Who’s Wallet?

In another thread Kimpost said ,” I have never voted with my wallet, ever. I don’t think I even know anyone who does”. I’m here to say categorically that I can’t think of a national or state wide election where “the wallet” was not a factor, mine or the collectives’. Fiscal impact always comes to the forefront for me. Most times, the collective’s wallet takes precedent over my own because I know that if the state or the fed is not in financial good standing, then my wallet (through higher taxes) will eventually be impacted. A good example of this is while I was working, there were many state governor elections, my union (which I was a part of) would always support, campaign for, and fund (with my union dues and against my wishes) the Democratic candidate because he would give us more stuff, it was that simple. But I always knew that the state collectively (each citizen) would suffer for my largess because financial solvency always took a back seat to crony capitalism and rewarding those that backed you. So I always voted for the Republican candidate because the state’s finances took precedents over my own, and I knew that the goodies my union got would not make up for the higher taxes and the financial hamstringing that the state would suffer through.

This election, our wallets are simpatico and tandemly pulling in one direction. Paul Ryan has puts it rather simply:

There is nothing that will weaken (and ultimately destroy) this country quicker and with more finality then this exploding debt problem, despite all the warnings:

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs.
House Republicans, slated to unveil their own plan next week, are sure to seize on the numbers, yet the mountain of data gives reason for both parties to pause going into what’s expected to be a major fiscal crisis after the November elections.

A “major fiscal crisis”, which will be magnified with an Obama second term. These CBO numbers deal only with what’s on the table now, with his first term. Given his own proposed budget last year (which did not garner a single “Yea” vote in the Senate) economic fairness, green energy, and entitlements are what’s on this president’s mind, not deficit reduction.

Addressing the national debt (the nation’s wallet) will have a direct impact on my own , both short term (Obama’s proposed income tax brackets and the raising of dividend/cap gains tax) and long term (deficit’s weaken the currency, the nation’s ability to compete, restrict capitalism, effects interest rates and markets, and hampers economic growth).

Even the phony Hollywood Elitist types vote with their wallet. Sure, they make noise about the rich (them) paying more taxes, but they know they got their accountants to jigger the numbers, find those loopholes, and preserve their capital. If they were really serious they would demand Obama rewrite the tax code and do away with deductions, that would bring more tax revenue and be more equitable all the way around.

For the enhancement and health of my own wallet, my neighbor’s and my fellow citizen’s, the choice is clear this November. But don’t think I don’t have a plan B to fall back on, a wise man plans for all contingencies.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    Are you of the opinion that perhaps Obama and company know exactly what they are doing, and the buttfucking of the nation is deliberate?

    I wonder frequently if liberals are just stupid/clueless/deluded/brainwashed or if they’re just fucking evil. I suspect it’s a combination.

    Thumb up 4

  2. richtaylor365 *

    Are you of the opinion that perhaps Obama and company know exactly what they are doing

    I think they have a vision for America that is very different from mine or yours, but saying they know what they are doing implies a certain level of competence.

    and the buttfucking of the nation is deliberate?

    I have known many liberals in my day (living in the Bay Area, how could I avoid it?) and although their dot connecting has always been a mystery to me, to say that they are Un American, anti capitalist, or want to expedite the down fall of America misses the point. Those that I know (sorry, but the OWS crowd, those living entirely on the dole, or those working towards a more communist society, I don’t keep company with them) are hard working people that pay their taxes, don’t get into trouble, have a solid work ethic, and don’t blame America for the world’s ills. They want a better life for them and their children (but just can’t see the forest for the trees in that their ideology insures neither). They believe what the MSM peddles to them, they believe that they are more tolerant, more caring towards the poor, and that their way insures that the most people will benefit from those being taxed. They envy Europe as being more civilized (no death penalty for them) and want a more socialized European style existence where the masses have 30 hour work weeks, free healthcare, 8 weeks paid vacation, and can retire with a government pension at 55 or whatever, then live stress free for the rest of their lives, being taken care of by the nanny state.

    To argue whether Obama is evil or not also misses the point. His vision is even more radical and extreme then most of the liberals I know. Yes, he does want to transform America, away from the American exceptionalism/imperialist/rugged individualist/that shining city on a hill, more to just another member of the UN, bowing to their will in all things political because they speak for the collective, not just American interests. He wants the poor to have more (by taking from the rich), he wants a more equitable (in his mind) society where safety nets abound and the risks of capitalism are removed. He still believes the nonsense that they only way to handle the debt (when it rarely comes up) is to raise taxes, money in/money out. And he certainly believes that the academicians he surrounds himself with know better then the average folk in what is good for them, what they need to be weaned off of (for their own good) and how important government is in the average person’s life.

    Thumb up 6

  3. Kimpost

    The collective wallet matters a great deal when I vote. What I meant was that I probably won’t vote on a party just because they would lower my taxes. I’d consider the possible societal impact of the tax cut first. In essence, I have voted for tax cuts before and likely will again, but I’ve also voted for tax raises.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Seattle Outcast

    My wife always accuses me of automatically voting against all taxes (in reality, it’s just 90% of them).

    I’m perfectly willing to raise taxes to keep certain emergency services working and some major transportation projects, but not willing to raise the wages of overpaid civil employees, pad the already bloated budgets of city hall, hand out millions of tax dollars to pet charities, or build mass-transit boondoggles with tax dollars.

    Contrary to liberal rhetoric, conservatives and libertarians are not anti-tax. They are anti-spend. If governments would get priorities straight and start spending tax dollars properly instead of just pissing away money, people in general would be a lot less upset. Over the decades governments have decided to support every “worthy cause” there is with tax money. It needs to stop. If the cause is truly worthy, it will get funded privately.

    Thumb up 4

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    Slightly OT, but has to do with the coming election and why people may resist present administration.

    This link and video from Andrew Breitbart is just the second arrow from his sling. And as you can see it’s about Holder. It’s not always all about Obama.

    So rich, please don’t take this personally, because it’s not always all about you either.

    Hopefully you’ll see the point I’m trying to make and not “red-line” my comment.

    Thumb up 0

  6. richtaylor365 *

    This link and video from Andrew Breitbart is just the second arrow from his sling. And as you can see it’s about Holder. It’s not always all about Obama.

    Actually, this is the third arrow, not the second, come on, keep up. Here is the second.

    Hopefully you’ll see the point I’m trying to make and not “red-line” my comment.

    Haven’t a clue what you mean by “red lineing”, it sounds cool though, maybe I can get Jimk to show me how to do that.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Poosh

    That new Breitbart video doesn’t on the surface seem worth much note. In fact anyone might agree with him, though the context isn’t present. What kind of “young people” is he referring to, dare I ask? I did raise an eyebrow at the use of the word “brainwash” though.

    But given what Holder may well have done today …. a few lights are suddenly starting to flicker on

    Thumb up 0

  8. Kimpost

    What’s up with this arrow talk? What was the first arrow? Are we talking about the Bell strategy, where we were told to wait for something really powerful as part of some kind of one-two-three punch? :)

    Thumb up 0

  9. Mississippi Yankee

    Are we talking about the Bell strategy, where we were told to wait for something really powerful as part of some kind of one-two-three punch? :)

    Could you tell me where you saw this or who said this?

    I distinctly remember arguing that “really powerful” and “knockout and/or one-two-three punches” were NOT Breitbard’s strategy.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Mississippi Yankee

    I must have misunderstood you. I thought that you suggested that some of us needed to wait for Breitbart’s next move(s) to see the genius of the attack.

    Which part confused you? You seemed to acknowledge it back in that post.

    You words:
    Fine, you want to think that this is like some elaborate chess match, I am saying the first move did nothing to further the cause of checkmate. If something else comes down the pike later, something more newsworthy, then we can discuss it then, but moving this one pawn one space forward did not in any way make me think the opponent threatened.

    Thumb up 0