There's a term liberals love, and use every time they attempt yet another tax-hike in order to fund their precious social programs, give themselves raises, or pay off the special-interest groups that helped them get elected.
They claim that Republicans are only interested in "tax breaks for the rich." The "rich" is that famous boogeyman the left loves to use in order to make the average voter hostile toward the liberals' competition. After all, if the left is so against "the rich", then they must be for the poor, right? Never mind that most of those angrily disparaging "the rich" are usually quite rich themselves. In fact, they may be richer than the average person they're including among "the rich".
"Rich" apparently means you make $125,000 per anum, or more. I'll admit that's more than I make, but for a small business owner, that's barely enough to scrape by. One thing lefties don't like to admit is that business owners have to spend money to make money, and the only way "rich" people remain "rich" is by ensuring money is being spent in the right places in the businesses they own. A guy who owns a donut shop and earns $125,000 a year has to buy inventory, pay employees, pay rent on the building his shop is in, pay custodial staff, pay for ad space in the yellow pages and any other marketing costs, etc. And that's before any take-home pay, which he uses to pay bills, put food on the table, provide for his children, etc. Your average "rich" person probably sees less "excess" money than the average joe working a 9-5 entry-level or middle-management job.
But Left looks at a gross income of $125,000 or more and immediately decides that person is "rich" and should therefore pay their "fair share", ei: pay more in taxes than a person making less money.
Okay, you say, maybe he shouldn't be taxed so much, but what about the millionaires and billionaires in this country? Shouldn't they pay more? After all, they won't miss it.
Did you forget what I said about spending money to make money. There was a well-known businessman who is easily a millionaire who once said that in order for his business to BREAK EVEN, let alone make a profit, he had to spend $2 million every day. Think about that. I mean, this guy's millions didn't come from nowhere, and he doesn't store them in some vault and never touch them. The money he makes goes right back into his business. And if the donut shop owner has to pay 10-20 workers in addition to all the other money he has to spend, an auto manufacturer, for example has to pay millions if not billions of employees, and he still has all the other expenses the donut shop man has, plus more besides. He's not sitting on a pile of money somewhere. That money is circulating, making sure his business can stay afloat, and a surprisingly small (comparative) percentage of that money actually lands in his pocket to be used as he sees fit.
Liberals must have this idea of "rich" people being a little like Scrooge McDuck, or other cartoon rich people who literally sleep on piles of money and light their cigars with $100 bills. In real life, I'm sure these people exist, but those aren't the people the Liberals are targeting. Instead they're going after business owners, who are already struggling to stay in the black, and insisting they pay more in taxes because it's "fair".
How's this for "fair": A rich business owner is taxed heavily, and has less money to put into his business to ensure it stays afloat. So he has two choices; raise prices or downsize. Does either choice sound fair to the person of average income? The left are so busy villifying "the rich" that they don't even ask themselves what getting back at the rich will actually do to the middle-class and poor.
So, really, a tax cut for the rich is a tax cut for everybody. Punishing those who are successful simply never makes the less successful better off. Not to mention that every time liberals have raised taxes, it's never just on "the rich", but on EVERYBODY. Conservatives believe that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income because that's as much as they can easily afford. Yes, that looks on the surface like the poor pay more because the percentage on the dollar is higher, but ultimately it benefits everyone as it keeps prices down and keeps jobs going.
After all, we're currently seeing how well liberals and their high taxes work for unemployment rates...
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
If They Were Republicans: Jon Stewart
It's time once again for my monthly segment "If They Were Republicans". It's a look at how prominent Democrats and liberals are treated by the press, Leftist politicians, and leftists in general and how that would change if the Democrat in question had been of the opposite political persuasion, and nothing else was different; not the circumstances, not the individual's actions--nothing but what political stance they espouse.
Recently I've been picking on Jon Stewart for his woefully inept attempt to deflect criticism for his side of the media, claiming they aren't biased and that Fox News viewers are "uninformed". Both statements are provably false but you'll never find the so-called mainstream media dissecting his statements the way they frequently do of any prominent right-winger.
Another thing you won't find the mainstream media grilling Stewart over is this (starts at the 2 minute mark):
The Left is falling all over itself trying to excuse this. "Is it racist?" They ask. "Can't Herman Cain take a joke?"
The first question isn't even worth considering. Of course it's racist, by the standards set up by Jon Stewart's own mainstream media! Now, let's be honest here. Most politicians' verbal quirks or mannerisms or speech patterns get mocked by comedians from both sides all the time. That's par for the course of being a politician in a free country. I'm all for it. Mock Bill Clinton (which he was). Mock George W. Bush (which he really was). Mock Barack Obama...wait. We can't do that. Not because there's nothing to mock; the man is a comedy goldmine. But he's black, therefore any mockery of him is unquestionably due to racism. That's the argument the left uses all the time.
Mock George W. Bush? Hilarious. Mock Obama? Racist!
I will say that I personally don't have an issue with Stewart's mockery of Cain's speech patterns. It's apparent the mainstream media doesn't either. But that's because Stewart is a leftist Democrat. Let's imagine for a moment that he's a Republican.
