So...Boehner says that we need to reduce the national debt by spending a lot less and not making any more money. Isn't that a bit like deciding to fix your family budget by cutting out food and not asking for a pay raise at work?
Furthermore, if the Republican plan is to fix the debt problem just long enough to get a new president, aren't they just setting up THEIR president. I mean, isn't the goal to make sure that we have a Republican as president in 2012? In which case, why would you want to make sure that they're going to have to be the bad guy when they have to raise taxes? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the current president raise taxes so that it can be used against him during the gubernatorial election?
I'm just saying that congress is making less and less sense. But then politics is made up of two words - poly meaning 'many' and ticks meaning 'blood sucking parasites'...Or, even better, if con is the opposite of pro, what's the opposite of progress?
5 comments:
Sometimes, I think we would be better off if Congress and the Senate followed the same plan as Federal Judges, and were appointed for life. Maybe then, they could actually govern rather constantly worry about reelection...
So its that easy to just ask for a raise at work? That's my beef. Most of us do not have th eoption to just ask for raises. Hell, many have taken pay cuts over the last couple of years. If only I had the ability to just raise my salary when times were tough. Our government should spend within their means, not just raise taxes to cover what they see fit to blow on entitlements, wars, and pet projects.
also, it was the dems that wanted to push the problem out to after 2012. I say default. Its a tough decision, but many families who spent beyond their means have had to do it. Sure the economy will suffer a bit, but that is bound happen eventually anyway when this house of cards propped up by toothpicks comes to an abrupt collapse. Better to be a controlled explosion so it is easier to pick up the pieces.
In a lot of cases, absolutely, yes you can ask for a pay raise (mind, I'm not saying you'll get it) - how else are you supposed to get more money? wait until your boss decides that maybe they ought to do it lest you decide you want to quit without giving them a chance to fix the problem? That being said, I do think that the government should ask their constituents if it can have more money (via a vote) with a re-visiting of how much tax revenue (% per tax bracket) they get every 5 years.
Quite honestly, all government stuff be fucked - the quicker you spend the money, the more money you get, and you get penalized if you over-estimate the amount of money you need, but no such issue if you underestimate it. Totally fucked.
Also, some of the whole overspending problem is because government budgets are set 5-10 years in advance so when the economy crashes and there isn't any cash, it becomes a major issue to find where and what to cut. Kinda makes sense for them to pretend like they really have less than what is predicted just to make sure they don't go over budget. And what is up with all their damn pet projects?
And obviously I got the whole which party wants to push it out to 2012 wrong - the TV signal was cutting in and out. The newscaster said that the republicans XXX a solution that would postpone the problem until the XXX election. While the democrats XXX. Since I don't vote in the mid-year elections, I just automatically assumed they meant the 2012 election, not the one coming up this November.
A vote for taxes only works if you can vote for an increase in your own tax bracket. Any one can say that the guy with more money than me should pay more taxes. I say this type of vote already exists. If you want to give more, find a charity. Why voluntarily give more to a "fucked" government that will waste it on bureaucracy and more wars? Make them live on a budget like the rest of us do.
Post a Comment