|
|||||||||||||
|
An Open Letter by Punkerslut to
Information: Spectator.org Page
Greetings, There was a rather interesting statement that really drew my attention in your "Conservative Communique." For example, there was almost a mild tinge of sympathy for the working-class poor -- you know, those who make the majority of the nation. But, it was almost comedic how you tried to extend your compassion: "Conservatives recognize that government policies which weaken the family take a special toll on the poor. The results of families falling apart has huge moral and financial costs for all of us..." It seemed like the reason offered why families need to stay together, then, is that it provides greater financial and material needs to the youth. Therefore, the government should "...oppose policies & programs that are destructive towards traditional marriage and families." So, when the poor are homeless, you ignore them. When they're hungry, as 1 out of every 6 Americans is today, you forget that they exist. When they build up all of the wealth of society only to suffer a real unemployment rate of over 20%, they're not mentioned. But when it comes to outlawing gay marriage, wow, the poor suddenly show up on your radar! "Oh, there's those poor people I've heard those lefties talk about so much! Look -- they're suffering even more because the government has legalized gay marriage! And to think, otherwise I probably wouldn't have even noticed that they existed." To you, poverty only exists in the vacuum between one man's ass and another man's penis, or however any couple decides to consummate The words "poor," "hungry," "homeless," and "poverty" don't exist anywhere else on the page. When it came to the police gunning down workers, like in the strikes of Carnegie or Gates, the poor don't exist. They only enter the picture on this one particular issue: the prohibition of alternative lifestyles that make the editors of the American Spectator question their own sexuality. After all, it goes with reason that someone who is comfortable with their own sexuality will not try to impress it upon others. "Jobs" and "working" enter the picture, occasionally: "The President and Congress must now not raise taxes; it is vital that they encourage sound monetary policy, and eliminate unnecessary and job killing regulations." CEO's taking a huge profit, that they waste or hoard up, is responsible for eliminating and killing jobs. How odd your reasoning. The tax takes a little bit of incentive out of the Capitalist in producing. But the profit that the Capitalist reaps does the exact same thing to the next Capitalist to add value to the commodity. If a politician steps in, takes 25% of the value of a product in an exchange, how is that different from a Capitalist doing the exact same thing? In both, I see someone who doesn't work, taking what the working class created, and sharing it with nobody. Why don't you attack the high profits of Capitalism? It seems that if the money spent on yachts and private jets went to the economic and social development of the people, employment would be cut far more than by reducing taxes. Why not place a tax on those who refuse to invest? After all, the economists, from Adam Smith to David Ricardo, have explained the market economy as a conspiracy of the few Capitalist rich to dominate and control all of society. (Read "The Wealth of Nations," if you haven't already, and see chapter 8 of book 1.) Why not tax anyone who hoards up money needlessly? It seems like unemployment and underproductivity would disappear in a moment. If taxes slow down exchange, because they give no incentive to doing business, then make taxes that give incentives: any Capitalist who keeps money without giving it back to their workers is taxed 99% of that money, which then goes back to the community. Sounds like 100% incentive to invest there through taxes, and you've already well attested to the fact that taxes are the greatest mover of the Capitalists. Why not use that knowledge to make progressive, social change? Easy: by ignoring the whole picture, and focusing on a tiny aspect, you can prove your point. By focusing on a single brush stroke, you condemn Da Vinci's artwork as careless and ignorant, but you never step back to look at the whole thing. If taxes on producing slows invest, then why not tax them for underproducing? What? Do you expect that by some tax policy, all of the useful land, all of the factories, and everyone's will to work to eat are going to vanish? We'll start with everything and end with nothing, because we pass a single law? That would be true for the oppressive martial law that one can find in the Patriot Act, but not in overtaxing the rich. "Cut Government Spending. Congress has approved more spending than even the federal bureaucracy can handle." Last time I checked, the military and international embargoes/aid cost the United States nearly ten times as much as its social spending. If you reduced the military by ten times, you'd cut taxes by as much as 80 or 90%. But, oh that's right, you focus on one brush stroke at a time. There's no contradiction in your mind in attacking "high taxes" and then, at the same time, supporting a government program responsible for 80 to 90% of our tax's waste. "Peace comes through strength-not vulnerability, not appeasement and not an apologetic America." and "The new Congress also should support comprehensive missile defense." And when was the last time war ever made an American safer? Since the last few wars, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, there is more ill-feeling towards Americans in the world than ever. After supplying Israel with nuclear missiles, and then attacking Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction," our government has been the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, and property. Your response? I can sum it up as... "We need more of that!" You need to pull back, and look at the whole painting of society. Everything we have in society was made by a worker, whether a lowly wage worker or the prestigious professional. Capitalists never produced a single thing, and that's why they are called Capitalists: they are the "ists" of Capital. They have no other definition except that they live by owning productive property, by robbing those who actually labor. Until you recognize this difficulty, your analysis will be poor and inaccurate. Thank you, Sincerely,
Dear Spectator reader, As a reader and supporter of The American Spectator, I know you are a brilliant, erudite, witty individual with a vast appreciation for history, economics, and our founding principles. Yes, I am hoping flattery will get me somewhere. You see, I am writing today with a real, tangible need. I hope you're a regular visitor to our website, Spectator.org. If you are, you're in good company. Nearly two-thirds our online readers visit the website ten or more times a month. There, they find something new every day: Breaking News, The Obama Watch, Ben Stein's Diary, The Continuing Crisis, AmSpecBlog. Always available. Always free. Spectator's website was last redesigned in 2008, but they tell me that is millennia ago in terms of the world wide web. You can help. This week, we are launching a $25,000 fundraising campaign to upgrade Spectator.org.
Hey, look at you, aiming to raise up twenty-five grand, but you can't even take two seconds to respond to a letter explaining how everything you say is a lie. That's brilliant. Don't write me anymore. NOTE: The owners of the following e-mail addresses believe that anyone should be signed up for e-mail spam without their consent.
|