How quickly do you think he would lose his job? The answer is probably instantly, and more to the point, how do you think the headlines would look? Right now they say things like "Jon Stewart Racist?" or "Do YOU Think Stewart's Impression of Cain was Racist?" or "Herman Cain Upset over Stewart Routine". If Stewart were a conservative Republican, they would say "Stewart Fired over Racist Routine". Or, if he weren't fired, the headlines would read "Outrage over Racist Routine may Cost Stewart His Job".
He would be eviscerated by the press. Calls for his resignation would be loud and frequent. He would never work in the public eye again.
Oh, but he wasn't mocking Herman Cain's blackness! He was mocking his "down-home" speech style! He'd do the same if Cain was white but talked like he was from the deep south!
Uh-huh. And James Hudnall was only poking fun at Obama's jug-ears. Obama does have jug-ears, and it's not racist to say so. But according to Laurence O'Dumbass, you can't draw a caricature of President Obama and not have racial intent.
But Jon Stewart does an Amos 'n Andy act at the expense of a prominent black conservative, and he's a-okay. Why is it racist to poke fun at a black president for issues that have nothing to do with his race, but completely acceptable to make fun of a black conservative because he talks with a southern "black" accent?
On top of that, what Stewart was mocking Cain for was Cain's insistence that bills not be so long that there's no time to read them before it's time to pass them. This is reasonable, and the left would never accept a bill 800 pages long with a two-day deadline to pass it from George W. Bush, or any other right-winger. But with Obama it's okay, because "Who reads bills, anyway?"
Stewart mocked this by suggesting that Herman Cain just doesn't like to read. Yeah. Think this would be acceptable if he were a Republican? "Stewart Suggests that Black Conservative Can't Read", the headlines would say.
The leftist double-standard rears its ugly head again. "We can mock black conservatives, suggesting they're dumb and illiterate, but you can't mock anything about Obama, or even point out the real flaws in his policies and actions, or you're a racist."
This is our "post-racial" world.
Recently I've been picking on Jon Stewart for his woefully inept attempt to deflect criticism for his side of the media, claiming they aren't biased and that Fox News viewers are "uninformed". Both statements are provably false but you'll never find the so-called mainstream media dissecting his statements the way they frequently do of any prominent right-winger.
Another thing you won't find the mainstream media grilling Stewart over is this (starts at the 2 minute mark):
The Left is falling all over itself trying to excuse this. "Is it racist?" They ask. "Can't Herman Cain take a joke?"
The first question isn't even worth considering. Of course it's racist, by the standards set up by Jon Stewart's own mainstream media! Now, let's be honest here. Most politicians' verbal quirks or mannerisms or speech patterns get mocked by comedians from both sides all the time. That's par for the course of being a politician in a free country. I'm all for it. Mock Bill Clinton (which he was). Mock George W. Bush (which he really was). Mock Barack Obama...wait. We can't do that. Not because there's nothing to mock; the man is a comedy goldmine. But he's black, therefore any mockery of him is unquestionably due to racism. That's the argument the left uses all the time.
Mock George W. Bush? Hilarious. Mock Obama? Racist!
I will say that I personally don't have an issue with Stewart's mockery of Cain's speech patterns. It's apparent the mainstream media doesn't either. But that's because Stewart is a leftist Democrat. Let's imagine for a moment that he's a Republican.
How quickly do you think he would lose his job? The answer is probably instantly, and more to the point, how do you think the headlines would look? Right now they say things like "Jon Stewart Racist?" or "Do YOU Think Stewart's Impression of Cain was Racist?" or "Herman Cain Upset over Stewart Routine". If Stewart were a conservative Republican, they would say "Stewart Fired over Racist Routine". Or, if he weren't fired, the headlines would read "Outrage over Racist Routine may Cost Stewart His Job".
He would be eviscerated by the press. Calls for his resignation would be loud and frequent. He would never work in the public eye again.
Oh, but he wasn't mocking Herman Cain's blackness! He was mocking his "down-home" speech style! He'd do the same if Cain was white but talked like he was from the deep south!
Uh-huh. And James Hudnall was only poking fun at Obama's jug-ears. Obama does have jug-ears, and it's not racist to say so. But according to Laurence O'Dumbass, you can't draw a caricature of President Obama and not have racial intent.
But Jon Stewart does an Amos 'n Andy act at the expense of a prominent black conservative, and he's a-okay. Why is it racist to poke fun at a black president for issues that have nothing to do with his race, but completely acceptable to make fun of a black conservative because he talks with a southern "black" accent?
On top of that, what Stewart was mocking Cain for was Cain's insistence that bills not be so long that there's no time to read them before it's time to pass them. This is reasonable, and the left would never accept a bill 800 pages long with a two-day deadline to pass it from George W. Bush, or any other right-winger. But with Obama it's okay, because "Who reads bills, anyway?"
Stewart mocked this by suggesting that Herman Cain just doesn't like to read. Yeah. Think this would be acceptable if he were a Republican? "Stewart Suggests that Black Conservative Can't Read", the headlines would say.
The leftist double-standard rears its ugly head again. "We can mock black conservatives, suggesting they're dumb and illiterate, but you can't mock anything about Obama, or even point out the real flaws in his policies and actions, or you're a racist."
This is our "post-racial" world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)