I think the Lewis Caroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Obama’s Budget have the same inspiration: the authors were high on some substance when they put those works of fiction together.
While there is no evidence that Caroll dabbled in drugs, many people recognize that the descriptions in Alice in Wonderland correlate with the psychotropic effects of modern hallucinogens. References to drinking and eating substances that distort reality are a theme in Alice in Wonderland, and a caterpillar smoking a hookah can easily be associated with opium use, which was one of the few drugs in Caroll’s day.
The President’s PROPOSAL is just that. We should be reminded that Congress (Republicans) actually ended up spending MORE than even “W” proposed! It’s also that part of “defense” NOT in the public budget that racks up the real costs. All “republicans” have done is say “dead in the water”, while they sink the ship of state. It isn’t at the White House, but in the House, that we need drastic change, or at least getting rid of the whackos like Boehner and Cantor, and elect some folks willing to let the country advance past their road block.
Well, you’re forgetting something: There’s principle and then there’s practical. On principle, you think that the rich are getting off “scott free,” or close to it, and feel they need to pay in more. You see it as a social injustice because they have and you do not, and you feel you deserve to have what you do not. This is also known as “greed,” just a different form of what you accuse the “rich” being guilty. It’s also known as “envy,” because you pine after something someone else has. 2 of the seven deadly sins, hm?Where the opinion diverges on principle is the mindset aspect. Do I crave to have more than I have now? Absolutely; I could always use more money. We’re no different there. But the difference in how we feel we should get there. You believe in taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have, under the guise of being “fair.” I believe in earning what you get, and working hard at it. Which do you think gives you more pride and inspires self-reliance, and which encourages dependancy on others?On practicality, however, it paints a different story. Practically, you cannot tax the rich enough to pay for Obama’s social programs and the pending increases to medicare and social security. There just isn’t enough money. Added to that, any increases to business costs (either in the form of taxes, or regulatory requirements, et al) is directly passed on to the consumer. You make it more costly to Walmart to do business in the US, you will see the cost of that T-Shirt you buy go up. So who really gets hurt by increase the costs to these businesses? People like you and me.Fiscal conservatives feel that the upper 50% shouldn’t be taken advantage of by the bottom 50%. Being wealthy is not a sin (unless, of course, you earned it via a ponzi scheme or things of that nature). We believe in hard work, and discouraging reliance on others. We are sick of people talking about penalizing people for being successful? I also have a hard time accepting the usage of wages as the hard-line determination of tax rates. Someone who makes 125k in Appleton, Wisconsin is going to be much better off than someone making 125k in Manhattan, New York. Cost of living should be factored when determining someone who’s “rich.” Perhaps a percentage of income compared to cost of living instead of a flat amount? Just an idea.
IMO the Obama “budget/2013” is worse than “fantasy”…it is the Socialist “new math” that deliberately fails the reality test.-I heard analysts point out that Obama counts PREVIOUS YEAR’S ‘cuts’ & ’savings" which for 2013 are total error…not real….the White House “underestimated” the 2012 deficit by over $769 billion with their “new math” bookkeeping!
Which is precisely why taxation at the local level is always the fairest. However, since they can’t convince the locals that a given spending program is worthwhile, they turn to the feds for funding. The feds then tax the people in neighboring states to cover it. Taxation without representation started this country and, I fear, will finish it as well.
It is the President’s job to propose a budget.It is Congress’ job to pass a working budget.If they don’t like his proposals, then they need to get off their panhandling behinds and make one that works.Yes, practically all politicians are panhandlers. They beg for money to TRY to get a job where they can tell those of us who WORK for a living how we have to live our lives.
hanmari about 12 years ago
I think the Lewis Caroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Obama’s Budget have the same inspiration: the authors were high on some substance when they put those works of fiction together.
cipactli77 about 12 years ago
I guess the Holy Bible is not listed because it’s only pure fantasy and not so much of a great work.
hanmari about 12 years ago
While there is no evidence that Caroll dabbled in drugs, many people recognize that the descriptions in Alice in Wonderland correlate with the psychotropic effects of modern hallucinogens. References to drinking and eating substances that distort reality are a theme in Alice in Wonderland, and a caterpillar smoking a hookah can easily be associated with opium use, which was one of the few drugs in Caroll’s day.
