Rasmussen Reports just came out with a poll showing that only 29% of people think that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit. A huge majority of Americans get what the CBO, and Nancy Pelosi seem unable to understand: adding another trillion dollars (estimated conservatively) to the Federal budget increases the deficit, regardless of how many times we double count "savings" from Medicare. The tax increases in the bill aren't going to bring in as much in revenue estimated either. Tax increases usually equal lesser federal revenues, while lower taxes usually equal higher tax revenues. Just look at the JFK, Reagan, and Bush '43 tax cuts. Tax revenues increased after each tax cut.
Here's to hoping for a repeal of Obamacare.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Anger is a feeling, not a crime.
Although the president referred to his political opponents as enemies requiring punishment, it appears that he has turned a new leaf calling for us to remove anger from our political discourse. That begs the question, "Is there a case for political anger?"
First of all, anger is not violence. What Loughner did was horrific, but it was an action, and not a feeling. (And since when are we supposed to be legally judged on our feelings?) Anger is a feeling, which in this case means that people feel strongly about what is going on in government. Most people are fed up with the actions taken by the Obama Administration (e.g. the Food Safety Bill, Obamacare
, TARP, forced selling of Chrysler and GM, the offshore Oil drilling ban, EPA regulation of CO2 etc.)and their willing accomplices in Congress. Most people who feel like this (over half of the country) have spoken up, voted, and tried to stop the Federal government from doing similar things. Will getting rid of this "anger" help political discourse?
Probably not.
(read more...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)