Chris

Yes, I can easily afford my tax burden. Do I think that maybe its not exactly fair? Yes, but I am not sure you could concievably have a tax system that everyone thinks is fair.

Second, I love the derisive way you refer to scare tactics from the Democrats and feel that they think people are dumb, it kind of sums up exactly how the GOP wants you to think, all in one nice little package. I can just see John Boehner patting you on the head for being a good little Republican soldier. Both sides use scare tactics, both sides treat the American public as if they are dumb. And Jamie, you have bought the GOP line hook, line, and sinker if you truly believe that is what this bill is about. I have no doubt that the fight for it was about political power, but that is not what the bill itself is about. You have to be the worst kind of cynical to believe that everyone who participated in this process was only in it for personal gain. It is also the worst kind of lazy to be passing judgment on it without really knowing what is in the bill. And I am betting that you haven’t even made a passing review of it. Prove me wrong Jamie, tell me specific things you have issue with, besides the mandate to participate, we already know how you feel about that.

You guys talk as if the tax burden on you is too much. But by the way you bitch, I am sure any tax would be. Taxes are historically on the low side, and not just as a measure compared to GDP. But why let facts get in the way of the constant bitching…go ahead, bitch away!

(Here’s my reference for where our tax levels are, you know me, always about the facts. And these numbers do hold up, as usual, I follow up with my own calculation, data search etc.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html)

I, for once thought you might have actually had an epiphany, or at least one honest clear thought and all I found was this very detailed piece of sarcasm. As funny as it is, you lump the responsibilities for “sin” or excise taxes on Democrats and liberals, but in 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed the first excise tax on whiskey to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War. He chose this method following Adam Smith’s direction in the Wealth of Nations. These considerations, to tax a luxury item was a belief that Adam Smith held. You can argue that liberals are to blame, but you would be wrong. Both parties use these taxes to try to shape behavior, punish one group for bad behavior, etc. But, as I indicated above, you my friend are a jackass and you just want to poke fun.

And yes, Clinton was a centrist, even in his early campaign speeches while running for his first term, he had a centrist tone.

Matt, not to be too picky, but there is no such word as irregardless, its either regarding (which is what irregardless means) or regardless (which is what I think you meant to say.) Sorry, I couldn’t help it, its the OCD in me that requires the correction. I couldn’t just let it go.

And as far as ‘couldn’t afford it’ the same could have been said for Social Security and Medicare and fighting two wars.

If they are going to take my money for entitlements then:

1. they should protect the entitlement funds from Congressional pilfering. Payouts should only go to those using the entitlements as they were intended, the rest should be reserved in an interest bearing account leaving an additional fund for growth and changing conditions of the population. No more treating it as a Congressional slush fund.

2. give every citizen the right to ‘opt out’. If you choose to not pay in, you get no payout.

I think this would fix a lot of the issues with these entitlements, but that is just me. This would reduce the entitlement base, but would also make people feel better about paying into them, knowing that the money will actually be there when they need it.

Chris

I agree completely. The thing is, there are things we can do right now that are entirely affordable, practically free even! But those fixes would not create any new gov jobs, or transfer any wealth so the current power base has no interest in them. If you look at this from a purely apolitical, business point of view the solution is fairly simple. But that won’t happen either since very few of our elected officials have any concept of how to efficiently run anything.

We can’t afford it. Period. What else needs to be said? Where’s the politicians who will stand up and say (irregardless of ideology,) “We can’t afford this right now.”