Good catch, Tom. This is just despicable selfishness.
Note how he defends his own class warfare, his own desire to keep every red cent he's ever made -- all of it made in a vacuum, of course, completely isolated from the influence of any governmental spending or societal factors from the very beginning of the republic until today -- by portraying it as class warfare ("People like you...want to use taxes to redistribute income") that others wish to wage upon him.
And screw "redistributing." How about we pay some bills? How about we replenish some of the Social Security cash that they've squandered?
They're parasites that have developed this perverse defense mechanism of identifying their prey as a parasite.
And that's all I have to say about it.
How can you "cut all government spending" without cutting spending on the war on terror? This is one of the most serious rhetorical tricks--to assume away the actual taxes as purely discretionary. In that he *is* like an economist "first, assume a can opener"
aimai
I'm going to cut all my spending and see if this works. Sorry kids, no food. Start chewing on your shoes, daddy's got a bank account that desperately needs some growth. Plus, I don't like the way the neighbor's been looking at me. I might have to preemptively invade his yard.
It must be nice to be Novak and others who never have to travel on the roads paid for by us little people.
I've always been curious about the counterintuitive phenomenon Bruce Tinsley keeps pushing in his moronic Mallard Fillmore comic strip, repeating over and over that Kennedy, Bush Sr., and Reagan all raised government revenue by cutting tax rates. He never cites a reference for it, let alone mentions the name, probably afraid that any scrutiny whatsoever will reveal its pie-in-the-sky nature.
Googling "Laffer curve" led to the neo-Laffer Curve, which actually makes more sense and will bring a smirk to your face if you haven't seen the chart model yet.
And Novak? Squalling little brat. "MY money! Mine! Miiiiiiiiiine!! I'm a white male! Gov'mint never did anything for meeeeeeeee!! (...And I din't do NUFFIN' wrong!)" It's past your bedtime, Bobby.
God, what a smirky, smarmy, self-satisfied son of a bitch he is. I'm guessing he never did answer the question.
They're parasites that have developed this perverse defense mechanism of identifying their prey as a parasite.
Nicely put.
This is one of the most serious rhetorical tricks--to assume away the actual taxes as purely discretionary. In that he *is* like an economist "first, assume a can opener"
Yeah, exactly. And of course what he's really assuming is his own conclusion.
I'm going to cut all my spending and see if this works. Sorry kids, no food.
You know, Novak might actually try that... 
And Novak? Squalling little brat....It's past your bedtime, Bobby.
Long, long past. (Past his sell-by date, for that matter.)
I'm guessing he never did answer the question.
What you see here is the last he said about it...so yeah, he never even came close to answering the question.
I love this:
Washington: In the past in your column, you have referred to the poor as "losers." This is obviously counter to Catholic teaching on issues of social justice, going back to the 19th century and De Rerum Novarum. How do you reconcile your conversion to Catholicism with your conservative views on issues like social justice?
Robert D. Novak: I follow Scripture and Catholic doctrine rather than the latest theories by the Jesuits and the like.
Oh, yeah, right. Jesus? Hated the poor. Used to tell the Apostles, "Screw those losers -- what have they ever done for me? Get 'em out of here. And tell 'em to take the damn lepers with 'em, while they're at it."
Further Novak thinking: "And if there's no government spending, then Valerie Plame wasn't an undercover CIA agent, since we couldn't fund the CIA, and I didn't out her. Get's me out of the treason I committed nicely. And I keep my money. And my head so far up my ass that if I shat I'd fill my pants pockets."
Mr. Novak's brand of Christianity is contrary to the teachings of the One I consider to be the Christ. The centerpiece of Jesus' most famous sermon, reported in Matthew Chapter Five, is the Beatitudes. In this powerful message he spoke of those who are "blessed" including the poor in spirit, the peacemakers and the meek.
This foundational text of the Christian faith is anathema to Mr. Novak and fellow members of the Christian Jihad who see Jesus coming down from heaven with M-60's on both arms blasting homos, those on welfare and Muslims.
The belief that God supports American nationalism, prosperity theology, dominionist theology and other perversions of Scripture is pure sacrilege. Mr. Novak and his television "minister" zealot allies manipulate Scriptue to reach conclusions that cannot be reached with an honest reading of the Gospel.
The cartoonish ways in which they represent the Christian faith are legend. Falwell's "Jesus supports nuclear weapons. He wasn't a sissy." Robertson's hurricanes over Disney World because gays go there. Dobson's "curing" homosexuality. Tim LaHaye's taking the Book of Revelation out of context and making it into a comic book series. Bill O'Reilly's ridiculous "war on Christmas."These are the real abominations to the faith that believes in Jesus.
If Robert Novak wants to be a real Christian, he should read Scripture instead of making it up. As a good Catholic, he should follow his Church's teachings. While I am not Catholic, I admire Catholicism's faithfulness to the Gospel's clear teachings on our responsibilities to the poor. Mr. Novak's claims about his faith are not supported by his positions. He is either ignorant of Scripture or full of Pharasical BS. I cannot judge that. I will leave that to the Creator.
Happenstance, your reaction was almost the same as mine:
"Eat your vegetables, Bobby; no dessert until after you clean your plate."
"Waaaah -- I don't wanna! I don't wanna! You can't make me! When I grow up, I'm going to do whatever I want! I'm going to eat ice cream for every meal, and never touch vegetables again!"
(a scene repeated in millions of future conservatives' households around the country, no doubt)
Commenting by HaloScan
