![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Regarding 'The Party Of No'
Once again, I'm putting off my review of last weekend. I have other things I'd prefer to discuss. I'll get around to it.
I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".
It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.
Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.
Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.
Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."
No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.
I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.
Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.
The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.
I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.
Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.
I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.
One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.
To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.
I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".
It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.
Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.
Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.
Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."
No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.
I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.
Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.
The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.
I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.
Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.
I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.
One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.
To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.
no subject
Yes, I see this has already been brought up as a point of contention, but I'd like to take a minute to examine this statement a little more fully.
Whether taxes affect the economy is dependent rather heavily on how they're spent, and to a slightly lesser extent on where they're applied. When taxes are spent strictly on things that count as "production" in the economic sense, they don't particularly affect the economy, national or global. They merely redistribute consumption. When they're spent on things like national defense, important as that is, they take that money out of the production-consumption cycle that drives the economy.
The numbers don't really matter conceptually. There is some total amount of money P that everybody gets as income. In a tax-free economy, that number is exactly equal to the amount of money that all the goods and services produced are worth, and if nobody is saving up any money, it's equal to the value of goods and services produced. If people save money, that's what's available for investment in future growth, and if there's tax, that's what's available for government spending. (There are exceptions and murky areas, but they aren't that important for basic understanding.)
So, if money is taken in taxes, it comes from either consumption or savings, which is to say it comes from current productivity or future growth. So, the effect of taxes on the economy is inversely proportional (and directly dependent on) the value of goods and services provided by the government plus the investment by the government in future economic growth.
To make clear exactly what the difference is, consider FDR, the New Deal, and the WPA. Government taxation and spending were shown to be not just a theoretical but a practical way to pull a country out of an economic depression. I.e., there is nothing inherently wrong with "tax and spend" politics or economics, and strong evidence that it's exactly what we need right now.
no subject
I agree with your final assessment, in any case.