Dtroutma about 12 years ago
The President’s PROPOSAL is just that. We should be reminded that Congress (Republicans) actually ended up spending MORE than even “W” proposed! It’s also that part of “defense” NOT in the public budget that racks up the real costs. All “republicans” have done is say “dead in the water”, while they sink the ship of state. It isn’t at the White House, but in the House, that we need drastic change, or at least getting rid of the whackos like Boehner and Cantor, and elect some folks willing to let the country advance past their road block.
Wraithkin about 12 years ago
Well, you’re forgetting something: There’s principle and then there’s practical. On principle, you think that the rich are getting off “scott free,” or close to it, and feel they need to pay in more. You see it as a social injustice because they have and you do not, and you feel you deserve to have what you do not. This is also known as “greed,” just a different form of what you accuse the “rich” being guilty. It’s also known as “envy,” because you pine after something someone else has. 2 of the seven deadly sins, hm?Where the opinion diverges on principle is the mindset aspect. Do I crave to have more than I have now? Absolutely; I could always use more money. We’re no different there. But the difference in how we feel we should get there. You believe in taking from those who have and giving to those who do not have, under the guise of being “fair.” I believe in earning what you get, and working hard at it. Which do you think gives you more pride and inspires self-reliance, and which encourages dependancy on others?On practicality, however, it paints a different story. Practically, you cannot tax the rich enough to pay for Obama’s social programs and the pending increases to medicare and social security. There just isn’t enough money. Added to that, any increases to business costs (either in the form of taxes, or regulatory requirements, et al) is directly passed on to the consumer. You make it more costly to Walmart to do business in the US, you will see the cost of that T-Shirt you buy go up. So who really gets hurt by increase the costs to these businesses? People like you and me.Fiscal conservatives feel that the upper 50% shouldn’t be taken advantage of by the bottom 50%. Being wealthy is not a sin (unless, of course, you earned it via a ponzi scheme or things of that nature). We believe in hard work, and discouraging reliance on others. We are sick of people talking about penalizing people for being successful? I also have a hard time accepting the usage of wages as the hard-line determination of tax rates. Someone who makes 125k in Appleton, Wisconsin is going to be much better off than someone making 125k in Manhattan, New York. Cost of living should be factored when determining someone who’s “rich.” Perhaps a percentage of income compared to cost of living instead of a flat amount? Just an idea.
disgustedtaxpayer about 12 years ago
IMO the Obama “budget/2013” is worse than “fantasy”…it is the Socialist “new math” that deliberately fails the reality test.-I heard analysts point out that Obama counts PREVIOUS YEAR’S ‘cuts’ & ’savings" which for 2013 are total error…not real….the White House “underestimated” the 2012 deficit by over $769 billion with their “new math” bookkeeping!
davidwi about 12 years ago
@Wraithkin
Which is precisely why taxation at the local level is always the fairest. However, since they can’t convince the locals that a given spending program is worthwhile, they turn to the feds for funding. The feds then tax the people in neighboring states to cover it. Taxation without representation started this country and, I fear, will finish it as well.
Nebulous Premium Member about 12 years ago
It is the President’s job to propose a budget.It is Congress’ job to pass a working budget.If they don’t like his proposals, then they need to get off their panhandling behinds and make one that works.Yes, practically all politicians are panhandlers. They beg for money to TRY to get a job where they can tell those of us who WORK for a living how we have to live our lives.
rockngolfer about 12 years ago
I forgot the link…http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/jack-lew/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/
d_legendary1 about 12 years ago
Notice how they bash Obama for not having a budget. Then when he makes one, they won’t vote on it. Coincidence?