Dear President Barack Obama:
Are we morally separated or culturally divided. If we are a nation that's divided on moral issues; then we are very much in trouble as a country. Since we shouldn't be kicking others while they're down. Creating a culture on the notion that poverty is like a serious Virus.
In this country we have an identity crisis; as it comes to the obligation meant for the government. Majority of the issues that are front and center with our government -- leadership is trying to pass those responsibilities to the states. And the states are required to pass a budget since; they can't print there own money. So most states are either revoking, abandoning, or terminate federal assistance for those who are below the lines of poverty. Even more than open lots of states are sending those obligations to the local municipality--where these local government has no authority to enforce federal issues.
As the responsibilities roam around the fiscal cliff; curb--yet leadership set back; on whether we spiral back into a recession, walk into an unofficial government shut; thus defaulting mandatory obligation -- we are left with the notion of governments role.
When a nation's poverty levels continue to rise -- who has the responsibility to stop the bleeding; government, or the people? When a country is having a poverty and jobs crisis, then the most Noteworthy moral obligation for the federal government would be is to also unsure public safety? And the number one concerning issue with the safety of the public is the security of the countries finances. Because we those who are poor, find routine measures to help them live in a more sense. Why prices at the pump aren't going down, and public transportation becomes an obligated necessity--while those fees are increased. The normal living standards for those in poverty; just got harder. It becomes harder to travel because inflation has reached a level where it cost more than a nickel to make a nickel. And the value of a dollar doesn't even get you an hour worth of supplies. Where those who are in a poverish state becomes victims of vicious rhetoric that demonize them for the state of socio-economics?
Our economy we have been looking at a systematic problem on wealth. The accumulation of debt versus the decentralization of wealth. Those who are in the middle class or bordering poverty are looking at a system not favoring their way of life. For example; A family of 4 where both parents work two jobs, were much of the income is below $35,000, don't have the same chances--but yet Breaks in the U.S. system. Since they have to pay monthly living expenses, about 2\3 of their take home pay. [after taxes] Living expenses, that include rent; food, transportation, and other non-tangible expenses. Become a [tax deductible] to a tax liability based on a tax bracket, mixing with market value exchange.
In baby talk; Republicans and some democrats see taxing non-tangible deductibles, will increase revenue--while others think that removing deductible based on the market value on a certain tax break will curb federal spending. Neither of these theories are further or any closer to the truth. When you tax non-tangible deductibles, you have to take it on a case-by-case bases? Since not everyone who makes a certain amount in a bracket -- is actually in the bracket that they're reporting. Since some forms require detailed analysis of tangible and non-tangible deductibles and credits. For instance; the Homestead Rebate, for renters and home owners -- would gain 0.02¢ on the dollar.
Baby Talk; if you're paying $1000 in rent, you will be getting a $200 rebate. Which in theory, many of those who are at the lines of poverty would spend that rebate on non-tangible items! And a millionaire who uses a different tax form to deduct their housing expenses, pays a lessor rate, thus gaining more in return from the government. For example $1,000,000 would pay 1% rate or a 15% total on housing expenditures, and gain no more than $75,000 on their housing return. And depending on what they do with that return, most of the times they invest in tangible exchanges [which is good for market growth, but bad for debt reduction] : these exchanges are now not taxable because the profit gained becomes capital gains. And if they're in the market for long term, they basically don't pay any taxes on anything once they've broke that threshold. Example, Jane Doe makes $2 million and has a home in block A. Jane received $75,000 as her rebate or probated property investment. [not taxable because its a deduction] She takes $70,000 of that rebate and invested in Microsoft as a long term investment with Charles Schabb; at an 8% rate for 2 years. She can live off the interest; from that investment while continuing to claim that credit year in and year out; without paying any taxes on capital gains after taking in unearned income. [And you don't want to start taxing dividends, since you will never know where or what is the separation of which; unless you audit the entire nation] And you don't want to penalize someone for taking a risk off of their deductibles.
In both stories of the person in poverty getting $200, and spending that money on consumption -- to the other that took the same deductible and invested it into shared stock. Which one had a direct effect on the federal economy? If you thought Jane Doe, had a better response on the economy, you're wrong. The person who got the least of the rebate, did the actual spending. While the other invested into a package or derivative. And we all know derivatives don't do a thing to curb federal spending; which it adds to budgets and makes a short term decease, while creating long term problems on increasing deficits.
How do you tax or close loopholes that creates disparity in the tax code? Lost of people want to lower rates, and close loopholes -- which will raise taxes on that deductible and tax bracket. While that will indirectly raise taxes, but it does nothing to curb any spending, or even raise enough revenues to pay for installing the mandate. Then you will have the domino effect going into place -- since that same deductible is no longer active, John Doe won't be able to get that rebate. Now Jane Doe, and John Doe have a little less in their pockets to do some actual spending or investing. Which leaves, local small business at a stagnant place; because consumers have less to presume consumption.
Then the question rises on how you fix this, without getting rid of the balance and obligation that the federal government is required to provide. One theory would be to defund everything; which would shut government down for 13 months to 18 months. Can you imagine how many people government would throw under the bus and off the cliff? Nearly 40 million people will find themselves on soup lines, and in a state of despair on economic security. And it won't be defined to one race, the poor and homeless will be first; then the financially insecure middle class--will follow. The stable middle class, will sink into a point of no return and become unstable; while the secured middle class will slip out of being secure into unsure. The rich will have a smaller pool to invest on; thus getting less on their investment return, and less to spend and deduct. That's the road most or nearly all extreme neo-conservatives would like to implant. Which does nothing but implant what we call Voodoo Economics. Which is make the non-secured individuals suffer on an appearance of balancing a budget, while sending the obligations of budgeting to some other government function. A term many liberals and moderates; or progressives say: "Kicking the Can down the road." And then the other government assembly can either terminate the function, reform it in terms of government liquidation -- where it means government programs go to die. And that method is unsuccessful because it will create long term poverty; which may lead to rebellions, and become a public safety issue. Nothing in those methods will curb federal spending but make the lives of the people more unsuccessful and unsure in terms of economic security.
The other way is to raise taxes on those who can afford it; while cutting taxes on those how can't afford the increase. The only problem with this method is the notion that there's just not enough members in that comfort level to pool from. So government would have to terminate or do something in order close the gap. And there's the elephant in the room; since with these Tea-Party representatives : who made a pledge to never agree with President Barack Obama; made compromise a dirty word. You can balance a budget, that raises rates; curb government spending, and pays down the deficit. By making sure those making over $250,000 pays a little more, and make sure government is spending less on obligated programs, while making them more efficient. And you can pay down a debt with marginal decreases in expenditures. Which is what President Barack Obama proposed with the American Jobs Plan.
President Barack Obama, won his re-election campaign by larger numbers than his first election. Although he may have lost three states from his historical run in 2008 -- yet what's concerning is how republican leadership doesn't respect the statistics from actual elections. Obama won republican districts in all states. This election had clear distinctions on were the country should be going. The republicans had their agenda on the ballot; with ideas that they've passed in the house of representatives and it LOST, wait let me repeat this -- lowing rates, closing undisclosed loopholes; and cutting 100% of the federal government in order to give breaks for the 1% and delay the payment process; so that the middle class and poor will foot the bill; lost with a 52% majority at the polls.
