Soak the Rich More: Chap. MMIX

Here's a surprise: YOU'VE MISSED THE POINT. Of course, people who blindly buy the anti-tax mantra always miss the point.

Here's the point behind rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthy:

1. It was the wrong idea in the first place. If we were on the edge of a recession when GWB proposed them [and I'm still not convinced that was true], then it was a DEMAND recession rather than a supply recession. Our manufacturing space was operating at only about 75% of capacity. With the growing disparity in incomes, if a tax-cut stimulus was actually needed it was at the lower rates. Lower and middle-income earners were losing disposable income. If THEIR tax rates had been cut, there would have been more money available to spend and the economy would have had a boost. Instead, the administration acted if we were on the verge of a SUPPLY recession -- as in the 1980s -- and that it was trickle-down time. Instead, tax cuts to the wealthy only resulted in more disposable income for those who already had plenty. What followed was not more consumption, but more playing with the stock market and investment in great ideas like sub-prime mortgages.

2. Thanks to the tax cuts for the rich, China and Japan own our ass. For the first time in our history, we're fighting a war WITHOUT raising taxes. How is this possible? Well, record deficits help, but mostly we're doing it by selling treasury bonds. This is a way to bring money into the economy without raising taxes. Who's buying these bonds? Well, last I heard China and Japan investment provides more than 40% of our national income. The health of our economy and most of our security is in the hand of two of our economic rivals. No wonder the president is looking forward to going to the Olympics. He's got a lot of ass to kiss there. But I suppose I shouldn't worry. After all, having around 20% of our economy controlled by a communist nation shouldn't worry anyone, should it?

3. The most important factor in the security of our nation is our economic stability. If we're going to achieve that, we have to

a. change the source ratio of our federal revenue so that we're not as dependent on the good will of other nations -- especially communist ones.

b. eliminate the greatest source of our excessive spending. And, no, Ronnie, that's not welfare mothers with color TVs and Caddilacs. It's the unnecessary and elective war in Iraq.

Ignoring these factors and facts, and casting all of this as socialistic redistribution of wealth based on envy is the basist intellectual sophistry.

Pull your head out, Pettyfog.

 

The thing you gotta love about 'fog. When he has no substantive response, the boy can dance like Fred Astaire.

The nice thing about believing that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and stupid and socialist, is that you don't have to worry about the illogic of your positions. It's one of the benefits to the conservative side in attacking institutions of higher learning. The more uneducated and ignorant your support base is, the less they are capable of seeing how what you're telling them just doesn't make sense. For instance: rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthy is socialist redistribution of weath from the rich to the poor. However, if someone were to say that creating tax cuts for the wealthy is a fascistic redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, that's VERY DIFFERENT. Don't worry about the logic of the former not working for the latter. Just yell CLASS WARFARE and BUSH DERANGEMENT. What a joke.

Oh, and even though I didn't say a word about corporate income taxes, here's the answer & explanation you so nicely asked for: "yes; because it's a tax on corporations." You see, 'fog, "personal income tax" is a tax on the income of persons and "corporate income tax" is a tax on the income of corporations. I typed that really slow.

Insert tab a into slot b. Lather, rinse, repeat.