Let's face it, politics is the art of deception, and political rhetoric is the art of misstating and spinning issues to suit ones needs and views. A classic example is the current debate over whether to give money to the unemployed by extending how long unemployment benefits will be provided, or instead to give "tax cuts to the rich."
First of all, nobody's taxes-- whether you are rich or poor-- is going to be cut in this lame duck session of Congress. The only real issue is whether our current tax rates that we have had for the past nine years will go up in January, whether for everybody or nobody or just the people making under $200,000, who are defined as “rich” by Congress.
The most we can hope for is that tax rates will not go up. So the next time you hear some politician, pundit or media talking head say the words "tax cuts for the rich," that will just tell you whether they are serious about facts or just regurgitating rhetorical liberal/progressive talking points.
These politicians, pundits and media talking heads are also misstating and spinning the rhetorical liberal/progressive talking point that if these so-called "tax cuts to the rich" are extended then the government will have to borrow $780 billion and add it to the deficit. That is patently absurd! If that were in fact true, then we would have been doing this since 2001 when the Bush tax cuts took effect and by that logic, the government would have added $7.8 TRILLION to the national debt!
When the government refrains from raising someone's taxes, they are not "giving" someone anything. Even if you were actually cutting their tax rate, you would still not be "giving" them anything, but only allowing them to keep more of what they have already earned.
Is the government ACTUALLY doing any of us a big favor by not taking even more of what we have worked for from us? Is it not an insult to our intelligence to say that the government is "giving" us something by not taxing it away?
Another fashionable political and media deception is making a parallel between giving money to the unemployed versus giving money to "the rich," the unemployment benefits extension debate.
However, with unemployment compensation you are in fact giving someone something. "Extending unemployment benefits" always sounds good politically, especially if you do not ask the basic question: "For how long should they be extended?" A year? Two years? No limit?
Studies have shown what common sense should have told us without any studies: The longer the unemployment benefits are available, the longer people stay unemployed.
If I were fired tomorrow, should I be able to live off the government until such time as I find another job that is exactly the same, making the same or higher pay? What if I am offered another job that uses some of the same skills but doesn't pay quite as much? Should I be allowed to keep on living off the government?
While I agree that everyone may need a hand-up in their time of need, expecting a never ending tax-payer funded hand-out is just another form of welfare under the misnamed title of "social justice" that is covertly designed to keep the "sheeple" relying on the government for their very existance. The so-called 99ers...those who have been on unemployment for 99 weeks have now unionized (http://american99ersunion.yolasite.com) to enable them to successfully lobby for more and more unemployment extensions! So now they are going to get another 52 weeks (13 months) added to their benefits. It's supposed to be a "helping hand-up" program...not "employment" with a collective bargaining agreement for the unemployed!!
