I spotted this under the responses to the Wall Street Journal Question of the Day and was quite pleased to see such.
I firmly believe that if you are against tax cuts you should move to Canada or France, or retake your college economics class.
I consider receiving just $1 of my hard earned money back from the liberals as significant.
To all these people that are whining about not wanting tax cuts, I have a suggestion: DO NOT ACCEPT THE TAX CUTS!!! Keep sending your money to Washington. The tax liability you calculate on your return each year is the minimum amount of taxes you have to pay in order to avoid punishment. You can always pay more. So just pay more. It really is that simple.
But I digress. Here is a post in response to the one above. I am replying to this assclown in the forum of my blog, since he is registered as a guest, and as such cannot have replies addressed directly to him.
John Ryan's response is typical of all conservatives. He attempts to turn tax policy into a political issue where if you favor them you are right and if you don't you are liberal. Tax policy is an economic issue. If you are heavily in debt, which this country has become since Bush arrived, it makes no sense to give money away.
If Mr. Ryan owed $5,000 on his Visa and won $5,000 in the lottery, he would rather buy a big-screen television with the money rather than pay off his debt.
The country is billions in debt, yet it's considered "liberal" to want to pay off our bills first? What a ridiculous argument.
David Daggett
Phoenix
The act of refraining from using coercion to collect money from others is not the same as "giving money away." What is it about liberals and their inability to come up with a decent analogy? Forcibly taking money from people is not the same as "winning the lottery." In David Daggett's liberal fairyland, running up a Visa bill entitles him to force other people to pay off his debt. The country is billions in debt because it spends too much money, not because it doesn't collect enough. Households have to cut back on spending when they are bringing in less income. What is so ridiculous about the government having to do the same? (Please note that for the time being I am ignoring the fact that tax cuts typically result in increased revenues to the US Treasury. Even if they didn't, cutting taxes would still be the prudent thing to do.)
1:14 PM
