Nice Use of ‘Two Americas’
North 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).
April 14th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Some things you’re just wrong about:
Although you didn’t actually say it, you seem to be implying that the ‘tax consumers’ are poor people, and the ‘tax payers’ are rich people. I sincerely doubt it- oil companies receive literally billions of dollars in subsideies every year, as do aggriculture industries and pharmaceuticals and so forth, to say nothing of trillions of dollars going to military contractors on no-bid contracts. Furthermore, rich people in the US enjoy extremely strong copyright and patent laws compared to the rest of the world, as well as very favorable corporate tax laws and so forth. And of course, trucks are the primary way any country in the US gets it’s products from place to place, meaning they need the federal highway system. While it’s true that rich people pay more tax than poor people, the government not only gives many of them alot of their profits, but also creates the environment neccessary for their success. They’re definitely the biggest ‘tax consumers’.
“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.”
Get real. All the unbalanced budgets that have raised teh national debt by trillions and trillions of dollars in the last 30 years have come about under republican presidents. Sure, the republicans never actually raise taxes because they’re more concerned about winning elections than actual fiscal responsibility, but they’re the ones SPENDING 20% of the GDP. I know that you like the republican’s rhetoric on the economy, but if you bother to look at their actual track record, they’re not doing anything you’d be in favor of.
“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.”
I’ve said like 50 times that the reason America has an obesity problem is that the first primaries are held in Iowa, where politicains bribe the voters with promises of corn subsidies, and that we need to cut that shit out immediately. Furthermore, in general, democracy is SUPPOSED to be about pleasing large groups of voters (specifically, the MAJORITY of voters), ratehr than a few rich people. I mean, that’s the definition of democracy.
Now, you can certainly make an argument against democracy if you’d like, but it’s kinda silly to say ‘I’m in favor of democracy, but I don’t think that politicians should do things that the majority of voters are in favor of.’
April 15th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Really? Our “liberal” policy makers are the reason taxes are so high? So it is the “liberal” socialists that fork out over half of our money to the war machine?
Good grief, before you enthusiastically, and irresponsibly, beat the drum of boot straps propoganda, how about doing the research. The percentage of the tax revenue that actually goes to feeding the poor and tending the sick pales to the funds forked over to the “defense” industry, veteran affairs, and homeland security.
The “liberals” aren’t draining the bank, the hawks are.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am
[…] a previous post, Andrew responds to my assertion that the democrats are responsible for increasing taxes. Get […]