My friend emails me links to Neal Boortz’s website where he rants about things like democrats, taxes, democrats, Hillary Clinton, and democrats. And I usually agree with most of what he says, but I don’t understand why he needs to make everything such an “Us vs Them” fight. Just state your opinion and let it go.
Today’s post is a good example.
I agree with almost everything he says, but for some reasons he’s still irritating to read. Since his viewpoint is on solid logical ground, why does he have to cloud it with spin and right-wing jargon.
Re-read his opening sentance:
If there’s anything the Democrat Party just loves to do that would be raising taxes … but only on those people who are not likely to vote Democrat! If you’ve been paying any attention at all, you will know that the Democrats proposed a $400 billion tax increase last week .
He then goes on to complain that the taxes are all on the 20%, and they are reducing taxes on the middle and lower class. I don’t really get his point. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the tax burden carried by people who make more than $265,000 a year?
Also , I’ll bet noone here even read the article that he links to. (you probably aren’t reading this long-wided post right now either). If you had taken the time to click the link that he cites as evidence the Democrats are raising taxes by $400 billion, you would have read this at the very bottom:
The House plan promises a big surplus in five years by allowing tax cuts passed in the president’s first term to expire. It awards spending increases next year to both the Pentagon and domestic programs, but it defers difficult decisions about unsustainable growth in federal benefit programs such as Medicare.
Bush equates letting the cuts expire to a tax increase. He said Saturday the blow would amount to nearly $400 billion over five years –what he said would be “the largest tax increase in our nation’s history.”
So they didn’t really “propose” anything, and these aren’t really “tax increases.” If bush wanted them permanent so badly he should’ve had his congress authorize them permanently while it was republican. But the fact of the matter is that they don’t do any good for 80% of America and they aren’t needed anymore to jump-start the economy like they were in 2001 when they were written. Boortz is just mad because he’s rich enough that he will probably owe more taxes next year whereas none of us will be affected at all.
So explain to me why a guy who has an otherwise very informed and reasonable opinion needs to rely on pre-spun talking points from the mouth of the president himself in order to sensationalize his article?
