Dash of reality might do wonders

It would never do to demonize the rich


Rich: Criticism a poor excuse

I’ve been seeing a lot of mail, articles etc., playing a very familiar liberal theme: Extreme antagonism almost to the point of hatred toward the wealthy. “Tax breaks for the rich” is one of their most popular myths. (Incidentally, so far no one has responded to my earlier challenge to tell me one tax break the rich got that the rest of us didn’t. “Tax break for the rich” is liberal doublespeak for “the rich didn’t get hit with two or more times the percentage tax than we got.”)

Therefore let me present these misguided liberals with a new challenge. Put on your oldest, well-worn clothing and go, tin cup in hand, to Duane Hagadone’s door and when he answers your knock look your most pitiable and with tears streaming down your cheeks plead with him to give you a big chunk of his money. After all, you’ll tell him, “The fates weren’t as kind to me as they were to you and I didn’t get the tax breaks you got (a big lie but an essential part of the liberal scenario) so share your wealth with me.”

If you don’t have the guts to do that, if you’re too ashamed, then quit asking the government to do it for you while you hide in the bushes lest, as I said once before, you be seen in your shame. I mean, how dare these meanies accumulate more money than I! How dare they succeed where I have failed! Or even, how dare they have good luck where I’ve had bad! Just who do they think they are? (And while you’re at it, prepare a letter of thanks to the wealthy for bearing a far, far larger part of the tax burden than you or I. Your eagerness to jump on their backs for a free ride makes me sick. For the record they do indeed have a moral obligation to help the needy but that is a personal obligation. To make it a legal one with penalties is disgusting.)

Phil Membury
Coeur d’Alene

Let’s just demonize politics or “liberals” instead


In the latest, Kathleen Parker’s editorial republished in the Spokesman-Review, Ms. Parker does take a moment to task all sides equally.  But that being said, the only difference between her editorial and the ranting ignorance displayed by the above letter writer, is that she is a journalist.  That’s not saying much.

I’ll proceed to quote briefly one of Ms. Parker’s more telling statements, “Permit me to reword the issue just a tad.  Let’s say Joe is $100 in the hole and yet continues to spend money like a drunken fool.  Mary has five bucks, which she declines to share because she has to buy food.  Joe is insistent.  His debt will get worse if Mary doesn’t help out.  This may be true, but Mary isn’t convinced that helping Joe pay down his debt will do any good as long as he continues to spend.  She’s betting that Joe will just dig a deeper hole, and she will have less security of her own.”  Literally, an echo of what Membury himself had written.

“Joe,” in Parker’s eyes represents profligate government.  Well, part of “Joe’s” spending that put him $100 in the hole has to do with enabling the wealthy to keep more of their money.  And then subsidizing their very existence on top of that through various well-known programs, trade deals and etc.  Plus, “Joe” (or profligate government if you will) spends some millions to billions of dollars on earmarks, and spends money on keeping government running, and spends money on the national defense, etc.  Yes, actually, the money not taken in by government as revenue, does add to the debt.  Especially because of  those who get to “keep more of their money” then go to “Duane Hagadone” (the Daddy Warbucks side of government where the very wealthy present their own pitiable expressions, hold out their own tin cups) and are rewarded through their lobbying efforts.  Absolutely, Membury and Parker, Mary’s five bucks can contribute greatly to subsidizing these people who are not $100 in the hole, who put as much of their money into tax shelters as possible, and who also don’t feel they can operate unless they are given special consideration by the government.  Which is what Parker leaves out of consideration. It can never involve exactly why “Joe” (the government) can be in debt only that those whom government has cheerfully subsidized for low these many years, should not now or ever hand some of it back.  Why that, would be class warfare!  An unwarranted criticism of the rich!

The question must be asked here, if tax cuts (as well as the humongous dollars spent on subsidies for the wealthy) are so essential to creating jobs, wonder why Parker did not ask an honest question about why when the tax cuts from the Bush era were in place even through 2010, that American jobs were hard to come by?  That a grave recession continued to be chronic well into two years after Obama became president.  If Ms. Parker wants to see some honesty, she could do well to start with herself.

I can see a sense of shame here.  Ignorance from a letter writer with a blatant hatred of all things (old) left that asks for some consideration toward people who truly are facing hard times through unemployment, home foreclosures and etc.  And literally attacks them for asking the rich to do more.  For that tax base to spread further and government to literally be able to take in more revenue, Americans must be moved from unemployment to the employed.  That is what the wealthy should do.  To invest enough in their American workforce to improve their hours and therefore wages so that they in turn can add to a better economic picture.  After all, they can surely do that, right, with those tax breaks of theirs?

But what if the real argument is, that the rich don’t intend to help needy Americans through gainful employment?  Then, sorry Membury; but they can be criticized.  And the criticism is well-warranted indeed.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Dash of reality might do wonders”

  1. Private Krankenversicherung Says:

    Good…

    your blog is ok…

  2. Monnie Brocklesby Says:

    Did you go to school in California? I recognise your name, I just can’t remember from where.

  3. Ronald Bostelman Says:

    Wonderful goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely excellent. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it smart. I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is really a tremendous web site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: