I realize I’m coming to this a couple days late, but does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not understand the irony of calling for “shared sacrifice” (by way of higher taxes on ‘the rich’) in a Nation wherein one percent of the population covers nearly half of the entire income tax bill, and one tenth pays about three-quarters of it?
For that matter, all this talk of reaching a “deal” between the Republicans in the House and the ever-absent leading-from-the-rear Administration seems to me to be pretty overly done: I always thought the “deal” was that the president would be given the authority to continue to spend money we don’t have and cannot afford in exchange for, well, simply spending less of it. What am I missing? And why should that deal be so hard for him and the likes of Reid to accept?
Wouldn’t it be nice if the concept of “sacrifice” extended to those in Washington for whom the ultimate sacrifice would be to not spend other peoples’ money?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
UPDATE (from Dan): Nick, good points. Do wonder if Reid will ask public employee unions to share in the sacrifice. And while we’re at it, what about White House staffers?
Let the federal government default or better yet, go into bankruptsy. This is the only way to get back to a “reality based” economy in this country. The government has so convoluted/distorted our economy with it’s ill concieved policies that bankruptsy is the only way to fix it.
BTW, the Bush tax cuts were for the benefit of EVERYONE WHO ACTUALLY PAYS TAXES not just the “rich”!!!
Why does “shared sacrifice” never seem to apply to social security and medicare recipients? They never seem to be asked to give up even a little bit.
Also, Obama’s claim that the White House staff has had its pay frozen for two years turns out to be a big fat lie.
Yes. Our political class views the economy, i.e. the People, as a thing to be squeezed. It’s at the State level, too: all those public employee unions in full meltdown mode because, for once, with the various State budget crises, they might not get their way.
“Shared sacrifice” is not going to do very well in the current context of stagflation & Obama’s $14 trillion debt; people are in no mood for “shared sacrifice” which is Democrat code for tax increases. Obama’s continuous calls for higher taxes will not work. How well did it work for Presidential candidate, Walter Mondale in 1984? He won one state, Minnesota. Obama has been repeating this Mondale Moment for months & it has not helped him. He’s a fool.
“Shared sacrifice” is the easy way out for the gutless pols. All sacrifice should be targeted with uniformed sedvices the last to be touched, all non essential spending should be eliminated first. Force these pols to go on recored so taxpayers can know who they need to vote out the next election.
The classic example of Obama Party mentality: putting tax cheat Claire McCaskill up to whine about tax breaks and call for “shared sacrifice”.
The Obama Party is the party of the terminally stupid, and it shows. For years they have been chasing the lowest common denominator, and they’ve nearly reached the bottom. Functional and business illiterates like Levi and Counterfail are the only people they have left to support them.
Sharing means, people who work hard must share with the government so it can decide how to play with their hard earned money.
When is Obama, one of those millionaires and billionaires he blames for all of our problems, going to pay more of HIS fair share….and Reid and Pelosi and Clinton etc.
He’s completely nelgectied the “shared” part of “shared sacrifice”. If it’s truly to be a “shared sacrifice” that means that EVERYONE must contribute something, which EVERYONE should be doing anyways. We can bicker over the amounts everyone should contribute but taking 30% off the table is a joke.
Libs never phrase demands for higher taxes in a way that explains how it will benefit the common man. It’s all about attacking and punishing “the rich” (ie. anybody with an income).