Liberal Rhetoric in Action: Appeal to Ridicule

Earlier this week, I wrote an article in Biblical Conservatism's series Liberal Rhetoric 101.  Specifically, I spoke about how liberals use ridicule rather than facts to shut down debates. As I wrote in the article:

You'd think if liberals were as intellectual as they'd have us believe, they would consider this tactic and perhaps stop their ridicule. Granted, some liberals may have read this post and actually adjusted their rhetorical habits. This I do not know. Two, however, I know did not. In fact, these two individuals actually PROVED MY POINT better than I ever could!

Names and images have been removed from these tweets/FB updates, save for my own Twitter handle, which is @UpstateMetFan. (All Tweets were screen-shots taken from Tweetdeck.)

By my count, this individual directly insulted me five times, ridiculed me six times for daring to even question Darwinian Evolution (even though this wasn't even the topic of the post but was simply an example of where liberals use Appeal to Ridicule), and rebuked me for daring to question the exulted scientific community five times. Also, and this will appear in a future installment of Liberal Rhetoric 101, there were four instances of the Fallacy of Consensus (essentially stating "everybody believes X so you should believe it too.")

Was this person the only one who chose to ridicule rather than debate? Why not it wasn't! We have another example, this time from my personal Facebook page (and not the Biblical Conservatism Page, which you should go like by the way because there's lots of fun information and other goodies available).




You might be tempted to think this was a clear setup. You might think this must be a joke, since this person used PRECISELY my words "LOL that's dumb because...(reasons)."  I assure you it isn't, because I know this individual personally...have for nearly twenty years. He'll probably even read this post. (Sorry man, you can't sent me up like this and expect no response.)

Once again, there is a lack of actual evidence or argumentation. Rather, there is a clear and obvious demonstration of the very principle I have mentioned. The argument begins with announcing how dumb I am, and then proceeds to give no actual argument except for "scientists agree so don't argue with the mighty men in lab coats" and "that point you referenced isn't real because reasons."

Honestly, it seems like many liberals still believe they are using a logical and legitimate form of argumentation. Thankfully, these two individuals have taken it upon themselves to prove my point in a far better way than I ever could on my own. Perhaps I should that them.

Best of Biblical Conservatism - Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Raising Corporate Taxes Costs CONSUMERS

Today, we bring you a new feature on Biblical Conservatism that we'll be test driving throughout the next couple months: a mid-week Best of Biblical Conservatism Post, to compliment new posts on Monday and Thursday.

Today's post comes from July 13, 2011. At that time, we were in the heat of the last Debt Limit Battle.

This week, as the Debt Limit battle continues, we've been explaining the truth behind the liberal talking points that the Drive-By Media won't tell you. Today, we're going to dive into the truth behind the liberal idea that raising taxes on big businesses won't effect us, the middle class taxpayer.

As usual, liberal are applying an expectation of static consequences to a new tax. liberals always assume businesses don't change their behaviors or, in this case, their prices, when taxes are increased. There's an unfortunate truth behind it: Corporate taxes are ultimately passed along to the consumers. That means YOU are paying for it. Liberals would have you believe that if government imposes a tax on Proctor and Gable, for example, that means Proctor and Gamble just pays the extra tax out of their profits. In reality, the cost of that tax is rolled into the cost of that bottle of Tide you're buying. Either that or they step back production to continue to maintain the same profit margins. (1) Lower production means fewer employees, by the way.

That's the problem with liberal economic assumptions; they always assume the rosiest of scenarios. Unfortunately, raising those corporate taxes hurts you. It means either the company cuts production and people lose jobs or the price goes up. Either way, it hurts the middle class. That's the problem liberal don't tell you: you pay for that tax increase.

Don't believe me? Did you know that the United States Fuel Tax and state fuel taxes were hypothetically supposed to be levied on the gas station? Guess what, it isn't. You pay it. It's included in the prices. (Somewhere in the history of the gas tax the gas stations and the government dropped all pretenses and just advertised the price as "all taxes included). Before you lambaste the "evil gas station owners," the current Federal gas tax is at $0.18 per gallon and the average gas station's profit on a gallon of gas is $0.07-$0.10 per gallon. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the tax is somewhere between $0.08 to $0.11 per gallon OVER their profits.)

