Really? Tax and Spend Liberals?
For so many years critics of the two major political parties in the US, obviously the Democrats and Republicans, have tried to influence how the public views each. party. The critics of each party are typically the opposition. Democrats criticize Republicans and Republicans criticize Democrats. For years Democrats hailed themselves as the party of the people or the ordinary citizen while Republicans characterized them as tax and spend liberals. Republicans promote themselves as fiscally responsible, adhering to the founding documents touting individual freedom and responsibility through less government. Of course the Democrats label them as big business fat cats who prey on the little guy the Dems claim to represent.
Given the GOP fall from grace by appearing or actually abandoning their conservative principles in recent years and the insanity of the liberal agenda 
demonstrated time and again since the 2006 midterm reversals in power and the election of President Obama there is little need to review the truth or misconceptions about these political parties. Examples abound.
Yet here is another brainstorm from the left that defies even the tax and spend moniker handed them by the loyal opposition. While you can take the wait and see attitude on the chances the GOP will regain their conservative stance in the eyes of the voter the liberals in the Democratic party and their supporters waste no time floating another tax proposal.
AFL-CIO, Dems push new Wall Street tax
By Alexander Bolton - 08/30/09 11:17 AM ET
Although it would be nice to know who the ‘allied Democrats’ are in this report there is no trouble believing Dems would support this notion. Democratic POLS and labor unions want to tax all investment transactions. What a surprise. If they want more money for their pet projects why don’t they just ask George Soros to give it to them? Many claim he is the sugar daddy behind most liberal causes. If that is true he would be the natural choice, right? Nope. The liberals would rather tax every ’stock transaction’. Does that exclude transactions that do not directly involve stocks? What about bonds? What about commodities and futures? How about derivatives? Maybe they haven’t traveled that far through the thought process yet.
And isn’t that how it always works? Float a vague idea and watch it turn into a monster after the politicians get a hold on it. “It would have two benefits, raise a lot of revenue and discourage speculative financial activity,” said Thea Lee, policy director at the AFL-CIO. No flaws in that logic, right folks? A tiny tax on the investment firms on Wall Street is a popular liberal idea. Taxing anyone you can paint as a villain is a popular liberal idea. The problem with all tax proposals is they take on a life of their own. They never go away. They always increase. They move money from people who know how to earn it to those who don’t or won’t. And they cause supposedly unintended consequences that lead to revenue shortfalls and more taxing to cover the loss. All in the name of doing good as Thea Lee claimed above.
It is like sin tax. Taxing tobacco products was hailed the same way. Discourage tobacco use and pay for health services as a result of tobacco use. If it is successful in discouraging the ‘offending behavior’ to the point no one uses tobacco, oops, there’s a problem. The tax revenue goes away. The budgets take a revenue shortfall hit and a new tax must replace the old one.
If the stock transaction tax proposal grows legs, or worse, becomes law, what will likely happen? The tiny tax will grow larger or the targets of the tax will offset the loss by other means. If it becomes a burden they will pass the costs on to customers. And as with all taxes that which started small will grow big and those few who were taxed will become many over time. We’ll all take a hit. Thanks to liberals and their efforts to redistribute wealth for ‘spending priorities‘.
Spending priorities indeed are Thea Lee’s as well as that of other liberals. The problem is they do not want to earn the money they spend. They want to take it from those who earn it and use it on their ’spending priorities’.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com