Maybe I can help the no tax party on how all of this shit works. We all have bills to pay for those things we need. We earn money to pay those bills, in the case of an individual that person has a job or other source of income. Hopefully that income is greater than the amount needed to service the debts and the costs of living. When an individual loses income that makes servicing debts impossible. In that case the individual must have more income to become self sustaining. So, less income means a need to increase income or lower your standard of living if no income is available, fairly simple?
So it is too with the nation, income fails to meet the needs then income must rise. the nations income is not raised by jobs though it is raised by taxes. In 2000 our nation had a ten trillion dollar surplus, many in government saw this as an ideal time to reduce taxes ostensibly to stimulate growth in the private sector. Sadly in less than one year, the attacks on the U.S. happened and the need for income in the nation increased in order to pay for our response. Still with me? Instead of ending the tax cuts and increasing income as we spent more and more on the military needs, we not only kept on with lowered taxes but lowered them even more. So, we had greater expenditures and less income.
Here's the tricky part, the government in its infinite wisdom looked at the numbers and panicked. The wars started to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks were bleeding the nations bank account dry and if added to the budget the numbers would plainly show the need for at least a return to the previous administrations tax rates. Unfortunately, the majority party in congress was too beholden to wealthy and powerful entities to face the negative response from returning too those taxes they had heralded as being so wonderful by virtue of how the economy would grow and prosper since the entities would now spend more on increasing their output, putting more people to work and increasing income by adding numbers to the tax roles and keeping rates low.
It didn't take long to see that the effects were somewhat less than accurately predicted. Upper level incomes and holdings grew but there was no corresponding increase in wages or workers. The tax savings were parked off shore in tax havens. So in order to save face, congress decided to keep the stupendously expensive wars "off the books" this allowed them to try and hide or deny the looming disaster. They figured (and now these words are my opinions and assumptions) We will lose the 2008 election and we should be able to drop the consequences for what we've done into the lap of a likely democratic president.
Once again these men miscalculated since the chickens came home to roost before their man could leave office. Still the disaster fell into the hands of the incoming president. Their free spending ways were exacerbated by the billions tossed to banks to keep them afloat all with no oversight to speak of. That has not stopped them from trying to associate the blame for this additional waste of funds on the man who did not sign the bill that passed it out like a reward for almost destroying the worlds economies just as thoroughly as our own.
So, Mr. Speaker, Senator McConnell, you have a point, spending is the problem, but you oversimplify it by implying that it is spending on social problem that gutted our economy. You fellows and the way you refused to admit the truth about tax cuts along with deliberate duplicity used to hide the true cost of the war of aggression in Iraq. That is the spending that put us here, not health care, not SNAP, not Social Security or Medicare. The combined cost of all of these programs amounts to less than six months of war in Iraq.
When you tell Americans that it is the fault of children, the disabled, and the elderly you lie. I know that lying is your go to defense for everything, having witnessed the last election cycle, but the time is over, trickle down is a lie. When the wealth is held by a few they do not spend it on the nation, they hide it and hold it like a medieval miser. So fellows, it is time to be men and face the music, admit that you have failed and that the economy and the nation must have more to function. Sure, there must be spending cuts as well as tax increases in the brackets that can afford them but, why must it be cuts made on those few things that help those people in need and not corporate subsidies or inheritance taxes or luxury taxes? Do you fellows think that it is okay for a poor person to go sick and hungry and live on the streets instead of making Joe Millionaire forego a vacation home or Rolls or two?