For the most part, gas stations make their money selling you a Mountain Dew, a pack of Twinkies and a tin of Altoids, not on gas. Even on a full tank they're only making a buck or two profit. If I fill my car's 13 gallon tank (I drive a Chevy Malibu for those who care), that means a gas station on the high end of the profit range is making $0.91 - $1.30 of profit on me, once a week. Meanwhile, the government is making nearly twice that amount taxing you. So who's the one who is gouging you again?

No, there's no legal way to force the corporations to not roll those taxes into their prices. By the way, they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply maintaining a net profit margin that makes their investment (aka risk) worthwhile. It's either going to lead to cutting production (which means cutting workers) or raising prices.
Don't believe the liberal lie: Raising taxes on corporations isn't raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. It's raising taxes on you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Appeal to Ridicule

I can't tell you how many times I've entered into a debate with multiple liberals over the years where they start their response to my argument by saying "LOL that's dumb because reason."

This tool of the Left is used pretty well constantly. It stops people from investigating the realities of liberal claims (see Global Warming). It causes people to refuse to consider legitimate alternative theories to Darwinian Evolution. (As I've said countless times, Darwinian Evolution specifically means macroevolution, that is, change from one species to another over time. This is opposed to microevolution, which is genetic adaptation within the same species i.e. over time dogs develop strong senses of smell and hearing which helps them survive; however these dogs stay dogs.) It causes people to call themselves "moderates" when, in their heart of hearts, they are indeed conservatives but they won't use the appropriate label in order to avoid ridicule.

It's purely a psychological form of debate. The goal is to make one's opponent feel stupid for believing what they believe, thus they back down. This tactic, when used in a public forum, also leads to piling on. If you've ever had a debate on Facebook, this has probably happened to you. Usually one liberal starts in with the ridiculing of the person who disagrees. Then another comes in to join in, making the opposition feel stupid for believing what they believe.

The goal specifically to make you stop debating. What's important to know is that if these liberals had a good argument, they'd probably use that instead. Chances are they don't have a point. They don't have an argument. Facts are the enemy, so these liberals have to circumvent the issue.

Don't surrender to an enemy with wooden guns, my friends. Just be prepared to demand the liberals make an actual argument and back it up with facts. Period.

Mr. President, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seriously, Mr. President, what part of this do you not understand?

Why do I say this? Oh, I don't know, probably because the President and large quantities of American liberals, of both the Neighborhood and Activist variety, seem to think the 2nd Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the President and Congress deem this less necessary because reasons."

Except it doesn't say that. It says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that would be the end of this Amendment. That other stuff above isn't in there.)

So perhaps it's time once again to give a Constitutional History lesson to our President, the Constitutional Law professor.

THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD. THUD.

(That was the sound of me banging my head against my desk in frustration that such an explanation is necessary.)

Some of you, including our President, have been laboring under the assumption that the Second Amendment was in place to ensure that Americans had the ability to protect their homesteads against wolves, or thieves, or for use in hunting, or some other such thing in the early days of our nation before widespread police protection.  It also wasn't just about the ability of the people to have a "Well-regulated Militia," which is now unnecessary because we have a standing military.

It wasn't.

Actually, if you look back on the founding of our nation, you will find that our nation was founded because the Founders overthrew a tyrannical government that was taking away our rights. While we hope the ballot box and a free press (however biased and clearly stilted to the side of liberalism) should make this need unnecessary, the moment a free people find themselves being oppressed by a tyrannical government, we have the God-given right to overthrow that government.  

(I am not advocating such a revolution at this time, by the way, I am simply teaching a history lesson on the reason for the Second Amendment.)

If history has shown us anything it is this: An armed government with an unarmed populace leads to tyranny. When the National Socialist Party (aka Nazi Party) took over Germany, one of the first things Adolf Hitler did was take away all guns (save for the Gestapo and the Military, of course). He wasn't the only one. Josef Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung in Communist China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Saddam Hussein in Iraq...I can continue for pages...all removed guns from their citizens hands, while keeping them for themselves.

There was a reason why our Founding Fathers put the Right to Bear Arms in the Constitution. It wasn't to protect hunters rights and it wasn't just to protect citizens against invaders of their homes. It was to protect us from a tyrannical government. 

Any government that wants to limit that right makes me very scared. I'm especially scared when a President wants to do that, because unlike the Supreme Court and Congress, the Executive Branch's power is largely centered on one person.

