Simply put, it shows us that they care only about their political agenda, and not solving problems.
Consider this, friends: Harry Reid signaled last week that Entitlements were "off the table" in these negotiations, and continue to press to be able to raise taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.
Earlier this week, we showed how little of a difference Obama's tax increases would make. Specifically, it would run the government for eight days. As of right now, we have to borrow money to cover 127 days worth of spending each year (35% of our budget is borrowed). If the Republican party gives in and gives the President his tax hikes, you know how many days we're borrowing for NOW? 119 days. A full 119 days of spending each year STILL has to be borrowed.
Translation: This tax increase doesn't make a mouse's fart worth of a difference in solving our REAL problem.
Yet the Democrats and the Drive-By Media keep pushing this idea that "if the Republicans would just agree to let taxes be raised on the rich, we could solve this Fiscal Cliff problem!" That's not what's happening. The Democrats are insisting on a foolish non-solution and if we don't give in to their tantrum, they're taking their ball and going home.
I'll give you a comparison. As some of you know, I love the New York Mets. The Mets recently signed their best player, David Wright, to a long term contract extension.
Now imagine during the negotiations there were two issues in the contract negotiations. Problem one is the fact that David Wright wanted his contract to be eight years long and worth about $140 million, and the Mets want the contract to be seven years long and $120 million. Problem two is that the Mets wanted to write into the contract that Wright has to wear a multicolored beanie with a propeller in the Mets clubhouse for five minutes, once a month, every month during the baseball season for the duration of his contract because, darn it all, Mets owner Fred Wilpon thinks it would be simply hilarious.
Now let's pretend Fred Wilpon was going to the New York sports media and saying "If David would JUST agree to wear this beanie for FIVE MEASLY MINUTES every month, WE COULD GET THIS DEAL SIGNED!" That'd be highly inaccurate, yes? My friends, this is exactly what Democrats are doing with their story about "just let us raise taxes on the rich." They are focusing on one tiny aspect of the issue, ignoring the big one, and blaming the multicolored beanie and not the $20 million gap in contract negotiations.
(Thankfully, all this is moot, and David Wright signed an eight year extension. To my knowledge, a beanie was not part of the discussion.)
It turns out, as has been shown so many times before, this tax increase will not solve the problem. At all. So one must ask why does the Democrat party have such a massive desire to raise taxes?
At best, it's all about their PR. At worst, it's an attempt by the Democrat Party to continue to pretend the problem is we don't tax enough. If they do that, they can continue the facade a little longer (until America is so bankrupt that we can't even afford to borrow more money). Not only is it the height of dishonesty to keep focusing on the multicolored beanie, it shows a complete disregard for solving the real problem. Further, they have stated they are willing to take us over the fiscal cliff just so they can make us wear that stupid beanie. Who isn't looking out for America, friends?
America, this is who you elected. I hope you're paying attention. Because this is EXACTLY what you wished for, whether or not you knew it. This is who the Democrat Party has been for decades and continues to be.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
1 comment:
All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.
Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You know the beanie could have been part of the contract in the early 90s
ReplyDelete