SOMETIMES YOU JUST GOTTA LET THESE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES
Shilling for the Regime can be a lonely job
There is nothing quite like the convoluted wordsmithing expertise of a liberal. In the land of the loons, deficit spending becomes “investing.” Foisting an even greater disproportionate tax burden on upper-income wage earners becomes “asking them” to pay their “fair share.” And, now, tax cuts become “spending” – according to the Regime’s Propaganda Minister, Jay Carney.
Rather than hammer this tool right off the bat for his current and past protestations (he said last year that extending unemployment benefits was the most direct way to create jobs), let’s let him speak first – while we just sit back and marvel at the twisted logic of liberalism. Oh, and of course, notice how he includes the requisite code words and fear mongering phrases that any good liberal worth his weight in dishonesty would include:
The top 2% of tax cuts that President Bush put into place in 2001 and 2003 are simply more than we can afford and by extending them we would be making a choice to place the burden on getting our fiscal house in order on the middle class, to place the burden of our fiscal challenges on seniors and on the disabled. We would make the choice to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans as opposed to investments in education, investments in medical research.
We do not have infinite resources. One of the virtues of all the work that has been on this issue over the past two years, including the Simpson-Bowles commission, Rivlin-Domenici commission is the identification of the truth which is that tax cuts represent spending. Tax cuts reduce revenues and reflect the same kinds of choices you have to make when you allocate funds to defense spending, or education spending, or entitlement spending. So, this is the balanced approach the president believes we need to take.
When you say that it is more important to give tax cuts to the top 2% than ensure that Medicare as we know it stays in place. When the argument is made, you’re making it a choice there that is harmful to the economy, is harmful to American seniors and is not supported by the majority of the American people.
Incredible. Okay, now let’s do the hammering:
A liberal “getting our fiscal house in order” is like Michael Moore cutting out cheeseburgers and going on a gluten-free diet; it ain’t gonna happen. And, Jay? Have you and the boss ever considered that maybe – just maybe - reducing deficit spending is the best way to “get our fiscal house in order”?
As for the “tax cuts represent spending” argument, which is a logical concept is in the mind of the liberal, isn’t the bottom line really about tax revenue, Jay? You liberals love to focus on the symbolism associated with raising taxes on “the rich” (purely as a political ploy to garner votes from the “non-rich”) vs. the reality of, well, the reality. Unfortunately, you’ve never grasped the concept that decreasing the tax burden on small business owners creates more tax payers - which in turn, creates more tax revenue.
More tax revenue isn’t nearly as important as more votes – is it, Jay?