Don't Let The Super Committee Fail By Michael O'Hanlon – Special To CNN
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/17/michael-ohanlon-national-security-super-committee/
"President Obama can be expected to put forth a balanced approach for cutting $1.5 trillion in government spending, with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in most discretionary parts of the government budget..."
How do you cut $1.5 trillion in government spending and increase taxes? What are you going to to with all that extra money? Sit on it? Congress can't hold on to money and we see that every year when they try to pass bills costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The way President Obama suggests to cut $1.5 trillion is anything but 'balanced'. Balanced would be decreasing spending and decreasing taxes because there is not need for the money anymore if you aren't going to spend it. If the government just wants to hold on to my money, I can do that just fine by myself thank you very much.
"Many Democrats, myself included, would find it unreasonable of Republicans to refuse to include any revenue increases in a budget deal this fall."
I've said before that raising taxes stifles economies because there is less power to the buyer. The buyer is the most essential part of the success of a capitalist economy. Easy enough. To Republicans, revenue increases look like tax cuts. This government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people aren't making any money then the government isn't making any money. Decrease taxes, more people make more money, the government makes more money.
"...and it is only right that upper-income Americans pay a bit more in taxes."
How is it 'right'? I think it is wrong to force anyone to do anything. upper-income Americans would be able to do more good by themselves than to funnel all their money through the government. If I made a million dollars a year and there was a homeless shelter down the street from my house, wouldn't be easier for me to give my money directly to the shelter than to send it to the government through the IRS and have Congress think about what to do with it, only to send it back to my neighborhood? It is laughable, it is ludicrous.
"There is no reason such an approach should work strongly for or against either party. It would be a straightforward choice for the American people, easy enough to explain and campaign on, honest and constructive in its character, and in the best traditions of democracy. And any politician truly confident in his or her views on fiscal policy, national investments and taxes should be unafraid to ask the voter for a verdict."
This is what this American republic is all about. The conflict of ideas coming together and ironing out a compromise. Fight for your case, cause, but be willing to compromise. Do not compromise on your beliefs, religion, or yourself, your faith. This is a republic we have in America. The best traditions of democracy are chaotic. Socrates was killed because enough people voted for it. You cannot pursue happiness and live in a pure democracy because you would constantly be going to the polls. That is why our founders set up a republic, where we elect civil servants (President, Senators, Congressmen) to vote on things for us. I feel that we Americans today throw around the word democracy disproportional to how much we truly know about it. Democracy is chaos, Republic is order.
"President Obama can be expected to put forth a balanced approach for cutting $1.5 trillion in government spending, with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts in most discretionary parts of the government budget..."
How do you cut $1.5 trillion in government spending and increase taxes? What are you going to to with all that extra money? Sit on it? Congress can't hold on to money and we see that every year when they try to pass bills costing hundreds of billions of dollars. The way President Obama suggests to cut $1.5 trillion is anything but 'balanced'. Balanced would be decreasing spending and decreasing taxes because there is not need for the money anymore if you aren't going to spend it. If the government just wants to hold on to my money, I can do that just fine by myself thank you very much.
"Many Democrats, myself included, would find it unreasonable of Republicans to refuse to include any revenue increases in a budget deal this fall."
I've said before that raising taxes stifles economies because there is less power to the buyer. The buyer is the most essential part of the success of a capitalist economy. Easy enough. To Republicans, revenue increases look like tax cuts. This government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people aren't making any money then the government isn't making any money. Decrease taxes, more people make more money, the government makes more money.
"...and it is only right that upper-income Americans pay a bit more in taxes."
How is it 'right'? I think it is wrong to force anyone to do anything. upper-income Americans would be able to do more good by themselves than to funnel all their money through the government. If I made a million dollars a year and there was a homeless shelter down the street from my house, wouldn't be easier for me to give my money directly to the shelter than to send it to the government through the IRS and have Congress think about what to do with it, only to send it back to my neighborhood? It is laughable, it is ludicrous.
"There is no reason such an approach should work strongly for or against either party. It would be a straightforward choice for the American people, easy enough to explain and campaign on, honest and constructive in its character, and in the best traditions of democracy. And any politician truly confident in his or her views on fiscal policy, national investments and taxes should be unafraid to ask the voter for a verdict."
This is what this American republic is all about. The conflict of ideas coming together and ironing out a compromise. Fight for your case, cause, but be willing to compromise. Do not compromise on your beliefs, religion, or yourself, your faith. This is a republic we have in America. The best traditions of democracy are chaotic. Socrates was killed because enough people voted for it. You cannot pursue happiness and live in a pure democracy because you would constantly be going to the polls. That is why our founders set up a republic, where we elect civil servants (President, Senators, Congressmen) to vote on things for us. I feel that we Americans today throw around the word democracy disproportional to how much we truly know about it. Democracy is chaos, Republic is order.
Comments
Post a Comment