"... so I'm not going to mince words: Paul Ryan in the White House would be a nightmare for the middle class," emails Debbie Wasserman Schultz, implying unconvincingly that under other circumstances she would mince words.
Not only does Congressman Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it and raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but he also supported a bill that could ban birth control and all abortions -- even in cases of rape and incest.
This isn't the kind of leader we can afford to have a heartbeat away from the presidency....
A bill that could ban birth control? Can I get a citation for that? I found this on
BarackObama.com marshaling the facts about Ryan:
Paul Ryan is severely conservative...
Paul Ryan would take us backward on women’s health:
Ryan cosponsored a bill that could ban in-vitro fertilization, as well as many common forms of birth control, including the pill. It could also ban all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. He supported letting states prosecute women who have abortions and doctors who perform them.
Can we get a cite to the text of that bill? Banning "many common forms of birth control, including the pill" — really? I'm just going to assume this is a lie until the Obama people prove to me that it's not a lie. That's the way we're doing things now, right?
Posts
250 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 250 of 250$700 Billion dollars on Health and Human Services YTD. This is the biggest expenditure of the federal government. SS is next at $681B. Next, Everyone's favorite whipping boy, defense, at $539B. Interest at $322B.
These are the big hitters in federal spending alone.
Regardless of what the 'health and human services' is spent on, it is an unsustainable amount, since we have spent $1 trillion more than we take in so far this financial year.
As far as planned parenthood (the pie chart) goes, this doesn't bode well and works against them: PP is accommodating those with poor value judgement in the majority. It is of note that education doesn't play a significant enough role to mention.
While one can do a line-item budget justification for every dollar spent, spending must be cut and a sustainable rate established.
While the Ryan plan, for many, doesn't cut deep enough or quickly enough, it is a workable plan that doesn't pose a sudden shock to the government financial system (sic), and demonstrates an ability to manage spending and revenue. This, in turn, will create a stability for the private sector and restore confidence in spending and investment.
Let Obama and his lackeys continue to throw out childish tantrums - it demonstrates the continuing incompetence in the position he holds and does nothing to alleviate the woes that pervade this country.
I want someone that can run a country. I don't have to like them, I'm not their friend; they aren't my friend. They don't have to be. Just run the country and stop meddling in the affairs of us little people - that's what our states are for.
We've GOT to be willing to raise taxes on top earners, and to close loopholes that already exist. We certainly cannot lower taxes and be serious when we say we worry about the debt
Um, no we don't.
You have demonstrated you have no clue about tax rates and the debt.
All the while of shouting "deceit"
Just remember lefties; it's "shredding"...SHREDDING.
DWS: "They both want to shred the safety net that is the Medicare healthcare safety net..." CHECK!
Chicago Tribune: "Before shredding the safety net, consider the state of older Americans" CHECK!
Peace House, Ashland Oregon: "Shredding the Safety Net: How Congress is impairing vital services in the Rogue Valley" CHECK!
Matthew Yglesias: "Mitt Romney Praises Safety Net He Wants To Shred" CHECK!
Bonus points if you throw in "millionaires and billionaires" and "ending welfare as we know it" into the same message!
Are you seriously questioning the idea that Romney/Ryan stand to greatly reduce the safety net? Seriously?
Obama slashed a trillion out of Medicare for Obamacare and leaves 30M uninsured regardless.
Do you know what YOU are supporting?
It's values, not math. Some choices totally preclude others.
If you DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY, then what do you do?
Pray for a magical unicorn to make money appear?
What good is a safety net if it pulls the circus tent down on top of itself?
Curious George,
You're bottom feeding, does it taste good?
Here's a task for you. Google some other word groups, like "abortion on demand," "job creator," "Paul Ryan is serious," "protect marriage," and "at the end of the day."
When you're all done, go ahead and google "troll."
There. I knew you could.
That safety net looks like a 100-million-person-sized hammock, to me.
Kathy,
Clinton-era tax rates was proposed by harrogate. I'm not advocating them. I'm highlighting the essential dishonesty of his proposal by establishing a conditional: if harrogate gets the tax rates he wants, will he do the necessary spending cuts he doesn't want?
But here's my solution.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs may not be 100% correct. But it does a good approximation of how people approach life.
For some, the lowest tier (survival) is enough. After they achieve that tier, they see no reason to work harder to achieve the next tier (security).
For others, they may aspire to higher tiers, but if it looks like someone is making it more difficult or actively discouraging achieving the higher goals, they may give up and stay with what they have.
