On Fox News Sunday this AM, Juan Williams displayed the typical liberal mindset concerning government taxation: It's their money.
If you earn or possess money or other assets in any way, it's because the government, in their beneficent mercy, allowed you to keep it. Senator Claire McCaskill was on FNS as well, touting the same line, just not in such short compass as Mr. Williams.
How, the convoluted lexicon of liberalspeak, did "not taking from" ever equal a "gift"? If the Bush tax cuts are extended, the government is not "giving" anything to anyone. They are just taking at the same rate they did before. For the sake of accuracy, it was the Democrats who forced the sunset provision in the Bush Tax Cuts in the first place, and this administration, who are cheerleaders for letting the tax cuts expire, will be responsible for what should properly be characterized as the "Obama Tax Increases".
Since a tax increase "on the rich" will play well to Obama's base, Democrats think this bit of class envy will give them a populist cachet. But, let's change the currency for a moment, shall we? Many parents speak of their children as a "treasure". Let's apply liberal taxspeak to child rearing:
First, if you have more than two children, the government will "give" you two of them. It's not "fair" for you to have more than two while some people have none at all. So, two of the children you already have will be "given" to you by the government, and any others, for the sake of fairness, will be redistributed. (It may be that some of those without children wouldn't want to take any, but they have to. It's only "fair"!)
Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is not "giving" them anything at all. All this is aside from the argument about taxing gross income, rather than net income, which the libs like to gloss over. A small business with a gross income of $250,000 will not take home anywhere near that much. If they invest money back into the business or hold back reserves (or at least try to) to meet payroll for their employees when revenues are down, they take home even less.
Ask yourself, who is going to employ more people? A business grossing $250,000 or a business grossing $1,000,000? Why take money out of the hands of the people who create the most jobs? Then ask yourself, is the government better suited to direct wealth to create solid, self sustaining jobs with a minimum of waste, fraud and abuse or the private sector? Rather than address the fact that these taxes (and new regulations) will impact small businesses hard, Democrats are focusing on class envy.
But, for now, I'd settle for getting rid of the Orwellian Newspeak that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is "giving money" to them. It's only fair...
Cross posted at LCR.
Posts
Juan Williams' career was saved by advocates of free speech and capitalism, and he learned absolutely nothing. He still thinks socialism is the answer, but he is smart enough not to say so. You can't believe a word he says because he is vested in so little - other than a paycheck for being a Lefty.
ReplyDeleteJuan has always been a liberal. That's why Fox hired him in the first place, to give an opposing view. Balance, if you will.
ReplyDeleteNPR wet themselves and embarrassed themselves getting rid of him, but one politically incorrect statement doesn't negate years of liberalism.
His statement today shows that he is every bit the liberal that he ever was.
Proof,,, I too am sick and tired of this libspeak.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is a tax INCREASE that will have a detrimental effect on every single solitary American across the board in one way or another!
This will do absolutely nothing towards the debt/deficiet and actually make the recession and unemployment (in the private sector) worse.
For the life of me, I do not understand why the GOP or PACS supporting them do not run commercials trumpeting these facts!
Christopher: The amazing thing is how pervasive this is (or a tribute to how well the libs distribute their talking points!).
ReplyDeleteHow can so many otherwise intelligent people constantly say that black is white and up is down without their heads 'sploding?
"otherwise intelligent people"
ReplyDeleteWell that is a leap!
I would not describe John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian economics) as 'otherwise intelligent'.
For a modern day example I point to Paul Krugman, the man is a complete and utter moron.
"otherwise intelligent people" I was being kind.
ReplyDeleteI should have said, "otherwise intelligent people...and most liberals"
Proof,,,Yes on retrospect I see that now.
ReplyDeleteIt is just that it took me by surprise and therefore shot from the hip.
Nothing wrong with a good hip shot every now and then!
ReplyDelete