I’ve got to admit to a guilty pleasure. Sometimes, schadenfreude does appeal to me–on occasions like this morning, for example…
As I was reading numerous stories of people complaining about the decrease in their first paycheck of 2013, I must confess that I found myself softly chuckling.
Seriously, why is there surprise?
Actions have consequences.
President Obama got re-elected. He promised the rich will now pay more of their disposable income in taxes, and he’s keeping his promise.
But you will pay higher taxes, too. What did you expect?
Our nation just voted to re-elect this president, the most prolific spender in the history of the United States. There should be no surprise.
The really scary thing is that, in stark contrast to reality, President Obama just informed Speaker Boehner that he doesn’t believe we have a spending problem. That can only mean he still thinks the current fiscal crisis in America is caused by an insufficient revenue stream to the federal government.
The Treasury obtains revenue through taxation, so that can only mean that Obama plans to demand even higher taxes.
Here’s a news flash for those who might celebrate that idea–even if you pay zero taxes and live on government support, you’re about to take a big hit in your personal spending power. Your standard of living can only decline as our currency continues to lose value.
Your future entitlement dollars also will buy less because inflation has been continuously driving retail prices higher.
Remember Quantitative Easing I, II, and III? Actions have consequences.
Printing new money depreciates the value of existing currency in circulation.
More simply stated, your spent dollar isn’t going to buy much. Unfortunately, you’re probably not going to be able to offset that lost spending power with new income because of new, higher taxes.
Why does anybody support this insane economic model? Unfortunately, enough class envy has been fomented in society to make these ideas palatable.
It seems that we’re all in for an extended period of shared misery–except, of course, those “elites” who already have accumulated wealth. People like Warren Buffett, union boss Richard Trumka, Al Gore, Jay-Z, George Clooney won’t suffer. They, and other mega Democrat donors and fundraisers like them, already have plenty of money.
The question is, why are these super rich people Democrats and not Republicans? In the last election, I was led to believe all of the evil, super rich were Republican by definition.
Aren’t these Democrat supporters the same evil rich who refuse to pay their fair share in taxes? Is it because these “elite” people somehow curry special favors behind closed doors through their political contributions?
How, in this period of (allegedly) shared austerity, can these super-rich people still afford to blow $40k dollars per plate for one dinner with a politician?
Forty grand is a year’s worth of income for many people.
But hey–we can eat cake!
Unless Michelle thinks we’re getting too fat, that is.
In 2006 Bruce Bartlett, former policy advisor to Ronald Reagan, wrote “Bush may turn out to be extraordinarily lucky and avoid having to face the consequences of his own fiscal actions…, and the burden of enacting a major tax increase may fall on his successor. But it will be Bush’s fault even if someone else ends up paying the political price. He also has written “Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting.”
I would counter that Bartlett’s assessment is only partially correct. The Congress, mostly under Democrat control, gave us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Medicare and Medicaid all in the last eighty years. Bush didn’t do enough to try to stop it and he tried to work with the Democrats too often. But to say this is all Bush’s fault is just plain silly.