The progressive agenda aims to give everyone the lowest tier of needs, without effort.
This is the so-called "safety net". This incentives an unknown, but extremely large, portion of the population to stop making an effort. We've seen it in the USSR and pre-1989 China, too. A huge amount of people will, if given their survival needs w/o effort on their part, not attempt anything further at all.
So we need to remove the "safety net" while removing obstacles to their achieving survival on their own. And unknown, but significant, portion will find that as long as they are already working, they might as well work harder to also achieve security.
And some, motivated by higher needs such as belonging, self-esteem, or self-actualization, need to see that the govt will stop punishing their success.
The govt needs to stop reducing incentives for self-responsibility and hard work, and get out of the way that want to start small businesses.
We need to get big business and govt out of each others' pants, and let small businesses proliferate and increase the competition.
That will grow the economy, increase revenue, reduce unemployment, empower people, stimulate innovation, and restore America's greatness.
Romney and Ryan are the best combination of leaders we've had in decades to do that.
What I am seeing, from some in response to my comments here, is a lot of good writing and fair-minded representations of how we spend far too much and must be willing to make some cuts on entitlements.
What I am not seeing however is any flexibility at all on tax rates, or on military spending, or with the exception of one commenter, a drug war that has stupid written all over it. Yet, it seems that people who will not budge on any of these things really, truly envision themselves as moderates and pragmatists. Which is more than a bit mystifying. if an unwillingness to bend at all on such things does not at some point elevate ideology above practical problem solving, then I am not sure what does.
Finally, someone complained that one of my ideas asks corporations to place the needs of the country above the needs of their stockholders. While this charge goes too far inasmuch as it leaves open the false sensibility that here we engage a zero sum choice between country and stockholders, I do feel moved to ask: A great many Americans have been made to sacrifice a helluva lot more than some percentage points on someone's profit sheet. Is it really the worst thing in the world that a corporation, it's executives and stockholders who identify as Americans, would also put some things above its own immediate economic interests?
harrogate said...
Is it really the worst thing in the world that a corporation, it's executives and stockholders who identify as Americans, would also put some things above its own immediate economic interests?
Is it really the worst thing in the world that government employees, who identify as Americans, put some things above their own immediate economic interests?
This is a fun game.
harrogate said...
Here's a task for you. Google some other word groups, like "abortion on demand," "job creator," "Paul Ryan is serious," "protect marriage," and "at the end of the day."
When you're all done, go ahead and google "troll."
harrogate: You're not only bottom feeding, you're typing lies that are laughable.
Go ahead and Google "cuts Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy" and "millionaires and billionaires" and "bans abortion" and "people before profits"
And when you're done, you'll realize what a silly troll you are.
long and interesting thread--I do have a question which is largely based on my perhaps misunderstanding of econ 101. Is raising taxes during a persistent recession good economic policy? those tax increases will be augmented by the costs of the health care reform which will affect all tax payers. Seems like a fools errand to me, but others may disagree.
As for Harrowgates suggestions, I fully support scaling back military spending (far too bloated IMO and I am a 25 year military vet who also served on the Joint Staff). And the "war on drugs" is equally suspect. I would also add to Harrowgates list severely limiting the authority of the EPA whose regulations stiffle almost all sectors of the American private sector--from Gibson guitars here in Memphis, to our ability to extract the pool of energy upon which we are sitting.
Anyway an interesting discussion.
"What I am not seeing however is any flexibility at all on tax rates, or on military spending, or with the exception of one commenter, a drug war that has stupid written all over it."
-- Military spending is routinely cut. We saw what happened after we cut it last time; people died due to not having equipment we needed while we built MRAPs and other need-to-have materials that we couldn't immediately procure. You'd get a lot of willingness to cut military spending (and to raise taxes) if the spending cuts on all the other stuff ever materialized.
Look, I'd be willing to consider short-term tax increases with an actual sunset paired with serious spending cuts. But I'm not going to budge and give on any tax increases after we've routinely been promised spending cuts only to be lied to repeatedly by Dems in Congress. That's the real problem: Most Republicans are willing to compromise. However, we've been burned so much that until Democrats prove we won't be burned again, you're not going to get any compromise.
Also, the military spending that is suggested to be cut is never the things most people could get behind (withdrawing from say, Germany/Japan, who should be stable enough to police themselves and build up their own Armed Forces.) It is always stopping R&D, which has delivered things like batteries, more fuel-efficient cars and robotics -- that's before we get into the actual pure warfighting capabilities they've delivered.
