Third post. Same problems.
So I've posted here two times previously. Once was via FormSpring, and the other was a political rant about Republicans tying in the fate of the poor & middle-class to tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Guess what? Different crisis, same problem.
Roadblock Republicans have decided that the government would be better served to default on loans already taken than to raise additional revenue.
They like to use the credit card analogy - if you had a credit card, and you hit the debt limit, you would have to either get a higher limit or start paying it off. There is some truth in this analogy.
But what happens in this situation when you don't pay your credit card off? What happens to your credit and you're standing?
It drops. It tanks. People and institutions don't have faith any faith to invest in you or your endeavors and you're left trying to find ways to make ends meet while simultaneously dealing with growing debt.
This is where America is at. Yes, we need to pay our debts, but we need money to do this. It's as simple as that.
You can cut spending, and ALL Democrats have already agreed to do this. That needs to be known and repeated - Democrats have already agreed to make huge spending cuts.
Republicans wanted $2trillion in cuts. Obama wants $4trillion.
But, you can't just cut spending - you still need to have revenue. Revenue to pay for what our government does.
Members of the Senate and the House make, as a base, $174k a year. They can make up to $190k or more. Every member of our military gets paid. Every member of the IRS. Every member of the social Social Security Administration. The Welfare Administration. Those who deal with Medicaid and Medicare.
All of these programs have countless additional costs to make sure they can operate and do their job.
The question is - where does the money do more good: In the hands of the wealthiest Americans or in the hands of the government?
Go ahead and put your fears or concerns about socialism away. America will never be a socialist society, but it's always had socialist elements. Any regulation on business is socialist. Any social program - welfare, unemployment, education, police spending, legislature, etc - these are all socialist elements.
They're also vital parts of our daily lives and we need them. There's no denying this. We all know people who benefit in some way from the money government takes in and puts back out.
Raising taxes on the top tax bracket does take money from those people. These people can afford to pay it.
Cutting spending takes money from the poor and middle class. These people can't afford to pay it.
A 25% tax rate on someone making $36k a year means $9000 in taxes. That leaves $27k to pay for food, shelter, gas, utilities, clothing, rent, entertainment, education and other essential needs. Imagine a family that has 1 child surviving on this. Now imagine that family with 3 children.
A 38% tax rate on someone who makes $5,000,000 a year is $1,900,000. That leaves $3,100,000 to pay for food, shelter, gas, utilities, clothing, rent, entertainment, education and other essential needs.
This is what we're talking about. Is it "fair?" Well, are any taxes really "fair?" But the government has to operate and the money put into social spending works back into it's economy.
When money is put into the government, it goes right back out to the people. It goes to public works programs that pay for highway construction - which creates lots of middle-class jobs.
It goes to pay for education - which creates lots of middle-class jobs.
It goes to pay for the police & fire department - which creates lots of middle-class jobs.
Social Security spending pays for nurses, goods, entertainment, medication, hospital needs, education and more.
Same with Medicaid. Medicare. Unemployment.
When America has a strong middle-class, America prospers. If it comes from the government creating jobs, so what? How is that a problem?
Sure, it would be great if leaving the money with the wealthiest Americans really meant they were investing it back into the economy, but historically, this doesn't happen. Reagan cut taxes, the economy tanked, and so he raised taxes and invested into the government through stimulus spending. The economy recovered.
George Bush Sr. raised taxes which set the stage for Clinton to come in, continue policies of spending cuts and revenue generators, and helped to create a strong economy.
George W. Bush cut taxes lower than they had been since the 1950s, and the economy grew at .28%. At the end of his tenure, far after 9/11 had happened in 2008, the economy crashed. Lack of regulation, lack of consequences and lack of revenue caused millions of job losses.
Revenue, when spent by the government into social programs and stimulus (which is what Government DOES with their money) rebounds the economy. Barack Obama asked for stimulus spending when he entered office and was given a fraction of what he asked for.
Even so, it was responsible for stopping the bleeding. Look at what was different between Bush and Obama in those 2 years and what turned the economy around. It was the stimulus spending.
I'll post this link in its own post, but you can track how recovery money was spent in YOUR area: http://projects.propublica.org/recovery
How many of these businesses do you know? Do you know anyone who has been helped or is employed by these companies?
That's what stimulus spending did. It helped real businesses create real jobs. That's what revenue means to our government and that's why concentrating the majority of our wealth at the top, which isn't accountable or trackable, has historically been shown to not lift the economy.
It just starts the seeds of the New American Caste System.
