Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Republican Senator to Andrea Mitchell: You don’t “pay for tax cuts”, because “it’s not the government’s money”, it’s YOUR money!

Retiring Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) gives a brief but illustrating basic economics lesson to Andrea Mitchell (hat tip to Radio Vice Online):

Considering she’s married to Alan Greenspan, she should be ashamed of herself for being such an economic illiterate.  Gregg took her to school.

That’s one leftist talking point that is more worn out than Monica Lewinsky’s kneepads.

It is beyond maddening to hear these dolts utter the phrase “pay for tax cuts”.  Gregg is correct that these imbeciles feel that America is this big pot of money sitting around, waiting for the government to distribute it.  When you get a paycheck from your job or earn money from your business, the money belongs to you.  Government then comes along and confiscates a portion of it in the form of taxes.  In a rather perverse thought process, the left believes that whatever is left over in your check after the government has seized its portion is money that the government “paid” you, rather than money that your boss or your customers paid you.

Here’s an analogy: Let’s say you’re walking along and a mugger jumps you.  He takes your wallet/purse (which has $100), removes $20 from it, and leaves $80.  Now let me ask you: Did the mugger just “pay for” the $80 in your wallet/purse?

If you’re a liberal, then the answer to my question is “Yes, the mugger paid for the $80 in your wallet/purse.”  You earned $100, the mugger took $20, and you now have $80.

What if the mugger said “I can’t afford to pay you $80, but I can afford to pay you $20”, and instead kept $80 of your $100?  According to the left’s line of thinking, the mugger “paid for” your $20.

Do you see how absolutely insane this thought process is?  Only in Liberalville can a person earn money, and the government considers an act of NOT mugging you for your money as “paying for” your money!

Oh, and another thing…

I don’t see keeping the current tax rates in place as it being a “tax cut”.  I see it as, well, keeping the current tax rates in place.  If the current tax rates expired, then the higher tax rates from 2001 will return, which by definition constitutes a tax increase.  For everyone.

When it comes to economics, “libruls iz dum!”

Advertisements

December 8, 2010 - Posted by | economic ignorance, media bias, taxes

9 Comments »

  1. “libruls iz dum!”?? Man, that’s exactly what my tramp stamp says!

    Comment by Nickie Goomba | December 8, 2010

  2. It’s because those who run the Democratic Party are not Liberals but Socialists. Capitalism and trational American values are foreign to them and have no place in their peoples utopia they believe they are creating.

    Comment by Steve | December 8, 2010

  3. Your right! Your children will be indebted to the future deficit. This tax cut is not designed to put money in your pocket but, to give billions of dollars to the already extremely wealthy. Read up on economic disparity, first. And then, do some research on those countries/regimes that have a lot of poor people and a few wealthy individuals, and then you might be able to evaluate this tax cut scheme differently than you do at the moment. If you keep funneling money to the top 1% of the economy you can rest assure that the elections will be bought as to how the rich see fit, and voting will be obsolete. Democracy is an American Value, as I see it.

    Comment by SW | December 8, 2010

  4. And ANOTHER question for liberals, socialists, and ANYONE else who thinks that taking YOUR money is the path to prosperity:
    The left says it would be HORRIBLE to increase everyone’s taxes, which is exactly what would happen if the tax cuts expire. They said they are “protecting” the middle and lower classes, because if this thing were to expire, then the others would suffer, so they went along with extending the cuts for the “wealthy” for the sake of the non-wealthy…WHO do we blame for those pre-2001 tax rates?!?!?!?!?!?
    NEWSFLASH!!!!!! The terrible, HIGHER taxes that we would otherwise default to are the taxes that BILL CLINTON and fellow democrats PUT IN PLACE!!!!!
    So Obama claims that he is protecting the middle class from CLINTON’S tax policy!
    Why is this not on CBS???? Oh, sorry, that last question is rhetorical.

