Reply #27: wrong on so many counts, eh?

[hfojvt]

"The politicians you mention didn't try to kill Social Security and every other social program that benefits anyone other than the rich."

Did I say that they did? The Montanan attacks Simpson for being in Congress a long time. Not for anything he did in Congress. Just for being in Congress. As such, it is an attack on everybody who has a long political career and also on everybody who works for the Government.


"Alan Simpson wants to raise taxes on the people who can least afford to pay higher taxes while giving tax breaks to himself and his rich friends."

Yeah, the Montanan says that Congress wants to raise taxes. He does not complain about any specific proposal, just the very idea of raising taxes YET AGAIN. Apparently there have been lots of tax increases besides the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, the Obama tax cuts and the Obama extension of the Bush tax cuts. Congress increases taxes all the time.


"Increasing taxes on the rich will solve the deficit. Think not? Go back to the tax rates of the Clinton era."


Did I disagree with that? The Montanan is the one who claims that the deficit came from "over spending". The same claim that every Republican makes. The Montanan said this "Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt." You seem to disagree with him/her and agree with me.


"Finally, a response to an ad hominem attack on the entire middle class and poor is not an ad hominem attack. You're confusing cause and effect."

There is no cause and effect. Martin Luther King said "returning hate for hate only increases the power of hate" (paraphrase). We can choose to respond with facts and reason, or we can take the low road and thus validate that kind of rhetoric. Watch any sporting contest where player A hits player B and player B hits back. Other than Boxing type events, Player B is called for a foul 100% of the time. An ad hominem is an ad hominem regardless of the supposed cause.

"There is strength in numbers. If everyone sticks together on this there is no way scumbags like Alan Simpson can defeat us.

Exactly which side are you on?"

Who is sticking together? The Montanan is arguing against Government spending - meaning cuts to social programs other than the ones that benefit him. The Montanan is arguing against tax increases. The Montanan is promoting many rightwing talking points under the guise of attacking Alan Simpson. (Alan Simpson fucking sucks!! (and Government is bad, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, the deficit was caused by too much spending, and tax increases are bad)).

I am against the rightwing talking points regardless of how much I am supposed to giggle about the first statement.