Pork Bill "Deal" (Sham) in Senate: "Rich" Income Lowered to $75,000 per Individual/$140,000 per Couple--Higher Taxes Ahead?

The pork/spending bill (refuse to use "simulus" anymore) "deal" in the Senate involving "usual suspect" Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arelen Specter is a sham and a deception The Senate added all kinds of stuff, and then purported to make the bill "beeter" by "reducing" the price tag back to the price tag of the House bill. And the price tage could rise again in the House-Senate "conference committee", once the "heat" (of publicity) and public attention) is off. If you buy this kind of deception, there is no hope for you.


But the way the "price tag" was reduced in the Senate is interesting. Did the main reductions come from reductions in government spending (which is NOT "simulus")? Don't be silly. Rather, the main reductions in the price tag came in reductions of tax relief. The Democrat/Obama definition of "rich" is now down to $75,000 for an individual and $140,000 for a couple (unless, of course, they are living together, and not married, in which case the lower earning "non-spouse" might get a tax break). This tells you how the eventual tax INCREASES are gong to go down the income scale. Yes, Obama has a $1000 "payroll tax credti" in this bill (does tthat mean that "retirees" like me and my mother are excluded? Don't bet on it--the title rarely tells you what is really in these bills). However, to "cut the "price tag", eligibility for this "tax credit" has been reduced to $140,000 per couple and $75,000 per individual--obviously the new Obama/Demorat definitioin of "rich" in the Age of Obama. I think other tax breaks wer also eliminated.


Now this "tax relief" is really nothing more than a monetary payment (welfare payment), with perhaps some corporate welfare thrown in. Yep. That applies to the Republican "tax holiday" idea as well (see the upcoming part 3 of my ongoing series: "Rush Limbaugh is Wrong on Taxes"). However, there is no do9ubt that these monetary payments are "stimulus". You might remember last summer, when the same type of payments (not limited, of course, to workers or taxlpayers) did momentarily "stimulate" the economy. Worked real well, didn't it, once the "stimulus" wore off (almost immediately).


If monetary paymensts at least have a momentary "stimulus" effect, even if they do long term harm, the same cannot be said of government spending (for the most part) You need look no further cor conclusive evidence that it is the central planning spending that Democrats like, and that the "tax relief" (even as a subterfuge for welfare payments) is merely an afterthought to gain public support.


Plus, you now are warned. The tax INCREASES to come are going to apply to lower and lower income levels, as the definition of "rich" apllies to lower and lower incomes.


By the way, what do you call a person making $75,000 who workds an 80 hour week (the equivalent hourly income of a person making $37,500 who makes that annual amount on worming a 40 hour weeek)? Easy. You call that person STUPID. Why work all of that extra time, when you can get all of those government benefits working the lower number of hours, and have a life outside of work? Nope. As public policy, this is insane. Nevertheless, it is where we now are as a country. We are the ones who elected these people to Congress, and as President.


P.S. You might at least be comforted by the idea that Democrats will have to pay taxes for all of this spending, just like everyone else. Wrong. First, we know that Democraats don't actually pay their taxes, unless they are appointed to a political job and think they have to. Second, Democrats are making sure that more than half of the country's wage earners will pay no net tax at all--receving money from the government instead of the other way around. Third, Democrats are intent of giving tax breaks (and direct subsidies), Communist style, to the pople who are favored by the Democrats ("green" people and businesses, "global warming" "researchers", and alll of the rest). As I have said, in a "central planning" society, the people in charge deterine the winners and losers. That includes determining the tax winners and losers.


What do the non-favored "rich" do when they figure out that they are paying the bills for everyone else? If you think they tamely pay most of their income in taxes, so the money can be given to everyone else, you are crazy (or a leftist--essentially the same thing). The "rich" figure out how to avoid paying the taxes. At worst, they simply stop working so hard. Government revenues fall, and they cannot be made up by ever higher taxes. The country goes into a death spiral. We may already have reached the point at which that result is inevitable. Yep. I can be as "doom and gloom" as leftists and the mainstream medai, if I try.