Try offering to cut actual waste and overhead in other bloated departments (the Dept. of Education spends more and more each year while getting worse and worse results; clearly, we need to reform our spending there to get better results. More money is clearly not the answer, yet it is the only one either party consistently proposes once in Congress.) Then, maybe, you'll get Republicans to bite again.
Matthew Sablan is clearly correct in re the Department of Education--that was Jimmah's sop to the teachers. Why do we need a federal department when education is strictly a local issue. And he is also correct about deployments of US forces--NATO is an anachronism as are the US deployments in the far east and Europe specifically. And the Military has created yet two other Joint Commands for Africa and North America. My cynical view is that these commands create four star billets for a bloated general office corps. Anyway--my .02
Matthew,
"Look, I'd be willing to consider short-term tax increases with an actual sunset paired with serious spending cuts."
Why must one be short-term and sunsetted while the other needs to be, shall we say, unsunsetted?
And if Republican politicians are so willing to compromise so long as actual spending cuts accompany tax increases, then why doesn't the pledge nearly all of them (including Romney and Ryan) sign, say they will never vote for a single tax increase, UNLES that increase is accompanied by actual spending cuts? Instead of saying, simply, "no tax increases whatsoever." I am sorry but the GOP as it is currently configured cannot say in good faith that it is willing to budge on taxes.
As far as your claim to reasonableness of military spending cuts, I'm all for cutting the spending in places like Germany and Japan. Talk about a whole mess of stupid.
But, what we continue to pour into our giant complex in Iraq alone continues to be an abomination. In addition to all the fraud and waste that we can vaporize in defense and in education and in the EPA, etc, we also have to seriously consider the distinction that Ron Paul drew between "defense spending" and "military spending." I do not see a single Republican politician who seems to know what he meant by drawing a difference between the two. Certainly the eagerness to commit in Iran while ramping up presences in Afghanistan and Iraq and also don't forget Syria! does not bode attach a lot of good faith to the "we're willing to make serious cuts in military spending too!" argument.
harrogate said...
And if Republican politicians are so willing to compromise so long as actual spending cuts accompany tax increases, then why doesn't the pledge nearly all of them (including Romney and Ryan) sign, say they will never vote for a single tax increase, UNLES that increase is accompanied by actual spending cuts? Instead of saying, simply, "no tax increases whatsoever." I am sorry but the GOP as it is currently configured cannot say in good faith that it is willing to budge on taxes
This was documented during the debt limit negotiations.
You are completely & utterly full of shit.
You actually seem to think your own ignorance is an argument.
Why must one be short-term and sunsetted while the other needs to be, shall we say, unsunsetted?
Because higher taxes don't lead to more revenue and there is no evidence, anywhere at all, that spending $3.4 trillion per year is indicative of an effective government.
And that's to say nothing of the drug war which both parties support but which the Democratic base consistently points out is a drain on the country's spirit, blood, and economic resources. Not to mention how powerfully it illustrates stupidity.
Seems like the "we're very serious about spending and debt" crowd would also awaken to the damage that the marijuana war alone has done to this country. Or somebody besides Ron Paul and Bill Maher anyways.
I wonder how much we could cover in terms of health care/the uninsured, by allowing a marijuana industry to arise similar to alcohol and tobacco, with a strong percentage of tax monies gleaned from that enterprise earmarked for that purpose and that purpose only?
How much would we save in our criminal justice system? How much damage would this do to cartels and terrorist organizations that sustain on the marijuana trade in the US?
And I know this is something this country will never seriously consider. But it only illustrates that there are more options out there than people consider, when they flood everyone's facebook walls with rants against someone on food stamps buying a pack of cigarettes and how that is why we are awash in debt.
But you can't not seriously consider common sense things and then make a big show about how damned serious and pragmatic you are, either. You can't do and be right, anyway.
"Why must one be short-term and sunsetted while the other needs to be, shall we say, unsunsetted?"
-- Because the tax increases would be for a targeted purpose: Paying off the debt faster. The spending cuts would be because we're spending too much. Different purposes, different durations.
Note: The biggest pushers to end the drug war are the libertarians, those on the fairly far right of the spectrum, that.
Harrogate: Look at -why- they signed that pledge. It comes back to being burned, over and over again. During the debt limit negotiations, they were willing to up taxes. Republicans were willing to use Simpson-Bowles as a starting point for negotiations.
Guess which party killed both, because they'd rather not gore their own oxen?
Matthew, just in case this point got lost in what I wrote, I want to respond specifically to this thing you wrote:
"Try offering to cut actual waste and overhead in other bloated departments (the Dept. of Education spends more and more each year while getting worse and worse results; clearly, we need to reform our spending there to get better results. More money is clearly not the answer, yet it is the only one either party consistently proposes once in Congress.) Then, maybe, you'll get Republicans to bite again."
I am extremely open to this. I think that most people are. It seems to me that "the pledge" precludes the action that you eumphemize with the verb "bite," however.
As Matthew notes, the Simpson-Bowles commission did some good work--bipartisan and had some excellent suggestions. So exactly what became of their recommendations? As Matthew suggests: it got at the Dem's entitlement programs, and without those, the Dems have nothing.
I fully understand the fact that the libertarians relentlessly point out, and take with the proper moral seriousness, how shamefully we waste resources and lose opportunities regarding marijuana. I regularly praise the libertarians for this and slam equally upon the Dem and GOP leadership and the GOP base for continued stupidity on this.
But the Dem base, while not libertarian, accepts the libertarian's point there. So that's a real presence as well.
"Because the tax increases would be for a targeted purpose: Paying off the debt faster. The spending cuts would be because we're spending too much. Different purposes, different durations."
But wait. What about keeping the debt down once it is pared down? That's why I favor long term spending cuts that are careful as possible not to abandon people at the bottom of the "Maslow" pyramid. And I also favor long term tax increases similar to the Clinton era rates. Along with lots of other moves we could be making.
harrogate said...
And that's to say nothing of the drug war which both parties support but which the Democratic base consistently points out is a drain on the country's spirit, blood, and economic resources
Really?
How about some links to this "thought leadership" by the Democratic base on this issue?
I mean, I can offer some that demostrate the libertarian right has made the most headway in this area.
Or are you just lying again?
But the Dem base, while not libertarian, accepts the libertarian's point there.
Really?
So it is I guess a big mystery how Democrats who support the war on drugs keep getting elected, huh?
That's why I favor long term spending cuts that are careful as possible not to abandon people at the bottom of the "Maslow" pyramid
But of course raising taxes must never be "careful" and when you're not really informed on these issues government spending "helps" those "at the bottom"
It must be fun to have such a simpleton worldview.
Harrowgate--I have followed your arguments and I agree with some. But I do need to ask you about your use of the "Maslow" hierarachy which is pointed to individual and not social applications; eg, basic needs, social needs and ultimately self actualization. Could you expand on your point, please.
Once you cut spending, it can never impact the economy/debt again (unless it goes back up.) Raising taxes has an effect on the economy as long as it stays high. It is painful, and maybe necessary, for awhile. Unless, of course, the goal is just to lower spending for a little while, then raise it again and start us on this trajectory again.
That's why I favor long term spending cuts that are careful as possible not to abandon people at the bottom of the "Maslow" pyramid
People who say such things are entirely unaware that Medicare is ripped off by $60 billion in fraud per year.
People who say such things are entirely unaware that people on welfare are buying beer, cigarettes, and getting tatoos.
It must be nice to have such a simpleton worldview.
I am still perplexed about how raising taxes (via tax rates or costs of the health care plan) is a good idea. Basic supply and demand theory here: a reduction in available income reduces demand; a reduction in demand shifts the supply curve downward, and the supply curve in the aggregate is what produces will produce in light of reduced demand. The other side of the theortical argument is that increased demand, in the form of dollars to spend, will encourage suppliers to produce more to meet increased demand.
Where is the theory wrong?
In some cases, when you need money -right now- it is a thing you do because your alternative is too unappealing. In this case, if we were to cut enough spending/streamline it so that we could actually apply extra dollars to reducing the deficit, I could see an argument being made (because paying down debt faster is good to reduce interest/get you out of debt.) Of course, the raw amount of money needed means it may make no appreciable different.
Roger,
My reference to Maslow was a hat tip to Nathan Alexander's comment. Though I disagree most emphatically with what Nathan has to say about the pyramid, I applaud him to the nines, for saying owning ideas that so many others who are defending the Ryan budget, deny even exist.
The issue of being able to survive is a tricky one because not everyone is going to agree on what exactly constitutes survival. But food stamps and health care coverage and housing and, while it may seem like an abstraction, education, all belong in any serious conversation about our most vulnerable, our citizens who are most alone.
