addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The New York Conservatives Meetup Group Message Board › The Looming Sequester

The Looming Sequester

Doug & N.
RosePedals
Jackson Heights, NY
Post #: 81
As a fiscally conservative Libertarian, I am infuriated that Obama is making it look like he's reaching out to the Republicans, but rather than compromising, he is setting up the Republicans for a fall that will be bruising to hardworking, middle class Americans. The retirees will be fine (a point which I will address later), but the middle class will get poorer, and the poor will have even less opportunity to climb out of poverty.

Cuts are needed in our US government spending budget in order to prevent national economic collapse, like what happened in Greece. Our national deficit is currently over $900 Billion and our debt is over $16.5 Trillion and counting! But instead of compromising by prioritizing these cuts, Obama set up this "sequester" so that unless Republicans agree to revenue increases, i.e., higher taxes on the wealthy along with spending cuts, all the people will suffer with many more cuts to their programs and paychecks across the board. This is intended to show the public what happens if programs are cut. In other words, pinch the middle class where it hurts most so they will vilify Republicans for failing to compromise. Obama says this doesn’t have to happen, yet he insists that his budgetary cuts should be paired with raising taxes on “the rich,” which Republicans hope to prevent.

Taxing the rich sounds like a good idea, but one can’t be a job creator without money to spend on employees. The government has jobs, but does not create them, in fact, government jobs will be cut by this sequester as well. So asking the rich to pay more means the rich will hire less and unemployment will continue to rise. That means more people with less work and more debt and poverty.

Americans were always known to be the most generous people in the world. But poverty will produce less generosity and less good will to fund the charities of choice. So what’s better, government funding for scientific research and other great programs, or an entire country full of poor people, who were once a part of the middle class, and who now can’t afford to pay their debts no less donate to their cause?

According to the US Federal Government Spending Pie Chart, Medicare (Healthcare) is 24% of the budget, and Social Security (Pensions) is 23% of the budget. That’s almost HALF the budget right there, while the politicians are fighting over how to cut from only 53% of the remaining budget. To repeat: Our national deficit is currently over $900 Billion and our debt is over $16.5 Trillion and counting! Isn’t it time we address the federal funds that retired Baby Boomers have contributed to their retirement? How sweet that the devastating sequester will not affect them.

If Obama wants to tax the rich, why not just give rich retirees less Social Security money rather than taxing the “rich” younger working people? Republicans should stop pandering to votes and boldly address this concept when they say they want to “prioritize” cuts. Retirees are generally not job creators, with the exception of their personal healthcare expenses. What’s the difference between prioritizing cuts and not raising taxes on one hand, or allowing cuts across the board and increasing taxes on the other? To my mind that sounds like saying, “Six of one, half dozen of the other.”

There is a good reason why our two party systems can't agree on topics of spending and cutting. It's called philosophy. Each party follows an opposite philosophy (liberalism on the left vs. conservatism on the right) and as a result, nothing gets done. How can you compromise with your opposite if it means violating your principles?

Thanks for your time reading. But for one more point: Take a look around the world and ask yourself, would you rather live in a country with more rich people, or more poor people? I love America and I wish it were financially strong for the benefit of everyone.

© Natasha Rose
February, 2013



Source: http://www.usgovernme...­
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy