You honestly don't see any difference between demanding a source for a claimed fact (like whether tax rates are higher this year than last year), versus opinion (like whether or not Obamacare will cost more money than if we hadn't passed it)?
So once again, my mentally impaired colleague, I'll use as small words as possible. You constantly, constantly
claim your unique snowflake opinions are based on facts. However when pressed for those facts, you rarely (I wanted to say never, but like I said, I'm better than you so I gave you the benefit of the doubt
) provide where those facts are
And once again, you confuse "facts" with "opinion". I readily provide the facts my opinions are based on
. But what people like Joph demand is a citation proving my opinion
. See the difference? I even mentioned this in my last post. Joph isn't asking me to provide cites showing that liberal pundits and politicians claiming that taxes are "lower than they've ever been", or cites showing that the same people are claiming that spending isn't abnormally high (some even claim that spending is at some kind of all time historical low, which is just a blatant lie), or cites to the same people writing/parroting editorials claiming that the bulk of today's deficit can be blamed on the Bush tax cuts, Bush's medicare planD, and Bush's wars. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims about the Dems weaseling out of any real domestic spending cuts in the budget debates last spring. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Democrats have failed to write down any spending cuts they'd be willing to make. Nor is he demanding that I provide sources for my claims that the Dems are actually talking about spending even more money
for some kind of stimulus2.
Those are the facts upon which I base my conclusion, yet he is not demanding I provide support for those. You know why? Because those facts aren't in question. Instead, he demands that I provide a cite for my conclusion that the Dems are trying to create the false perception that if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts (on the rich even!) that this will solve our economic problems. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to provide a written confession from the Dems or super secret plan written in blood or something. It's my opinion about *why* they are saying and doing those things.
To support that, I use logic. There's a common pattern to statements coming from the Dems and their water carriers: That taxes are too low, and spending is either just fine, or even too low as well. What perception does that create in the midst of an known deficit problem? Don't think to hard, it might just strain your brain. It creates the perception that the best solution should be raising taxes and *not* cutting spending. Is this really surprising? I don't think so. Is anyone actually under the false perception that if the Dems could just do whatever they wanted tomorrow, that they wouldn't simply raise taxes and keep spending the same (or even increase it)? Of course they would. We all know this.
Now, I'm going a step further. How do they achieve that? They can't just do whatever they want. They don't have enough people in the House, and the public isn't terribly happy with tax increases right now. They have to get people to let them raise taxes, while making them think that... wait for it... they wont raise taxes on them!
. Shocking, right? I mean, I hope we can all agree that just raising taxes on "the rich" can't possibly put more than an incredibly tiny dent in the deficit, and if they do proceed with just raising taxes to pay for the deficit, they'll have to raise taxes on a hell of a lot more people than just the rich, and do more than just cancel out the Bush rates. They'll have to create new and higher rates than even back in the Clinton era, right?
No one's going to support that. It's a losing political agenda. Duh. But if they allow spending cuts, they lose the support of their base. So who do you think they'll screw over if they can? Remember, we presumably all agree that the Dems would simply keep spending the same or higher and pay for that increase with whatever taxes are required if they had the power to do so. So we have to assume that they will raise taxes more than just eliminating the Bush rates on the top 2% of earners. If they can, right?
But to get there, they have to lie. Period. They have no choice. Thus, they have to convince the public that they aren't going to cut all those wonderful programs they are funding, while not raising taxes on them
. The only way they can do that is to convince people that this can be done by just eliminating those Bush rates on just "the rich". Ergo, I conclude that they're selling this to the public. Not blatantly, of course. That would be too easy to refute. None of them will say something like: "We can balance the budget if we just eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich". But by putting out separate messages which combine to make people think that they'll oppose spending cuts, support eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the rich, and fix the deficit, they can make people think that all they'll do is eliminate those tax cuts.
Remember when I kept saying that Obama was promising to increase spending, and not raise taxes, and balance the budget? Same deal. He was selling a lie then as well. But because he never said all three things together, no amount of cites would "prove" this. But he said each thing separately. Funny thing, is that I correctly predicted exactly what he would do once in office back then too. I said that he'd massively increase spending, not raise taxes initially, create a huge deficit, and then use it as a lever to raise taxes. Yay for predictability.
Guess what? I'm making another prediction. The Democrats methodology right now is to convince people that they will only raise taxes on the rich, will not cut their precious social spending, but will somehow be able to fix the economy and balance the budget as well. They are selling a lie. But as long as they don't say all three of those things together, people like Joph will fall over themselves to insist that they aren't selling a lie at all. Cause there's no cite you can make showing them doing this, right? So it just must not be true? After all, we all know that when politicians plan to screw people over, they make a point of putting their evil plans right out there in the open. Lol!
Use your brains. All the information you need to know is out there. All I've done is make some fairly easy connections. And frankly, the Dems don't really have a choice but to pursue this line anyway. I just don't see how others can't see this. Like I said, it's not only blatant, but it's their only course of action if they want to retain any political power at all. Edited, Aug 18th 2011 12:49pm by gbaji