In response to:

The Invincible Lie: Part II

redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 8:20 PM
Because favoring one group over another and calling it fairness is the definition of hypocrisy.
Artie C. Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 10:46 PM
The definition of liberalism too.
Torr Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 8:37 PM
"favoring one group over another and calling it fairness"?

I don't think i understand what you're trying to say with your last two posts. Wanna clarify it a little for me? Thanks.
redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 8:46 PM
Taxing one group of citizens at a lower rate than another group is favoring one group at the expense of the other.
Torr Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 9:09 PM
i absolutely agree red!

The Police, Firemen, Post Office, Public Teachers, DMV, etc. treat me exactly the same as they would treat Donald Trump. So why are the lower 49.5% of American earners paying $0.00 for all those services via their income taxes, while the 50.5% that do pay taxes, pick up the tab for everyone? Furthermore, those same 49.5% who contribute nothing benefit from the lion’s share of the subsidies afforded by the 50.5%.

I don't think there is a better example of profound greed and selfishness than those who disparage the so-called "rich", while they are continuously subsidized by the same people they disparage. They are TRULY greedy and selfish.
redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 9:32 PM
Don't forget government greed. Politicians who demand more and more of working Americans to finance their pet projects. It is immoral for the government to have its hand in any man or woman's pocket rich or poor while they are working.
redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 9:54 PM
Guess you didn't know the Revolutionary War was instigated by immoral tyranical taxes. More about tax cuts than increases. I cited JFK for lower rates what is your source? Or is it just about getting even for some injustice you have deluded yourself into believing?
redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 10:11 PM
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963." JFK Adrress to Economic Club of NY 12/14/62 Kennedy whinnig less than 10 years after Korea.
Mark1369 Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 11:24 PM
You sir have blanked out on the fact that the U.S. was the only major economy not damaged by WWII. There fore to compare today with the time following WWII is comparing apples to oranges. Even you have to recognize business today can go to countries other than the U.S. if tax rates grow to the levels you are suggesting which would make unemployment even worse. Are you denying reality or are you proposing more unemployment as a good policy?
redglare Wrote: Jul 13, 2012 11:28 PM
By the early 60's we had a recession and Kennedy advocating lower rates. The high rates persisted and the 70's were worse. I remember Jimmy Carter. Then Reagan slashed the rates which jumped started growth and increased revenues. Clinton with the help of the GOP did not raise taxes and signed welfare reform allowing growth to continue. Now liberals are agitating to take even more from the earners and distribute it to others. That is both greedy and immoral especially in light of all the evidence.

Editor's Note: This column is part II in a series. Part I can be found here.

Nothing produces more of a sense of the futility of facts than seeing someone in the mass media repeating some notion that has been refuted innumerable times over the years.

On July 9th, on CNN's program "The Situation Room" with Wolf Blitzer, commentator Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's plan to continue the temporary extension of the tax rates established under the Bush administration -- except for the top brackets, where Obama wanted the tax rates raised.

Ms. Borger said, "if you're going to lower the tax...