am intrigued by Romney. The thing I remember most about Romney and that has stuck out in my mind was the Utah winter Olympics. Headlines were blowing up all over the place about bad fiscal management and the whole thing was on the verge of being the first Olympic games being cancelled or truncated because of poor management. They brought in this Mormon named Romney to run the show and he brought it back to fiscal responsibility and even financial success. His track record has been such all throughout his career. I am still not sure but intrigued. I was intrigued 4 years ago when McCain got the nomination. He also has experience running a state. He doesn't fall into a lot of the extreme Republican categories. If I was Obama, I would be scared of this guy especially after so many of Obamas decisions have pushed him far left (even though mostly in perception only. )
Take your example of hiring someone for top 10 Div 1 Drum Corps: it would be irresponsible to hire someone for that level without appropriate experience. We certainly hired a President without the experience. Of course the alternative in 08 was just as little experience. I'm not sure this administration will be able to make that argument. They will have to present their 3 years against Romney's business career. Yikes! Hmmmm........ Again, not saying I'm sold. I just know that when i was marching I would tune out someone if they hadn't done something at a high level themselves. The same holds true here. I am much more likely to listen to someone with Romney's business experience. I just tune Obama out when he talks about anything to do with finances. And just like in Drum Corps, it doesn't matter whether he deserves that or not. It's simply reality. I have seen a couple of really successful drum corps teachers who did not march drum corps. They are very rare though and almost always take a long time to get used to the culture.
DeleteSpeaking of drum corps, you are a lot of fun to watch as a performer! So glad you were able to do some of the things you wanted to do. Holy Name shall always be! How many years did you end up marching? I distinctly remember '06. I wish I would have had the money to do more than just '93. I can't remember which box has my ring. Guess I should dig it out some time. I still think it is hilarious that you weren't allowed to do guard at DB. I even laughed at Lafe when he said he didn't think you were strong enough. hahahaha He just didn't want a guy. Especially a guy who would have outperformed all the rest and drawn a lot of attention because of that excellence. Silly.
I ended up marching 01-03, when I aged out as flag captain. April wanted a strong flag (take THAT, Lafe), so my ageout year, she put me in charge of the flagline. It was honestly, such a pleasure to perform every year I was there. Of all the things I've ever accomplished in my life, those three years are the ones I consider my most important accomplishment.
DeleteI actually ended up going to see them, this past summer, in Clovis, CA, and they were short on staff due to a wedding, so I ended up being on staff for a day. It was one of those transformative experiences where you actually have fun while teaching an elite group of kids, and I'm only dreaming that I get to do that, again.
Speaking of Lafe, he ended up getting his, in the end. I taught at Science Hill in '08, and we debuted with a 93 at the first show in guard. We didn't stop, from there. At COC, we were the guard to beat, and were the talk of the town. It's just too bad Debbie loathed me, and screwed me out of staying on the job, conveniently just before Stites retired...in a month.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
That's awesome about Science Hill! Rock On! I am not at all surprised. I saw amazing things in you at DB. Oops! I just looked at my post and saw that I said I remembered '06. I meant to say '03.
DeleteI loved the drum corps / indoor line scene for a long time. I don't miss it one bit now. I am continually amazed at how much more fun music is without competition. hahahaha I love making people smile or cry just from hearing me sing and play the guitar. Touching peoples lives for a brief moment. An escape from reality of sorts I guess. I find so much enjoyment in being part of an experience. Someone goes into a coffee shop to get some coffee and escape life briefly. Sit down in a soft chair with a fresh coffee. Put the feet up and listen to some sweet live music. Some people want to interact with me in between tunes and others just want to be anonymous. So much fun! I like myself more too! hahahaha I was such a mean teacher. I teach privately out of my home studio now and I am continually shocked by all of the positive words that come out of my mouth. hahahaha
Glad to touch base with you again Marcus. You rock. Keep up the great work on the blog! I'll check in every couple of days. I've told some friends about your blog as well. Don't know if they'll post but I know they'll read so keep it coming!