To answer the question that is repeatedly asked, Why do we need "assault rifles" or "high capacity magazines?" Because the government has them. If we ever need to overthrow that government (and I am not suggesting we need to at this time) we need to be able to defend ourselves on equal footing.

So perhaps, Mr. President, former Constitutional Law professor, that might just be the reason the Founding Fathers said, and I again quote,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Period. End of discussion.

Best of Biblical Conservatism Failing Dr. King: How the Left Ignores the Dream

Two years ago on Biblical Conservatism, I took time to reflect on how the Left in America fails to live up to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous dream.  Today, on the day after Martin Luther King Day, I felt it was a good time to once again repost that reflection. 

In 2011, America celebrated the 25th Martin Luther King Day. As it has in the past, this day brought to mind a panel discussion I was priveleged to join back in 2001 (my senior year of high school) sponsored by Umoja (student lead-group at my school). I was known in my high school as one of the best Conservatives (a small pool of talent in a New York state high school I must admit). A Liberal friend, with whom I had enjoyed many great debates with through our honors History and English classes over the past years, was a member of the group Umoja’s branch at my school. The goal of this panel was to discuss race relations 33 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I will never forget this event. It was the day I truly understood how the American Left has failed Dr. King's dream.

The panel consisted of some black students and some white students. I recall most vividly the stories of "racism" that some of these students claimed to have experienced at our school. Included among the most prominent "offenses" as being asked questions about their hair and how difficult it was to manage! I have always believed that the greatest problem that caused racism in America was ignorance. If this is the case, how is it racist to ask questions in an effort to understand? Further, aren't questions like this a demonstration that our generation does in fact recognize that race differences are purely skin deep...that black people are simply PEOPLE...people who have different physical traits but otherwise 100% the same!

If I may step away from the point of this article for one moment, I'd like to take time to explain the real purpose of race. The physical traits of different races on Earth were caused due to the process of physical adaptation as people moved into different parts of the World. For example, the physical traits of people from eastern African descent. People in Africa generally have long and lanky frames. Their skin has a high amount of melanin in their bodies because melanin is essentially sun block built in to the human body. The more melanin a person has in their skin, the more they can be in the sun without the sun's rays damaging their body. The lanky frame and high amount of melanin in black person's body is the ideal combination of traits to dissipate heat and to withstand the longest possible time in the sun.

People of northern Asian decent are generally shorter and squatter. They have thicker, darker hair and almond shaped eyes which reduce the glare of snow and ice. They tend to have flatter noses because that shape nose is less exposed to cold. People of Asian descent often have minimal facial hair because a man's breath often condensates on the beard, making the face colder. These traits make a person of northern Asian decent best able to withstand the cold temperatures of northern Asia. Both these examples show that the human body adapted to its surroundings!

Back to the original story. The one question that I recall as if it was yesterday from that panel discussion from ten years ago was "How do you see yourself as a minority or majority in America today?" I remember I was quite bothered by this question because it ignored the point of Dr. King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech. Dr. King said famously:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."(1)

Yet these students wanted to talk about people in categories based upon the color of their skin! I spoke about my personal beliefs on race: That skin color is exactly the same as eye color...a physical trait. I do not consider people to be different than me if they have blue or brown eyes (I have green eyes, for the record). I do not consider a person different from me if they have blonde hair or black hair or red hair (I have brown hair, for the record). I also do not consider people to be different because they are of Asian descent or African decent or American Indian decent (I am of European Decent, for the record). These are only physical traits. They DO NOT MATTER to me!

Another statement made was "Everyone is at least a little racist." I stand living proof that this is not true! My response to this was: "I look at you and I see a person. You look at me and you see a white person. Who do you think is REALLY racist here?" I said then, and I still say now, that the person who sees a fellow human being through the lens of their race is the racist, regardless of what that racist person's skin color happens to be!

The truth is the Left has failed Dr. King's dream. They have spent a generation telling minorities that they can't succeed on their own. They have spent a generation telling minorities they need the Democrat party to fight for them because they can't fight for themselves. The Left has spent a generation crying racism every time someone argues against a policy of a minority. Look at Barrack Obama. The Left should be thrilled that the Right debates President Obama's policies on merit alone if they were living up to Dr. King's beliefs. But the Left instead cries racism because we criticism Obama. The reality is we ARE judging Obama by the content of his character...and we don't like that content! I despise President Obama's policies with my eyes closed...his race does not matter. I am the same person who liked the idea of Condoleezza Rice running for President at one point because I liked the content of her character. I oppose Obama's policies because he is a Socialist, not because he is black! Something tells me that you, my readers, oppose Obama's policies for the same reason.

The Left has failed Dr. King's Dream, and done so intentionally. They fail the Dream because it means they can't use race to convince minorities to vote for them. The Right, on the other hand, has succeeded. We as Conservatives do judge people by the content of their character. We happily support Conservative minorities like Condoleezza Rice, Judge Clarence Thomas, Governor Bobby Jindall of Louisiana, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and others. Because it's about the ideas, not the skin tone. We argue against minorities who are on the Left, like President Barrack Obama, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. It is for their policies we oppose these men. If they were white, we'd fight them just the same.

So I ask you what I asked ten years ago: If the Left looks at a man and sees a white man or a black man or an Asian man and the Right looks at a man and sees a man, who is the racist? It is the side that sees simply a man that has fulfilled the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Current Gun Control Laws Didn't Stop Newtown Shooting

The President and the Democratic Party are trying very hard to create new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings last month. Because Adam Lanza used a legally obtained gun, right?

Oh wait, he didn't. He used stolen guns that were obtained illegally.

Actually, Lanza was stopped from purchasing guns legally by in-place gun control laws. He committed multiple gun crimes before , stealing his mother's guns (4 counts), unlawful carrying of a pistol without a permit, carrying those guns into a gun-free zone, carrying them without a carry permit, I can go on and on. In total he broke 41 laws in perpetrating his crime. That includes 27 counts of First Degree Murder. Of the remaining fourteen laws he broke, thirteen were gun-control laws.

There were thirteen gun control laws that were ALREADY IN PLACE that Adam Lanza broke in perpetrating his horrible crime. Please, do tell me how a fourteenth law would've helped? More importantly, please tell me all about how criminals follow laws.

Yet the President wants to ram through more gun control legislation in the wake of this horrific event. Will it stop criminals like Adam Lanza? I mean, he didn't mind breaking the existing thirteen gun control laws that were in place before his crime.

The only people who will be stopped from carrying weapons with new Gun Control laws are the law abiding citizens. In other words, the innocent victims will now be at a disadvantage. The criminals will still get illegal weapons. It's been said that as little as 5% of gun crimes are committed using legally obtained guns. If this is true, (or even if the 5% number isn't perfect, it is indeed a fact that the majority of gun crimes use illegal guns) then the only answer is for the law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Remember, both Adam Lanza in Newtown, CT and James Eagan Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of the Aurora, CO shootings this past summer, were breaking existing gun control laws in perpetrating or allegedly perpetrating, respectively, their crimes. If the current laws aren't working, why would new ones work?

So what is the solution?

The question we should be asking after this year's recent rash of shootings is, in my opinion, how can we ensure that law abiding citizens are able to protect themselves and others when a crazed gunman comes in to perpetrate such a crime. In Aurora, CO, why wasn't there a law abiding citizen able to stop James Eagan Holmes (allegedly)?  When the shooting occurred, I had discussed seeing Dark Knight Rises with a good friend who has a concealed carry permit the day after the Aurora Shooting.  Let's call him Joe (because that's his name).  I remember thinking, while everyone was worried about copycats at future showings of Dark Knight Rises, "If that happens at my showing, I'll be with a law-abiding, trained citizen who can DO SOMETHING about the crime in progress."

The bottom line is this: Gun Control laws only keep the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It doesn't stop the criminals.  They sure didn't stop Adam Lanza. 

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Fallacy of the Single Cause

One of the things Biblical Conservatism has focused on as a running theme is liberal rhetoric and talking points. Today, we're going to begin a series talking about the actual rhetorical tactics used by liberals to formulate their arguments.

Our first issue is the Fallacy of the Single Cause. Specifically, a Single Cause fallacy is one where the argument is that "We did X (small thing) and thus Y (huge, overreaching thing) occurred!"

