Nice Use of ‘Two Americas’
Monday, April 14th, 2008North Carolina’s Examiner has this to say about two Americas.
Tuesday is the deadline for filing federal income taxes. Half of American taxpayers will pay 97 percent of the individual income taxes the government will collect for 2008, according to IRS data. The other half will pay little or nothing, yet receive billions in benefits in the form of cash, subsidies, “free” services and other benefits, and loans. There are indeed “Two Americas,” but the two aren’t the rich and poor, but taxpayers and tax consumers. It’s going to get even tougher for the taxpayers in the near future, thanks to legislation being readied by Democrats who control Congress.
And can you say Jesus Fucking Christ!:
Even without the reserve tax hikes, allowing the Bush cuts to expire will mean that 20.3 percent, or one of every five dollars, of gross domestic product will soon be consumed by government.
It seems to me this is inverted. Why should the federal government tax so much money. It does not even provide local services for the citizens. Citizen’s taxes rates should be proportionally higher the more local that goverment is in relation to them. Cities should have the highest tax rates while federal government’s rates should be a trifling amount. It makes no sense to me that the state entity that I have the least control over receive the most of my tax money. Oh wait, that makes perfect sense to me now that I think about it.
I would also like to point out that the most of the policies that will lead to the federal goverment receiving over 20% of the GDP comes at the hands of liberal and democratic policy. That being said, President Bush has done a piss poor job of reigning in goverment spending and the current crop of presidential canidates will do no better, and in the case of the democrats, will exacerbate the problem. I can only imagine how much of the GDP will be forcibly stolen by the state to subsidize health care if Hilary Clinton makes it to the white house.
I find it ironic that the likes of Darwin complain about large companies and lobbyists using money to influence legislators but remain quiet when politicians implement policy to pay off large groups of voters with the money of other voters. Forcibly taking other people’s money to pay for the votes needed to win an election is just as corrupt if not more so than lobbyists influencing legislators by paying for dinners and trips. Yet liberals remain silent on this kind of corruption. If the politician uses the rhetoric of good intention then they can be pardoned for getting votes by giving away other people’s money. Hillary can forcibly take another quarter of our GDP so long as she brings free health care to the poor (aka her supporters).
