Cavuto: Why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and expect a different result?

posted at 6:31 pm on January 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

It’s been a pretty slow day, friends, and I’m a fan of a good truth-spittin’ Neil Cavuto monologue as much as the next gal — so here’s a bit of sanity after a week chock-full of the trumped-up demagoguery of extending unemployment benefits, income inequality, and the minimum wage, and before a year that’s sure to be all about the same as Democrats seek to avoid the disaster that is their leader’s crowning legislative achievement. Five years and one piddling “recovery” later, and progressives are fully convinced that the only thing that went wrong with their big-government, more spending, more taxes, more financial/healthcare/environmental regulation, faux-stimulus style of governing is that Republicans haven’t allowed them to do even more of it. Where does it end, where does it end?

So why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and think the result will be any different? I’ll tell you why — because we’re guilted into not giving them the money. That’s why. We’re made to look callous, those of us who dare say, no, not another dime from us. We sound selfish, and mean, just because we ask where all the money we’ve given them went. Trillions of dollars spent to fight a war on poverty, and still so much poverty. Trillions spent to lift minorities out of destitution, yet more minorities than ever destitute. Hundreds of billions raised in gas taxes and road taxes and transportation taxes and toll taxes and surtaxes, to fix bridges that are still falling down no matter how much cash we keep coughing up. Stimulus that doesn’t stimulate. Rescues that themselves need rescuing. You would think even a normally compliant mainstream media would start using its head as well as its heart and tell these politicians this is heartless. This is wrong. This is a waste. Yet I’m telling you, every time I question this spending, I’m the one who’s morally spent.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Willingly?

O_o

ShainS on January 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Willingly?

O_o

ShainS on January 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM

One comment. Thread over.

Fenris on January 17, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Is the IRS sending out invitations now?

viking01 on January 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM

I’d say the voters do share at least part of the blame for this, as America keeps thinking that voting on politicians to replace politicians will make any difference.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2014 at 6:50 PM

‘Cuz receiving addicts keep spending addicts in power.

antipc on January 17, 2014 at 6:56 PM

“Willingly?”

“WILLINGLY?”

Midas on January 17, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Prison and actual assault rifles come to mind.

S. D. on January 17, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Where does it end, where does it end?

Wonder Bread $1,000,000,000,000.00 a loaf.

trigon on January 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and expect a different result?

Because you (like most Americans) would throw a fit if federal spending were actually decreased to the levels you claim you want.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM

‘Cuz receiving addicts keep spending addicts in power.

antipc on January 17, 2014 at 6:56 PM

That’s it.

Where does it end, where does it end?

Wonder Bread $1,000,000,000,000.00 a loaf.

trigon on January 17, 2014 at 7:01 PM

That’s it.

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:07 PM

‘Cause if you don’t, they put you in jail, Neil.

Kafir on January 17, 2014 at 7:09 PM

You would think even a normally compliant mainstream media would start using its head as well as its heart and tell these politicians this is heartless

…they have neither!

KOOLAID2 on January 17, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Because it’s feeding, clothing, housing, and giving phones to the 52% of f&%ing ignorant leeches who vote for them.
Shame in sitting at home because it’s not the right job, because you’re better than that job, I’m still mad that your great great great great grandfather enslaved my great great great grandfather, because I keep voting for the same failed policies needs to be public and loud.

RovesChins on January 17, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Careful, Cavuto. You’re sounding awful Tea Party-like.

portlandon on January 17, 2014 at 7:12 PM

Because you (like most Americans) would throw a fit if federal spending were actually decreased to the levels you claim you want.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Maybe most, but not all. There are some Americans like me who don’t feel a moral obligation to use the government as a go-between in our charitable giving.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Where does it end, where does it end?

The same place this sort of thing ALWAYS ends — with the death of the republic and the enslavement of the populace.

My collie says:

Them that dies be the lucky ones, CC.

CyberCipher on January 17, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Amen Brother!! Unfortunately, no ones listening.

RdLake on January 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Blacklisted?

