.

A good friend sent the following video to me (and 10 of his friends) today.

.

.

Almost immediately, one of his liberal friends (a college professor) emailed back to the group the following:

Well, a Washington Post story, Oct. 14, 2011, on the cost of the Bush tax cuts for the top 5%, puts it at $1,034,424,338,581. Sorry, but to me that sounds like a lot of money. I also think it’s unfair that Warren Buffett should pay income tax at a lower rate than his secretary, and, for that matter, Warren Buffett thinks so, too.
Jane  

I had to write back to my friend:

Jim,

I think Jane must have missed the point of the piece.  The point, in my view, was that by inciting class warfare and taking almost everything from “the rich” we can barely solve the budget deficit problem for one year.  The problem is that we are simply spending more than we have to spend.  Rather than focus on the “Bush tax cuts” I wish Jane and others, who think like her, would consider the possibility of reducing Federal spending.  Between 2001 when Mr. Bush and a(n almost) Republican Controlled Congress took power and the end of 2010 when Mr. Obama and a Democrat Controlled Congress we have gone from spending 18% of our GDP on the Federal Government Budget each year to 25% of GDP.  Since 7% of $14 Trillion is right at about the $1 Trillion, per year, that would be quite a bit more than would be collected without the “Bush tax cuts.”  According to the article to which Jane referred ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/calculating-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/10/14/gIQADB7dkL_blog.html ) the “Bush tax cuts” have cost the Federal Government about $1 Trillion total since 2001.  She might also have made note of the fact that the Washington Post was quoting a website created by “Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning advocacy group for progressive taxation.”
It appears that Jane does not understand the difference between a $1 Trillion a year problem and a $1 Trillion per 10 year solution she proposes.
It troubles me that many intelligent people like Jane are so blinded by class envy that they can’t imagine solutions that don’t attack those who are not “Progressives” like she is.

Jane responded to that with:

Why not reduce federal spending AND repeal the Bush tax cuts for the super rich? As to class warfare, I quote Warren Buffett again: “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” And I don’t envy the billionaires, nor do I want to attack them; I just think that they should contribute their fair share to the solution of our budget problems. Jane

I’m taken by the words she used, “”the super rich” (class envy?) and “contribute their fair share” (Socialist?).  And, I’m still convinced she did not get the point of the video.  What do you think?

About these ads