The VP
Debate
I thought VP
Joe Biden was more successful last night in getting his points across than Congressman
Paul Ryan. There are some very strong
arguments that favor the Republicans that they never seem to make. One is that they continuously let the
Democrats get away with saying that President Obama’s inheritance of an
economy in shambles was one that he got from President Bush.
For the last
two years of the Bush Administration the purse strings were fully in control of
the Democrats. A veto-proof Democrat Congress
was seated in January of 2007 as a result of the 2006 elections. That election turned on peoples’ weariness
with the Mideast war, not the economy.
People tired of hearing about sons, fathers, brothers and sisters dying
and being maimed in a war that looked like it would never end. In January of 2007 the unemployment rate was
4.6%. People were working AND PAYING TAXES. That’s where the revenue comes from – not
from raising the taxes that puts a dampener on business. Fifty four months of economic growth would
soon be coming to an end with the seating of that Congress. But the real dampener to the economy – and the
only one beside me that I ever heard mention it was Glenn Beck – was when OPEC
declared economic war on us in 2008 and gradually raised the price of their
crude oil to $147.00 a barrel. Gasoline
and all fuel prices soared. It
particularly stressed the transportation industries and every household and
made it very difficult for people to manage the family budget and keep up with
the mortgage payments on their houses.
Speaking of
mortgage payment crisis, check out this link:
When the
Bush tax cuts expire on January first they will weigh even more heavily on an already
suffocating business environment burdened with overwhelming regulation and
taxes. And if the nationalized
health care law is not repealed and replaced by something more sensible it could
be the coup de grace that would be the deathnell of the Republic.
There ought
to be a system the taxpayers could be asked to pay for for those who cannot afford
health insurance that really need it and leave the 85% alone who have been able
to pay and have been satisfied with the programs they have had. Of the fifteen percent that have not had
insurance, only a portion of that percentage really needed it and couldn’t
afford the cost of it. That group
included well-to-do people who chose to pay as needed and a category of healthy
young adults that chose to take the gamble that not paying a yearly premium
would be the better part of the gamble. This
group was choosing that over a ten or twelve year period of not paying premiums
that paying for whatever medical expenses they’d have would be less costly than
the insurance premiums. It’s called “liberty,”
the choice to take the gamble whichever way they wanted.
A young businessman
friend of mine, who has about six people in his employ, is already thinking
about shutting the business down and taking advantage of accepting a position
open to him with a larger company. How
many other small businessmen/women are there that are thinking the same
thing??? This does not help lower the
unemployment rate.
There’s a
lot of talk that the inheritance tax will be renewed or is under consideration
to be renewed with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January. I have one example in my memory book of why
this 55% confiscation of a family’s business is so devastating to the economy. When the tax was in play years ago, Wheatley Stables,
a famous horse racing farm, had to sell off their property and whatever they
had of their business to pay the taxes. Thanks
to the inheritance tax, employed people who were paying income tax on their
earnings were now collecting unemployment insurance from the government and
less money was in circulation by people who could afford to buy things. So where was the benefit of the inheritance
tax? And how many other businesses went
under and had the same effect as what happened when Wheatley Stables went out
of business?
No comments:
Post a Comment