tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914938093413530672.post6724271085656140611..comments2023-07-16T04:12:16.162-07:00Comments on Sweet Morsels: My Political FeelingsMrs. Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18410066836834171904noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5914938093413530672.post-32430520183263098432008-09-05T07:24:00.000-07:002008-09-05T07:24:00.000-07:00TAXES & THE ECONOMYAccording to a 2003 speech ...TAXES & THE ECONOMY<BR/><BR/>According to a 2003 speech by President Bush, "consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of our economy." It's highly doubtful that the 3% of American households who would face between a 9% and 12% tax increase account for a major portion of that 70%. Let's face it, the Walmarts and used car lots of the nation are not frequented by the top 3% who face those tax increases. The wealthy don't put the most money into the economy. General consumers do. As far as taxation and the economy go, it seems to make more sense to put more money into the pockets of 87% of the nation to be spent on the economy, rather than just 3%.<BR/><BR/>However, conservative economics generally view the flow of money in the nation using a top-down approach. Additional economic flexibility for the wealthy should, in their view, translate to additional opportunities for those the wealthy employ. To keep things simple, I'll lump large corporations in when I say "wealthy". The problem is, and we saw this during the Reagan administration, this trickle down approach really didn't trickle as far as was needed. Additional economic flexibility groups with limited economic controls caused many to be without much opportunity at all. The theory is good. However, corporate and individual greed often blocked the flow of money, and opportunity, to those who needed it most.<BR/><BR/>When talking about the wealthy and taxes, we should keep in mind that the wealthy know how to, and have the resources to, protect their money via a complex tax code. For example, Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, paid only 17.7% on $46 Million he made in 2006 while his secretary paid 30% of the $60,000 she made in the same year. Buffet favors the wealthy paying a larger share in taxes than those who make less. In fact, he believes it is the patriotic responsibility of the well off to pay more. He says, "If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."<BR/><BR/>I actually am in agreement about a flat tax system. I don't think the tax code should be any more complex than a 1 printed page, double spaced, 12 point font, document. Eliminate the complexities, and institute fair a tax policy based on the shifting needs of the nation. However, until this happens, I favor a more liberal view of taxation.<BR/><BR/>I am also tired of those who choose to be poor and expect the government to provide for them. There is definitely a culture of entitlement which socially denies opportunities for each generation in those cultures to rise above poverty and welfare. I also feel very strongly that welfare is necessary. The problem isn't welfare itself, it's the lack of responsibility placed upon the shoulders of those requiring welfare to rise above that need. Welfare should be more robust. Job training should be required, job placement procedures should be in place. Welfare should be a hand up and not a hand out. I highly recommend reading Rudy Giuliani's book "Leadership". He explains the changes he made to the NYC welfare system, and the positive outcomes of those changes. <BR/><BR/>Poverty doesn't just affect the poor. It touches the lives of everyone in one degree or another. Poverty without the safety nets we have in place will cause your life to be less enjoyable. People without homes will sleep on your streets. People without food will beg on your corners. People desperate to survive will break into your homes and your places of business. Those in need cannot be swept under a rug and forgotten about. Let's also remember those who are affected by poverty, not by their choices, but the choices of others. Children are innocent victims in this. If nothing else, a robust welfare system should focus on giving those children every possible opportunity to succeed and be good citizens.<BR/><BR/>I can't pretend to understand the difficulties families have when trying to provide for their needs. I'm single. I have a decent job with good benefits. For so many of our fellow citizens, this is not the case. Just providing housing and food for themselves and their families is an ongoing struggle. Any attempt to pay hundreds of dollars a month to provide health insurance for their families is only a dream for so many.<BR/><BR/>As I've said before, I am willing to sacrifice a bit more in order to help those who are in need. However, I also want there to be accountability for those who accept such help and programs available to ensure that they are not "in need" forever.<BR/><BR/>PALIN & HER RELIGIOUS WAR<BR/><BR/>Obama's associations with questionable people can, and should be questioned. In one way or another, there are justifications for some of those associations. Nothing has ever been found of Obama's agreement with their actions, ideologies, or beliefs. While Obama's church membership has been the most questionable, I'm not convinced he approved of the more radical preaching of Wright.<BR/><BR/>Palin believing that the war in Iraq is part of God's plan is not really a concern for me. How many people accept that events as they are must be within God's plan because they refuse to believe otherwise? It's a comforting statement, especially when things go wrong. Believing that the war in Iraq is part of God's plan is not the issue. The issue is with Palin believing that the war is a "task" from God, as if the course of action was revealed to President Bush. These kinds of statements are dangerous on many levels.<BR/><BR/>Palin's beliefs don't just instruct her ideas on the war in Iraq. They lead her push for the teaching of Creationism in public classrooms. Her conservatism, no doubt fueled by her religious leanings, causes her to deny global warming. Science doesn't seem to have a place in her ideology, making it highly double that she would be effective in an administration that must combat issues relating to global warming.<BR/><BR/>Obama has never condoned or contributed to the questionable actions or rhetoric of those associated with him. Palin not only condones the actions of Bush, which included a scheme to use the emotions of 9/11 along with faulty intelligence information to push for a war in a nation that was not directly connected to the attacks on our soil, but believes Bush was led by God to do so. There is a difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com