General Politics "Make middle class pay more"

Trivers · 08:53 AM

EVEYONE needs to share the tax increase pain. Quit expecting others to support your standard of living.

"Big government is great if you don’t have to pay for it. Well, now it’s time to pay the bill. Maybe when the costs of the stimulus, Obamacare and exploding entitlements are finally deducted from their paychecks, Americans will rediscover the virtue of smaller government. If they don’t like paying higher taxes to allow for more spending, there’s a simple solution: Demand that politicians in Washington cut taxes and spending instead of expanding them. And if they won’t do it, elect men and women who will."

http://www.registercitizen.com/artic...mode=fullstory

Barring a last-minute breakthrough, taxes will go up for every U.S. taxpayer on Jan. 1 — and that’s a development conservatives should welcome.

Don’t get me wrong: It would be better not to raise taxes on anyone, pursue pro-growth tax reform and cut the size of government instead. But that’s not what the American people voted to do last month. Americans cast their ballots for big government.

Now it’s time to pay for it.

Until now, the growth of government under President Barack Obama has not hit the pocketbooks of most Americans. During Obama’s first term, federal spending grew to more than 24 percent of GDP — the highest it has been since 1946. Yet almost no one in the country (except smokers and those who frequent indoor tanning salons) saw their taxes rise. Quite the opposite: 160 million Americans saw their payroll taxes reduced from 6.2 to 4.2 percent.

How can we expect people to care about the growth of government if it doesn’t cost them anything?

Instead of paying for the current miasma of spending, we’ve been borrowing the money from our children and grandchildren. The national debt has grown by nearly $6 trillion in the four years since Obama took office. That generational theft cannot continue. We must not keep financing big government by passing the bills on to the next generation. Ideally, we would stop the spending binge and live within our means. But if the nation is not up to that, then we should all pitch in and pay for it — all of us.

Sorry, taxing the rich won’t solve our problems — that’s nothing but fiscal snake oil the president has been selling. He is demanding $1.3 trillion in higher taxes on the wealthy over 10 years. Imagine he got it. We are adding nearly that much to the national debt every single year. Taxing the rich would not put even a minor dent in our debt. It would pay for less than three weeks of federal spending every year. The only way to pay for the current expansion of government is to raise taxes on the middle class.

So let’s do it. Let’s all of us experience the true cost of big government in the form of a bigger tax bill.

It might well be that the biggest mistake Republicans made during Obama’s first term was forcing the president to extend the Bush tax cuts. At the time, it seemed like a major victory by the newly elected GOP House. But in truth, it was a victory for Obama. Extending the tax cuts shielded the economy from the full brunt of Obama’s economic failures and allowed him to put off job-killing tax increases until his second term. It’s ironic: Obama never passed up an opportunity to blame President George W. Bush for his economic woes, yet he rode the Bush tax cuts to reelection.

Extending the tax cuts also shielded Americans from the costs of Obama’s spending spree. Shopping on a credit card is fun until the bill comes due. But if the bill never arrives, what incentive do people have to stop the spending?

Big government is great if you don’t have to pay for it. Well, now it’s time to pay the bill. Maybe when the costs of the stimulus, Obamacare and exploding entitlements are finally deducted from their paychecks, Americans will rediscover the virtue of smaller government. If they don’t like paying higher taxes to allow for more spending, there’s a simple solution: Demand that politicians in Washington cut taxes and spending instead of expanding them. And if they won’t do it, elect men and women who will.

Until then, Republicans need to stop protecting Americans from the consequences of their decisions to elect profligate politicians.

Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.

Predarat · 12-30-2012, 08:55 AM

What middle class, the two dummies in the office the last 8 years have depleted it beyond recognition.

Garcia Bronco · 12-30-2012, 09:32 AM

There is another way.

Massively reduce spending. It'll be painful, but had this been done in 2009 the pain would be less and the longer we put it off, the worse it gets.

**RNR** · 12-30-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

There is another way.

Massively reduce spending. It'll be painful, but had this been done in 2009 the pain would be less and the longer we put it off, the worse it gets.

Our government has made it perfectly clear they are not interested in cutting spending or giving up the power of people becoming dependent on it. They are very interested in squeezing more out of all of us. This while making another run at disarming us~

**Rain Man** · 12-30-2012, 10:24 AM

Setting aside any partisan stuff, this article brings up an interesting point about power and gridlock.

