savethehumans.com
Shock therapy for planet Earth.
Back to: home last page

Wartime Tax Cuts, Liberal Droppings, and the LA Times

Printable Version

by Jason Roth

"A liberal's been here, son."

"How do you know, daddy?"

"Look, do you see those?"

"Yes, what are they, daddy?"

"Liberal droppings. Make sure to wipe your feet before going inside."

On October 29th, in his article entitled "Forgoing More Tax Cuts Is the Price of War", genius-liberal Ronald Brownstein of the LA Times discussed the tax cuts passed by the House of Representatives:

"House Republicans last week pushed through a tax cut that will cost nearly $200 billion over the next five years..."

What amazes me, is how liberals can be so brazen in their misuse of language. They can be so full of it that their words themselves almost reek of donkey feces, and yet they proceed valiantly, like naked emperors off to battle.

Then I had a realization.

Robin Hood shot arrows for the cause. Liberals leave liberal droppings. Liberal droppings are just liberals' weapon of choice.

In Ronald Brownstein's case, he left liberal droppings all over the LA Times.

So, Mr. Brownstein, the tax cut is going to "cost" $200 billion?

Since when does it "cost" money not to take it from somebody? If you manage to escape from a mugger, does it "cost" the mugger whatever money you had in your wallet?

Let's see, I have $52 in my wallet right now. Earlier today, I walked a good 35 blocks through New York City. I must have passed by, I'd estimate, at least two or three potential muggers. So I cost muggers $156 today. I might as well have mugged them! (To make up for this travesty, maybe we can give muggers a tax deduction on business expenses. You know, on stuff like guns and ski masks.)

Brownstein thinks "it's reasonable to ask whether the country can afford more tax cuts." So let me ask you, dear reader, whether you think you could "afford" to have more money. Do you think, after paying for food, shelter, and clothing, you'd still be able to squeeze in a few more dollars into your budget? I hope you remember your college economics.

Brownstein also thinks "it may be difficult to argue for tax cuts beyond short-term measures to invigorate the economy". Well, maybe Brownstein had to carry water for his high school's debate team, but I wouldn't find it particularly difficult to argue.

Brownstein concedes that "short-term measures" could invigorate the economy in the short term. If so, then why wouldn't "long-term measures" invigorate the economy in the long term? A long-term tax cut puts more money back in the hands of those who earned it. And doesn't a "good" economy mean that more people have more money?

Genius-liberal (I know, those two words are like nails on a chalkboard together) Brownstein says "it may even become impossible to avoid asking whether the country can still afford all of the tax cuts approved last spring." So again, dear reader, do you think you can afford to keep that $300 check that Bush mailed to you? Will you be able to make ends meet?

Some people gave their tax refund checks to the families of the September 11 victims. Do you think those families can afford the money? Huh, Brownstein?

Brownstein thinks, or at least he says he thinks, that he cares about properly financing the war on terrorism:

"The armed forces are accepting the risk of combat. Police and fire departments and public health workers are accepting the risk of emergency response. Eventually, Congress and Bush will have to bear the fainter risk of honestly paying for all of those sacrifices."

To Brownstein, government welfare-state spending is a given. Brownstein assumes that if taxes are cut, the area of government that is necessarily going to be affected is the military.

Brownstein, didn't mommy and daddy ever teach you that if you want to buy that special toy, you might have to refrain from buying some of those less expensive toys that catch your eye? That's what we call budgeting. Can you say budgeting?

If we as a country can't afford all the little toys right now, toys like the Welfare-o-Matic or the Save-the-Alaskan-Tree-Slug Defense Fund (with deluxe action grip), all because we have a special toy to buy (one guaranteed to be unsafe for children under five, not to mention for the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda), then maybe we ought to start budgeting.

I realize that this causes a problem for you, Mr. Brownstein.

If we let Americans keep more of their money, while retaining a military budget at an acceptable level for winning this war, then you'd actually have to acknowledge the need to cut your pet programs.

It was so generous of you to offer to cut our military budget instead. Thanks for the offer. Thanks, but no thanks.

 
Postscript: The liberal NYC media can't stop repeating the 50 million-dollar figure which constitutes new Mayor Bloomberg's personal campaign expenses. What a perfect illustration of their never-ending hypocrisy.

The liberal media recoils in horror when they see a rich guy spending his own money on his own election campaign, or when a government spends money on the defense of its own citizens, but when it comes to the liberal agenda of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, the media is as generous with other people's money as Mayor Bloomberg is with his own.

Back to: home last page