Sunday, September 28, 2008

Can't teach an old dog new tricks

The standard liberal Democrat of solving any problem is one of two ways. Throw more money at it. Or tax it.

The bailout bill is option 1. Now word comes that Nancy Pelosi and her gang of socialists wants to use option 2 as well.

Her brilliant plan is to tax Wall St, if after 5 years, the bailout plan ends up costing tax payers money. Then, presumably the cost to the taxpayers would be made up by the new tax levied on Wall St. firms.

So if I understand her correctly, she doesn't want taxpayers to pay any extra taxes. And in order to achieve that goal, she will impose a new tax. Mr. Orwell himself would be proud by this doublespeak.

Oh but the tax is on "Wall Street" you see. So the "common man" won't be affected, so say the imbeciles with a D next to their name. In the deranged mind of the liberal, Wall St and Main St. have nothing to do with each other. After all nobody on Main St. ever uses a Wall St product. Nobody on Main St. has a 401k invested in and administered by Wall St. Nobody has a bank account. Nobody gets a loan financed by Wall St money.

This tax on wall st, like any other corporate tax is a tax on everyone in the country. When the "Wall St tax" is imposed, who do you think will pay it? The consumer of course. So your $1.25 ATM fee goes to $1.50. Your $4.95 monthly checking account fee goes to $5.25. Your $100 a year IRA fee goes to $115.

A tax is a tax is a tax. Doesn't matter if it's income tax, corporate tax, oil profit tax or Wall St. tax. In the end the payer is the same.

However given the fact that a solid majority of Americans are idiots, they don't see it like that. They want class warfare and punishing the rich is the way to go. And then 5 years from now when ATM fees are $10 a pop to pay for the new tax, Nancy and Co. will propose legislation to punish banks from charging outrageous fees.

And on the stupidity goes on.


Anonymous said...

Yeah and the stupidest thing is that McCain unfortunately can't get up and very clearly, simply explain things like this in his speeches, while Obama very easily points out concepts like this (the ones which support his side and his agenda.) If McCain would just get better at explaining simple economic concepts in debate and speeches, he would be kicking Obama's ass.

The best part of the debate the other night was when Obama said "you want to cut taxes for big corporations" and McCain finally addressed what he was saying and said "We currently have the highest corporate taxes in the world. If we don't cut these, businesses will continue to send their operations overseas where they have 11% tax . . . it's necessary to bring jobs back into the U.S." Then he went right back to whining about Obama and his 18 billion dollars in earmarks again.

But no, he sticks to his stupid "talking points" and makes commercials about Obama wanting to teach sex education to kids. WTF. The public is moronic, break it down for them so they can understand.

Ed said...

You can't really blame McCain for that. You have to remember the vast majority of Americans are idiots. And within that group, the undecided voter is an even bigger idiot. If after 18 months of campaigning you still don't know how you're going to vote, you're either not paying attention or you're too stupid to have the right to vote.

And when a politician talks to these people, he has to speak on their terms.

Obama can do that very well. He can boil down his message succinctly. Rich people bad. I tax rich people. I give to you free stuff. You happy. Change. Hope. Good.

That message is easily understood by the cretins.

McCain on the other hand is trying to explain why taxing the most productive members of society is a bad idea. It's complicated and takes more than a sound bite sentence to articulate. As soon as he starts talking, the typical publik skool edumacated American flips the channel to see what's happening on "America's Dancing Stars" or whatever the hell that show with Knight Rider is called.

That's why McCain has to stick to the talking points. The talking points are simple and easily understood by the voters. It's just that his talking points don't make the deadbeats all warm and fuzzy like Obama's talking points. And unfortunately there are more deadbeats out there than non-deadbeats.