Stewart's bit was about how some on the right are saying that raising an extra $700 billion over 10 years from the wealthiest 2% of Americans would be a meaningless drop in the bucket so why even do it. While others on the right (maybe some of the same, I'm not sure) are saying that America should institute some sort of tax on the poorest 50% who don't currently pay taxes. Stewart's point is that taxing the poorest people, the people who are least able to absorb a loss to their income, would generate far, far less than the "meaningless drop in the bucket" that raising the taxes on the wealthiest would.

I mean ... that in and of itself is a hard point to argue against, I would think. Taxing the lowest income earners would generate much less revenue than a bump in taxes to the wealthiest. While at the same time, the wealthiest would be much more capable of absorbing a slight income loss. Are you arguing that this isn't true? I can't really tell.

So if taxing the wealthiest to generate $700 billion isn't worth doing because it hardly makes a dent, then what's the point in taxing the lower end of the scale, which would generate much less than $700 billion?

It seems like the fuzzy logic is more in arguing that taxing one is pointless and at the same time arguing that taxing the other would help the deficit situation.

That's aside from the argument, which you might make, that it's the principle of the thing and that everyone should pay some sort of taxes. Stewart's bit seemed to me to be about the value of taxing the wealthy versus the value of taxing the poor, not the principle of either.