In an effort to continue to stoke the class warfare that has become their brand, Obama administration folks (and yes, the President himself) have begun to point at the Chinese bogeyman to justify raising the taxes on successful Americans. Here's David Axelrod:
"The notion that we borrow $700 billion for the next ten years from China or some other country in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires doesn't make sense. This is part of how we got in trouble in the first place," Axelrod said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Ok, so let's get this straight; in the midst of an economic downturn the President and his homeys want to raise taxes on "2 percent" of Americans, while leaving the Bush Tax Rates in place for the other 98% of taxpayers. They cry "CHINA" and "$700B" as justification. But one wonders--where will the $2 TRILLION come from to "pay for" the revenue lost in not raising taxes for the other 98%. Um.....China!
They're not that stupid. It's not about economic prosperity it's about transforming America and the World into some sick progressive utopia. I've concluded these people are hardcore ideologues and there ain't no telling what they'll get up to before they're booted out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBe careful CW, you are falling into the trap the Dems have been setting on this issue for the past year: that we have to "pay" for these tax "breaks."
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, that revenue that you are reporting as "lost" is not lost if they never had it in the first place. No, the Dems have already spent it so what we have to pay for is their damned ugly health care baby and the other programs to which they have given birth while in charge of Congress. THAT is what we have to pay for. Revenue they were counting on because they thought they could shake down citizens for even more of their earnings is not revenue until they actually collect it.
Nope, like everything else people who live extravagantly on credit (other people's money) do, the Dems have mastered in making the providers of that money boogeymen. The way you "pay" for the so-called "lost revenue" is NOT to spend money you don't have. If you already spent it (or put in place legislation that will cause it to be spent), you stop spending (or repeal the legislation).
This really is no different than the guy who has a steady paying job buying himself a new car, a big screen tv, taking a luxury cruise and adding a new floor to his house so he can build the new nursery for the 4 babies he and his wife just adopted because he's looking to get a big raise next year. Then when he doesn't get the raise, he cries to the sympathetic media that his boss' profit-motivated greed bankrupted him and his babies will be the ones who suffer.
Not one rational person (key word: "rational") would decry his "loss of revenue." Why then would we give this God-foresaken government a free ride on such an obvious slight of hand?
The whole "we have to pay for tax breaks" mantra is crap. We have to cut spending and rescind the policies/legislation that demand even more spending AND we have to buget to reduce the debt for what we've already overspent. Those will be tough times to be sure. But we will be in deliberate control of those times. If we allow the Dems to continue their "progressive destruction" of America, (very tired metaphor ahead) they'll rescue that car "the Republicans drove into the ditch"...and drive it off a cliff and we'll be locked in the trunk along for the ride with no control whatsoever.
Mudge,
ReplyDeleteIf you do not post a retraction to your scurrilous charge "falling into the trap", I will demand satisfaction on the field of honor.
I make no case for tax cuts being paid for; I simply seek to show that THEIR discussion of "paying" for tax cuts is ridiculous, when they bitch about only a fraction of what is borrowed/financed to justify their expansion of government.
This is why I use the "quotes" around "pay" in my post.
While your logic is as always, sound and your opinion is as always, informed and wise--your target is off. Cease fire, break engage.
But one wonders--where will the $2 TRILLION come from to "pay for" the revenue lost in not raising taxes for the other 98%. Um.....China!
ReplyDeleteIt was the "revenue lost in not raising taxes" (not in quotes until now) that threw me. I should have known better. It's just that every now and again you throw in some a-conservative snippets ("quaint relic of Colonial times" comes to mind) that cause me to react thusly.
Bore clear, one round expended, no apparent casualties.
Gentlemen, gentlemen...chill. I refer you all to the Laffer Curve (and I ain't talking about that McCain skank CW lewdly and lasciviously subjected us to). What a dimwitted gyrating little trollop...my God she's perfect...Down Boy!... Jesus I think I'm in love!
ReplyDelete