Seems like one politician after another is always saying that we need to “have a national conversation about (fill in the blank).” Well I have an idea for a topic. It begins with asking people one simple question:
“Who should pay for your retirement: you or someone else?”
The answers Americans give to that question will tell us whether or not the U.S. has any hope of surviving the leftist coup d’état that is presently in play. But of course, no one on the national stage is going to ask that question. God forbid we should have a national discussion that begins by first establishing a set of principles that we agree – or insist – upon.
I'm sorry to say it but Obama and the democrats have already won the day on the payroll tax debate. That’s because they have managed to steer the conversation completely away from the real principle at stake (should people be expected to save for and fund their own retirements?), and instead have made this a debate about whether or not the middle and lower classes can “afford” to have their taxes raised at this time and who is better able to afford a tax increase: the wealthy or the not-wealthy. As is always the case, republicans (with the exception, perhaps, of Michelle Bachmann) have fallen blindly into the democrat’s trap. They’ve said that they are willing to work with Obama on extending the payroll tax cut so long as it’s “paid for.” The baby step we took towards socialism by allowing the payroll tax cut in the first place has now become a giant leap, because a luxury once sampled becomes a necessity. People now feel entitled to that tax cut, even though the obligation that was being funded – their future retirement benefit – didn’t go away. And now they are being encouraged to believe that someone else should pay for it, whether it be the wealthy who pay higher taxes or whether it’s “paid for” in some other way. No matter how it’s done in the end it will be another wealth transfer made permanent. Touché, Mr. Obama.
There was only one way to save the day, and that was for influential republicans (like the presidential candidates, John Boehner, Paul Ryan or even Rush Limbaugh), to make this a fight about principle by asking people for an honest answer to the question:
“Who should pay for your retirement: you or someone else?”
CW,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for stopping by my site. I should let you know that I have not been able to figure out how to post a comment on my blogspot site. I can post comments on other sites, but not my own - I get an error. You think an engineer would be able to figure out what is wrong - not this one - I am stumped.
In any event, good post. I have never understood why people think they deserve the wealth earned by others. Especially unproductive people wanting the money from productive people. I really do not think our grandparents thought this way, I wonder what happened over the last 50 to 80 years that we think it is okay for us to accept money that was earned by others - and do it with no shame.
Hi Patrick,
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear you can’t comment at your Blogspot site. I’ll comment at TH until you get that resolved.
I think in the past 50 to 80 years we’ve seen the influence of liberalism being spread and this explains the changing mindset. It doesn’t bode well for us.
Your thesis, CW, is spot-on as always. Some lines therein are just fabulous. So well-said that my head was bobbing.
ReplyDeleteWell! Thank you very much, drpete. You are too kind!
ReplyDeleteMan I already pay enough! What is really criminal about this is that the liberals lie about tax hikes, the media backs them and most Republicans think its bad politics to call them on it. WHen they say "Raise the taxes on the rich" they really mean "Raise the taxes on the upper middle class, i.e. the job creators". The rich (the real rich, billionaires, etc) they don't get effected by tax increases, at least not the way we think of it. They shelter so much of their income that such a small amount is taxed and even if the tax goes up on that small amount, it's a fraction of what it is for a small business owner would have to pay.
ReplyDeleteSo if you've wondered why the uber rich have been behind raisin taxes, it's simple: it destroys the class of people they otherwise would have to compete with in the future and weakens their power.
Welcome to the Democrat party, the party of the rich!
Jim!!!
ReplyDeleteSo glad to hear from you! It’s been a long time.
Yes, I’m sure you pay more than your “fair share” of taxes and you’ll be paying a great deal more if Obama gets his way and convinces people that they are entitled to receive Social Security but not obligated to pay into it. The money is going to have to come from somewhere, this is what we will be told. And you’re right. Republicans continually fail to call the democrats on their lies. In that sense they aid and abet the enemy.
Merry Christmas to you, your family and friends, CW!
ReplyDeleteI for one am hoping that next week I can begin blogging in earnest again.
Like everyone else I look forward to having you back, Mrs. AL.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas!
HAPPY NEW YEAR (hopefully tic), CW. When you going to post a new one? I am able to check for new posts more often now.
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you too, Mrs. AL. Hope 2012 is good to you and yours.
ReplyDeleteThe problem for the GOP, as usual, is that they pretty much suck at framing the terms of the debate.
ReplyDeleteSomehow or another, the end of a TEMPORARY tax decrease becomes a tax INCREASE.
They also fail to point out that by temporarily lowering the payroll tax, the left is further bankrupting Social Security, which is exactly where those particular taxes go.
I mean... that argument seems to me to be pretty much a no-brainer.
As I so often say, the Perpetually Stupid Party.
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by! You hit the nail on the head: The GOP sucks at framing the debate.
The Left knows this and they take full advantage. It’s how they always manage to move their agenda forward despite the fact that we are a right-of-center country at heart.
I could be wrong but I’m not getting the impression that people – even many conservatives – understand the implications of what occurred here. This is a set up by the Left. First they change the name of the taxes in question from the Social Security taxes to “payroll taxes.” Then they give folks a “holiday” from those taxes. Then they make people angry about having to start paying them again, all the while knowing full well that the obligation must eventually be funded. The next logical step is to suggest that “the rich” start paying their “fair share.” In other words, “the rich” are being set up to have to finance the retirements of the non-rich. Karl Marx would be proud.
Yup!
ReplyDeleteWell said!