A tax cut is government "giving" money?

Here's a snapshot of Yahoo's headlines from two nights ago, which I didn't have a chance to write about at the time:



But if you clicked on the stimulus story, here's the headline (McClatchy, not the AP, but just as liberally biased). The story is still up, for now.

"Unclear if stimulus tax breaks will save jobs, spark spending"

God knows the mainstream media can't allow the least positive headline about letting people keep their own property. The article is balanced enough, I suppose, in presenting the two arguments for and against tax cuts as an economic stimulus. But that's not the point: the point is that the taxes are simply theft of people's property. That quoted asshat Roberton Williams, of the ultra-liberal Tax Policy Center, opposes tax cuts because "If people want to save, giving them money will not force them to spend it."

Giving them money? Considering it was their property to begin with, taken by force with the ultimate threat of death if they resisted the robbery, it's as much "giving" money to taxpayers as a mugger robbing someone blind but "giving" him $20 for cab fare home. I wrote about this nearly four years ago, in the early days of this blog, talking about idiots who think "rich" people should pay higher taxes because "they can afford to give more back to the government."

Similar is the attitude of another asshat, Congressman George Miller of California, who thinks a tax break for 401Ks is a subsidy. A subsidy is money that the government takes from someone else and gives to you. The government "graciously allowing" a worker to save money without paying income taxes on it is not a subsidy because it's the worker's own property.