http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over
Time to deconstruct this nonsense...
"It [class membership in a capitalist society] is assigned to each individual by a daily repeated plebiscite, as it were, of all the people. The public in spending and buying determines who should own and run the plants, who should play the parts in the theater performances, who should work in the factories and mines. Rich men become poor, and poor men rich. The heirs as well as those who themselves have acquired wealth must try to hold their own by defending their assets against the competition of already established firms and of ambitious newcomers." -Mises
1. False dichotomy. Never mentions cutting govt spending by $700 billion.
2. How much are the "poor" taking from the rich and middle class already, in welfare, unemployment etc etc? I don't know, but it is an important point.
3. Assumes that taking $700 billion from the rich will not hurt the poor as well, in the long run.
4. Doesn't compare "poor" in USA with "poor" in other countries.
5. Assumes taking taxes from someone is legitimate
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
It's "Jon".
1. Stewart's entire argument seems to rely upon the fact that
A. Spending cuts are not necessary as a major factor of cutting down on the debt and deficits
B. There are no alternative benefits to increasing taxes upon the bottom 50%
C. Increasing the tax brackets in general or upon the rich will not have any bad consequences
D. The bottom 50% all constitute as poor, an emotional and misleading argument
E. That increasing taxes will result in higher revenues
F. That welfare and entitlement does not coddle people and/or destroy incentives and effectiveness and there is no "take take taking"
G. That wealth= income
2. Some things to avoid are
A. The Presupposition that the rich should not pay more taxes
B. That we shouldn't be happy that Stewart picked up on Fox's bull****
C. That we shouldn't be happy that Stewart picked up on the bull**** of the Republicans
D. That there is not a hint of truth in what Stewart is saying
E. That there can be any type of "objectively fair tax" because fair is a concept that is subjective as hell
3. The fact is that so long as the United States government keeps spending every single penny that it gets there will be absolutely no solution, there have to be dramatic spending cuts in order to solve the crisis. The Republicans and only a few democrats are really ready to start on the military and no one's really ready to even touch social security and Medicare, the fact is that these things will consume the United States if something is not done, there must be spending cuts and restrictions upon spending or else this situation will never end.
4. When the top 10% already pay for a ridiculously large percentage of the taxes in all of America it's really hard to say that they should just keep paying more and more. Is it fair that one group pays for 80% of things that mostly benefit either the poor or no one at all. If you're talking about fairness you can't avoid the fact that the poor should pay more.
5. The rich are great at picking out loopholes, there's no gurantee that tax increases will actually increase revenues that much when they can stuff all they own into some bank overseas. The U.S tax system has shown itself to be totally incapable of even extracting as much taxes as it "rightfully" (lol) owns. There's also the fact that the rich use their money on the most productive overall uses and that because of tax exemptions that tax hikes ALWAYS hurts the upandcoming rich a million times more than the old and comparatively less productive rich. He also makes it look like the rich have more than they have, and likewise the poor, by looking at wealth and not income, the rich have much more wealth comparatively speaking because they almost always save much more bank. So the problem... WEALTH ISN'T TAXED, only income is. So it would hurt the economy.
6. Increasing taxes on the poorer classes would have the wonderful effect of actually having the majority have to pay for some of the stuff which they receive and would make them more involved in politics, isn't this what a republic is supposed to be about??? And how can ANYONE argue that people shouldn't feel personally the consequences of their actions? Or is it okay to just use other people's money... Oh yeah, that's what government is for. Also, not everyone who's in the bottom 50% is poor, if he wasn't a comedian I would be very angry about that statement, the vast majority of people we're talking about are middle class and fine, especially because we're talking about households. Why not talk about making 75% instead of 49% paying income tax?
7. Statist Neodoxy knows that the wealthy should have their taxes raised, it needs to happen because that's easy to do and probably guarantees more income, though not as much as it "should". Anarchist Neodoxy wants to shout very, very, loudly THE RICH ARE NOT YOUR PERSONAL PIGGY BANK STEWART, NOT YOURS, NOT THE POOR'S, AND DEFINITELY NOT THE POLITICIAN'S.
8. Thank you Stewart for talking about how the Republicans are coddling the rich for all the wrong reasons, and how Fox is misleading people and how the cuts most Republicans are talking about is either penny change or not directed in the most urgent places.
9. Taxation is theft, and almost everything the federal government does today is harmful to the poor and the majority in the long run. It should be sucked dry and left to rot in the swiftest way possible.