Cuban-Venezuelan actress Maria Conchita Alonso is one of the most prominent conservative voices in Hollywood, citing her family’s history with the extreme left as fueling her passion for politics. Now she is ginning up controversy once again for endorsing a Tea Party candidate who opposes immigration reform.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/17/Latina-Actress-Takes-Heat-For-Starring-In-Tea-Party-Candidate-s-Ad

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Amen, preach it brother!

Vigilante on January 17, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Maybe most, but not all. There are some Americans like me who don’t feel a moral obligation to use the government as a go-between in our charitable giving.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2014 at 7:14 PM

But what’s so foolish about most Fox News viewers is that when push came to shove, they would whine about massive reductions in federal spending. Its fun, for them, to hate on the government. Especially since they imagine themselves as not dependent upon it anyway and that its “other people” who are on the government dole.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

TEA party – - Taxed Enough Already

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:18 PM

The Lootery Bill:

1,582 Pages:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

canopfor on January 17, 2014 at 7:20 PM

‘Cause if you don’t, they put you in jail, Neil.

Kafir on January 17, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Concisely and elegantly stated.

thatsafactjack on January 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM

What the hell is wrong with Cavuto and Erika? The problem isn’t the big spenders in Washington, but the clients that vote for them and their handouts. Most everybody wants to pay lower taxes….except those that don’t pay taxes. Get it???

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM

But what’s so foolish about most Fox News viewers is that when push came to shove, they would whine about massive reductions in federal spending. Its fun, for them, to hate on the government. Especially since they imagine themselves as not dependent upon it anyway and that its “other people” who are on the government dole.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Most? I seriously doubt you know many Fox News viewers.

How many conversations have you had with any Fox news viewers?

Or are you just talking our your wazoo–again?

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 1h

Pres Obama says the contents of the funding bill are much more than numbers: but aid to homeless, job training, money for cancer research.
Expand

canopfor on January 17, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Because you (like most Americans) would throw a fit if federal spending were actually decreased to the levels you claim you want.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Lets try it and find out.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 1h

Pres Obama thanked OMB team for its strength & devotion in helping to get bill passed to fund Govt “vital services” for rest of fiscal year.
Expand

canopfor on January 17, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Cavuto and Kelly, ’bout the only two I can stomach anymore across all news networks…

hillsoftx on January 17, 2014 at 7:28 PM

How would Obama know what was in that 1582 page spending Bill?

When asked whether he read the 1,528-page, $1.1 trillion government spending bill before he voted for it yesterday, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said, “Nobody did!”

On Capitol Hill on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Blumenauer: “The omnibus bill yesterday, it was 1,582 pages, did you have a chance to read all the pages before voting on it?”

Blumenauer laughed and said: “Nobody did!”

“Nobody did?” said the CNSNews.com reporter.

“Nope,” said Blumenauer.

In an e-mail to CNSNews.com, Blumenauer’s communications director, Patrick Malone, said: “A reminder that the Republicans complained and complained about not having time to read bills when the Dems were in charge and then keep dropping bombs like this on us.”
currency

U.S. currency. (AP Photo)

The $1.1 trillion bill will fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2014, which ends on Sept. 30, 2014.

Sixty-four Republicans and three Democrats voted against the legislation. The final vote was 359-67. The legislation was opposed by conservative groups and conservative members of Congress.

The bill increases federal spending by $44.8 billion this year over the spending level previously set by Congress.

thatsafactjack on January 17, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and expect a different result?

Because you (like most Americans) would throw a fit if federal spending were actually decreased to the levels you claim you want.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Yes, because keeping more of my money I earn instead of forking it over to the government to distribute would make me SO angry!
Harvard weeps.

RovesChins on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Most? I seriously doubt you know many Fox News viewers.davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Fox averages 1.1. million viewers a day (and I suspect that is wildly under estimated). So, even if you were intimately familiar with, I don’t know, 10,000 Fox News viewers you still wouldn’t “know many Fox News viewers.”

Rather, what we do know is that the vast majority of Fox News viewers are people who are marginally conservative at least, and a good chunk of them match the conservatism of your HotAir sites. They are, I suspect, a fair representation of the 60 million Americans who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. And among that population, I suspect that the majority think they are against government aid (especially those Fox viewers in southern states or who live in poor areas) but when it came down to it, they’d be pissed.

