Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Your cataxtrophic scenario aside, I suppose all of this is about the disparity between what the American people want and what the American people are willing to pay for.
|
Generally, I agree. More specifically there are some American people who want other American people to give them a free ride. Again I have no problem "paying" for the basic needs of all children, elderly and the truly disabled.
Quote:
|
You mentioned the ramifications of changing tax policy, which is a legitimate concern (in spite of your silly kitty example). However, there are also the ramifications of dismantling what has become fundamental aspects of American policy.
|
If it is a failed system, it needs to be fixed. Measuring negative ramifications of dismantling fundamental aspects of American policy brings into question the original intent of those fundamental aspects of American policy. I suspect there is and was never any real agreement on the intent of some of those fundamental aspects, i.e. Medicare, liberals and conservatives don't agree on what the intent was and is for this program.
The "kitty" example is not as silly as it appears. It has been about 7 years since I left California, but when I was there the cost to formally set up a small business (corporation, partnership, LLC) was close to $5,000 in fees, taxes and minimal admin costs. In addition it was about $2,000-$3,000 just to maintain the entity annually -revenues or not - profits or not. That was just the state costs, just for the entity! So, in my example substitute small business for "kitty" and you may see the analogy in a new light. And some people in California still wonder why there was a mass business exodus out of the state. Businesses that had the option, moved to lower the costs, there were many other excessive costs in addition to what I describe here. The point is that people respond to tax policy.
Quote:
There is a difference between not being able to cut spending by a certain level and not wanting to cut spending—based on perceived consequences.
What if they just went ahead and balanced the budget for 2012? Would America maintain its opinion of itself as the best nation in the world?
|
I suspect if people even believe that the folk in Washington were going to balance the budget, that we would see a spike in economic activity like we have never seen. The level of uncertainty from Washington has trillions of dollars on hold. Even with Obama-care alone, the 2,000 page bill will most likely have hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulations. Only the foolish, or those with no choice will make long-term decisions until the impact of these regulations is fully known. Then of course you would see the government actually collecting more revenue. think about it, they could actually spend more and reduce the debt.
Quote:
|
My opinion of the Tea Party is that they hold influence disproportionate to whose views they represent. Angry fringe groups can get like that. Obstructionism isn't a new concept.
|
I am not angry. I have not even been to a Tea Party rally or anything like that in over a year. I have not written any letters, called into any radio shows, or done anything like that (other than post my political views here). Most Tea Party people live normal lives and don't have time to be "angry".