Well I can definitely tell you who thinks that you're not being taxed enough, in fact nowhere near enough. At least not yet! So the next time you find yourself thinking, gee, I wonder of the Democrats are done raising taxes on the American people, consider the following. When that question was posed to Nancy ‘Too Much Botox’ Pelosi, the supposed 'leader' of the House Democrats, the answer was a very emphatic, "No!" And her Democrat compatriot Chris Van Hollen, who hails from ‘The Socialist Republic of Maryland’ seems to agree with her. He says, "We can raise more revenue." God, and then we have 'Little Dick' Durban, from Illinois, who also seems to think that Washington can continue to squeeze a little more from taxpayers, saying "there are still deductions, credits, special treatments under the tax code which ought to be looked at very carefully."
Each of these Democrats recently took similar questions about additional tax hikes on different Sunday talk shows. Being interviewed by that pathetically senile old fart, Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's "Face the Nation," it was Pelosi who was asked if the "revenue side" of the fiscal cliff is now finished. Oh, and for those of you who may be unaware, revenue is essentially Democrat-speak that when translated means higher taxes. Her idiotic, yet simplistic response, which should come as no surprise, was to say, "No, no, it is not." She went on to blather, "I mean, the president had said originally he wanted $1.6 trillion in revenue. He took it down to $1.2 as a compromise. In this legislation (fiscal cliff) we had $620 billion, very significant, high-end tax -- changing the high-end tax rate to 39.6 percent. But that is not enough on the revenue side." Compromise?
Next old Bob asked 'Old Stretch' Pelosi, "Are you talking about more taxes?" Without a moment’s hesitation, Pelosi responded, "We're talking about looking at the tax code, putting everything on the table from the standpoint of closing loopholes, and we know that we can do that, special subsidies for big oil, for example, $38 billion right there." To which the senile one asked, "But again, not to take things in isolation, just to say, OK, well, how much more revenue can we get as we go forward?" Would Democrats eliminate tax deductions, Schieffer asked Pelosi. Pelosi answered, "My idea of tax reform is to have a comprehensive view." She went on to say, "We've talked about tax simplification and fairness as something that we should be engaged in all along -- long before these fights came along. And now we have a chance to do that with I'd say a heightened awareness by the public on why we need to do certain things."
But as always whenever talking about raising taxes even further so that she and her gang of corrupt stooges can then continue on their vote-buying binge, Old Stretch was far from finished. She added, "So let's, you know, put on the table what it is that we can, in order to increase revenue. We've changed the rate, the high-end tax rate, (to) 39.6 percent, a very important step. And again, there's much more that we can do by just subjecting it to the scrutiny of what is bringing in revenue, what is creating growth. And we don't want to hurt that if there's some tax provisions that create growth. We want to support that." Pelosi ruled out higher taxes on the middle class. But for people in higher income brackets, higher taxes are "not off the table," she said. "But not in terms of tax rates but in terms of other considerations." Again she said, "We have to take a balanced approach."
And then over on "Fox New Sunday," we had Rep. Chris Van Hollen who was also asked about the Republican position, expressed by Mitch McConnell, that there will be no more tax hikes. And his typically idiotic answer was to say, "Well, if Mitch McConnell is going to draw the line in the sand, it's going to be a recipe for more gridlock." This imbecilic dolt went on to say, "We have to take a balanced approach to long-term deficit reduction, meaning additional (spending) cuts." Van Hollen noted that as part of the fiscal cliff deal, "We raised $730 billion in revenue from very high income individuals. As we go forward, we need to adopt the same framework as the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, meaning a combination of cuts and revenue." During the presidential campaign, even the Republican candidates were talking about closing tax "loopholes" that benefit wealthy Americans, Van Hollen noted: "Guess what. They are still there," Van Hollen said. "So, through tax reform, we can raise more revenue matched by additional cuts to address the sequester issue and long-term deficit." Adding, 'These loopholes...'
And on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley," we had 'Little Dick' Durbin who also indicated that he's quite willing to keep raising taxes: "There's money to be saved in tax reform," ‘Little Dick’ said. "I can tell you that there are still deductions, credits, special treatments under the tax code which ought to be looked at very carefully. We forgo about $1.2 trillion a year in the tax code, money that otherwise would go to the government, and when you look closely, some of those things are near and dear to us individually and to the economy, the mortgage interest deduction, charitable deductions, deductions for state and local taxes, but beyond that, trust me, there are plenty of things within that tax code, these loopholes where people can park their money in some island offshore and not pay taxes, these are things that need to be closed. We can do that and use the money to reduce the deficit." Trust him? Is he actually serious??
Crowley then asked 'Little Dick', "So there are other taxes that you believe that you can, however you want to put them, raise, retrieve, whatever, from the wealthy?" "Absolutely," he replied. Saying, "And I'll also tell you that I think we need to open our minds to our tax revenue. You know, we've had conversations about an infrastructure fund that will really start America building again, for the highways and airports and locks and dams and things like that...I believe we should have energy taxes that really fund infrastructure investment." ‘Little Dick’ said higher gas taxes should be considered in the future. And he alluded to higher taxes on electricity to expand the nation's power grid. So apparently, there really isn't much that 'Little Dick' is not in favor of slapping a higher tax on. What a guy!
So I’m a little curious here. At what point is enough, enough? And at the end of the day are we to be left with anything? Will we at least be left with enough that will allow us to still buy food, or enough gas to get to and from work so that we can pay the higher taxes that this pond scum want us all to pay? Or will we be able to keep enough so that maybe we can put our kids through college? Or, are we simply going to be expected to hand over everything to a government which will then determine just how much food we are allowed to buy, or how much gas we will be permitted to use before we must rely on public transportation to get to and from our place of employment? And a government who will decide ‘for’ us if we can send our children to college? Of course, minorities won’t have to worry about that, since higher education will be determined to a right for them. It’s not a very pretty sight, what the Democrats have in mind for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment