"Skip, you TRAITOR. How can you endorse a tax increase. This is GOP RELIGOIN here. You can't be this kind of HERETIC, and still call yourelf a "conservative" ("maverick" or not).
Ah, but you--like seemingly ALL of the GOP politicians--do not understand the FRAUD involved in that LEFTIST Democart/media "question" about whehter GOP candidates will "agre" to $1 in tax increases for every dollar in spending "cuts".
It is all a question of WHAT TAX INCFREASES, and WHEN the spending "cuts" occur (and to WHAT). Read the headline of this articlew again. It is absolutely TURE, and absolutely in accord with CONSERVATIVE principles (as the GOP has NOT been--as the supposed Tea Party politicians have BETRAYED their rank and file). In fact, if what I mean by this headine had been followed, we would have CUT ONE TRILLION dollars from spending in just the present two years (this fiscal year and next). If you read this blog, you know whatr I am talking aobut.
This blog has ALWAYS opposed that FRAUD of a "payroll tax cut". Yet. The MEDIA says that eliminating this "temporary" "tax cut" would be a TAX INCREASE. Democrats have said that eliminating this "payroll tax cut" would be a TAX INCREASE. Wall Streeet (lol) says that eliminating the "payroll tax cut" would be a TAX INCREASE. I know. The people on Wall STreet are ECONOMIC FASCISTS, rather than free market capitalists, and PROVE it every day . Still, this is what they are saying. My BROTHER, the ACCOUNTANT, has told me that money is "fungible" and that therefore the "payroll tax cut" truly is a "tax cut", even though my borther admits that it is a fraudulent underminning of the concept of SELF-FUNDING Sociatl Security. Who am I to argue with ALL of these "smart" (reaed that bone-deep STUPID) peoiple, although I give my brother a little leeway because he really does understand what is going on here, but is limited by his 'trainining" as an acccountant). The conclusion is inescabable: The Maverick Conservvative favors a !00 BILLION dollar "tax increase", and hwas consisently favored that for THIS YEAR and NEXT YEAR.
Do the arithmetic. 5 times !)) BILLION is 500 BILLIONI DOLLARS. That wuold mean that if we merely "cut" 5 times the spending that we add in a TAX INCREASE by putting Social Security funding back in place, we would "cut" ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in spending in TWO YEARS (plus the 200 BILLINO we would have gotten in extra revenute). That is 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. We would already have almost balanced the budget (by the fiscal year starting in Octorber). IF we "cut" $10 in spending for every dollar we added in tax revenues, we would have CUT TWO TRILLIION DOLLARS in spending over this fiscal year and the next. We would have a BUDGET SURPLUS.
"Skip, you don't understand. That 'payroll tax cut' is not the kind of thing we mean when we talk about raising taxes. That is putting MNEY in the pockets of WORKING AMERICANS. Further, it is jsut 'temporary'. When we talk about 'raising taxes', we are ONLY talking abut the RICH. This is all abut CLASS WARFARE, and BRIBING the 'middle class'. You can't take that questin about 'cutting $10 in spending' for every dollar raised in excess taxes LITERALLY. That questin was not about anything REAL. It was abut the GP being unwilling to 'compromise'. You, Sip, are not talking about 'compromise'. You are talking about doubling down' on CONGRONTATION-on taking away BOTH tax expenditures that Democrats and the media LIEKE and taking away SPENDING that Democrats and the media like. And Wall Street likes them too. You are right abut that. You also miss th ewhole point on SPENDING. We are NOT talking about 'cutting' spending THIS YEAR. We are talking about a LONG-TERM DEFICT REDUCTIN PLAN. over TEN YEARS. We can't "cut" spending NOW."
What is funny is that--a few rehtorical flourishes asiide--is that the above paragraph is a MORE ACCURATE statment of the ral positon of the left, including the media; of Wall Street (most of it); and of the GOP estalbishment thaan ANY descriptoni yu are likely to find from them. This is all about DECEIT. I answered that left wing media question EXACTLY the way the gOP SHOUYLD have been answering it, except they have been too cowardly to do it. When the MEDIA, and other LEFT WING DEMOCRATS, talk about "spending cutes', they are talking about TEN YEARS FROM NOW. When they are talking aobut "tax incrfeases" they are talking aobut NOW, and they are talkin gaobut TAX RATES rather than rpealing tax gimmicks--allthough they will throw in oil land gas tax gimmicks because they HATE tthose industries--REFUSING to talk about ending WASTEFUL tax benefits for GREEN companies). The left wing media, and other left wing Democrats, want to ADD to CURRENT SPENDING. They are confident--a confidence that history suggests is well founded--that "spending cuts" WILL NEVER HAPPEN (except to the extent they can figure out how to END THE MILITARY). Did I say the GOP is much better? No, I did not. The Paul Ryan "cuts" in Medicare do not START for TEN YEARS. We don't haVe ten years.
No.. This hwole business about 'comparing" "spending cuts" and "tax increases" is a FRAUD. This "payroll tax cut' was not really a "tax cut" at all, but a WELFARE PAYMENT for the middle class (no different than that $600 Bush/Obama/Democrat TAX REBATE that FAILED, in the spring-summer of 2008. Oh, this kind of money payment is BETTER than governemnt politicians and bureaucrats dttermining where money will be spent (with a lot sticking to THEIR fingers), but it is still BAD. It is WELFARE. It is UNDERMINING SOCIAL SECURITY, as a "self-funding", and turning it into a WELFARE system, lpure and simple.
Nope. This is all about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION (class warfare): taking money AWAY from SOME PEOPLE, and GIVING the money to OTHER PEOPLE (not necessarily the poor, if you look at Soyndra and the big banks). The left wing media, and left wing Democrats, want to take money away from people THEY DON"T LIKE (or to attack industries they don't like), and give the money to people they "do like" (POLITICALLY). That is ALL this is about, and this tak of $1 vs. $10 is a TOTAL FRAUD.
Did I mentin that a "tax on millionaires" will NOT necessarily RAISE ANY REVENUE. But this is NOT about "raising revenue". It is about POLITICAL CLASS WARFARE. In any event, you undermine our entire economy with an everf more COMPLICATED tax system "tgrgeting" an ever SMALLER number of peole to SUBWSIDIZE EVERYONE ELSE. Tht CONCEPT is utter DISASTER, and it is stupid to talk about "compromise" on that. Ayn Rand, some sixty years ago, exposed this as an attempt to make SLAVES of the productive/"talented" peoile in our society: FORCING them to WORK FOR ALL OF THE REST OF US. People will only atake so much, and they rebel. The "rich" acutally have more ABiLITRY to rebel (in non-violent ways) than the poor: hence, making it doubtful that you even "increase" government revenue by heaping more an dmore taxes oon a SMALL grou of peole. At bet, you make little dent in the "defict". Merely restoring Social Seucrity funding, by ending that fraudulent "payroll tax cut", would ADD MORE REVENUE than ANY "tax on the rich" now being talked abogut (even if yu make the FALSE assumption that you will really add any substantial revenue by this kind of selective extreme taxation).
That brings me to Jeb Bush. Part 2 of ths article will be all about Jeb Bush, who went along with this FRAUDULENT "questin" aobut comparing 'tax increases" and "spending cuts",--even taknig a siwpe at GOP candidates by saying that he can agree that such a "compormise" would be a good idedea "because I am not running for office.". Let us hope so, Mr. Bush. My message to yu is this: I will OPPOSE you for AnY office for which you EVER run, if it involves me, and that would include dogcatcher of Mt. ida, Arkansas. Mitt Ropmney would be INSANE to choose you as hsis VP (this bog alrady noting that Marco Rubio and Chris Christie are the only "real" choices Romney has). Mr. Bush, you have AGAIN exposed yourself for what you are: a FRAUD wanting only "approval" of other media and establishment frauds. Nope. No matter how long I live, I will NEVER support Jeb Bush for ANY political office, against ANY person (including Satan himself). Is that clear enough for you? I will try to make it even clearer next article.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).