Obama's 95% Illusion - WSJ.com
The link above is a great explanation on one of Obama's most potent messages for tax relief. People buy into the notion without knowing the facts.
Case in point, I was at the John Kline / Steve Sarvi debate yesterday and heard Steve Sarvi quote the same tax cut - 95% (even though between 30 and 40% don't pay any taxes.) It's an inaccurate representation and shows either a lack of understanding on his part, or worse.
One other notable item from yesterday's debate (in which Rep. Kline did quite well), was that Mr. Sarvi believes that terrorism is a byproduct of lack of opportunity. In essence, he seems to believe that if there is opportunity for making a living in areas such as Afghanistan, there will be no terrorism (they sold opium for a lot of money and the Taliban proliferated - go figure.)
It's a very simplistic view of the world that does not take into account the role of the Islamic fundamental religious teaching for domination and value of the life a non-Muslim (among other items.) To be sure, fundamental Islam would be less attractive to many people if there were better economic opportunities for them, but it is not the economic opportunities (or the lack thereof) that compels them to kill. We should remind Mr. Sarvi that some of the 911 bombers were Saudi (with money) and that Bin Laden himself comes from a wealthy Saudi family. If it were about economics, the best thing they could do (in fact a solution) would be to use their money (huge windfalls from oil prices) for the economic good of their own - build in opportunities that would defeat a terroristic bent. Obviously, this is not the case.
My bottom line is that economic opportunity is one tool in the battle against terrorism but it is not the reason for terrorism - neither is it the cure.
Having said all that, please read the WSJ article linked at the top of this blog.
Those are my thoughts for your consideration.
Lee
The link above is a great explanation on one of Obama's most potent messages for tax relief. People buy into the notion without knowing the facts.
Case in point, I was at the John Kline / Steve Sarvi debate yesterday and heard Steve Sarvi quote the same tax cut - 95% (even though between 30 and 40% don't pay any taxes.) It's an inaccurate representation and shows either a lack of understanding on his part, or worse.
One other notable item from yesterday's debate (in which Rep. Kline did quite well), was that Mr. Sarvi believes that terrorism is a byproduct of lack of opportunity. In essence, he seems to believe that if there is opportunity for making a living in areas such as Afghanistan, there will be no terrorism (they sold opium for a lot of money and the Taliban proliferated - go figure.)
It's a very simplistic view of the world that does not take into account the role of the Islamic fundamental religious teaching for domination and value of the life a non-Muslim (among other items.) To be sure, fundamental Islam would be less attractive to many people if there were better economic opportunities for them, but it is not the economic opportunities (or the lack thereof) that compels them to kill. We should remind Mr. Sarvi that some of the 911 bombers were Saudi (with money) and that Bin Laden himself comes from a wealthy Saudi family. If it were about economics, the best thing they could do (in fact a solution) would be to use their money (huge windfalls from oil prices) for the economic good of their own - build in opportunities that would defeat a terroristic bent. Obviously, this is not the case.
My bottom line is that economic opportunity is one tool in the battle against terrorism but it is not the reason for terrorism - neither is it the cure.
Having said all that, please read the WSJ article linked at the top of this blog.
Those are my thoughts for your consideration.
Lee
0 comments:
Post a Comment