We have perfect evidence of this in the right wing outrage at reductions in Veterans benefits. Like, what do you think is going to get cut if the “size of government shrinks” to a level where we were defecit neutral? Contracts to well connected military contractors? Of course not. Those people have paid off Republican members of Congress to ensure that government cuts don’t effect their bottom line. Instead, veterans benefits will be cut, because they do not have as much “free speech” as military contractors. So yeah, I say let the tea party have what it wants in terms of cuts. And see what they actually end up looking like.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

1,100,000,000,000. Through September.

President Barack Obama has signed the $1.1 trillion spending bill that funds the federal government through the end of September.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/17/president-obama-signs-11-trillion-government-spending-bill/?intcmp=latestnews

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

We have perfect evidence of this in the right wing outrage at reductions in Veterans benefits. Like, what do you think is going to get cut if the “size of government shrinks” to a level where we were defecit neutral?

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

That’s impossible without entitlement cuts, and you would never allow that, so not much use talking about it.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 7:33 PM

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

So you were blowing smoke. You know nothing.

And cutting the benefits of those that sacrificed to keep us free is an outrage.

But I don’t expect you to understand that.

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Like, what do you think is going to get cut if the “size of government shrinks” to a level where we were defecit neutral?

Like, for sure.

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 7:36 PM

…Fox News viewers…
 
libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

 
DRINK!

rogerb on January 17, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Cavuto: Why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and expect a different result?

Who is this “we” he speaks of?

In my world I call those people “they”. And often I call them socialists, or useful idiots, or just plain stupid and ignorant.

Very little of the money I am forced to “willingly fork over” to the government is forked over “willingly”.

Frankly, I think we are simply seeing the inevitable consequences of universal suffrage in a representative Republic. I am almost completely convinced this form of government cannot survive. It commits economic suicide.

The root of the problem is universal suffrage and an ever increasing number of people who increasingly rely on and vote to be given, in one form or another, a continually increasingly larger portion of other people’s money.

Government is consuming an increasingly large and larger portion of the wealth created by other people. Do not believe those who try to convince you otherwise. They are either lying or ignorant of how much of every dollar that leaves their pocket ends up in government hands in one form or another. Financial statistics in this country are beginning to resemble those the Soviet Government produced. The only reason we are getting away with it is the world economy runs on US dollars and we can print as many as we want.

But this is unsustainable. It cannot go on forever. Optimists believe, basically on faith, that eventually a majority of universal suffrage voters will see the light and vote to stop this economic suicide before it irrecoverably destroys the economy. I am not one of those optimists.

farsighted on January 17, 2014 at 7:40 PM

There are ways to cut spending, and then there are ways to cut spending.

I’d start with the National Endowment for the Arts. No more millions for finger painting, etc.

Department of Education. Return control of education to the states.* Cut student loans and enforce stringent requirements for obtaining a loan. Easy money has caused tuition to skyrocket while universities pay exorbitant salaries to administrators and tenured faculty, build new sports stadiums and brand new student lounges, etc.

Cut Welfare to a reasonable level and make it temporary with an emphasis on returning the recipient to the workforce . *When polled, Americans across the board, including Democrats, said that people with air conditioning, an adequate apartment or home ( whether owned or rented), cable television, a mobile phone, a microwave,medicaid, and a food allotment, were not poor. The Wages of Welfare

And that’s just for a start.

thatsafactjack on January 17, 2014 at 7:42 PM

The Department of Energy (DOE) budget last year 2013, was 23.3 billion, with the B; put in place by President Carter to get us off foreign oil over thirty years ago and at present has 16,000 employees that have been paid yearly for not doing their job, as a matter of fact they are still being paid for not doing their job. You wonder where the logic is.

mixplix on January 17, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Welfare pays better than work

Get a load of these state by state welfare figures.

Want to cut spending? Start here.

