Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WestCobb, you make some good points. The problem is, if we keep this up, we're going to run out of other people's money. You cannot simply keep up the level of spending that we currently have and continue to sustain the zero liability voter. When 47% of all Americans do not contribute federal income taxes, they care very little about how and why their money is spent. Meanwhile, they develop a strong sense of entitlement and resentment towards those who want to scale back those giveaways.
I live in an area right now where most people get more back on their federal income tax returns than what they take in. If they had to pay more, I would argue that it would be the best thing that ever happened to them. They certainly would not be on the streets suffering. If they were, we have plenty of churches around that would take care of the truly less fortunate. But in my own experience, the only thing I've seen when people get the federal income tax break is more beer, cigarettes, cable TV, smartphones, and all the luxuries that they don't truly need.
And the thing is, they don't care about federal spending. The second someone talks about reigning in the size and expenditures of Washington, they throw a tissy fit and yell that Republicans hate poor people. That's ridiculous!
WestCobb, you make some good points. The problem is, if we keep this up, we're going to run out of other people's money. You cannot simply keep up the level of spending that we currently have and continue to sustain the zero liability voter. When 47% of all Americans do not contribute federal income taxes, they care very little about how and why their money is spent. Meanwhile, they develop a strong sense of entitlement and resentment towards those who want to scale back those giveaways.
I live in an area right now where most people get more back on their federal income tax returns than what they take in. If they had to pay more, I would argue that it would be the best thing that ever happened to them. They certainly would not be on the streets suffering. If they were, we have plenty of churches around that would take care of the truly less fortunate. But in my own experience, the only thing I've seen when people get the federal income tax break is more beer, cigarettes, cable TV, smartphones, and all the luxuries that they don't truly need.
And the thing is, they don't care about federal spending. The second someone talks about reigning in the size and expenditures of Washington, they throw a tissy fit and yell that Republicans hate poor people. That's ridiculous!
I agree with you. We have to cut spending. It's a real shame that our politics is conducted like two great rival teams and each side takes delight in p****** on the other. If we had a more civil debate and rational conversation, you'd find plenty of rank-and-file Democrats who would join forces with Tea Partiers to scale back government spending. Anyone who looks at the math sees that is simpy doesn't work. It's kind of hard to join forces with a group of people who complain day in and day out that you're the scourge of humanity though. (I"m sure some conservatives feel the same way only vice versa.)
I guess my main point on this thread is that taxing the poor is an obscene plan that won't fly. I feel like I'm saving Republicans from themselves by pointing out this very obvious fact to them. You can't be the raise-taxes-on-47-percent-of-Americcans party and win elections. It doesn't work.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
