Anyone Can Blog ~ Commenting Is Hard
Wondering what will happen to your paycheck if we go over the fiscal cliff?
Ironman at Political Calculations has you covered.
13% bump in Federal.
This post needs some jazzing up: http://i.imgur.com/kJjtm.gif
13% bump in Federal.
I was 13.7%.
Hmmm…mine was 8.11%. Thank you, Big O! (Not The Big O)
Ouch! I’m looking at a 23% increase. Retiring in Panama is starting to look pretty good.
…..and the ONE is going to shut down the power plant where I work.
The public will blame the GOP. The Democrats are gonna get 90% of what they want, and the 10% the Republicans get will be used to blame them for the fiscal cliff. The Republicans cannot win here, period.
I think they should quit. They should go on strike. There is only one way America will learn, and it’s not through the GOP fighting harder. The GOP should go on strike, demanding better-informed Americans.
The problem is the public’s blind faith in the rotten establishment media, and they cannot be argued out of it. They have to learn first-hand what they voted for. They still do not actually know what they chose.
I say, give the Democrats every single thing they want. Obamacare, tax hikes, more indebtedness, stagflation, the works. Bring it on. I can live on Ramen.
I’m a little discouraged about our prospects.
I don’t want to be too spammy, but here are some timely excerpts from “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek:
It is not difficult to see what must be the consequences when democracy embarks upon a course of planning which in its execution requires more agreement than in fact exists. The people may have agreed in adopting a system of directed economy because they could have been convinced that it will produce greater prosperity. In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,” which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of the planning. Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used.
It may be the unanimously expressed will of the people that its parliament should prepare a comprehensive economic plan, yet neither the people nor its representatives need therefore be able to agree on any particular plan. The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come to be regarded as ineffective “talking shops,” unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be “taken out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts-permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.
It is important clearly to see the causes of this admitted ineffectiveness of parliaments when it comes to detailed administration of the economic affairs of a nation. The fault is neither with the individual representatives nor with parliamentary institutions as such but with the contradictions inherent in the task with which they are charged. They are not asked to act where they can agree, but to produce agreement on everything-the whole direction of the resources of the nation. For such a task the system of majority decision is, however, not suited. Majorities will be found where it is a choice between limited alternatives; but it is a superstition to believe that there must be a majority view on everything. There is no reason why there should be a majority in favor of any one of the different possible courses of positive action if their number is legion. Every member of the legislative assembly might prefer some particular plan for the direction of economic activity to no plan, yet no one plan may appear preferable to a majority to no plan at all.
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 389 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.