USA Taxes and Budgeting - 2011 - Frustration with the System

USA Taxes and Budgeting - 2011 - Frustration with the System
by Craig Hamilton on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 8:02pm
USA Taxes and Budgeting - 2011 - Frustration with the System
Though I haven’t seen any polls, I don’t believe I have heard of a regular person or a Republican that is in favor of the President’s budget. Those that support it seem to only be those that hold office. This is only reasonable, given the unwritten rule that it is that leaders of political parties do not insult there higher ups. That is what we are seeing with the Democrats is the same nonsense as the Republican practice, “Though shall not insult thy fellow Republican.”
The President’s new budget is hideous. He does not cut out enough, but more importantly, he does not ask for the rich and the wealthy to contribute virtually anything. Republicans are often criticized for supporting big business, but Obama is in the same vein. I would feel perfectly comfortable mandating that the richest 10% contribute 20% of their salary to charitable funds alone. That 20% would be in addition to paying off the government’s debts. Why ask the poor to pay for the government when the poorer the area, generally the less well policed it is? This is proof that the government exists to protect the wealth of the wealthy. Thus, I suggest that we have them pay for this protection.
I agree with one aspect of the budget. The President is not cutting Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security. I don’t believe cutting national healthcare would be a wise idea either. However, I believe that national healthcare should have merely been an extension of Medicare and Medicaid to all. The general reason for this is that people that end up with Social Security Disability would end up washing up on the doorstep of the government anyway. If you take away their meds, then they will likely either wind up in prison or be institutionalized, and these things are far more expensive than Medicare or Medicaid. As far as I know, hospitals still can’t refuse patients that need emergency care, and cutting liability funds would be more costly to the medical revolving door that already exists!
Though I don’t believe it was suggested, I don’t agree with raising the age requirement for getting Social Security either. Though people might live longer, the elderly don’t get rehired, especially if they lose their job, according to the stats. What we have is a paucity of jobs, and a people that does not have enough money to spend to put more people to work. Though technology has replaced jobs, it has also made them. However, there is no such thing as the Luddite fallacy that is sometimes talked about. The new jobs created in the modern world are generally much less satisfying to work. That is technology causes us to not only live longer, but it also doesn’t give the most amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. There are a few oligarchs, and many plebes, but even worse, the quality of the plebian job decreased.
Other than that, President Barrack Obama is the converse of Robin Hood. His budget asks the have nots to pay, while 1% of the population has 25% of the money. When 1% has this much, it is a sign that revolution is on the horizon. Many are quick to say that socialism has never worked, but capitalism has never worked for that matter either. Currency and capitalism are not new. Capitalist governments have come and gone, and seem historically no better than that of socialism. When the class structure is such that the concentration of money is logarithmic, such that a few people have a lot while the rest are poor, generally the people have overthrown the government. This is the situation of the USA now!
I am completely against taking away heating subsidies from the poor. I know that though I could deal without heat, this proposal is practically the equivalent of murder. Many babies will die if their homes aren’t heated. However, our oil addiction cannot continue forever. Therefore, I suggest raising the cost of gasoline to about $8 a gallon, an additional $4 a gallon tax. That means gas would soon cost $12 a gallon, such that soon people would have to be cutting out long distance trips, which would be good for local economies! Have mercy for a baby, but make the obese walk! Babies don’t ask to be born, so we should welcome them into this world instead of shutting off their heat! That is, by the time someone is an adult, I have no problem shutting off their heat, and making them pay more in order to drive. We need to be a healthy nation and doubling the price of gasoline would cause many of us to have to walk more, or even ride bikes to jobs. Raising the price on gas might hurt at first, as many businesses would find themselves unable to compete, but it would pay dividends for the future. We would probably feel less lonely. Neighbors might even start to know each other by first name. Maybe if we had to walk more, we would also feel the need to eat healthier food, which would also trim many of our food budgets. The highest quality food is often the least expensive.
I do not regret my vote for Obama, however. For the most part the Obama administration has been guilty of big spending. Though the Republicans say that they are angry and want to change things, I am inclined not to believe them, such that I don’t know if I will vote at all anymore. I have followed McCain’s commentary on Obama, and how he would have done things different, and the general comment is essentially that, “I would spend more money on defense.” That given; I don’t believe that the Republicans will balance any budget better than the Democrats. I had already lost faith in the Republicans (I voted for Shrub for his first term), but now I am quite jaded by the Democrats as well. They no longer have their great budget balancing record that they had under the Clinton administration. That said, if Hillary Clinton were President, I don’t think that we would be so much in this mess. When push came to shove, the Democrats sought healthcare for citizens when we have total government failure to worry about because of the budget. The prior Democratic House under the Obama administration should have first addressed the issue of spending, as former President Bill Clinton did. He did the simple arithmetic that put us on track, as Shrub Senior had put us into a spending mess not too long ago, which Clinton fixed at the expense of attempting to get healthcare for all citizens. Then, Shrub Jr. messed it up again, but this time far worse than his father! A part of me thinks; why should the Democrats fill the role of fixing Republican messes? But, nevertheless that is what the Obama administration should have done first.
Furthermore, in the recent news, the Republican majority in the house voted to continue parts of the Patriot Act. Nothing has changed since former President George Bush Jr. The fact is Republicans are also big spenders. However, instead of spending money on social programs, what the Democrats do, Republicans spend it on militarization. Militarization is equally as hideous as the President’s newly proposed budget.