Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
There's a certain freshness to defending the adjustment of effective tax burdens to have a correlation of punishment of Democrats and benefit to Republicans. Usually these kinds of distinctions are made by income and not voting preferences, but your embrace of this particular solution as a "win/win!" is something that I have to award points for candor.
I'm sure you'll have the same grudging admiration for the next Democratic Administration which would institute, say, a higher probability of compulsory service for families of neo-conservatives that advocate a vastly more aggressive foreign policy funded through the elimination of moehair subsidies. The age of minutely targeted public policy has arrived.
|
Your bitter tone here in the face of humor is sort of telling. Here we have a revenue neutral shift, and you're treating it as a move backwards, giving heft and weight to my theory that youse guyz really care not for the recipients of the tax largesse, or for the uses to which the bucks go, but are actually more concerned that you get to take the bucks from the people who have more than you, and that those people not get to keep what they have. It's not so much "these poor people have these needs!" to you as it is "damn you rich guyz anyway, you can't HAVE all of that!"
Strangely enough, though, if you do the math, this is making the adjustment MORE dependent upon income levels, not less, so you should have been doubley happy.
And, finally, who was calling for a draft most recently? T'wasn't the neo's, was it? And it wasn't driven so much by a love for a greater military as it was by a desire to target Others. So, Crimea River.
Threaded Mode