PART 3
ReplyDeleteI run a small publishing company and a private lesson studio. Some years, the amount of money I have to spend just to keep the companies afloat results in zero profit. If I was taxed on every penny that come through the door, I would have to close both of my businesses. It is not at all uncommon to have a company make no profit or operate in the red on a given year. It has happened to me personally. Why should my companies pay taxes on zero income? That would be ridiculous. Here is something to consider: Their are corporate taxes and personal taxes. In my case, the two are inseparable as is the case in the majority of small businesses. Let's present a hypothetical that will make calculations easy. Let's say the company is taxed 10% on year end profit and I am taxed 10% on all income. The company brings in $1000 for the year. Well, my salary is one of the expenses of the company. So, the company pays me $1000. My income is $1000 and the companies profit after expenses is $0. (this is what GE does by the way so when politicians attack GE they are also attacking me because I do the same thing). The company pays zero taxes. I have to pay the 10% because it's my income. Well, I then have personal expenses that reduce my taxable income so I effectively end up paying less. The argument against corporations in this administration is that this is wrong. If they get what they want, My company would pay $100 in tax which would leave $900 to go to me. I then have to pay $90 for my 10%. That's a total of $190 to go to the government instead of the $100 (or less based on expenses) for the way it is now. OF COURSE the government wants this to go through. It will effectively more than DOUBLE the amount of revenue. However, it cuts my income by more than 10% (based on these hypothetical numbers.) [I just presented accurate implementation with much lower hypothetical percentages to make the calculations easier.]
PART 4
ReplyDeleteThe REAL discrepancy is in the perception of what is or should be taxed. The current tax code taxes on actual income. Deductible expenses lower the actual income. The desired tax code from this administration would tax on any dollar that rolls into your bank account. If the goal is to reduce the deficit by increasing revenues, this is a really fast way to do it. But again, it would surely make my personal life WAY worse. It would decrease the amount of money I could spend to MAKE money which means my companies will make less money in the long run which will bring in less revenue for the government in the long run. It would help in the short term but in the long term, would make things worse. Every year, I sit down and lay out a 10 year plan for my companies. Adjustments have to be made every year. If this administration gets what it wants in the tax code, my two small businesses are in trouble. I will then also have trouble meeting my personal budget. The ideology behind what this administration is pushing for sounds so noble. But I run businesses on a daily basis and have spent a lot of time learning accounting principles etc. Every time they bring something up like this, it makes me wonder why anyone can be elected President or to Congress to participate in a budget without ever running a business. That is a constitutional amendment I would get behind. Amendment 28: every person who runs for Congress or President must serve as CEO of a business (or similar experience) for at least 8 years.
PART 5
ReplyDelete• Something else to think about: you mentioned one of the most profitable administrations was the Clinton administration. Most fiscally sound. I can not argue here. The numbers sure support it. Here is the kicker though: the President alone does not control the budget. Congress does. The President spends in conjunction with the budget enacted by Congress. The administration you speak of had a Democrat for President and a large majority Republican Congress with Newt Gingrich serving as Speaker of the House and the driving force behind the budget. I really believe this to be a beautiful thing. I know this is what was intended whtn the whole thing was set up. No party should have complete control. If you think things are bad now, wait until the Republicans have complete control for 16 straight years or the Democrats have complete control for 16 straight years. Either scenario would be a mitigated disaster. Both sides would simply force their ideology on the other (as happened the first two years of Obama and countless other times the votes have aligned this way short term with both parties.) Why did Clinton / Gingrich work so well and Obama / Boehner not so much? Clinton / Gingrich met in the middle more often. Obama is afraid to meet in the middle because he would lose his extreme left base. The same holds true for Boehner. Now, I am way less afraid Obama is going to have a fling with an intern. His is true to his wife from what I can see. I truly admire this about him. I respect him way more as a father based on the decisions he's made than I do as a President. I can list a lot of things I have liked and disliked. The same holds true with Bush 2.
PART 6
ReplyDeleteTo return to your initial discussion, I think both have expanded the federal government to an unsustainable level for the way our tax code is set up. The type of federal involvement both Presidents have enacted has set us on a dangerous course for the way our tax code is structured. This tax code can not sustain that level of expenditure. Both parties know this. So, they are looking to make changes. The Democrats want to revamp the tax code so the government revenue will more than double through taxes (to pay for the programs they feel are imperative). The Republicans want to cut taxes and therefore cut services to get everything into the black by going the other direction. Hmmmmm……. I look at the track record of any primarily Democratic or primarily Republican strategy and I become increasingly terrified by any party getting a super majority every again. If it happens, things will get distinctly better for a large group of people and distinctly worse for a large group of people. Again, my question then becomes, "why do you have to significantly hurt one group of people to help another group of people?" Why do Democrats only want to help the people they believe their ideas will help even if it hurts other people? I ask the same question about Republicans? Making the type of tax changes for businesses that Obama discusses won't just bring in more money from GE, it will also bring in more money from my two small companies. ObamaCare has made my finances significantly worse already. If this administration gets what they want with the tax code, my two small businesses will go under. A company like GE will not be hurt by it. They'll just move money around. People like me (the supposed 99%) will be destroyed and forced to work for the man for far less money instead of working for myself. How is this helping the middle class? (I felt the same way about some Bush items as well. I pull no punches for either party.) Just like anyone else in the country, my opinions are based on what will be best for my family.