If a party wins the high offices, let them do their thing and stop trying to create gridlock. If your theory is right and their philosophy doesn't work, they'll lose power quickly and you can come in and implement your own philosophy. And if their philosophy does work, then yay.

This whole attitude of 'we're going to try to block everything the other party does' is counterproductive to everybody, and in the long run I think it could kill the Republican Party as their reputation for being mean, stupid people continues to grow. An increasing number of Americans don't want to vote for mean, stupid people (at least, outside Adams County, Colorado).

A Salt Weapon · 12-30-2012, 10:27 AM

How about "make the welfare class pay some" that would be a better approach.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

There is another way.

Massively reduce spending. It'll be painful, but had this been done in 2009 the pain would be less and the longer we put it off, the worse it gets.

All we need to read is this:

Quote:

Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.

They're not conservatives. ( Although,he's right if everyone has to pay the bill then it might lead to smaller govt. It's a big "might" —especially with restrictive gun control coming. I think we may be heading toward enslavement and never getting these guys out of our govt.)

How 'bout making those who want BIG govt pay more?

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Setting aside any partisan stuff, this article brings up an interesting point about power and gridlock.

If a party wins the high offices, let them do their thing and stop trying to create gridlock. If your theory is right and their philosophy doesn't work, they'll lose power quickly and you can come in and implement your own philosophy. And if their philosophy does work, then yay.

This whole attitude of 'we're going to try to block everything the other party does' is counterproductive to everybody, and in the long run I think it could kill the Republican Party as their reputation for being mean, stupid people continues to grow. An increasing number of Americans don't want to vote for mean, stupid people (at least, outside Adams County, Colorado).

That's exactly where plenty disagree. This is how the govt is supposed to work more then rubber stamping a president's agenda. You're arguing for a king or a dictator. The president was originally designed to be the weaker branch. It did not craft legislation. It does not make the budget. That's for the people's house and the people still voted for the status quo. So there's plenty that seem to prefer it. It's the media, covering the info war for the left that are shaping public opinion on this.

What you're not recognizing is that those House members who are saying "no" will lose their seats if they say "yes."

**Rain Man** · 12-30-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's exactly where plenty disagree. This is how the govt is supposed to work more then rubber stamping a president's agenda. You're arguing for a king or a dictator. The president was originally designed to be the weaker branch. It did not craft legislation. It does not make the budget. That's for the people's house and the people still voted for the status quo. So there's plenty that seem to prefer it. It's the media, covering the info war for the left that are shaping public opinion on this.

What you're not recognizing is that those House members who are saying "no" will lose their seats if they say "yes."

I understand your point, but I think there comes a time when we need our "representatives" (i.e., rich people who bought seats of power) need to actually look at the merit of issues and debate issues instead of saying, "There's a Democrat in the White House. Let's do everything we can to screw him over." There's no meaningful debate or discussion any more. It's just a philosophy of damaging the other party even if that means damaging the country. I'm getting sick of it.

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I understand your point, but I think there comes a time when we need our "representatives" (i.e., rich people who bought seats of power) need to actually look at the merit of issues and debate issues instead of saying, "There's a Democrat in the White House. Let's do everything we can to screw him over." There's no meaningful debate or discussion any more. It's just a philosophy of damaging the other party even if that means damaging the country. I'm getting sick of it.

Why do you think they're not looking at the merit of the issue? Because the press says they're not?

I don't agree with that because some Rs did compromise. I think many of them believe in their stands and they oppose Obama not just because he's a Democrat, but because they think his fiscal spending policy is not good for the country. You don't understand that the House is supposed to be accountable to their consituents and those districts don't like the spending not being tackled. How 'bout you look at the fact that Obama wants more money for more spending and the FACT that every tax increase is followed by another spending increase.

Spending is the problem—not revenue. Sorry but it's time to wake up and make a firm stand here. It's called integrity.

Don't let the major media bamboozle you. That's their intention—to move you to their side or blow with the wind.

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 11:01 AM

Just so you know, RM, I haven't as big a problem with going over the "fiscal cliff." It's mostly a dog and pony show. If we go over we go over. It still puts in a position of paying more taxes, while getting cuts. So neither side winds up with what they want. Or the people. This is what happens when people want their problems solved, and paid for by others. You just can't please millions of people.

