On the Brink of Collapse

Good news: Senator McConnell has recently announced a plan to "keep the government funded." So, it does not "collapse." This plan, labelled a "continuing resolution," is apparently the first of a series of plans to keep the federal government funded.


Now, I've asked this question before, but after a little research, I've realized my mistake. We have a growing deficit and a stagnant class of wealth...no one, in a certain bracket, is getting poor. So, why don't we tax these people to fill up the hole in the Federal Treasury? 


A fellow Liberal, trained in the Art of Economics, enlightened me on this matter. If we were to "take away" money from the rich, they will be less likely to invest in stocks...the market will plummet. Or so said my friend. But, when I asked him another question, he seemed puzzled. See, if we were to tax the super-duper rich (like the ones with triple-digit million or billion dollar bank accounts) wouldn't we allow the lesser rich (with millions of dollars) to splurge in the market? These guys aren't necessarily neophytes when it comes to finance and money. They are rich.


But, when I said this, my friend misunderstood me. He pointed out a deadly factor: "peasant" confidence. See, when I said "rich," he thought everyone above the middle class and when I said "lesser" he thought middle class and below...the peasants. So, he pointed out a key factor in-and the final straw of- the transition from recession to depression. See, when these "rich guys" realize they need to get rid of their stocks, they have no one to sell them to. The peasants won't buy them, they have no confidence. This is what my dear friend said. Of course, I explained to him what I really thought and he reluctantly agreed. 


And this is why the Conservatives, and hell the rest of Capitol Hill, don't want to raise taxes. They like to follow a fellow dumbass's philosophy: "The current tax code is a daily mugging." That's right, Ronald Reagan. And it is he who believed in what my friend believed. They do not realize a "outer-party" wealthy exists. There are plenty of people who can be taxed without risking the destruction of the Stock Market. 


But, alas, this solution will only be temporary, right? Because, presumably, those buggers from the outer party will become wealthier and enter the inner party. However, this climax will occur further down the road...at least farther from March...by which point we should hope to have a stronger Federal Treasury and lesser reliance on tax.


But, as we talk, I have cooked up quite a remarkable theoretical idea. Look, as the initial inner party is succumbed to taxes, they must become poorer and poorer. Whilst the outer party becomes richer and richer. Therefore, they take turns. After a while, the initials switch tax policies. Thus, rendering the government's dependence on tax perpetual. 


And here's the reason why the rich should be taxed more than the poor. The rich have actually to pay very little for the day to day value for their goods than their poorer equivalents. The economics of the matter are simple. Consider a lower end urban neighborhood and a suburb. The price to transport anything from a factory or plant in a third location to the suburb is a whole lot less than for it to transport to the former location. After all, they must consider security provisions, right? 


So, all things considered politically and economically, it is best that Capitol Hill screws on its big head and goes ahead with a long-term satisfying plan like the one I just proposed than with short-term plans that could end up endangering all of us. It is a matter of life or death.            

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate's top Republican says he and the Democratic leader have agreed on a spending measure to keep the government running through March.

Passing the bill — known as a "continuing resolution" — would prevent the government from running out of money for daily operations and forcing a shutdown.

Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky tells CNN's "State of the Union" that he and Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have a deal on the measure. The budget year began Oct. 1 but Congress hasn't passed any of its annual spending bills.

Last Thursday, Democrats pulled back a $1.3 trillion spending bill after Republicans decided not to support it. Republicans complained about special projects in the bill, its overall cost and the lack of time for debate.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.