please tell the girl at the next table that it's "poh-tay-toh" not "poh-tay-yo".

words matter. exempli gratia "bush era tax cuts". yes, bush initiated reduction in taxes from what was then the current rate, so at that time, what he did was "cut" taxes. but at this point, the tax rates are the tax rates. see what i mean? it's more appropriate to say "continue taxing folks at the current rate" than "extend the bush era tax cuts". yes, i know that the tax cuts are temporary and that they are on the positive renewal plan and that they were started by the bush administration. i know all that but you have to admit that it's a bit of a semantic play, designed to make us think that the wealthy are getting a "cut", something we're not getting, and that it's something-for-nothing and unfair and they don't deserve it, and while you're at it, just throw in that the cuts don't "work" - whatever that means.

the economy is in a bad way, right? right. lots of folks out of work. companies and small businesses going under. these folks will have you believe that if the tax cuts worked, the economy would be in good shape, ergo the cuts didn't work. c'mon now, that's a bit of a simplification. there are many factors at work, one of which is that if the richie-riches believe they will - next year and thereafter - face increased tax rates, they have less of an incentive to invest. and, not only that, if the tax rates are in question, as they have been, like, all year - that's a disincentive to investment, too. so, hanging the uncertainty over the richie-riches heads thereby causing them to hesitate investing and then saying that the tax cuts didn't work... well, it's disingenuous at best.

another term being bandied around in the taxation discussion is how much "extending the tax cuts" will "cost". hmm... taxes are income to the government. tax cuts reduce income, yes, but that does not make them a cost. it's like, i am not going to get a second job, so my household will therefore have less income, but my not getting a second job doesn't carry a cost. my going to the movies - that's a cost. groceries, cost. buying new books instead of checking them out from the liberry - cost again. my not getting a second job doesn't cost my household. my not getting a second job means my household cannot spend as much without going into debt. calling the tax cuts a cost puts them on the wrong side of the balance sheet and it's done to encourage folks to think the richie-riches are costing us something, that the average folk are in some way supporting the richie-riches. it's a way of reducing the argument and couching it in inflammatory and devisive terms.

thoughts?