Shepard Smith of Fox News encapsulated what to him was the counter argument for taxes on the person earning $20 million annually: “He’ll be $1 million the poorer. Is that going to impact his life style, asked Smith? Will he fire the chauffeur? Not really.”
That’s also not really the right, utilitarian, economic argument for letting a man keep what is his. One million in the hands of government is one million dollars circulating the drain. As soon as you transfer private property into communal ownership, it’s as good as squandered. Left as private property, that money could be saved, invested in productive endeavors, or spent on consumer goods, which will generate work for producers.
How do you think the government collective will allocate $1million it has stolen, and has never worked to generate?
To the moral side of the matter:
From “The 2 Parties’ Question: How Much To Steal”: Taxes are private property plundered. The government has several ways to pay for its obligations, one of which is to seize private property in the form of taxes. The particular portion of the ‘stim’ and bailouts that was not borrowed or counterfeited by the Fed once belonged to individual Americans. Thus, a tax cut for high-income earners, who also pay most of the taxes, is tantamount to a return of stolen goods.
With a tax cut, the plundering class simply agrees to pilfer less. The notion that you must ‘pay for tax cuts’… is akin to a burglar promising to return the television he stole just as soon as he is in a better financial position.”
If the Republicans’ ideas on budget slashing is anything like McMoron’s, then, the months ahead will be filled with threats to cut National Public Radio loose, and to do away with earmarks—minuscule amounts which don’t cover a day’s interest payment on the national debt.
“Despite public criticism of ‘pork barrel’ spending and foreign aid, these items constitute a minuscule portion of the federal budget. Instead, the area of greatest concern is spending on the major entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Spending on these programs is expected to skyrocket in the coming decades due to an aging population and the increasing cost of medical care. The long-term Social Security solvency problem can be avoided if Congress can muster the political will, but there is no obvious solution as to how to limit the growth of public health care spending. One of the major goals of the recent health care reform legislation was to reduce health spending over the long term, but achieving this will require a discerning and disciplined Congress in the years to come.”
“While the military budget is not growing nearly as rapidly as spending on entitlements, it represents nearly a fifth of total federal spending and is a perennial target of deficit hawks. While there is some waste in defense spending that could be eliminated without much consequence, more fundamental cuts will entail a sacrifice of military capabilities.”
[SNIP]
The deceptive issue of earmarks was raised by Rep. Eric Cantor, of Virginia. From Chris Wallace’s interview with Cantor, the “Presumptive House majority leader,” it transpires, moreover, that Republicans intend to demand “sizable” spending cuts (presumably other than earmarks or NPR) from Obama in return for agreeing to raise the debt-ceiling.
The debt ceiling should not be raised. Better that the government be forced into default. In that case, a government shut-down, as in 1995, would be most welcome.
To his credit, Cantor did not rule out such eventualities. Should they occur, he contended, Obama would be the one to blame for the fiscal crisis that brought about a default on the debt and a subsequent government shut-down.
If government shuts-down for long enough, we may find ourselves thanking Obama for delivering us from evil, indirectly, at least.
“… MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has more street cred than most. The host of ‘Hardball’ spent the first two years of the Obama presidency in a state of delirium bordering on the sexual. Famous for experiencing something akin to a (daytime) nocturnal emission during Obama’s coronation – ‘thrill up the leg’ Matthews called the incident – Chris later begged Barack to be his ‘Enforcer,’ in the matter of sacking Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Understand: When a liberal like the president shows a bit of that manly magic, ‘girlie boys’ like Chris get giddy.”
Given Chris’ well-known carnal affections for Barack Obama, it is unfortunate that the op-ed segment with which he ends the ‘Hardball’ program daily is called ‘Let Me Finish.’
Yesterday, Matthews finished off by surmising that the ‘kick in the pants’ the president has sustained means that it was now up to Obama to make the Republicans an offer they could not refuse – especially with the entire country watching. The challenge for Obama, advised Matthews, is to force Republicans to join him, or look like creeps if they fail to join him. …
Yes, The 2010 midterm elections were a bloodbath for the Democratic Party. Because there are no mollifying messages to be had from such a political massacre, liberal pols, pundits, and other dominant interests, hastened to soften the “shellacking” by framing it in terms more tolerable. …”
UPDATED I (Nov. 5): BUT WHEN HE’S GOOD HE’S VERY GOOD.