Let me give you some examples. A classic one is the Clinton Argument. We're seeing this argument brought up frequently now. The claim is that "Clinton raised taxes, and we had a booming economy and a budget surplus."  The use of this fallacy is simple: We are to assume BECAUSE taxes went up the booming economy and budget surplus happened. Economic history proves otherwise. There were a host of other issues, including the end of the Cold War, the internet boom, cuts in spending forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and tax cuts that happened later (also forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress) that deserve the credit long before an increase in taxes deserves it. (Especially because actual tax revenue went down after Clinton raised taxes.) 

Yet we are pitched the lie that "taxes went up, so did revenue, which lead to a balanced budget and a booming economy."

Another example of this fallacy is one that a friend likes to present: "There are more people who live below the poverty line in red states than blue states, therefore conservative government doesn't lead to prosperity as conservatives claim."

So much is wrong with this argument. First and foremost, the poverty line is a poor statistic. It's based on a national average median income of $50,054 per year for a family of four (we'll round that to $50,000 per year for simplicity's sake). The poverty line for the same family of four is $23,021 per year (again for simplicity's sake we'll call that $23,000).

There are so very many questions that aren't asked or even considered in this false claim. For one, the poverty line and median income are not adjusted for Cost of Living. Blue states, as a whole, have much higher cost of living than red states. Of the top ten most expensive states to live in, nine are blue states. The tenth is Alaska (which is a very unique state in terms of cost of living, as is Hawaii). All ten of the top ten least expensive states to live in are red states.

A family of four making $22,000 per year in a state like Tennessee has the same buying power as a family of four living on nearly $38,000 per year in Rochester, NY (where I live.) A family of four can certainly live on that income. That family is not below the poverty line in blue New York. Let's call the family in Tennessee the Fletchers and the family in New York the Flynns. The Flynns and the Fletchers can buy the exact same things with their respective incomes. Yet the red-state dwelling Fletchers are considered "below the poverty line." The blue-state dwelling Flynns are considered "above the poverty line."


This is just one factor that points out the false logic in this argument. There are many others. Liberals don't point it out. They simply repeat their argument. Ditto for the Clinton Argument.

As always, the solution is simple. We must break down these factors and force the liberal with whom you are debating to present a Prima Facie case (that is, present that their claim is true at first blush). Until they do that, it's nothing more than a false debate.

Fiscal Cliff Deal Proves Two Big Points for Right

If you read Biblical Conservatism last week, you saw my take on the big Fiscal Cliff deal: It's a joke.  A pathetic game of make-believe by Washington liberals that the problem is lack of revenue, not excessive spending, enabled by cowardly Republicans who were afraid to be blamed again (we were blamed anyway).

That being said, two important conservative points have either now been made or will be made as a result of this deal.  

The point that the Left has unwittingly conceded is this: Apparently the Bush Tax Cuts weren't just "tax breaks for the rich" since, according to the liberal talking points, only the top 2% constituted the rich. Considering the Left now wants to trumpet how they "cut taxes" for the middle class, aka 98% of taxpayers, clearly the Bush Tax Cuts WEREN'T just for the rich. Apparently 98% of the people whose taxes were cut were in the Middle Class. JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS SAID IN 2000!!! Oops. 

For the record, at this point, no taxpayer is seeing their taxes were cut, except in the baloney jargon of Washington where your official tax rates that you never paid that were in place for a day mean more than the tax rates that were in place by twelve years. If you pay taxes and you are in that bottom 98%, your tax rates are staying the same as they have been now for twelve years. They haven't been cut.

The second point is this: The Left now has their revenues. Supposedly, they've claimed all they want is a "balanced approach" which combines new revenue with cuts. They've got their revenue increase. They've said that if we gave them revenue, they'd cut spending. Where are the cuts in spending? (Spoiler: There won't be any real cuts from Democrats that aren't forced by Republicans, and if you believe there will be, I've got some ocean front property in Idaho to sell you.)

So let's see the other half of President Obama's "Balanced Approach" yes? Oh wait, there's more spending not less in the bill...and the President has no intention of making real cuts.  As always, President Obama's spending plans are as balanced as a single person sitting on one end of a teeter-totter.

Here's the simple fact. The Fiscal Cliff deal was a joke, just as I wrote last week. But it does involve two points proven. Apparently the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts WEREN'T just for the rich. Apparently 98% of the people who got their taxes cut weren't rich, according to the Left's own language. Two, the Left has their "increased revenue." 

Now let's see the cuts. 

(I'm not holding my breath.)

If We Treated Other Education Like Abstinence Education

A debate sprung up on the Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page. Essentially, a couple liberals started repeating the meme that "you can't stop kids from having sex, so it's important we teach them how to do it safely."

I made the point that actually no, it's entirely possible to teach kids to wait to have sex until marriage. I know this for a fact because my church does a weekend retreat for parents and children every year called "Passport to Purity." One year it's teenage girls with their mothers, the next it's teenage boys and their fathers, and so on. We teach these teens the Biblical reasons to wait to have sex until marriage. We teach abstinence seriously, not as a joke. Here's a shocker: Kids actually follow through with it! The large majority!

So I got to thinking, what if we taught other things to kids with the level of seriousness schools teach abstinence?

"Using heroin is bad for you. It can lead to the spread of diseases like Hepatitis and HIV, lead to addictions, cause you to do things you wouldn't normally do, and even can lead to death by overdose. But we all know you crazy kids are going to do heroin. So, today we're going to talk about how to use heroin in moderation as well as the importance of using a clean needle each time you shoot up."

I bet some of you are laughing at the silliness of this story.  Yet this is the way abstinence is taught.

How about another example? Bullying. Schools are cracking down on bullying. What if bullying was treated this way:

"Bullying is bad. It's emotionally scarring and physically harmful to others. But since we know you crazy kids are going to bully each other, here are some padded boxing gloves. Please wear them when you beat up a kid for his lunch money."

One more example:

"You should never cross the street without looking both ways. But you're kids. We know you're not always going to look both ways. So make sure whenever you cross the street, be sure you're wearing a helmet as well as elbow and knee pads. Never cross the street without protection."

It turns out we can and do teach kids to abstain from activities ALL THE TIME. We teach them to "Say No to Drugs." Nobody argues the point. We teach children not to take candy from strangers. Nobody argues the point. We teach children to wear their seat belts. We teach children never to cross the street without looking both ways. None of these activities are hard to teach children. The big difference is we take it seriously when we teach children not to do drugs, not to bully, to wear their safety belt in cars, and to look both ways. Abstinence we treat as a joke. And that's the real problem.

The Fiscal Cliff Deal is a Joke

A massive joke at that.

Seriously, friends. The President spent the past few months whining and crying about how we needed to have a "balanced approach." Really what he was saying is "WAH WAH WAH LET ME RAISE TAXES!"  There was no reason to raise taxes. These increases aren't helping solve the deficit in any real way. 

As I said a couple weeks back, the Obama plan was only going to cover nine days of deficit spending. That number was based on raising taxes on those making over $200,000 a year. This was supposed to raise $85 Billion in new revenue. The deal raised taxes on those who make over $400,000 a year, which, according to the best information I could find, raises $62 Billion in new revenue. (Of course that's with static budgeting. The actual amount will likely be less.) Combine that with a whopping $15 Billion in spending cuts (sarcasm) you've got enough money, assuming these numbers (which are heavy on accounting tricks) that gives us enough money to run the government for seven days.  Add in the sunset of Obama's payroll tax holiday, you might (and I emphasize might) cover one more day.

We currently borrow money to run the government for 127 days a year. Every year. That translates into over $1.3 Trillion in deficit spending. We're going to add over $5 Trillion to our national debt by the time President Obama leaves office in 2016, we will have a national debt of over $20 Trillion. When the President took office, it was just shy of $12 Trillion. That means, including interest, the President will have added EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS to our national debt. But hey, he's also added enough revenue to cover LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of his increased spending.

My friends, I couldn't be more disappointed in this deal. This is a JOKE. We are spending more than we have. The problem isn't insufficient revenue. Neither the tax increases the President wanted nor the ones he got are going to make a darn bit of difference. In fact, we cannot tax our way out of this debt. It is simply not possible.  You could not raise enough revenue to pay for our spending if we simply confiscated 100% of all income above $1 for all people who earn $100,000 a year or more to pay for our current spending. Especially when you consider the fact that this includes 99% of all employers in the country. Oh, and NOBODY BUT NOBODY is going to work all year to earn $0. Period. Not going to happen.

Once again, the Liberal Media has conspired with the Democrat Party to sell the American People a set of invisible clothes. Our real problem remains ignored. The Republican Party has, at least in part, shown themselves to be cowards, which means I for one have no hope. Somebody talk me off the ledge here, because the world's biggest conservative optimist is starting to feel hopeless.