A budget story

This feels a bit like beating a dead horse, but people still don't seem to get it. So I hope this will set them straight.

A family finds out that one of them is going to lose their job. They have poor credit so they cannot ask for more. They outline what they spend each month, and discover that rent accounts for 40% of their budget.
They decide that making little cuts here and there. Such as downsizing their cable and cell phone plans, will not save them very much. So the father decides to stop paying rent. The whole family agrees, without rent they have way more money in their wallets.
Three months later the landlord has finished the eviction process, the family is out on the street.
They did indeed save in the short term, but now they have no idea how to get out of the trouble they are in. Without a home the other members lose their jobs and health benefits.

This sounds ridiculous right?
Yet this is exactly what the Republican party wants us to do. When this family stopped paying rent they negatively affected people who were depending on them. Without the rent their landlord could not pay his mortgage. They saved themselves money for awhile, but did so at great cost to other people who counted on them. I think we can all agree that the actions of this family were rash, selfish, and irresponsible.

Making many small cuts in non essential programs will make a difference. Don't let pundits fool you into believing it won't. The damage done by ending, or severely slashing essential programs will be severe and long lasting. It is the middle class that build this economy. It is middle class and lower class Americans that spend the money they earn. Those receiving the tax breaks are the same people who are sending their money, and our jobs over seas.

Bush tax cuts part II

The house just passed a resolution that would extend the Bush tax cuts to those making under $250,000, but would let the cuts expire for those making over that amount.When this goes to the senate it will fail because it has no republican support. Some of what I write here may sound familiar if you read my "Work" post from the other blog.
When George Bush implemented these tax cuts we were told that the money saved by the rich would be put back into the economy. That did not happen, what did happen was that jobs were sent overseas and the rich got richer while we slowly started to decline. What is so frustrating to me is that Republicans who complain about the deficit are shutting down a quick and fair way to put money back into the government. When the stock market tanked people were fired so that CEO's could keep their benefits. There are people who have been looking for work for two years, and yet we are supposed to feel sorry for those who put them in the unemployment line.
We have no way of knowing that extension of these tax cuts will do anything positive for the economy. We do however know for a fact that letting the tax cuts expire will provide the government much needed money.
It's simple psychology, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We have seen this since Reagan was president, the rich get tax breaks that they are supposed to pass down to the rest of us, they never do, they keep that money as pure profit.
The only group of people who are making money in this rescission are those in the upper income. What this means is, that republicans want to reward those who got us here in the first place. John Boener whined about the injustice of making people pay their fair share. He said letting tax cuts for the rich return to normal levels was "chicken crap" . Really John? You know what I think is chicken crap, the fact that I lost my job so that one guy could make money in a recession.
You know what else is chicken crap Mr. Boener? The fact that employers refuse to make cheap or even free accommodations so that they can hire disabled employees.
but I digress
If you want to know what these people will do with the extra money look at what they are doing with it now. In my community there is a group of wealthy property owners who are buying up multi family units and renting them out. They have the money because of the cheap taxes they pay. They move from one town to the next getting these units ready to rent, in some cases they are building their own units. Usually building projects like this generate about jobs, but not in this case. In order to maximize profits this group is using the same 30 people for every job. They are also not doing maintenance on the properties they own so they are not contributing to the local economy by the purchase of goods and services. These are the people you want to reward? These parasites that drain us dry and walk away wealthy?
I say hell no! It is time they paid into the system like everyone else.

Bush tax cuts

Well this is the big topic right now, it is something that I am very happy to address.
First it is important to understand that in 2000 President Bush wanted to extend tax breaks to those in the top two percent of income earners in the U.S. He had a majority in the house and senate, but it wasn't a "super majority", so the bill was debated. It was not agreed on so had to go to reconciliation. Incidentally, when Obama used reconciliation it was ominously called the "nuke option". Anyway if a bill that will raise the deficit is passed this way, it must include what is called a sunset clause. This clause is just what it sounds like, a time when the bill will risk fading away. Anything that will increase the deficit and is not agreed on must "set" after ten years.
Well ten years have passed and the law is set to expire. The problem is that the Republican party does not want it to expire. That is fine, these things happen. The problem is that they are telling us that the President is going to raise taxes. That is simply not the case, some bills need to expire our government has done it before.
Well it is an election year, a very important one, so just make sure you understand the fact behind the talk.