All of the Democrats who want to be president have made it clear they intend to increase taxes. Of course they'll only go after those lousy rich bastards; easy for Hillary Clinton to say, because she and Bubba already have their loot in hand....
On the other hand, many of the Republican presidential wannabes claim they want to lower taxes. But they have proven to be just as wasteful and financially profligate, so that will simply raise the national debt to even more catastrophic levels.
On a more local level, the numbers are awful, but slightly more comprehensible. California is 14 billion scoots in the red this year, but the state government is resisting The Governator's call to impose spending cuts. Nope, they want to raise taxes. In line for such treatment are such things as internet usage and car purchases (which tax was responsible for the removal of the previous governor from office). There are also plans afoot to turn freeway carpool lanes (a stupid idea paid for by tax dollars) to toll lanes.
The leader of the we-must-raise-taxes forces in California is one Fabian Nunez, a member of the state assembly from Los Angeles. Our local rag, which has never met a tax -- or illegal alien aid program -- it didn't love, said this (among other things) about Nunez: "...tens of thousands of dollars in spending by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) from his political fund. His expenditures included a $3,199 stay at Hotel Parco in Rome, $5,149 for a "meeting" at a wine shop in the Bordeaux region of France, and $2,562 for two purchases of "office expenses" at Louis Vuitton in Paris."
Clearly not what you'd consider a role model for financial probity.
Locally and nationally, leaving aside such trivial political tax-dollar spending as $1 million for a "Woodstock Museum," the elected wastrels have remarkably similar aspirations:
-- More money for "social" -- e.g. giveaway -- programs;
-- open borders, and many kinds of financial aid for illegal aliens;
-- huge increases in foreign aid to unfriendly nations;
-- a bailout for people who bought houses they couldn't afford;
-- lots of parks, bridges and buildings with politicians' names on them;
-- many more government agencies, with staff increases to match;
-- tax breaks and handouts for the politically connected;
-- "free" health care for everyone.
I may be strange, but when I'm out of money -- like now, for example -- I stop spending except for essentials. A lot of people do that.
And I bitterly resent elected hacks telling me I must sacrifice for the well-being of others, many of whom are doing better than I am. Not only do they want me and all of us to pay the bills for welfare-suckers* and people who have no right to be in this country, but they also want us to pay for such things as the $16,000 Nancy Pelosi spent on flowers for her office this year, and her government-owned jet for those dozens of "necessary" trips she takes.
I'm not picking on Pelosi alone. She is no worse than the majority of politicians.
Not long ago, I suggested that politicians be held personally liable for the debt they rack up on wasteful, self-serving matters. I still believe that would be a good thing.
The point is this: communism collapsed in large part because it was economically unworkable. Thanks to the shitweasels in our government, our democracy may soon follow suit for the same reason.
At some point you cannot buy what you cannot pay for. And you cannot
Realistically, the day of reckoning is here. We should not lean on government for everything, you know; among other things, that gives politicians more and more power over us.
But the national and state governments are so hung up on their money jones that they refuse to see the catastrophe ahead.
* As opposed to those who genuinely need some assistance, whom I'm happy to help as much as I can.