Art Cummings of the News-Times is a God-damned idiot, and I will cheer when his soul burns in hell
God is truly merciful and forgiving, according to Judeo-Christian scriptures. He'd even forgive this hell-bound piece of shit who supports the theft of other people's property, it's said, when I myself wouldn't consider it for a unit of Planck time.
What happens to Jeter will not affect me in the least, but it does affect me when the government decides to rob me of even more of my property. What's more galling is the absurd claim, "Well, the law giving you a tax cut expired." After all, taxpayers are merely prey for government's leeches, and raising taxes (including revoking a previous "cut") is just giving a bigger bag limit to the predators.
Cummings' first idiocy is to ignore that the tax brackets are going up for everyone. They always were. Democrats' efforts were never serious: they knew that Republicans would take a hard line on keeping all the tax "cuts," so Democrats could use that as an excuse that they couldn't extend any tax cuts at all. It's necessary for both parties to increase taxes on everyone, because taxes on "the rich" are nowhere near enough to cover the surge in the federal deficit, a level that previously was only seen during WWII.
Even playing liberals' game, "Bush's tax cuts" only cut taxes for "the rich" by $700 billion. That's not per year, but total. Putting things in perspective, Obama's annual deficits are $1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion. Taxes on "the rich" for several years wouldn't even come close to covering a single year of the new deficits.
But Cummings' true idiocy is to suggest that people are worse off when the top earners aren't paying the vast majority (and last year, income taxes paid by the top 1% first exceeded what was paid by the bottom 95%, approximately a third of the pot). Why would people be worse off when their neighbors aren't being robbed more? Because the government needs to rob everyone as much as possible to satisfy Obama's fiscal insanity, lest taxpayers in the future will have greater debt burdens?
If he suggests that people benefit from "soaking the rich" because they'll get back more than they pay in, I don't need a government to force a neighbor to pay for my consumption. And I already pay more than I get back.
Therein lies the truth: anyone "worse off" is like a mugger or burglar is "worse off" with fewer victims. Liberals in their innate hypocrisy openly despise "the rich," but inwardly they know that "the rich" are needed to pay the bulk of taxes.
...the Bush tax cuts and Derek Jeter's contract.So tax cuts that affect all net taxpayers are not important? Really?
Neither one of those is an earth-shaking matter...
What happens to Jeter will not affect me in the least, but it does affect me when the government decides to rob me of even more of my property. What's more galling is the absurd claim, "Well, the law giving you a tax cut expired." After all, taxpayers are merely prey for government's leeches, and raising taxes (including revoking a previous "cut") is just giving a bigger bag limit to the predators.
Cummings' first idiocy is to ignore that the tax brackets are going up for everyone. They always were. Democrats' efforts were never serious: they knew that Republicans would take a hard line on keeping all the tax "cuts," so Democrats could use that as an excuse that they couldn't extend any tax cuts at all. It's necessary for both parties to increase taxes on everyone, because taxes on "the rich" are nowhere near enough to cover the surge in the federal deficit, a level that previously was only seen during WWII.
Even playing liberals' game, "Bush's tax cuts" only cut taxes for "the rich" by $700 billion. That's not per year, but total. Putting things in perspective, Obama's annual deficits are $1.4 trillion and $1.3 trillion. Taxes on "the rich" for several years wouldn't even come close to covering a single year of the new deficits.
But Cummings' true idiocy is to suggest that people are worse off when the top earners aren't paying the vast majority (and last year, income taxes paid by the top 1% first exceeded what was paid by the bottom 95%, approximately a third of the pot). Why would people be worse off when their neighbors aren't being robbed more? Because the government needs to rob everyone as much as possible to satisfy Obama's fiscal insanity, lest taxpayers in the future will have greater debt burdens?
If he suggests that people benefit from "soaking the rich" because they'll get back more than they pay in, I don't need a government to force a neighbor to pay for my consumption. And I already pay more than I get back.
Therein lies the truth: anyone "worse off" is like a mugger or burglar is "worse off" with fewer victims. Liberals in their innate hypocrisy openly despise "the rich," but inwardly they know that "the rich" are needed to pay the bulk of taxes.
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
8:19 PM
3 Comments:
So he's hell-bound because he supports higher taxes? Really? Hell-bound?
...And to think that you once called yourself Alarming News's "resident theologian."
Oh lookie who's here. Long time no see, dipshit.
Cummings supports theft. When you force someone to hand it over or die, that's robbery.
Robbers go to hell, except evidently in your religion where they're the holy ones.
I haven't had time to comment over there, though I should make some. But I'll give you a free lesson right now: go ponder Matthew 23, and tell me where Jesus said to go pay taxes.
You can also check out Matthew 17:24-26:
24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
By the way, like I always point out...
Nice job not refuting a thing I said. But that's so typical of you, isn't it?
Dipshit. You haven't changed a bit, except perhaps that you've grown more stupid.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home