| >that sounds like its criticizing the motives of the other side. I'd say that it's 1/3 bad motives, 1/3 group think and 1/3 the naive belief of propaganda. I don't, for instance, believe that this billboard/overt threat was paid for by average citizens expressing their concern over lost jobs: http://images.gawker.com/itqtvwbe3c0skb99wirm/c_scale,fl_pro... Or this expensive Times Sq Billboard: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/49a08e277b870c1416bcca4a7562... What do you think motivated the people behind this to throw money at it? >Obviously if we were raising taxes to pay for schools or NASA or something, we wouldn't want a tax that targets Walmart more than Google. That would be weirdly political and probably inefficient Walmart in fact already receives indirect "weird political assistance" to the tune of $6.2 billion dollars via your taxes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-w... I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't mind at all if their workers got a $8 billion subsidy paid for by your taxes, and if they could cut their wages by $1 billion at the same time. Alice Walton would be overjoyed at the extra $800 million going towards her staff's incomes. |
