Either Jay Carney is an excellent Bolshoi artist (takes one to know one) or he is profoundly ignorant.  Let’s have some fun with one of his recent statements during one of his daily press briefings, shall we?

Jay Carney, chief propagandist: The top 2% of tax cuts that President Bush put into place in 2001 and 2003 are simply more than we can afford and by extending them we would be making a choice to place the burden on getting our fiscal house in order on the middle class, to place the burden of our fiscal challenges on seniors and on the disabled.

Getting our fiscal house in order has nothing to do with tax revenues and everything to do with government spending, Jay.  It is not expected that the middle class would shoulder the burden (considering that the middle class is now a net-tax consumer group, rather than a net-tax producing group).  Instead, the government needs to get its fiscal house in order … quit wasteful spending, cut back on program that we don’t need and start growing our economy.

Jay Carney, chief propagandist: We would make the choice to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans as opposed to investments in education, investments in medical research.

Why is it always and either/or scenario for these proggies?  If you follow Jay’s line of thought, he is assuming that this tax money belongs to the government and not to the evil rich people who earned it.  He thinks: Either the government spends this money on tax cuts for the rich, or we spend it on “investments” in education, etc.  It doesn’t have to be a choice, you twerp. 

Jay Carney, chief propagandist: We do not have infinite resources.

You got one right, Jay!  But you may have to take it a step further … the government doesn’t have any resources because the government doesn’t create any wealth.  The wealth is seized from productive Americans and redistributed as the government sees fit.  As you seize more and more of the wealth from the evil rich Americans, they will start to produce less and less because, after a certain point, what’s the point?

Jay Carney, chief propagandist: … Tax cuts reduce revenues and reflect the same kinds of choices you have to make when you allocate funds to defense spending, or education spending, or entitlement spending.

Tax cuts reduce revenues??  Woah, hold on there … have you failed to crack a history book or an economics book any time over the last 80 years?  There are plenty of examples – the tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts – where tax rates were lowered and government revenues increased!  This type of ignorance should be reserved for proggie educated in government schools.  C’mon Jay, you are better than that.