Are there always going to be people who game the system to avoid putting forth effort and making sacrifices? of course. But I have known many in my own life who have fought tooth and nail to stay afloat and who have taken federal assistance in the process, and gotten off it when they could, though for many, it took a pong time to be able to get off of it and some never could. Because the world is not made up of Ayn Rand caricatures. The conversation we are having is freighted, on a national level, with the misconception that we are only talking about a rare breed of person, who fights hard to take care of themselves and their children, but get crushed consistently anyway.
I remember once in graduate school. (cue the snarks about graduate school, here, from some quarters, natch). A professor said to us on the first day of class, the thing I will remember the most of anything any faculty member ever said. He said, "the reason you are here is because someone read to you when you were small."
And since I just gestured that way, I will continue a bit to somewhat break my own protocol and say something about myself here in the comments, for what it is worth. I grew up in a very sketched out neighborhood, a trailer park. And I was lucky--just lucky, that was all!--to be the only child in the neighborhood whose parents read to him and insisted he take school and sports and culture, in general, seriously.
And many of the people I grew up with went on to struggle, took jobs where they could but never really had the tools to advance. They lacked cultural capital. Some are gone now, sadly.
I am talking about decent human beings, people who have been great friends to me and who love their children and their wives as much as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama do. Not vermin, not ticks, not inhuman dead weight to be cut from the ship of state. But decent American citizens always seemingly one step away from ruin.
Am I happy to pay more taxes to make sure that these people are ok? To make sure that maybe they even are enabled to rise, if only just enough that they might be in a position to read to their children, or at least encourage their children to take reading seriously in school? To be able to give good medical care to their children and good food?
As one o the patron saints of this blog might say, "You betcha."
Considering the Ryan budget proposes higher than average revenue and spending, I don't see why you keep harping on hurting the most vulnerable among us.
Unless, you just don't have a clue what's in the Ryan budget, and it is a boogeyman to scare people with.
Harrowgate--thank you for a very good post--it sounds like you had admirable parents--and I agree fully that parents reading to their children is a sine qua non of success downstream.
I will fully admit that microeconomic theory focuses only on aggregate basics. As such, Maslow's hierarchy helps explain human motivation, and as you point out that the lowest rung on Maslows hierarchy has to do with survival needs. Self actualization, the highest of Maslows needs remains something an individual has reach. I suppose a government should attend in some fashion to those survival needs, but I would submit our governments at all levels, including charity which is not insubstational, attend to those needs as well. I have no problem with defining the "safety net" in terms of Maslows survival needs. It works for me. The issue of course is the degree and the amount. A political question, and this is where your discussion of values comes in.
I would submit that values, of course, operatioalize political choices, and when one advocates a certain policy prescription, they are advocating as a value. But as I recall from political philosophy, a value is something that has to amenable to being resolved by the political process. America has chosen a republican system to choose between competing values. It isnt perfect, of course, because of the venality of politicians, but as Winston Churchill famously said, it the best we have to offer (apologies for mangling the quote)
On a personal note, I have appreciated your arguments--I probably dont agree with many of them, but you do an excellent job of putting them up for discussion without the usual snark and vituperation that, regrettably, characterize the blogosphere. Please do carry on.
On a somewhat differentnote .
harrowgate--anyone who is a fan of the Coen Bros is a friend of mine--have seen everything they have done, although to not understanding "a serious man." Well done.
harrogate, your personal story is moving (thanks for sharing it), and your sympathy for others is honorable.
But you insist on framing the issue here as an (obvious) moral choice instead of a complex set of empirical questions. You're going with something that feels altruistic-- but what if that was not, in effect, what was most beneficial and least harmful to the very people you're concerned about?
You say:
Am I happy to pay more taxes to make sure that these people are ok? To make sure that maybe they even are enabled to rise, if only just enough that they might be in a position to read to their children, or at least encourage their children to take reading seriously in school? To be able to give good medical care to their children and good food?
You posit a causal relationship, an if-then relationship, between 'you paying more taxes' and 'making sure these people are ok.' But what if that premise is incorrect? And what if there turns out to be a causal relationship between 'you paying more taxes' and 'these people being worse off'?
That's why I linked that Obama video in an earlier comment-- about raising taxes "for purposes of fairness," even if you end up with less money to help the very people you want to help. (Not to mention, less jobs, and in the long run without entitlement reform, a debt crisis that will force entitlements to be slashed, willy-nilly, brutally and abruptly.)
