I'd like to point out a paragraph in particular.
For example, I am a bleeding heart liberal. If an unfortunate looking soul solicits me, I will do almost anything they ask. My wife often remarks that I must have a glow that only grifters can see. At the gas station, when I have parked my electric-only golf-cart sized car to run in and get some chai or tofu, I am often approached by someone with a hard luck story asking if they can have a dollar or two for gas so they can get home to their babies, or back to work, or whatever. More often than not I fill their tank. When the local church - not mine, I am not religious - had storm damage and needed donations for a new roof I split my emergency fund and donated timbers I had obtained for a DIY project.I can see where the average liberal is a good person, even if he is only a fraction as giving as the author above. I can appreciate their stated goals of helping the poor and disadvantaged.
We should be able to civilly debate how to go about achieving the goals of improving the lives of everyone. We don't civilly debate. For example: I've been called things like "arrogant" and "a racist" by liberals in person and never by non-liberals. And anyone who has read my comment debates from the Huffigton Post knows that most of the liberals there seem to be incapable of disagreeing without using name calling and insults. We can find evidence of union violence everywhere. Etc.
All that aside, one thing that we should not be debating is having a balanced budget. It is inconceivable to me how we have gone only 8 years since 1950 with a balanced budget (table 1.1). That is outright incompetence from both parties. Why has this been acceptable to anyone?
I understand that it is difficult for a politician to try and make any changes to entitlements. But in order to balance the budget, entitlements must be changed.
The author of the excerpted email shows us that even though we disagree on what our public policies should be, we can see that our political opponents can be good people.
But we should all agree that the federal budget must be balanced. This should not be a subject for debate. Even if we do things that I don't like (and are contrary to freedom and liberty) we need to balance the budget. Balancing the budget should be the primary focus of our politicians. Why are they wasting everyones' time on other stuff?
Its fine with me if you want to argue for a more progressive country. We can have that debate. But if you want your plan to work, and the country to survive, then propose laws that include balanced budgets.
The debate should be: a progressive vision with a balanced budget or a libertarian or conservative vision with a balanced budget.
Why is the news not full, everyday, with stories pointing out how incompetent our politicians are for being unable to even propose a balanced budget?
In the quoted para., the lib is deciding what to do with the fruit of his own labor. That's his right. And it's very nice that he chooses to share it with persons he deems worthy of his charity.
ReplyDeleteWhat is not, or SHOULD not be, his right is to decide what to do with the fruit of MY labor.
As to balance: the President is trying to "balance" his overwrought spending of the past 5 years on the backs of producer-taxpayers. He's assuming the additional ~$5T to $6T of his new spending INTO his new baseline, up to which NEW spending level he wants to raise the taxes to pay for it all.
We should not "balance" the budget at a level of spending higher than the historical average.
We should not do lots of things. But at this point even a budget that is balanced by raising taxes would be a massive improvement over what we currently have.
Delete