I can agree with you on the Rs not wanting to cut military spending....that shows they're not completely serious on cutting in areas they value when it has to be some everywhere.

stevieray · 12-30-2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man

It's just a philosophy of damaging the other party even if that means damaging the country. I'm getting sick of it.

perfectly illustrated by "stupid mean people."

both sides are corrupt....it's generational.

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 11:52 AM

Let's see what bi-partisanship has wrought:

1) A very unpopular war in Iraq
2) Warrantless wiretapping/Patriot Act
3) Posse Comitatus severely weakened
4) Indefinite detention for American citizens
5) A fiscal crisis
6) An economic depression
7) Destruction of the dollar
8) Deficits don't matter mentality with spending to infinity
9) Local police being militarized

Many of these things are markers of fascism. It keeps growing with bipartisanship. By all means bipartisanship is good for the country. An avid craving for agreement is not a successful formula. It's destroying the country right before our eyes. Remember it was via the moderates Hitler got into power. If there was more disagreement many lives would have been saved.

It's time to disagree — for the GOOD of the country.

**Bob Dole** · 12-30-2012, 11:53 AM

Most of the citizens in this country leave beyond their means. Why would they expect their government to be any different?

BucEyedPea · 12-30-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Most of the citizens in this country leave beyond their means. Why would they expect their government to be any different?

This is true. One could make a valid argument that govt policy has enabled them to do so. Especially Federal Reserve policy increasing the money supply (via credit expansion) which leads people to think they are richer than they really are, instead of producing their way to having more.

12-30-2012, 08:47 AM
Trivers Where's My Diet Coke? Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Two Rivers, Wisconsin Casino cash: $2000031	"Make middle class pay more" EVEYONE needs to share the tax increase pain. Quit expecting others to support your standard of living. "Big government is great if you don’t have to pay for it. Well, now it’s time to pay the bill. Maybe when the costs of the stimulus, Obamacare and exploding entitlements are finally deducted from their paychecks, Americans will rediscover the virtue of smaller government. If they don’t like paying higher taxes to allow for more spending, there’s a simple solution: Demand that politicians in Washington cut taxes and spending instead of expanding them. And if they won’t do it, elect men and women who will." http://www.registercitizen.com/artic...mode=fullstory Barring a last-minute breakthrough, taxes will go up for every U.S. taxpayer on Jan. 1 — and that’s a development conservatives should welcome. Don’t get me wrong: It would be better not to raise taxes on anyone, pursue pro-growth tax reform and cut the size of government instead. But that’s not what the American people voted to do last month. Americans cast their ballots for big government. Now it’s time to pay for it. Until now, the growth of government under President Barack Obama has not hit the pocketbooks of most Americans. During Obama’s first term, federal spending grew to more than 24 percent of GDP — the highest it has been since 1946. Yet almost no one in the country (except smokers and those who frequent indoor tanning salons) saw their taxes rise. Quite the opposite: 160 million Americans saw their payroll taxes reduced from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. How can we expect people to care about the growth of government if it doesn’t cost them anything? Instead of paying for the current miasma of spending, we’ve been borrowing the money from our children and grandchildren. The national debt has grown by nearly $6 trillion in the four years since Obama took office. That generational theft cannot continue. We must not keep financing big government by passing the bills on to the next generation. Ideally, we would stop the spending binge and live within our means. But if the nation is not up to that, then we should all pitch in and pay for it — all of us. Sorry, taxing the rich won’t solve our problems — that’s nothing but fiscal snake oil the president has been selling. He is demanding $1.3 trillion in higher taxes on the wealthy over 10 years. Imagine he got it. We are adding nearly that much to the national debt every single year. Taxing the rich would not put even a minor dent in our debt. It would pay for less than three weeks of federal spending every year. The only way to pay for the current expansion of government is to raise taxes on the middle class. So let’s do it. Let’s all of us experience the true cost of big government in the form of a bigger tax bill. It might well be that the biggest mistake Republicans made during Obama’s first term was forcing the president to extend the Bush tax cuts. At the time, it seemed like a major victory by the newly elected GOP House. But in truth, it was a victory for Obama. Extending the tax cuts shielded the economy from the full brunt of Obama’s economic failures and allowed him to put off job-killing tax increases until his second term. It’s ironic: Obama never passed up an opportunity to blame President George W. Bush for his economic woes, yet he rode the Bush tax cuts to reelection. Extending the tax cuts also shielded Americans from the costs of Obama’s spending spree. Shopping on a credit card is fun until the bill comes due. But if the bill never arrives, what incentive do people have to stop the spending? Big government is great if you don’t have to pay for it. Well, now it’s time to pay the bill. Maybe when the costs of the stimulus, Obamacare and exploding entitlements are finally deducted from their paychecks, Americans will rediscover the virtue of smaller government. If they don’t like paying higher taxes to allow for more spending, there’s a simple solution: Demand that politicians in Washington cut taxes and spending instead of expanding them. And if they won’t do it, elect men and women who will. Until then, Republicans need to stop protecting Americans from the consequences of their decisions to elect profligate politicians. Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post. Last edited by Trivers; 12-30-2012 at 08:53 AM..
Posts: 191

