However, had I been able to, I would have voted a straight Republican ticket. I've been a staunch anti-Democrat since my young days and this past week has been more kindle to my considerable, fiscally conservative ire.
I'll preface this by noting that I am not a harsh Republican by any means. I vote Republican out of a lack of options...I certainly don't want the Democrats to win, and the only way to help that is by backing the opposite candidate. I'll hear none of that third-party shouting, because that's not even realistic.
Obama, in his last contrived, dramatic address to the American voters, continued his presentation of a smoke-and-mirrors defense to further a vague, convoluted idea of "justice" to the quickly-shrinking minority of people who approve of his performance.
Obama repeated the phrase "a balanced approach" seven times in a speech that was just under 15 minutes long. It didn't present any new ideas or context to listeners-it just repeated the mysticisms that got him elected in the first place.
Harry Reid and John Boehner have now put two similar budget presentations onto the table for consideration. Both include no new taxes on the wealthy (something Obama is all for) and the raising of the debt ceiling by increasing spending cuts. They also include no major dilution of government programs, so they are seen as an acceptable compromise by both parties.
Obama's refusal to acknowledge either of these proposals in a very important speech has effectively taken him out of his leadership role in this issue. He now plays some awkwardthird-party observer, instructing parties who aren't listening with ideas that they have dismissed.
Why have they dismissed these ideas? Because they are faulty.
Obama's quotation of Reagan was taken out of context. He painted a great Republican leader and a great president as a support for his nigh-socialistic plans. A sector of Americans "isn't doing [its] part." What sector, and why?
The sector to which he is referring is the top 10% of tax payers, of course. People who move and shape industry and the economy, who innovate and produce new technologies and products and who control the state of the country through their incredible control over the economy. This is a menacing-sounding situation, but, in reality, it is how every world works, and how it should work. The highest-earning sections of American society rightfully take their place due to ability. The top 10% are the top 10% because we, as American consumers, have allowed them to be.
The people who make the most money in this country are those who provide the best service to the most people. Whether that's Bill Gates and Microsoft, hedge fund managers, or Katy Perry, American consumers justify their lives' works by paying for them, over and over again.
A new tax on the wealthy is nothing more than a tax on ability and productivity. It's, in a way, a punishment for success. There is no other way to slate this idea--the fact is, if you think the wealthy deserve to be taxed more on the basis of wealth, then you are saying their wealth is the fair game of the American taxpayer who raised them to the spotlight in the first place. A tax on productivity is like spanking a child who makes exceptional grades. Standards are provided in the ideals of society and those who meet or exceed them are "taken down to a more reasonable level. They take more, so they should contribute more."
Obama continues to preach this absurd ideology because it appeals to a disturbingly large portion of Americans who have an odd sense of "justice." I won't classify or stereotype this section of voters--they are rich and poor alike. The former are filled with self-loathing and self-pity. "I should give more to society. I'm so lucky to have gotten all of this." The latter are filled with jealousy and more self-pity. "This is a situation I was born in to. I deserve the spoils of productivity as much as the producers."
As much as this may sound insane to some people, it sounds just as reasonable to others. People who earn more should give more. And if they don't give more, society has a right, even a duty, to take it from them. Their profit and success is the property of the American people, and the American people (through their elected representatives) decide every so often exactly how much of their wealth belongs to them come that April.
Self-pity is the ugliest emotion in the universe. It takes the most incredible facet of humanity--the individual mind and will-and turns it on itself. Humans are not meant to hate or pity themselves, nor are they entitled to.
That takes an oddly philosophical turn at the end, but it's still topical. I am stuck in an odd world between humor and politics/philosophy on this blog. Eventually they may separate, but for now I'll consider this all a study in me.
-Max
From a tax perspective, I'm on the liberal's side. I think a graduated tax makes a lot more sense than a fixed tax, because, after all is said and done, a perfectly graduated tax will leave every person with the same percentage of the economy that they had before, and obviously, domestic prices change according to the economy as a whole, not by some magically prepared schedule.
ReplyDeleteAs in...if one person has $10 and another man has $90, the rich man owns 90% of the economy. If they're both taxed $5 (making it $85 to $5), the rich man now has 94.4%, according to my Macbook's calculator. It's not a punishment for productivity; it leaves everyone proportionally equally well off. Mathematically speaking, a fixed tax would only slowly deteriorate the poorer man's domestic situation.
I don't know exactly what Obama wants with his tax increases, but that's at least what I think is best.