Editorials Masquerading as News

Share

I filled out a political survey yesterday that really got my dander up. Take a look at some of the questions and tell me if they’re not leading/biased. Scale is 1-7, with 7 being strongly agree.

How much do you agree with the following proposals?

• Eliminating the tax on inheritances to help small business owners and farm families pass on their livelihoods to future generations even if it also increases the concentration of wealth among a small percentage of the population?

• Making George Bush's tax cuts permanent even if it means that most of the benefits go to the wealthiest Americans because they pay the most taxes?

• Imposing significant new state or federal taxes on the sale of tobacco products, even when the revenue from higher tobacco taxes goes to programs that have nothing to do with smoking?

• Raising taxes on dividend payments from stocks even if it would disproportionately hurt retired people who live off the dividend income from their investments?

Even if…even though…a clear slant here to the liberal mindset. I bet they threw out my responses. Now for my rebuttal:

1. My grandfather bought his home 49 years ago for $32000 cash, which was a lot back then. His home in upscale Salt Lake City is now worth $1.3 million, which means that in order for any of us to inherit it, we have to pay about $500000 in taxes. None of us have that kind of money, which means we can’t keep the family home, and you can’t buy a home in that neighborhood with the residual funds. My family is not rich, and the government inheritance tax works to prevent us from becoming rich. Despite what liberals tell you, they do not tax the rich- they tax those who are trying to become rich. Note that Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller are very wealthy, not to mention the Clintons, but their wealth is not taxable INCOME. I am working with my grandfather to put his wealth into a trust so as to shield as much of it as possible from the inheritance tax just like those very wealthy people do.
2. It is a fallacy that rich people pay taxes. See above. People with high WAGES pay taxes. Also, some of Bush’s tax cuts were on capital gains. I have been invested in the stock market since I was 13, and I’ve never received all of my money back. IN fact, during the Clinton administration, although I was earning $4.25/hr, I had to send the IRS a check because I made $492 in the stock market (I had no withholdings but owed tax on my capital gains). I am still not rich, but Bush’s tax cuts have helped cushion the blow of the stock market losses this year.
3. This one I actually agreed with, because I know that Nevada took the tobacco settlement money and set up a college scholarship fund. I’m still trying to figure out what that has to do with preventing smoking. The so-called sin tax is something I’ve previously addressed, and if you’re going to tax us for roads- use it on roads. If it’s for healthcare, earmark it for healthcare. At present, taxes just go into the general fund and go to whatever whenever and wherever, even if it has nothing to do with the reason we’re taxed in the first place. For this reason, I oppose ANY new tax. Period.
4. I also agree with this one. If, like I hope to one day, you live off of dividends, the liberal policies of His Royal Highness Barack Obama will raise taxes on the retired and elderly. How does he reconcile that with his assertions that Democrats protect the elderly?

Nothing Obama says is straightforward. Obama only knows what he’s been taught. He’s not a thinker (Rush Limbaugh 21 July 08). I’ve also never taken a poll that was slanted conservative. They are probably fishing for people who agree with them so they can dishearten the rest of Americans who still love liberty.

A while ago, I responded to another fishing expedition on whether or not drilling would drop gas prices. Just before the end of the “question”, the individual posted this editorial:

So, all this extra drilling may save you 8 cents a gallon by 2027 but make the oil companies billions of dollars. Is this another example of Republicans spinning the facts in order to make the oil companies richer?

Oil companies make money through sales. If they have more, they sell more, but if they have more, the price goes down. Any idiot who took economics can tell you about the supply-demand curve. He betrayed his true colors in this editorial, so I responded in kind.

This is not a question or an inquiry. This is a chance for you to spew liberal talking points. It's clearly evident from your tone that you already know the answer and you just want other people to agree. Go to the Department of Energy's website. Oil companies earn $0.09 per gallon compared to the federal government which earns $0.17, and they DO JACK SQUAT to provide the oil. Now, drilling is no panacea. If we drill now, it will take years to bring it online. If we had started 10 years ago when Clinton vetoed it, it would be available now. In 2004, Nancy Pelosi promised to bring down gas prices. Gas cost $2.79/gal locally where I "live", and I know it's currently $4.25/gal. So, stop scapegoating and flame baiting and get a clue you hack.

Like Obama, this person only knows what he’s been told, and everything to which he pays heed tells him that Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Retail, are the enemies but Big Government is his friend. This duplicity of opinion really bothers me about liberals, and their ignorance annoys me. They cannot be convinced, and that’s not the purpose of this blog- it is to affirm and confirm the faith of those who believe in the traditions of the Founding Fathers. Liberals follow the admonition of Michelle Obama who said, “sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance”. Amen. Rationalize yourselves liberals.

For the earnest reader, I recommend to you one of my favorite postings on liberal economics. Please read the Buccaneer Theory of Economics. It may surprise you.