Sunday, October 23, 2011

You want to know what's going to sink America?

An inability to make hard choices. The government needs to make a decision whether it's going to cut away most of our government or raise taxes.

You know, I have had people accusing me of basing my views on being an impoverished student who doesn't have anything to pay taxes on. That really shows me how ignorant it is to cast judgment on people you don't know because I'm actually first in line to feel the consequences of economic trouble. I may be a penniless student myself, but my bread is buttered by a guy who lives on revenue from about a million dollars in investments, which is a lot less money than most people think it is, and whether we can afford certain luxuries or non-essential travel is determined 150% by how well his stocks and bonds are doing and how much interest he's making on his CDs. Like most people, I am not immune to the consequences of economic lag, and I don't consider myself to be so.

Here is a bold claim for you: I think that raising taxes on the country's wealthiest would probably benefit the country's wealthiest--and everyone else--in the long-run. My reason for thinking so comes down to a basic grasp on real-world economics.

When the government is going rapidly into debt, this causes feelings of uncertainty and insecurity in the world's investors. It makes the government look weak and unstable if it can't raise money to pay for anything. On the other hand, if the government were to show that it is still strong enough to pull sufficient revenue to pay down its debts, it would make investors feel a lot less like we're about to go into a full-sail debt crisis. For the economy to move, people need to be willing to put money into the system. When would-be investors are nervous, they sit on their money for as long as they can before parting with it.

This isn't about wanting to "punish the rich people for being wealthy." Try to imagine that there is someone in the world besides socialists, rock-red Republicans, and whatever is "in-between." The reality we all have to deal with is that our economy is going to go down the crapper unless a cork is put in the gaping hole in the federal government's pocket. I'm content for rich people to have as much surplus wealth as they want as long as they don't spend it on making shameful pricks of themselves, like Koch Industries.

Somehow, I am fearful that my countrymen are going to continue trying to repair the economy by going on doing the same stupid nonsense that messed us up in the first place. For example, the fools in our government are probably pondering widening the deregulation in the financial services industry that was started in 1999.

The idea behind deregulating financial services back in 1999 was to encourage investment by making it easier for people to borrow money. It sounded like a good idea, but it was this glamorously retarded borrowing spree that led to the 2008 Wall Street fiasco...you know, the one that we're still trying to bail ourselves out of. It doesn't work. How many times do you have to be kicked in the nuts to realize that it's going to hurt?

Unfortunately, the retarded, brain-dead conservatives in our government seem to think, "oh, if we just made it easier for people to borrow money to start a business, we'll have more investment and more jobs. Ingenious!" What that essentially means is kicking down all of the regulations that we put there in the first place because not having them there was threatening to leave us with the economic development of Western Somalia.

When conservatives complain about regulation, it is a lot like hearing some drivers complain about the speed limit. Now, imagine that a group of angry drivers were to see one too many irresponsible drivers zip by them during their daily commute and decided, "we're tired of feeling all pokey while these law-breakers are driving 20mph faster than us. If we abolished speed limits everywhere, we'd all be able to get to work faster, and it would be good for the economy." They're not taking into account the fact that speed limits are a tried and tested means of preventing deadly accidents. They feel stifled by the speed limits, and in their egocentric thinking the purpose is therefore to stifle them.

When someone tells them it's a bad idea, I hear them saying, "oh, you're just one of those liberals who can't afford a nice sport car, so you want to force everyone to drive slow like you have to anyway. Oh, boo-hoo. Poor you. If you worked hard enough, you could afford to get a good car that goes faster, and you wouldn't feel like you had to punish people who are more worthwhile than you are." Well, this is the same kind of tone that I keep hearing out of conservatives. It is laughable, but this really is how these people think.

If you're not poor, the argument reverses itself. "Oh, you rich liberals can afford to fly around in a private jet. Us honest working people have to drive on the roads, though." These are the kinds of mental gymnastics I see coming out of conservatives on a regular basis. I really think that being conservative should be considered to be a mental illness.

The point is that we can't keep going into debt, and that's all she wrote. I don't really care how the government does it, but somehow a cork needs to be shoved into this hole.

No comments:

Post a Comment