12-30-2012, 08:55 AM	#2
Predarat Run Chiefs fans, run!! Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Casino cash: $1370595	What middle class, the two dummies in the office the last 8 years have depleted it beyond recognition.
Posts: 7,434

12-30-2012, 09:32 AM	#3
Garcia Bronco No Keys, No Problem Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver Casino cash: $59563	There is another way. Massively reduce spending. It'll be painful, but had this been done in 2009 the pain would be less and the longer we put it off, the worse it gets.
Posts: 20,358

12-30-2012, 10:24 AM	#5
Rain Man Welcome, Eric Fisher & Friends Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 1.61 KM high city Casino cash: $62676922	Setting aside any partisan stuff, this article brings up an interesting point about power and gridlock. If a party wins the high offices, let them do their thing and stop trying to create gridlock. If your theory is right and their philosophy doesn't work, they'll lose power quickly and you can come in and implement your own philosophy. And if their philosophy does work, then yay. This whole attitude of 'we're going to try to block everything the other party does' is counterproductive to everybody, and in the long run I think it could kill the Republican Party as their reputation for being mean, stupid people continues to grow. An increasing number of Americans don't want to vote for mean, stupid people (at least, outside Adams County, Colorado). __________________ Onward Fisher, Onward Fisher, block right through that line. Block the ball clear down the field, a touchdown sure this time. Onward Fisher, Onward Fisher, fight on for her fame. Fight, fellows, fight, fight, fight, we'll win this game.
Posts: 66,676

12-30-2012, 10:27 AM	#6
A Salt Weapon Starter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Alaska Casino cash: $958629	How about "make the welfare class pay some" that would be a better approach. Posted via Mobile Device
Posts: 994

12-30-2012, 11:01 AM	#11
BucEyedPea Frazod Loves Hammy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $49098	Just so you know, RM, I haven't as big a problem with going over the "fiscal cliff." It's mostly a dog and pony show. If we go over we go over. It still puts in a position of paying more taxes, while getting cuts. So neither side winds up with what they want. Or the people. This is what happens when people want their problems solved, and paid for by others. You just can't please millions of people. I can agree with you on the Rs not wanting to cut military spending....that shows they're not completely serious on cutting in areas they value when it has to be some everywhere. __________________ "In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek
Posts: 46,600

12-30-2012, 11:52 AM	#13
BucEyedPea Frazod Loves Hammy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $49098	Let's see what bi-partisanship has wrought: 1) A very unpopular war in Iraq 2) Warrantless wiretapping/Patriot Act 3) Posse Comitatus severely weakened 4) Indefinite detention for American citizens 5) A fiscal crisis 6) An economic depression 7) Destruction of the dollar 8) Deficits don't matter mentality with spending to infinity 9) Local police being militarized Many of these things are markers of fascism. It keeps growing with bipartisanship. By all means bipartisanship is good for the country. An avid craving for agreement is not a successful formula. It's destroying the country right before our eyes. Remember it was via the moderates Hitler got into power. If there was more disagreement many lives would have been saved. It's time to disagree — for the GOOD of the country. __________________ "In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek
Posts: 46,600

12-30-2012, 11:53 AM	#14
Bob Dole King Shit of **** Mountain Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Texarkana, Texas Casino cash: $71274	Most of the citizens in this country leave beyond their means. Why would they expect their government to be any different? __________________ Help support Bob Dole's drinking habit by purchasing this song.
Posts: 28,445

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode