Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Stupid Debt Tricks


How does Obama propose to handle our Big Fat Greek-Style Debt?  Feed it, of course!

My solution involves stink bombs.  Please read all the way to the end.



Conservatives on Fire, a most excellent blog, recently posted about Obama's sneaky plan for automatic tax increases.  He disguises the plan as a "Debt Fail Safe Trigger."
Called a “debt failsafe trigger,” Obama’s scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much.
Here's how the White House pitches it.  Note the Plouffian Newspeak...
A Debt Failsafe that will trigger across-the-board spending reductions (both in direct spending and spending through the tax code) (Whitehouse.gov)
Only a confiscatory progressive could come up with something that clever...  Calling a tax increase a "Spending reduction through the tax code."

Notice how with liberals it's never that we're spending too much?  For progressive statists, the answer is always that we're not stuffing enough taxpayer money into the insatiable maw of the soulless government beast.

Here's my idea for a "Debt Fail Safe Trigger."
  
The US Capitol will be rigged with noxious stinkbombs that automatically drop from the ceilings when the debt goes over the limit.  The antidote could be quickly triggered by pushing a button that automatically slashed government programs across the board to get us back under the limit.

* - For more in-depth analysis, see LD Jackson's post at Political Realities

24 comments:

LD Jackson said...

Well done, silverfiddle. Indeed, the free spenders in Washington never want to admit that they are the problem. To hear them tell it, they never have enough money and we never pay enough taxes. Go figure!

Jersey McJones said...

Yeah, well, I'm never a fan of rhetorical devices like "spending through the tax code." Just call it what it is: closing loopholes.

JMJ

Bastiatarian said...

>closing loopholes.

In the real world, that's called "making it harder for people to keep their own property" and "punishing success."

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

Doublespeak for the MSM to feed to the ignorant masses, the campaign is on.

OD357 said...

Here's a debt fail safe trigger. When you run out of money, you can't spend anymore.

conservativesonfire said...

Stink Bombs? Now that is something I never would have thought of. I guess I'm not as civilized as you are, Silver. LOL

Jack Camwell said...

Love it.

Layla Elizabeth Gonzalez said...

"Spending reduction through the tax code."

I am sorry Silverfiddle I had to have a good laugh at this one. The sad part about all this is that the idiots are seriously stupid and think we are too.

Jersey McJones said...

Ya' know... all you libertarians out there, one would think you'd be for more fair and flat taxation.

Why are you standing up for special interest loopholes???

Jeez. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Does the insipid rhetoric really matter to you guys? Isn't the result better by you and me, for all we're concerned?

JMJ

Finntann said...

Wow Jersey, we are in agreement... so what should the flat tax rate be? 10%? 15%?

No deductions.

No exemptions.

No loopholes.

The rich pay it, the middle class pays it, and the poor pay it. All nice and equal.

SF... instead of stinkbombs, how about any unfunded measure passed gets paid for by those who vote for it?

Silverfiddle said...

Nobody said anything about loopholes, Jersey. Liberals already have too many of those in their view of reality.

"spending through the tax code" is Obumbles's way of saying tax increase. It is slightly heartening that he and his ilk are now too cowardly to step right out and say it.

I too am for a simple flat tax paid by all.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

We're talking about ending write-offs and all that nonsense in the tax code.

Do you have a problem with that?

I thought you're a libertarian?

JMJ

Bastiatarian said...

>so what should the flat tax rate be?

About 4% or less. Anything that can't be financed with that should be eliminated. In a free country, that's how it would be, anyway.

>I thought you're a libertarian?

Libertarians support people keeping their own property, so why would a libertarian be opposed to somebody writing things off and having to pay a lower tribute to the feds? The fact that people write things off, etc., isn't the problem. The problem is that more people can't write things off.

Again, I ask you, why are you so against people keeping their own property and using it as they see fit? Why do you hate it when people have liberty? Why can't you stand it when people aren't being controlled? Why can't you be tolerant of the choices that others make? Why do you want people regulated even when they are doing absolutely nothing to violate the rights of others to control their own lives, liberty, and property? Why are you against leaving people alone to live their lives in peace? Why do you feel the need to support a system and programs that prevent people like me from supporting our families? Why do you choose to be an enemy to my liberty and my prosperity?

Silverfiddle said...

Jersey,
Put down the hopium pipe and read!

That is a euphemism for tax hikes, not write-offs.

Every time I think you may actually be capable of independent thought you spout msnbc-liberal talking points crap.

Finntann said...

Jersey, just so you understand...

a flat tax is not a progressive tax scale.

A flat tax is flat, everybody pays the same percentage.

If you agree with that, then we are in agreement, no loopholes, no write-offs.

That said, the current problem is out of control government spending, and partially, out of control write-offs and deductions, like GE paying nothing, and the guy making 20K a year paying nothing.

Linda said...

I would be all in for a flat tax which eliminates all deductions and loop holes. Libs will never go for it, though. They would be forced to actually PAY their taxes (even Timmy, the tax cheat.) Even more distressing to the libs would be their inability to continue soaking the rich.

Andrew33 said...

Any tax solution that swaps income based taxes for consumption based taxation would be the quickest and most efficient way to reduce our debt. Imagine what it would be like if our tax system encouraged people to save money and get married instead of spending themselves stupid and divorce so the Feds can collect alimony and child support to redistribute wealth!

Of course my garden could be fertilized with unicorn droppings too, right???

Karen Howes said...

I like your idea, Silver. Unfortunately, it would WORK, so the government can't use it.

Trestin said...

The problem with the stink bombs, they will just think it's good old Barney Frank.

Always On Watch said...

Ugh.

Feeding the crocodile of government bureaucracy.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Stink bombs dropping from the ceiling, I love it.

MK said...

Can we increase taxes on the politicians and all those who call for greater taxation, every time the deficit gets larger. It is what that want isn't it.

jachmilli said...

Some of the biggest expenses will arise from the cost of the wedding attire with the bridal outfit accounting for a substantial sum of money.
for the bride

helena said...

If you are not satisfied with the California Guide you buy on this website, I will send you a refund- no questions asked.
illinois bankruptcy