In May 2011 Ryan says this:
This is not the time to go wobbly. They (Democrats) are going to run these attack ads at us regardless. This is a time for leaders to be leaders. This is not a time for us to follow our fears, this is a time to lead because if we don’t address our countries fiscal problems we are going to have a debt crisis and the people who are going to get hurt the first and the worst are the people who need government the most, the elderly and the poor.
Now, you may say he's wrong, or what he's saying is false, or he has the wrong priorities. But if you at least grant the possibility that he's being sincere, then he sees the issue here as a moral one too, just as you do, and he's concerned about the very same people you're concerned about.
It's all very well for you (and Dems in general) to keep framing the issue here as one of morality on one side, cold economics on the other. But what if both sides share many of the same moral concerns, but differ in their analysis, diagnosis, and prescriptions to bring those concerns to bear in effect, actuality, reality? And what if it turns out that the policies and politicians that make you "feel" more moral have worse consequences (especially over time) for the most vulnerable, than the policies and politicians demagogued as heartless?
oops--although "confess to undertanding a serious man."
anyone who is a fan of the Coen Bros is a friend of mine
Ditto!
And if Republican politicians are so willing to compromise so long as actual spending cuts accompany tax increases, then why doesn't the pledge nearly all of them (including Romney and Ryan) sign, say they will never vote for a single tax increase, UNLES that increase is accompanied by actual spending cuts? Instead of saying, simply, "no tax increases whatsoever." I am sorry but the GOP as it is currently configured cannot say in good faith that it is willing to budge on taxes.
Because they watch history.
Bush lost the election in 1992 largely because he made the mistake of compromising with the Democrats and raising taxes --- and getting zilch in spending cuts.
Until I see IMMEDIATE spending cuts, I'll oppose a dime in tax hikes.
And I also favor long term tax increases
Ditto.
Heck, let's follow Glenn Reynolds' idea. Impose an immediate 20% surtax on all movie ticket sales, DVD sales, PPV sales, downloads, etc. for movies. Same with music. Limit lifetime charitable donations to $5M. Remove the mortgage deductions for homes whose value is above $250,000.
Add in a tax rate of 90% on contingency fees.
Add in a rax rate of 75% for every nickle over what their last 5 years average public salary was when a government official leaves the gov't to lobby the gov't for an industry.
Let the groups that claim to want to give more ACTUALLY GIVE MORE.
People who say such things are entirely unaware that Medicare is ripped off by $60 billion in fraud per year.
I'd advocate a 95% tax rate on any company that says that get you a "free" scooter from the government. That shit is infuriating.
Yashu, Matthew, Revenant, Roger, and anyone else I am forgetting: Thanks for the conversation.
And yashu, thanks for coming back in with the request that I take Ryan's 2011 speech at face value, and consider the values clash in a more fair minded way.
Looks like Althouse is blowing up with new posts so this thread is soon to be graveyard material. But I am thinking about your comment, and will respond to it sometime soon on a fresh thread.
Am I happy to pay more taxes to make sure that these people are ok? To make sure that maybe they even are enabled to rise, if only just enough that they might be in a position to read to their children, or at least encourage their children to take reading seriously in school? To be able to give good medical care to their children and good food?
As one o the patron saints of this blog might say, "You betcha."
Who is stopping you? IRS accepts payments above your minimum required amount.
Do you know that returning to the spending levels in 2008 would be a cut of massive proportions? This massive increase, which was SUPPOSED TO BE TEMPORARY, is now the damned budget baseline.
Slash it back to 2000 levels. Period.
harrowgate--will look forward to your continuing observations--thank you for contributions.
@harrogate,
You tipped the hat to Maslow's pyramid without catching the point.
The so-called safety net you support reduces incentives for anyone to expend effort to rise up the pyramid. It heavily incentives people to reduce effort and self-responsibility.
As such, the safety hammock needs to be cut down.
Too many people who are fully capable of supporting themselves do not, simply because they don't have to. And too many others do not maximize their effort because they perceive that the administration currently in charge of the nation punishes effort and success in order to reward political support.
Thishar,s the nation's productivity, wealth, and success.
What I am not seeing however is any flexibility at all on tax rates, or on military spending, or with the exception of one commenter, a drug war that has stupid written all over it.
Then you're not paying attention, and have chosen to see only what you want to see.
Post a Comment