Now how good is the following editorial by Chris Matthews?! And how good am I for being capable of seeing a good argument for what it is?! Why can’t Chris be as good at distilling the truth? In any case, this time “Let Me Finish” is a proper climax to the show (read “Beware Of Wolves In Bipartisan Clothing” to get all the sexual connotations):
Behold the transcript of this fabulous editorial. See the quality of intern/ignorant millennial (most probably) these large organizations are forced to hire (they love youth, and shun older, more literate workers). It’s one thing not to know the fine word “solipsistic”; it’s quite another to be bereft of the brains, the initiative, and the work ethic to look it up on an online dictionary before typing/transcribing the sentence.
Instead of “solipsistic,” which is what Matthews said, the moron MSNBC has hired to transcribe the audio (and do related work) wrote “solid cystic.” This is the kind of word salad one is treated to when watching the simultaneous translations offered up on the TV screens at the health club. The transcribing is being done by individuals who’ve almost no facility with the English language. That describes most American school and university graduates. Enjoy:
“Let me finish tonight with george w. bush. you know years ago a member of the british cabinet got caught in an embarrassment and of course denied it, to which his accuser said, well, he would, wouldn’t he? denial is the norm of political life especially of the awful. president bush says the iraq war was justified because it prevented another 9/11. well, 9/11 was a network operation involving cells in germa germany, heavy recruit in the saudi arabia and of course flight training down in florida. the one country not involved in 9/11 was iraq, the attack of 9/11 was conspired among a web of jihadists religion phanatics without loyalty to a particular state. saddam hussein was a baathist. so how would a war in iraq prevent another attack from elements of al qaeda? or is bushauring something that logically cannot be denied for the simple reason it has nothing to do with logic with the discernible cause and effect with anything tangible. is he saying that the war which caused 77,000 lives was justified because he thought it would prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11? in other words, if the connection between 9/11 and iraq, which no one else’s ever been able to substantiate, was in his own mental wiring, he’s guiltless before history. there’s a reason that bush lives in this solid cystic world. cause of effect or of tangible fact even, but of what george w. bush sees out there…”
UPDATE II: More on “compromising” from Diana West (who, I am sure, would have lots to say about the ill-educated non-adults who’re, increasingly, running this country):
If our new Republicans are as gullible as our old ones, instead of cutting taxes across the board, they just might “compromise” with Democrats, and that’s the end of that. Or instead of refusing to raise the national debt ceiling another trillion dollars, they just might “compromise” with Democrats and up it goes. Or instead of repealing Obamacare, they just might “compromise” with Democrats and fine-tune a few colossal programs. When all the votes are cast and backs patted, of course, “compromise” is a poor substitute for principle. But all we can do now is hope for change: that the GOP, backed by the tea party, stands strong this time even in the face of Democratic accusations that it is playing “politics as usual,” or acting like the “Party of No.” Because it’s a sure thing that such accusations are on their way. Indeed, even as voters were still heading to the polls on Tuesday, Michelle Malkin noted the Democratic National Committee had already released talking points that attacked Republican leaders who “are not willing to compromise.
[SNIP]
I would change “gullible to “venal” and “power hungry.”
I’ve never really given much thought to the accusation, often made by the official Right, that the Left is, as a rule, more vicious and hate-filled. Rabid lefties generally stay away from this blog. But have you ever listened to MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, of the “Ed Show”? I have to; it’s my job.
One has to remain detached and observe Schultz for the engorged, gross worm he is, but Schultz is, for lack of a better word, a thug. A vulgar bully given to verbal violence.
On the one hand, sloganeering about democracy and the will of the people is second nature to left-liberals like Schultz. But these election results have elicited fewer mentions of the “will of the people,” and many more calls for Obama and the Democrats to get tough with the Repbulicans.
“know the enemy,” Schultz advised his people. Here goes that refrain again. Just last week, the twisted brother Obama called his opposition the enemy in need of punishment.
Schultz was referring to “House Speaker–to-be John Boehner,” and to a TIME cover story about him. Read “The New Speaker: Tanned, Tested, Ready,” Schultz advised his demos, so as to get to know the enemy.