Next we can talk about ‘foreign aid’.

thatsafactjack on January 17, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Because you (like most Americans) would throw a fit if federal spending were actually decreased to the levels you claim you want.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Yeah, because federal agencies literally throwing money in the garbage to avoid budget reduction is so helpful to us all./

S. D. on January 17, 2014 at 7:48 PM

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:29 PM

Nice try. Let’s stick with the facts. Military spending to contractors is already being cut. Your pal in the oval office made certain of that. It’s spending on social program that are far and away the largest proportion of the budget. And that spending continues to balloon out-of-control.

My collie says:

She never grows tired of peddling the same old snake oil, does she?

CyberCipher on January 17, 2014 at 7:51 PM

The root of the problem is universal suffrage and an ever increasing number of people who increasingly rely on and vote to be given, in one form or another, a continually increasingly larger portion of other people’s money.

farsighted on January 17, 2014 at 7:40 PM

They promise to give them the money, and they do redistribute a percentage, but not all the money. What is basically happening is that the government is using entitlement programs to bribe the 47% to vote for a power hungry bureaucracy, and then they are corrupting corporations with the promise of a biased favorable relationship with the government. We are witnessing the birth of a fascist state.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 7:51 PM

The Marxist, economically useless, ignorant, and parasitic troll puts in an appearance. Apparently the sicko still hasn’t sought psychiatric treatment and medication for its pathological obsession with trolling.

farsighted on January 17, 2014 at 7:54 PM

How would Obama know what was in that 1582 page spending Bill?

thatsafactjack on January 17, 2014 at 7:28 PM

He knows he’s getting 1.1 Trillion dollars to pass around. That’s as far as he needs to read.

kcewa on January 17, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Some say that more whites than blacks are on food stamps. However:

% of population
White 78%
Black 12%

Population (real number)
W 234,000,000
B 36,000,000

% of Food stamp recipients by Race
W 59%
B 28%

population on food stamps (real number)
W 26550000
B 12600000

percentage of race on food stamps
W 11.35%
B 35.00%

http://www.albanyconservative.us/food_stamp_by_race.html

davidk on January 17, 2014 at 8:00 PM

If the federal government was as eager to cut EVERY facet of government spending as they were the money paid to people who have spent significant portions of their lives defending our freedoms abroad, then yes, I would be all for it. As we all know, the gov will cut the DOD budget by 50% and increase spending in welfare by 25% claiming that they have cut spending by 10%. The 50%, as you have already pointed out, won’t be taken out of b.s. programs in the DOD, but the actual pay to our service men and women.

JAGonzo on January 17, 2014 at 8:05 PM

…Fox News viewers…

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

DRINK!

rogerb on January 17, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Pheew.

lol.

S. D. on January 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM

who says this is willing?…

the IRS is scary…

Karmashock on January 17, 2014 at 8:16 PM

But what’s so foolish about most Fox News viewers is that when push came to shove, they would whine about massive reductions in federal spending. Its fun, for them, to hate on the government. Especially since they imagine themselves as not dependent upon it anyway and that its “other people” who are on the government dole.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Like I said, most but not all. I’m not feeding from the federal trough. I know it’s not a representative cross-section of America, but I’d daresay most of the commenters here aren’t. So let me repeat it again, and I’ll type really slow in case you have a hard time understanding:

I feel no moral obligation to let government be a middleman for my charitable giving.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Cavuto: Why do we willingly fork over more money to known spending addicts and expect a different result?

Cavuto’s being too kind or he’s being naive. This money we’re talking about is being pilfered from America in order to benefit a handful of big shots here and abroad. That money was always meant to be stolen and as a twofer, buy votes.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 17, 2014 at 10:09 PM

But what’s so foolish about most Fox News viewers is that when push came to shove, they would whine about massive reductions in federal spending. Its fun, for them, to hate on the government. Especially since they imagine themselves as not dependent upon it anyway and that its “other people” who are on the government dole.

libfreeordie on January 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM

And most liberals are gay pedophiles.

Hey, this ridiculous make shit up/generalization game is fun!

Midas on January 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM

The simple fact is that somewhere between Reagan and Clinton’s acknowledgement that “the era of big government is over,” the Empire decided to strike back.

The Shadow Government, the bureaucracy, doubled down to fight every cut – or reduction in the rate of increase – in spending. Then when Bush became unpopular as the wars dragged on, the Democratic left came back with a vengeance. And they won the argument, at least temporarily.