    Comment by Kevin | December 8, 2010

  5. Your children will be indebted to the future deficit.

    So allowing people to keep their own friggin’ money is what creates deficits, but spending 300% more than the year before isn’t. You’re one of the economic illiterates to whom I referred in my post.

    Folks, here’s how Sara sees it:

    Your boss says that for the month of December, the company will pay 100% of your health premium, meaning that your paycheck just got $700 fatter. You take this $700 and you put it all down on a $50,000 Mercedes. Your $700 surplus has now turned into a $49,300 debt. If you’re Sara here, you blame your boss and the $700 for your debt, and not your own stupid spending.

    For liberals, it’s never the bloated government spending that creates deficits. It’s a lack of revenue (i.e. taxes). Never mind that tax revenues always go UP when taxes go down (as JFK noted with his tax cut, a rising tide lifts all boats). Liberal spenders (and that goes for the Republican Congress during the Bush years, who spent as if they were liberals) always spend the extra revenue and then some. When they spend the extra money and beyond…well, it’s because there wasn’t enough revenue. See the above Mercedes analogy.

    This tax cut is not designed to put money in your pocket but, to give billions of dollars to the already extremely wealthy.

    This has been discredited so many times that it’s not even worth the effort to give you the numbers that you undoubtedly would ignore anyway.

    Read up on economic disparity, first.

    I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday about economic disparity. Get a good education, learn some marketable skills that are useful to society, and you will be well compensated. Otherwise, it’s your own d#mned fault.

    If you keep funneling money to the top 1% of the economy you can rest assure that the elections will be bought as to how the rich see fit

    Then explain to me, Sara, how Obama got elected. I mean, he ran on “I’m going to raise taxes on that evil 5%”, so one would think that these people would have spent money like crazy to “buy the election” to keep the socialist from being elected. (Sidebar: In case you’re confused, socialism is a bad thing.)

    Also, as I demonstrated, allowing the producers to keep the fruits of their labor is NOT “funneling money to the top 1%”. You have proven my point that leftards like you believe that muggers not stealing more money is the same thing as muggers giving their victims the money that they didn’t steal. In order to “funnel money” to someone, that money must first be taken from someone else. Since the poor are, by definition, without money, then you can’t steal money from those who don’t have it.

    It is clear by your rhetoric that you’re one of life’s losers, seething with rage at the people who made better economic and personal choices than you did. Whether you like it or not, the “rich” got that way from earning their money, not from stealing it. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, toots.

    Democracy is an American Value, as I see it.

    And you see it incorrectly, since we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

    Comment by crushliberalism | December 8, 2010

  6. I could kiss that Republican Senator. I have to thank him for schooling Andrea Mitchell.

    Comment by SojournerLove | December 9, 2010

  7. If it weren’t incestuous and homosexual, I would kiss Crush for his schooling for Sara!
    I’ve seen the liberals exposed to such heavy factual representation before…it goes something like this:
    Stunned pause. Rapid blinking. Reboot of mental process. Intentional information dump from cerebral cortex right into the mental “trash bin”. Proceed as if NOTHING was said, never revisiting the experience again.
    Tom Bergeron had that look in 2000 when confronted on his TOTAL economic delusions on TV (confronted by an African America republican…which kinda discredits the “racist” approach, but when does fact interfere with liberalism?). He did the very same thing.

    Comment by Kevin | December 10, 2010

  8. I’ve seen the liberals exposed to such heavy factual representation before…it goes something like this:

    Stunned pause. Rapid blinking. Reboot of mental process. Intentional information dump from cerebral cortex right into the mental “trash bin”. Proceed as if NOTHING was said, never revisiting the experience again.

    I haven’t laughed like that since…well, since yesterday, when Tingles said his show was nonpartisan! 😆

    Seriously, though, nicely done!

    Comment by crushliberalism | December 10, 2010

  9. I manage to land a good one from time to time!:)

    Comment by Kevin | December 10, 2010


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: