Paying their “fair share”: empty and cynical rhetoric

CMR reminded me a scene from a show that I really like: The West Wing.

“But Father! But FATHER!” some of you are saying. “You like that lefty show?”

Yes.  I like it.  And as we are into this horrible administration, the liberals of The West Wing seem like Tea Party members by comparison.

The First Gay President, who told the Russians that he will have more flexibility (to execute his radical agenda) once he reelected, brays about the rich paying their “fair share”, as if that additional redistribution of wealth would make a significant difference to the deficit he balloon beyond imagination.

B as in B, S as in S.

Pres. Obama’s “fair share” quip is a empty, cynical rhetoric intended to keep attention off the disaster he has perpetrated on future generations of tax payers.

After what this president has done to us, it may be that the only way we’ll get out of our debt and GDP problem is for a CME creating an EMP to cause TEOTWAWKI.  I digress.

Here is the scene from The West Wing:



About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Blatteroons, Dogs and Fleas, Linking Back, TEOTWAWKI, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Like all Socialists the redistribution of wealth is your wealth not his or Nancy’s wealth. Perhaps he will have the Internationale replace the Star Spangled Banner. Pray God that we are delivered from this modern day Pharoah. Unfortunately half the the electorate is beguiled by the likes of him.

  2. wmeyer says:

    “Pay their fair share…”

    This is a normal Democrat ploy which has succeeded because so few voters have even the slimmest understanding of economics. My usual recommendation is that they should read “Basic Economics”, by Thomas Sowell, which is as non-technical and useful a presentation as I have seen, and very readable.

    Anyone who understands the mechanics of economics (which leaves out, of course, Lord Keynes) will understand that the claims made by politicians are utter nonsense.

  3. lizaanne says:

    I loved The West Wing – great writing, great characters!! And I am far from what would be considered “liberal”.

  4. acardnal says:

    “But Father! But FATHER!” some of you are saying. “You like that lefty show?”

    Yes. I like it.

    I’m a conservative, and I enjoyed the West Wing, too. I bought the entire series on dvd, and I am glad I did because one of my criticism’s of the show is that the dialogue pacing is too rapid. The dvd’s allowed me to replay the scene to miss what was said.

  5. acardnal says:

    “. . . . to miss what was said.” ??? Funny but not what I meant to say.

    The dvd’s allowed me to replay the scene to HEAR what I missed the first time.

  6. mamajen says:

    Obama can talk about “fair share” when I no longer see people who are better dressed, with fancier cell phones, cars, etc. using food stamps while I flip through my stack of coupons. I’m so sick of that phrase.

  7. jmf says:

    We are all paying our fair share! Especially that nice amount on the FICA part of our pay checks. It appears that many of us will not see our fair share come back to us in that regard. Why? because we continue to be the policeman of the world. We pump millions of dollars in to equipment to fight in Afganistan, keep the peace in Germany, Korea, Iraq, etc. This all happens while China flourishes and we continue to borrow money from them? We have people in the greatest country of the world homeless and starving. We cannot afford to pay our police and fire department workers in Scranton more than minumum wage. We are taxed and pay our fair share and where does the money go? To pay off our Chinese debt? Like four years ago, it is time for a change, but the problem may be too big to fix.

  8. Cathy says:

    Hmmm….does anybody wonder why “the rich” would move their businesses overseas and even give up their US citizenship – recent moves by the wife of Marc Rich and the man who started facebook. It seems that those who benefit most from wealth and liberalism in our country are the first to dump the country in light of higher taxes and increased regulation – these are the new “independents”. The agreeably dependent are the first to defend the administrations cause of raising taxes on “the rich”, they would rather take money from your pocket, feed a fat bureaucracy and complain that they are living on scraps than to ask a neighbor for help either because they have already been held accountable and failed, or because they hold a dependable working man in contempt. Now you are left with the dependable working man, who is neither wealthy enough to be one of the new independents and who still holds too dear to his heart the principle of self-government to be agreeably dependent. Deep in his heart he sees in the age to come that the burden imposed by the nonsensical government redistribution of future wealth and the nations to whom we are owing the debt, a burden which neither he nor his posterity can possibly bear. I look at the coming election with a sense of dread, it seems if one is elected, it is quite possible that the future holds physical martyrdom – loss of income, imprisonment, torture and death. If the other is elected, it is quite possible that a majority become prisoners of their conscience – how many now say he is indeed “pro-life”, more “pro-life”, less part of the culture of death than the other? What exactly, principally, and in accordance with his deeds is this squiggly creature, and if, I am my brother’s keeper, including the president of the US, how am I not held accountable for his actions if I vote for him? I wonder at the future, four years fighting for life, or eight years to recapture economic well-being and a slavery of comfort knowing full well the slaughter continues unabated with less of my tax dollars involved. I am deeply troubled at both prospects.

  9. wmeyer says:

    On a related note, shortly we can expect to see the condemnations of Chick-Fil-A and the Cathy brothers ramp up, as there is an article online now which asserts that the brothers have now joined the ranks of American billionaires. I say asserted, because CFA is a closely held corporation, so the claim is speculative.

    I do get so very tired of crusaders for the exploited workers who never bother to find out from employees how they feel about the company. By all accounts, CFA is head and shoulders above other fast food chains in that regard.

  10. Sissy says:

    wmeyer: Speaking of Chick-fil-A, I went by to pick up lunch for the new neighbors’ moving guys. It’s National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. There must have been 300 people jammed in there, and cars around the block for the drive thru. Looks like the “boycott” isn’t going so well.

  11. wmeyer says:

    Sissy: I shared that experience. Being self-employed, I am not paid for sitting there, so I went for Plan B.

  12. Jack Hughes says:

    As someone who is VERY conservative (except when it comes to economics where I am modereately conservative I like the West Wing, not a year goes by when I haven’t watched at least one seasons of it.

    As for tax cuts for the wealthy I’m not convinced that supply side economics argument for it works, nor am I in favour for taxing the rich until they sqeual. I am for as small a government as is doable e.g. I’m not going to abolish the Department for Education because It’ll get me more votes on election day.

    Fundementally I think that the main problem is original sin; the poor can (note CAN) be selfish by living lives of idleness on the backs of other people’s labour, the rich can be selfish by going for every tax dodge in the book, using their wealth to hire lobbyists to write exemptions into the tax code for them, forgetting that their wealth cannot change their fate come judgement day and that they will most likely end ‘well done’ for eternity if they do not use their wealth for good.

  13. wmeyer says:

    Regardless of personal views, one absolute truth is absolutely denied by governments: you cannot spend what you do not have. Hence our current economy.

  14. Gregory DiPippo says:

    But Father! But FATHER!!! Are ALL the principled, intelligent people in government really just characters on a fictional show that ended its run more than 6 years ago?

    Yes, my son.

  15. Sissy, wmeyer: A coworker and I tried to get lunch at Chick-Fil-A to show our support, but the line was out the building and wrapping down one side. The drive-through line was all the way around the building and down the street! I was glad to see the support being shown.

  16. acardnal says:

    Fox News just broadcast a story with video showing various Chick-fil-A stores jammed with customers – not protesters – and lines out the door! I wonder if biased, pro-GBLT CNN will broadcast that?!

  17. Sissy says:

    acardnal: I visited our local franchise at around 11 am thinking I’d beat the rush. I could barely make it through the door. Inside was a very festive, party atmosphere. People were very happy to there supporting such nice folks [I know the Cathy’s slightly].

  18. jessicahoff says:

    Well, being in the UK , I could not go to the outlet – but I did have a chicken sandwich for lunch!

  19. Imrahil says:

    the poor can (note CAN) be selfish by living lives of idleness.

    Obviously. And sometimes they’re innocent. But what most of the time is forgotten is this:

    A man – some’d call him ogre still-
    says: “You can all things, if you will.”
    Maybe. But there are many shades:
    that one but can will is a grace.

    Eugen Roth (translatory note: man = Mensch, ogre = Unmensch)

  20. Laura98 says:

    But Father! But Father! I liked that lefty show too! I didn’t like every episode, some of them were rather disturbing and some were rather stupid. But overall, it was an excellent series.

  21. Fr. CK says:

    Love this show. Brilliant writing. I would take President Bartlet any day of the week compared to what we have now. FYI for those of you with amazon prime, the entire series is available.

  22. The Cobbler says:

    ‘“Pay their fair share…”

    This is a normal Democrat ploy which has succeeded because so few voters have even the slimmest understanding of economics.’
    I know this post is a day old, but this is a pet peeve of mine — forget basic economics, let’s talk about where anyone ever gets any actual statistics as to what the rich are actually paying, let alone how one is to know what another’s fair share is. Without determining both of those (one of which is pretty much universally unattempted and the other of which borders on absurd) the complaint that the rich need to be made to pay their fair share is about as meaningful as the complaint that the sun shines too brightly on Ahgsaioh. After that there’s the lack of basic fact-checking as to whether what a politician actually proposes will bring about the paying of fair shares that he uses as justification for it or for his election. The list goes on. No need to fret over whether the logic works (in economics that’s not as clear as in true pure logic) when the premises are made up out of thin air.

  23. wmeyer says:

    Cobbler: Actually, the breakdown of revenues vs. earnings is all available from the Treasury Dept. The “rich” upper 10% already pay over 90% of the taxes; the bottom 50% of earners now pay about 3%.

  24. The Cobbler says:

    Perhaps I was unclear… I don’t mean the data isn’t there to be found (and found easily at that), but that people toss around claims without that source-cited data — there’s no actual content in “the rich must pay their fair share” because nobody, with few exceptions besides yourself and a few Midwest talk radio hosts making a point about these things, says “the rich currently pay x [cf Treasury Dept data], whereas…” Of course, this is all the more a ridiculous state of affairs when the data can be looked up in a matter of seconds from a reliable source accessed via technology that has become commonplace (even those who can’t afford it could get on the local library’s computer to check government-published data, I would think).

Comments are closed.