Sunday, September 26, 2010

Bandying Semantics

There was a line in the first Star Wars film - Darth Vader to Princess Lea over the obliteration of her home planet or something .... something like "Come now, Princess, let's not bandy semantics."

And so we come to the positioning of the Democratic party over the expiration of "The Bush Tax Cuts".

I keep hearing Democrats talk about "holding middle class tax cuts hostage", as if there is some sort of new tax cut the Democrats have been struggling to get by the Republican Superminority and the Republicans just won't let it happen.

And I just saw this David Axelrod clip from some ABC morning show talking once again about the Democrats being kept by the Republicans from extending a tax cut (doesn't mention it as very tax cut they railed against for years which is about to expire) to the middle class.   The Republican want to extend the entire Bush tax cut so that small business owners will feel more comfortable in growing and expanding their businesses ... creating more jobs that are not dependent on tax money.

But the way Axelrod further spins it is even more telling.  He says "they [Republicans] want to borrow another $700 Billion over the next 10 years to give for tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires."   Of course, there are a lot of people making between $250K and $1,000,000 .... but never mind that for now.

The principle of the thing is, he talks about it as if the money is the government's money and that the government gives it away.  Which isn't surprising because that's the way they want their issues voters to look at it.  "Look, we, the Government gave this much money to your cause."  See, the Government is generous, and they [the Democrats] are the most "generous" party in giving away their [the Government's] money.

But of course as we've pointed out numerous times, a tax break doesn't amount to giving people money.  It amounts to taking less money from them.   The top earners already pay the bulk of income taxes in this country -- which you'll never hear Democrats say.  To hear them tell it, the Republicans are taking money from the rest of us and giving it to the wealthy.  Which is an absolutely insane way of putting it.  But remember this is the party that brought you that "depends on what the meaning of the word is is."   This is what they do.   Most politicians do it to some degree or the other, but the far Left has mastered it.

He says Republicans are going to "have to go back to their districts" and "explain to their constituents" why they are holding middle class tax cuts (again, this wouldn't amount to a tax cut for anyone anyway, it would amount to a lack of a tax "re-raising".   What this, in effect is is a tax hike on everyone  -- but since Dems are in such dire straits right now they are offering to exclude the middle class from the tax hike (and call it a tax cut, aren't they generous, again, after vilifying it when it was Bush's tax cut).  Republicans are saying "no, keep the cuts in place for everyone, especially since we're in a recession".  Democrats spin that as favoring the rich.

And the whole thing about giving tax breaks to the rich is what quadrupled the deficit is bunk.  Out of control spending quadrupled the deficit.   Both parties are guilty of this -- but guess which one pushes for faster, more, higher?  They both need to cut it out.  Lack of taxes doesn't cause deficits.  Spending causes deficits.

In the end, Axelrod is saying here that failing to take in money the government isn't taking in now and hasn't taken in for years amounts to borrowing money to give to the rich.

Republicans, your constituents are smart enough to get it if you put it to them the way I have.  And if you don't  put it the way I have and take it to heart yourselves, don't look for the support of the Tea Party Movement next time primaries roll around.  Got it?


Cylar said...

The sheer dishonesty of these people (the Democrats in Congress) is absolutely freakin' sickening.

I about threw up today listening to a couple of co-workers agreeing with each other about how both parties are all the same and all politicians care about is their own selfish interests. The blind concurring with the blind...yep, it IS dark around here isn't it? In a room packed with bright lights.

To say I resent their ignorance is kind of an understatement. I wanted to say, "NO. You don't get to say that crap anymore. ONE party has had an absolute death-grip on our country for two years straight, with no input whatsoever from the other...and the guys in power have made a huge mess. No, you don't get to start in with that 'they're all the same' garbage again."

tim said...

But I left to wonder how many of the voting public actually falls for the Democrats lies? I guess we’ll get that answer this November.

philmon said...

A bunch of it will, and part of that is that the Republicans won't simply point it out for what it is like I just did.

Oh yeah, I know, Cylar. "They're all the same" is what you get from a Democrat when they don't want to argue anymore. They think it makes them sound even-handed, I guess.

And it does allow the other party in the argument a convenient escape hatch. But it's not entirely true, either.

philmon said...

Hey, this is encouraging. McConnell isn't afraid to go there:

(he was the interview following Axelrod's)

xlbrl said...

It's not their money?

They print it. Try doing that.

They set interest rates on it. Try getting any right now.

If you make "more than you need", they'll take it back.

I think it is their money. That is the problem.

philmon said...

I know what you're saying, and that did cross my mind as I was writing the post.

But it's been there from the beginning. Article I, Section 8.

Minimum wage encroachment and central planner's dreams aside, they don't (yet) decide how much I pay whom for what, nor what others pay me for what.

They do get to decide how much is floating around, and I'm good with that.

I agree on that last bit, though. They do think of it as their money. And that IS the problem.

xlbrl said...

There was a time, for a long time, when banks issued their own money. The system was, obviously, somewhat chaotic and inefficient, so we traded it for something that is brutally efficient for government. It might be time to re-examine where a private system of money would have evolved. In fact, we may have no choice in the coming years.

If they give a depression and nobody comes, it will be because people have worked out other arrangements. I have no idea what they would be, the invisible hand being invisible. It is the visible hand that should terrify.

AnnoyingJoe said...

Try? Do or do not. There is no try.

philmon said...

Heh. One of my very favorite Yoda lines.