Regarding 'The Party Of No'

[hkellick]

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.

Comments

[aquinasprime.livejournal.com]

As someone opposed to 1. the tax increases, 2. the stimulus plan, 3. the government takeover of private businesses I feel like I should weigh in. I will be affected by both Obama's and Paterson's tax increases. As of October, we will see a significant increase in my salary. We are currently running the numbers based on estimates of my salary to see if it's even worth P continuing to work, not because we don't need it to live off of, but because we may see a net decrease or minimal increase in our available money with him working and the increase in the tax rate. We will be paying taxes of approximatley 47% of our income. Each year, I would paying in taxes more than what it cost to put me through medical school for four years. Not to mention the fact that when I die, any money we managed save for A, will be taxed again.
Google "going Galt" and you will see stories of people doing just what we are. People are actually working less because it doesn't make sense to work more.

And my very hard earned money goes where? To the: Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY (2.192 million dollars for an industry that generates $6 billion in sales yearly), Reference here . It has nothing to do with any one political party, there is pork spending on both sides.

As far as taxes not affecting the economy don't forget this: when tax rates go down, tax revenues go up. The more the wealthy are taxed, the less they have to spend. When they spend, it benefits more than just them. Think about who benefits from a really high end party - flowers (the florist, grower, supplier), caterer, food distributers, food growers, chair/table rental, people to park the cars, serve the food, make the food, etc.

Oh, yeah and before this increase, the top 5% of earners in this country already 50% of the taxes, while 50% pay nothing because they earn too little (25% of whom will be getting a "rebate" despite not paying a single dime in taxes). I have no problem with those making below a specified amount not paying taxes. What I am sick of is being labelled greedy and selfish because I want to keep a little more of the money I earn.

[hkellick]

Firstly, I feel the need to point out that this post was not calling any person greedy or selfish.

And I'm sorry, I don't think there's a direct correlation between how much money the wealthy are taxed and how much they spend. That's where trickle down economics fails. Money put into the stock market or the banks do NOT help individuals so much as it helps the corporation.

And your hard earned money goes to a whole lot of places, not just pork barrel spending. It goes to pay for making sure the air you breathe and the water you drink is clean. It goes to preventing flooding in flood-prone areas. It goes to making sure that your country can handle itself abroad and internally. It goes to making sure that people like me can GO through college. And, yes, it pays for things you may not be for.

For myself, my taxes goes towards things I don't particularly care for either, such as a certain unpopular war. Such is the price of life in America, though, y'know?

I won't argue that pork is bipartisan, and that there's plenty of it and I'd even go so far as to say that I believe such items belong in the national budget not whatever law is on the table, but those are just my beliefs, not reality.

I know that you and I don't tend to agree, politically. And that's fine. I don't expect to change your mind. :)

For the record, I understand it's a hard choice, especially for P... but... I can see benefits either way, such as having someone home full time to be there for A. I'm not saying that's the BEST choice because I know P enjoys his job, but... there ARE benefits.

[aquinasprime]

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you were calling me greedy/selfish. Its just that so often debates on this subject in the general public generally degenerate into that, and I've gotten used to launching pre-emptive arguments against it.

[aquinasprime]

With the exception of National Defence, every other example you quoted is a) prohibited to the federal government by the 10th amendment b) would be much better handled at a local and state level, and c) would likely be cheaper if the government would not be involved.

And I'm tired of paying to rebulid someone's house that they built on the side of a cliff in a mudslide area.

[phoenixsong]

I can appreciate where you're coming from, and I agree it sucks that income that's already been taxed once will get taxed a second time when you leave it to A.

On the other hand, right now, you and P have the option of saying "Hey, P can stay home, and our income/tax rates won't change that much, or might actually improve, compared to him staying employed." And that's a choice that a lot of other people don't have, especially in the last six or seven months. Maybe a lot of people at your income levels can make that choice; a lot more people that I know are working less because they're unemployed, or underemployed.

I'm happy for you, if you're in a stable job and don't have to worry about losing your job or your home. Just remember that you're one of the lucky families. I know, or know of, far more people who have lost their jobs in the last year than I do people who can afford to voluntarily walk away from steady employment.

[aquinasprime]

First off, I'm sure you really didn't mean it this way, but I am sick and tired of being told that I'm lucky to have a steady job. I made this luck by going to school non-stop for 18 years, generating over $100,000 in debt, working for 5 years in a highly specialized field at just over minimum wage and continuing to sacrifice things like time with my family to have this job. This didn't just fall into my lap.

We are heading to a time in this country where not working and relying on the government and others to pay for you is being valued more than working hard and being self sufficient.

My point is that having that option is not necessarily a good thing. A situation is developing where people are voluntarily cutting back on their work. This can create stagnation and further depression of the economy. You have active, highly skilled workers voluntarily taking themselves out of the workforce. And you will see a decrease in new small businesses - who wants to go through the effort of starting a business when the harder you work, the less you get.