We take heart when a plurality of 41% of Americans describe themselves as “conservative,” but when those same people are asked if they would agree with changes to future beneficiaries even to save Social Security and Medicare, a majority of them say NO.

We need to educate a country that was abandoned to leftist teachers’ unions for their entire lives. It’s a daunting task.

Adjoran on January 18, 2014 at 12:07 AM

We take heart when a plurality of 41% of Americans describe themselves as “conservative,” but when those same people are asked if they would agree with changes to future beneficiaries [i.e., themselves] even to save Social Security and Medicare, a majority of them say NO.

We need to educate a country that was abandoned to leftist teachers’ unions for their entire lives. It’s a daunting task.

Adjoran on January 18, 2014 at 12:07 AM

This supports lib’s original point (too many conservatives demand Congress end the pork & the waste, but THEIR subsidy is too important to cut!); however, he lost me with the ad hominem faux-stats & his inaccuracy on the veteran’s pensions (the GOP tried to restore those cuts by fixing holes that allowed illegitimate EIC claims, and the Dems wouldn’t do it).

Ya got ta keep up with the reading program, lib.

PS I would gladly forego any future supposed SS or MC benefits if they let me keep what I’m handing over now; wouldn’t even ask for the long-gone past payments back.

AesopFan on January 18, 2014 at 12:38 AM

I feel no moral obligation to let government be a middleman for my charitable giving.

gryphon202 on January 17, 2014 at 8:22 PM

And that includes shit like Medicare and Social Security which will be bankrupt before I am ever old enough to see them.

gryphon202 on January 18, 2014 at 3:44 AM

PS I would gladly forego any future supposed SS or MC benefits if they let me keep what I’m handing over now; wouldn’t even ask for the long-gone past payments back.

AesopFan on January 18, 2014 at 12:38 AM

Ditto that.

gryphon202 on January 18, 2014 at 3:44 AM

Neal, it is the willing and ready GOP that is in charge of that spending, but like a milquetoast husband who fears his aggressive wife above being responsible, he buys peace and happiness by throwing his money at her to play with.

Throw them all out-no matter the cost. Think gangrene!

Don L on January 18, 2014 at 5:28 AM

“Willingly?” Of course it’s “willingly.” Just ask Harry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs

NoPain on January 18, 2014 at 9:34 AM

What the hell is wrong with Cavuto and Erika? The problem isn’t the big spenders in Washington, but the clients that vote for them and their handouts. Most everybody wants to pay lower taxes….except those that don’t pay taxes. Get it???

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 7:21 PM

Agree with your general theme, but there are still far too many ‘conservatives’ crony capitalists on the gravy train. How many conservatives would give up their mortgage interest deduction? How many would give up their farm and ethanol subsidies? How many businessmen would prefer the strict enforcement of immigration laws that would result in greatly diminished societal costs that taxpayers end up funding? I could go on, but you get the gist. The left is by far the bigger problem, but the D.C. ‘right’ is still not the answer.

PD Quig on January 18, 2014 at 9:41 AM

I can answer the question with two words….. Boehner and McConnell.

ultracon on January 18, 2014 at 1:24 PM

What’s important to remember is that this is Republicans too. The spending has increased EVERY year Obama has been in office and that includes those after the Republicans took control of the House, that body which controls the purse. If they had some leadership there, this would not have happened. It’s going to take a massive turnover in the House and Senate to even begin to turn this disaster around. One thing’s for sure, no matter what happens, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell have to go. They have not done their jobs and, if both are in the majority, they will do exactly what was done during the Bush years. I don’t necessarily think that Congress has all the blame for the Bush years, President Bush has some responsibility, but they certainly didn’t live up to the hype of lower taxes and less government.

bflat879 on January 18, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Interesting info below:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The next time you hear that Barry is reducing the deficit, refer to the far left column. That would be income from your taxes, and that would be due to an 11% tax increase this year. I’m beginning to wonder which side of the Laffer Curve we’re on.

NoPain on January 18, 2014 at 8:56 PM