Do Republicans in Congress pledge allegiance to the flag or the wealthy?
 |
| Warren Buffett, the billionaire who has a lower tax rate than his secretary. And who invested 5 billion in Bank of America. |
The guest on the show clarified where that 47% originated. According to him that number represents the percentage of people who do not pay FEDERAL income taxes. However, they do pay payroll taxes, which means they contribute to things like medicare and social security. They also pay state taxes, and the less affluent a person is, the more state taxes they pay. (See: Tax Winners and Losers Under Obama Plan)
So perception vs reality. The caller felt like HE was being asked to cover more than his fair share. Beyond that he felt like other people were living on his tax money and not contributing. The funny thing is, he didn't see that as being the case for those people a corporations who pay a lower tax rate than people who are middle income.
The tax rates are lower than they have been in something like 50-60 years. Beyond that the tax cuts President Bush instituted and President Obama allowed to continue have had no impact on creating jobs. Under President Bush the number of jobs created was the lowest in decades of administrations.
Apparently the Republicans signed a pledge of allegiance to a guy named Grover Norquist to never raise any new taxes. What part of the Constitution is that under? Wouldn't that be considered treason? I mean you're supposed to uphold the Consitution and the flag, but you're pledging allegiance to something other than that?
But people don't believe that. Why? Because that is not the perception they have. They perceive things as they are given to them to be perceived. Take for instance the CNN-Tea Party debate from the other week. During a lively exchange Newt Gingrich said "I want to shrink government to fit income, not raise income to try to catch up with government." (Source: CNN-Tea Party Debate Transcript)
And the audience cheered. I was dumbfounded! I'm sure all they heard was "smaller government."
Who wouldn't want an income increase? Congress gives themselves raises all of the time. And I'm sure those politicians vying for the presidency like to see their incomes increase as well. So basically what does a smaller government have to do with you having less oney in your pockets? I want a raise...shoot...who doesn't?
Then there was this gem today where Tea Party Representative John Fleming, R-Louisiana, who made 6.3 million last year bemoaned his paltry net income after feeding his children and reinvesting in his business. You will not believe this:
This guy really said he'd only have $400,000.00 left over, after $6.3 million earned. And spoke about it as though it was not a lot of money... Huh? Since you're getting all of this money right now... how many jobs have you created? You have a low tax rate, the unemployment numbers in Louisiana better be pretty darn low!
Of course he went into the talking points. These folks hypnotize people into believing wealthy people will struggle if they go back to the tax rates under President Clinton...SMH... But they want to cut funding everywhere and shut down the Department of Education.
It seems to me that this championing of "smaller government" is no more than a ploy to recreate serfdoms, fiefdoms and servant classes to become ruled by those poor wealthy people... SMH
And you're voting for that? It makes no sense to me! Seems to me the only tea their concerned with comes with caviar instead of crumpets...
Comments