Now, before we go any further with this assault on average American citizens, let's not forget we are in this house of cards situation not because of the average citizen. The average citizen received not a single penny of the TARP or any other "tricks or treats" to mega-corporations who, for the most part, gambled with money they didn't have and lost, thus those who chastise "socialism" came to the public trough forcing our nation into what in reality is bankruptcy for a handout. The reason they were given the money was because they were termed as "Too Big To Fail." That brings a questions; "If they were too big to fail, how come they failed?" I know, the reasoning was we could not allow them to collapse as it would bring our country down. If what they did could bring down our nation why is that not regarded as an act of terror? Why is it anything less than a plane hitting the World Trade Center?
We now know they will not have to atone for their crimes. Instead the 98% of the innocent people will pick up the pieces by suffering financially and emotionally as the first round of TARP given to these criminals was staggering. To put it in some realm of perspective, I am 68 years old, if I had paid them a $Billion every second of my life here on earth, they would have received only $2,172,207,600.00, far short of what they received. In fact, far less than the bonuses these criminals took AFTER they received the government handouts.
But I digress. The average citizen will experience a raise in their taxes as a result of this commission after they no longer have the deductions they presently have.
Next, this commission
proposes lowering taxes for everybody, including those who just raped the
taxpayer and received bonuses as a result. First, the proposal to lower taxes,
or revenue coming in to the government, in the face of financial collapse is
ludicrous. Why is this any different from a wage earner who loses their job
going out and purchasing a new Mercedes, a yacht, and a new estate? Their income is lowered so they raise their
expenditures. In the case of the
government, during the Bush era, we rose our expenditures through two bogus
wars while lowering the taxes on the upper wealth earners, thus bringing in fewer
dollars. I know, the tale about how
these cuts create jobs, but, unfortunately, these are but tales. In the eight
years of the Bush/Cheney debacle we actually saw the most meager rise in new
jobs, approximately 3 million as opposed to the Clinton era of approximately
twenty-two million, but we saw millions of jobs actually leaving our nation,
thus we not only lost those jobs, but the tax revenues those lost job earners
would have brought to our treasury.
Also, of note, is the rewards of moving these jobs off shore can be noted that most every time a corporation announced massive firings their stock price would go up on Wall Street. As those stock prices rose so did the value of the stock options held by the top executives of those corporations. With incentives like that is it any wonder why millions of jobs evaporated here and top executive wealth expanded and the government played their part by making certain these top executives had their tax burden lowered drastically.
So, the lowering of taxes across the board simply makes no sense whatsoever in terms of reducing our deficit.
Making the research and
development tax credit permanent may be beneficial, but somehow I feel this is
a loser as well, or at least yet another gift to the mega-corporations. Among
the loss of jobs to foreign countries is not just the immediate impact of lack
of jobs here in our country, but the future as these foreign countries are the
ones where the innovations are coming from when they once were a trademark of
the United States.
This the case, I find it suicidal to our very existence, at least if we intend to have others believe we are an industrial nation, if we are not on the fore-front of innovation. Hence, this proposal of making research and development tax credits permanent is a good one only if that research is done here in the United States on our soil, not through some mega-corporation where the innovation and development is being done on foreign soil. This has absolutely no financial significance to our nation whatsoever, therefore should not be "rewarded' in any way.
Medicare. This has been
a target of those who basically don't need it for a long time, probably since
its inception. Cutting any portion of
this program, would be a horrendous attack on those Americans who have not only
paid into it their entire working lives and continue to pay premiums, it would be forcing them into a deeper
financial predicament primarily due to their diminished ability to increase
their income, especially in the face of having lost as a result of the
financial criminals who gambled away their money. They have been robbed once,
maybe twice as a great number of these same people were robbed in the S & L
scandal back in the Daddy Bush days. (Hmmm first the S&L scandal during
Daddy Bush and now this during Baby Bush" coincidence? Just asking).
But this commission feels they haven't been fleeced enough in their lifetime, so let's cut their health care. We have to get away from this "socialism' - unless it is the mega-financial crooks who are in need.
It appears our government is moving toward making it ever more difficult for the elderly who depend by making cuts in their health care at a point in time when their life savings have been dissolved by the financial criminals and they have little or no ability to make up for those losses while items necessary for living continue to increase in price.
To make matters worse the prime target, and main income for most seniors, Social Security, finally appears to be within the grasp of those who abhorred it since its beginning. The "experts" on the Deficit Commission with great pleasure, it appeared, came up with their proposal of raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 by 2075. First, who are they kidding, 2075! What kind of hoax is that? It is so far removed from the present day that it will affect only those who are four years old today and those yet to be born. Hence, that proposal is meaningless.
Regardless that 2075 is
such a long way off the idea of raising the retirement age is ludicrous,
especially when making such a proposal in today's world where unemployment is
in the double digit percentages.
In looking at the employment picture one, with
common sense and any resemblance to intelligence, would actually lower, not
raise, the retirement age, primarily for two specific reasons; 1) lowering the
age would free up additional jobs for those entering the labor force; and, 2) raising
the age might create the same situation we presently have, only it would force
the laid off "aging' ex-worker to have to wait longer to receive their
retirement insurance, thus putting them in
a position for having to have their home foreclosed on, or worse, as
they would be without health insurance during those years in life when it is
most needed.
Yes, I know, they can get another job, except not many employers are willing to hire "older" workers. I know, they can't discriminate because of age. Tell that to the regulators, who most likely have been laid off due to the 10% reduction in the government labor force.
However, what they followed with is very meaningful as they propose reducing the cost-of-living increases, which have been frozen the past two years, that are presently based on annual inflation rates. In other words the older our senior become, the further they will fall into financial hardship as their income will be designed to not keep up with inflation. They also proposed raising the payroll tax ceiling to $200,000 while still letting those million dollar earners off the hook.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
