Find What is Wrong with This Right Wing Article

[Shining_Finger]

Here is the Article: 
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/johnhaw...s_bankrupt
First notices: The columnist immediately dubs Liberals the enemy. This is obviously a biased article, and it doesn't seem to be trying to sound unbiased. Next: He says he wants to defund things like Unions and Planned Parenthood by "a couple million dollars" individually. Wait: Planned Parenthood is a non-profit and doesn't directly receive money from the government. What exactly is he suggesting? That we start taxing it more? Next: Unions. Apparently we should tax them more. Because we all know the people fighting for a living wage can afford a couple thousand dollars out of pocket. Oh wait, a couple million. Got it. 
He misses the elephants in the room, namely closing loopholes on the rich, putting a stop to the patriot act, taxing the rich more, making corporations pay living wages to save the government on food stamps, cutting the military and taxing Churches. 
You know, exactly the things he says Liberals hate. 

You go ahead and list more. I am honestly done.

[Jackalope]

He misses the elephants in the room, namely closing loopholes on the rich, putting a stop to the patriot act, taxing the rich more, making corporations pay living wages to save the government on food stamps, cutting the military and taxing Churches. 

Well, duh, when you say things like that it's obvious you're Librul Scum™.

[Minimalist]

This is obviously a biased article, and it doesn't seem to be trying to sound unbiased.

You can't be subtle with the low-IQ turds who make up republicunt voters.

[Shining_Finger]

He misses the elephants in the room, namely closing loopholes on the rich, putting a stop to the patriot act, taxing the rich more, making corporations pay living wages to save the government on food stamps, cutting the military and taxing Churches. 

Well, duh, when you say things like that it's obvious you're Librul Scum™.

You should invent lubal scum and sell it. It should be amusing to see that on shark tank.

[Aroura]

The first thing I found wrong with it was terrible punctuation in the very first sentence.

Does it seem too strong to call the way America deals with its debt "madness?"

That question mark should go after the quotation mark.  As it is, this sentence does not end, it just runs on into the next one.

I am not normally a grammar Nazi.  In forum posts and such, people can and do make mistakes.  I make them all the time.  However, this is an article written for public consumption.
If they can't bother to proof read their work, I can't be bothered to read it.

Although, I'm curious what others find in there, so I may read it out of morbid curiosity. 

[Pat Mustard]

we're running up "unsustainable" deficits

You're printing your own money you blithering idiot! As long as the money is used for projects with a good RoI* (and frankly the kind of infrastructure and social provision projects a government typically involves itself in tend to provide RoIs in multiples of what's being invested), there is no such thing as an unsustainable deficit (well, that is if you tax the people who gain the most monetarily out of your investment projects, something modern governments are shit at).

*Return on Investment

[Faith No More]

Well, he's blaming the lack of attention being paid to the deficit on Liberals, which just shows he has his head up his ass. The Republicans love the deficit as much as the Dems, only they just don't want the money going to feed people. They want it to go to the military industrial complex.

It appears he's just another one of those right-wingers that thinks if he repeats something enough times it suddenly makes it true.

[Chad32]

Liberals in this country, for the most part, will admit that we're running up "unsustainable" deficits. Yet, these same liberals adamantly oppose any and all serious efforts to do anything about it.

I don't think it's the liberals that want to keep trying trickle down economics, cut taxes on the rich, and talk about cutting funding to safety nets and education in order to afford subsidizing the rich and raising the budget on military spending.

Do I even need to read further than that?

[Pat Mustard]

Idiocy the second:

We cannot tax the rich enough to pay off our debt or even enough to keep the government going long-term. Even if we could, the rich have the resources to flee the country for greener pastures if they're being taxed into oblivion.

This is the wealth distribution in the US as of 2007 (and since then it's gotten more skewed, depressions favour the rich):

Image from wikipedia for citations

As you can see the top 20% of the country held 85% of the wealth in the US back in 2007. Of course you can tax the wealthy they've got oodles of money, most of which is not being used in an economically useful fashion.

And the bullshit about them leaving in droves if we did tax them, that is an assertion unsupported by any evidence. They may try and pretend the money is somewhere in the Bahamas, or London, but a properly funded IRS would be able to figure out the three card montes and other card games the evaders play and tax the money before it's laundered through offshore tax havens.