Democrats and Taxes? Like Fat Kids and Ice Cream (yep, I just looked in the mirror)

For one, Al Gore will just not go away.  First, he sells his company BEFORE taxes went up so that he wouldn't have to pay his fair share.  He sells it to 'real journalists' at Al Jazeera (a Muslim version of MSNBC) instead of Glenn Beck, who doesn't share his ideals.  I'm not heart broken that Beck didn't get to buy it, nor am I heartbroken that Beck's not back on TV on his own station despite his pandering.  But this article from Gore's 'blog', from the Financial Times, originally, is moon-bat crazy. Whoever wrote this article (which I can't see because I'm not subscribing to anything else) just won't look at facts.

Yes, taxes are a 'regrettable necessity' in a 'civilized' society, a Republic, if you will.  However, it never seems to amaze me that one party (Democrats) always wants more taxes, while the other party (Republicans) is trying to cut spending as a way to deal with our deficits.  Anyway, back to the article.  It wants  people to believe that carbon taxes won't lose people their jobs and will actually do something environmentally.


"Taxes are always a regrettable necessity, but some are less regrettable than others. A tax that strengthens energy security and cuts pollution, while minimising the damage done to employment and investment, is one of the least regrettable of all.""Yet a carbon tax, which has all those characteristics, is struggling to find support from the US administration or in Congress. It deserves much wider enthusiasm.""One of the few uncontroversial conclusions of economics is that it is better to tax “bads” than “goods”. Wages and profits are desirable objectives, and governments have no good excuse for obstructing them. They are taxed largely for reasons of convenience, at the cost of disincentives to wage-earning and profit[-]making that are a drag on the economy."

... 

"The claim made this week by more than 85 Republican members of Congress that carbon taxes would “kill millions more jobs” has no evidence to support it.""While the adjustment to higher energy costs would have some negative impact, it would be offset by the benefits of cuts in other taxes. ..."



Well, it depends on what you call evidence.  If you call history 'evidence', then this author doesn't know his bum from a hole in the ground.  Or if you have any economic sense whatsoever, you can see that taxes are an 'expense' for a business, and when expenses go up, a business goes out of business or raises rates.  If people are unwilling to buy more expensive products, people may lose jobs or the company can shut it's doors.  Oh, but they claim that by changing other taxes, it'll all even out.  If that's the case, what's the point?  If you're going to lower other taxes to create this tax out of thin air, there's no point, is there?  Or is the 'changing tax' idea really just bull crap to get people to go along with it while they take more of our money?

What about Europe?  The place where governments are taking money from people's accounts to pay for bailouts that the government caused?  Or where 'green energy' has proven to not be quite so 'green' and hopeful as the Left has promised?  Oh, that's right, a few people are getting rich off of it.  And politicians flip, then flop, then flip again to remain in power.  Sounds more like an oligarchy (Chicago style politics) than the democracy they claim.  And what of the jobs that Merkel killed?  All for renewable energy?  All to remain in power?  Wow, we have some pretty crappy politicians.

Career politicians are generally like hemorrhoids. Sometimes you just get them, and they suck.  I don't believe they have to stay, though.  Sometimes it's directly because of your diet choices that you get them (obesity, diet), sometimes it just happens.  But, if you pay as much attention to politicians and local/world issues as you do your favorite 'reality' shows, or awards shows, then you'll be reasonably informed enough to see through a politician's BS.  They say, for the most part, what they think we want to hear.  And that's on us.  We don't do near enough to hold them accountable for what they promise, what they do, and what deals they make.

We pick, far too often, the 'least of two evils'.  Sometimes that's because only career politicians run for office, sometimes it's because our standards are far too low.  We need good and moral people to run for office.  We need people more interested in our future than reminding us of our past failures.  We need people who are very smart, who are educated enough to know better than to attempt sound bites out of loaded questions.

And that's going to generally be my focus.  To inform people what's going on around them if they're not paying attention.  To attempt to make them realize what politicians are saying when they use certain terms.  Their definitions are sometimes different from ours.