13 December 2010

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss???

Wow, has this much time really gone by since I last wrote? Apparently it has, a lot has changed. I'm not in the restaurant biz anymore, got a truck, and the Tea Party movement has grown from a loosely connected coalition to a major force in American politics, leading up to the 2010 midterms.



With that said, the current (lame-duck) Congress is attempting to get two bites of the apple on the American taxpayer. Extend the Bush tax cuts (which are really the current tax rates) and extend unemployment benefits (Up to three years? Really, if I couldn't find a job in three years, I'd be taking a long look in the mirror, just saying.)



I understand this economy is in the toilet, that the unemployment rate is hovering around 10%, I know I lost my job earlier this year. I don't understand the idea of flooding the market with currency with no legitimate backing other than the full faith of the government. I saw this was tried once before, can you say Weimar Republic?



With all of that being said, why on Earth would anyone want to raise taxes on citizens that are already suffering loss of wages, salary, or jobs altogether? The current Democratic government, in its infinite wisdom, wants to make everyday Americans choose between feeding their kids, or feeding the government.



Extending unemployment? As I previously stated, that would mean federal benefits would be extended for up to 151 weeks. And how are we paying for those "benefits?" On the backs of the people who are working for less money and more hours, that's how! This sounds eerily similar of the so-called stimulus plan first enacted shortly after President Obama took office. The difference is that the Republicans are pushing this through, with the Democrats holding their collective noses.



For those of you who voted Republican hoping for a change from the change, keep a close eye on your new Congress. They speak a good game, but the results are what matter most, not the letter next to the name of the officeholder.

No comments: