Tax Breaks for the Rich vs. Budget Cuts for the Poor

More infographics. One more time, but really for your mind. If you haven't been paying attention for the past 6 months or so, the United States is at a crossroads of economic discourse. The haves and have-nots have always been disparate, but with the extension of George Bush's tax cuts, the distance between the two is set to grow exponentially. Conservatives, most notably the Tea Party, have put forth rhetoric saying that tax cuts for the rich will boost the economy by encouraging trickle-down economies. Basically, they're implying that by supplying the rich with more disposable and untaxable income, the rich will re-invest that money back into businesses and it will ultimately trickle down to the poor.

Yet as we've seen over the past decade, whether it's the financial collapse of 2008, the increasing tension between labor unions and owners, or our country's still-laconic economy, the rich have no intention of putting money back into the economy. They're content to put their money away in interest-bearing accounts and offshore entities to keep it 'safe'. What conservative political pundits fail to mention, though, is the crippling effect it has on the rest of us, further shrinking the middle class and widening the gap between the rich and poor. And all of this is lieu of the now GOP-led Congress threatening to cut numerous programs that would help the 'lower' class of the country. The infographic above compares the two: the tax cuts for the rich, and the cuts to programs such as early childhood education, teacher training and after-school programs, and job training for the unemployed. The good people over at the Center for American Progress put it together in the hopes that it would enlighten those blinded by conservative bullshit rhetoric. See what all the hub-ub is about above, and remember to VOTE so we don't have a government hell-bent on propping up the same elite class that propagated our financial collapse...

Dear Warren Buffett

I BANGS with this white man...

via ABC News:

In an exclusive interview on "This Week," Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, told Christiane Amanpour that the rich should be paying more taxes and that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire at the end of December.

"If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

The full Buffett interview will air on a special Thanksgiving edition of "This Week" focused on The Giving Pledge, a major philanthropic effort spearheaded by Buffet, and Bill and Melinda Gates. The billionaire brushed aside Republican arguments that letting tax cuts expire for the wealthy would hurt economic growth.

"They say you have to keep those tax cuts, even on the very wealthy, because that is what energizes business and capitalism," anchor Amanpour said.

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

It's ironic that sometimes the most well-off people in the world can be the most well-intentioned and well-read. When we think of wealth, we have a tendency to couple it with ignorance and selfishness, regardless of whether the person displays those traits outwardly. Wealth usually is coupled with those things as a subconscious way to keep that wealth, rather than say, donate it to those less fortunate. Such is the story of your case, Mr. Buffett. For the past decade the 'World's Richest Person' contest has been a two person race between you and Bill Gates, with your wallet weighing in a little heavier over the past few years. That said, you aren't like most billionaires, whose concerns only detail how they're getting their next buck, and who they have to run over to get it.

In a harrowing show of grace, you, Bill Gates and a number of other of the nation's wealthiest have pledged to give away a tremendous amount of your money to charity, which is commendable. Yet, that isn't even your most gracious act. With your platform and fame, you've spoken out against our 'bi-partisan' government and the GOP's plan to preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, a group you're a part of. Not only does your stand make all the sense in the world, it's probably the most honest assertion that a rich man has made in the past decade.

Warren, you're the richest man in the world. By default, you have to know a thing or two about money, how it's made, how its spent and where it's going. We'd have to be pretty stupid not to heed whatever warning you give about the nation's finances. That you essentially endorsed Obama's agenda to end those tax cuts is indicative of your financial prowess. To the contrary, only a truly dumb financial mind could endorse the tax cuts and be certain that they are the best route for the country. The tax cuts enabled the rich to get richer while the rest of the country languished in unemployment and lack of cash. Even better is the fact that you said the rich have 'had it better than ever'. Forget hearing it from the horse's mouth! You are the horse!

Warren, I think the best part about you speaking out is that you are in such a high and powerful position. For every bullsh*tting Republican and Tea Partier spitting out that malarkey (a favorite word of mine) about tax cuts for the rich helping the economy, you can be there to tell them different, AS a rich person. I wish more of the nation's wealthy were as honest about political economy as you were. Not only would the country not be in an almost insurmountable debt, we probably wouldn't even have to deal with a Tea Party or Sarah Palin or any of this balderdash we call 'bipartisanship' today. Oh, to dream...

P.S.: Yes, I know that if things happened your way, that you'd still have a substantial amount of money in your pocket. I think if the government stopped accepting money, you'd still have money. The point is that you're not so blinded by cash that you can't take an objective stance on the nation's financial health. That has to be worth more than a bullsh*t pledge by the GOP...

Dear George 'the germaphobe' Bush

Wow, George. Just... WOW. Just when I thought we'd seen the last of your idiotic trademark social faux pas', you give all of the racist germaphobes something to cheer for. Now that you've finally gotten the f*ck out of the Oval Office ended your tenure as President, I suppose it was a good look to do a bit of political maneuvering under the guise of goodwill and charity. No harm in that, whatsoever. You accompanied everyone's other favorite black President, Bill Clinton, to Haiti for some photo ops and to make sure you weren't the only politician (yes, you are and will always be a politician) who didn't show your face in the earthquake-rattled country. That said, it was a valiant effort, until the little bigoted devil on your shoulder reared its ugly head. Part of being a politician is shaking hands. In fact, I'd say most politicians have shaken more hands than they've read books or written speeches. So the practice naturally would be extended, no matter what country you're in. George, in the act of shaking hands, there are a few things you shouldn't do:

1) Cough or sneeze before you extend your hand.
2) Refuse to shake a hand.
3) Make any remark or action in disgust or aberration of the handshake.

That's a pretty simple list, George. As a matter of fact, you should probably know these already, considering that you were the President. I mean, for God's sake, how do you ascend to that office without knowing handshake etiquette? That seems like a given. And in all honesty, doing it in Haiti was just a bad move. If it isn't some wacko reverend claiming that they're evil, it's rampant poverty or an earthquake plaguing the people of Haiti. The least you can do is shake their hands without looking like you just ingested a bile and dirt sandwich. They've been through a hell of a lot more than you, and probably should be the ones wiping their hands. They sure as hell don't have as much blood on their hands as you do, Georgie boy...

Rudy Guliani has 9/11 Amnesia

You know there's something wrong with our government when the man leading a city during a prolific terrorist attack forgets the President that the attack happened under. Or maybe he's just trying to stick up for his party-mate. Rudy Guliani claimed that no terrorist attacks happened under the reign of George Dubya Bush, while one occurred under Obama (the one over X-Mas). Not only is that false, the supposed 'attack' under Obama really didn't even happen! Is it possible that George Bush's trademarked brand of idiocy has seeped through the party? I hope not, because we'll have filibusters galore this year, if that's the case...