And I'm about to lose my mind. Remember all the times Rush strings together a bunch of liberals who are all saying the same dumb thing? Well today it was conservatives' turn. The subject, as I've already mentioned once, was the 47% who pay no taxes, and it was not the conservatives' finest hour. In fact, it's a perfect example of why I'm so hard on conservatives – because you want group-think to be the exclusive domain of liberals, but there's ample evidence that it's not, and today it was in your face stupid as conservatives at the highest level came together to decry the fact that 47% have escaped the tyranny of the income tax.
What were they thinking? "If you want to demonize the rich, we'll show you guys… we'll demonize the poor." Because they acted as if those who pay no tax are responsible for it. What, is it like Neil Cavuto says about the Fox Business channel, if you pay no tax, "DEMAND IT!?" Or how about conveying this message to the very group that thinks Republicans are the party of the rich… "Vote for us and we'll let you pay taxes just like we do?" Brilliant.
Yet there it was for all to see. In my area it started at 7am and concluded on Cavuto's show at 2pm… Beck would have continued the theme in the next hour, I'm sure, if he hadn't been ahead of the curve and addressed the "injustice" yesterday.
So let's have a little look at conservatives at their illogical, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot best – if in fact Cavuto is a conservative. I mean, he worked for Jimmy Carter. Sure it was a long time ago, but it was JIMMY CARTER!. And yes, we all have become more conservative as we've aged – if our early liberal ways haven't driven us insane, but we all have one thing in common that Cavuto doesn't: WE DIDN'T WORK FOR JIMMY CARTER.
As you watch this, I ask you to take my word that Rush was less sympathetic than Cavuto while at the same time being a less sympathetic figure than Cavuto, and making even less sense. But Cavuto will do, and just listen to the straw man he sets up and can't even knock down…
So do you agree with Cavuto that most don't pay any attention to the price when someone else is paying? Or am I one of the few who would order something less expensive than what I'd get if I were paying for it myself? I submit that Cavuto is a moron… that you, too, would not want to be seen taking advantage of your host.
So Cavuto's opening premise is shot, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's a toss up – that maybe a lot of people wouldn't give a thought to cost if someone else offered to buy their meal. The indictment then as it applies to citizens and their government is that most if not all people who don't pay taxes are moochers who don't care what it costs as long as they get theirs?
So when Cavuto rails that those who pay nothing don't care about the cost of government benefits, maybe it goes beyond sheer selfishness. Maybe it starts with a failure to communicate and a failure to grasp, and it goes so far as to have people feel that the waste and corruption is so vast and they've been taken advantage of in so many other ways that they aren't going to turn down a benefit because A) They're entitled to it ny law, B) it won't make a bit of difference in the overall, and C) it's merely a bit of compensation for the many times they've been raped by government.
I'm not saying that's all right, but it's different from the lout Cavuto describes. And I want to note again that the people who pay no taxes and those who get government benefits are not one and the same. Also, how many people would be happy to give up a benefit for a cleaner, fairer, more efficient, less costly government? That's outside Cavuto's realm of concern.. And Limbaugh's.
Cavuto continues his exercise in mindlessness by saying that those who have no "skin in the game" have very little reason to worry about the cost. NONSENSE. Even an idiot might see that it could all come crashing down, but what's worse is Cavuto's hideous blanket cynicism. And we wonder why people think conservatives are willing to let people die in the streets? If you know who Snowy is, and why should you, he actually apologized to me on these pages when he realized that I didn't fit the view he had of conservatives. Unfortunately, I could not respond by saying that his stereotype of conservatives was wrong. And I'm certainly not a "compassionate conservative" myself.
But I try to think of the average guy – the guy who's worse off than I am even if he makes more than I do. Because most people do lead lives of quiet desperation, and anything that lessens the desperation for some that doesn't impose more desperation on others is a good thing. So can you name a rich guy who went broke because he had to pay more taxes? Can you even name a rich guy who was no longer rich because of taxes? And if you have one, be careful. You might just prove my point by the dearth of examples.
I grant that some rich guys might be less motivated to expand business and create jobs as a result of higher taxes, but that's speculative, and the fact is, somebody has to pay. The problem, again, is not who pays, but the number, size and scope of the programs. That's not the fault of the guy who pays no taxes.
I wish Rush and Neil would recognize that under the 16th amendment. if we adhered to what it was supposed to be and what it was in the beginning, they'd still be the guys paying income taxes, and a whole lot more than 50% wouldn't. Granted they'd be paying a lot less, but would they still be complaining?
And if you find yourself agreeing with Cavuto in any way, ask your doctor if Sodium Pentobarbital is right for you.