Now that it has become a shibboleth on the right that 47%-51% of the population "doesn't pay taxes" (of course all of those non-taxpayers are assumed to be "poor, and none of them pay other types of taxes; here is an interesting table with some preliminary stats for 2011), I think that perhaps Sen. Orrin Hatch's call for "the poor" to do more to shrink the debt and deficit makes more sense to me.
We all know that "the poor" are getting over in this nation, and that this is a great time to be among "the poor," with unemployment benefits, food stamps and such. So why not look to the elimination of Medicaid as a way to have "the poor" pay their fair share. After all, why should we reward those who've made poor choices in their lives? Why should we continue to force the real taxpayers to have their hard earned money go to the most undeserving in the nation, especially when their circumstances are entirely their fault? It only makes sense, unless you are a real fan of Rand, that the real taxpayers' hard earned money should continue to support the various tax breaks and loopholes for those at the top of the economic ladder? I mean once those real taxpayers join the top 1% of income earners, those breaks and loopholes will come in handy.
I mean there is no lobby for the poor, at least not one worth considering. So why not eliminate Medicaid in the effort to help pay down our bills, force the undeserving to do something for themselves, finally? What better way could there be to ensure that "the poor" are contributing sufficiently to this discussion? Though, we might consider getting that small percentage of folks who aren't poor, but also don't "pay taxes" to chip in as well, unless they're rich. After all, they certainly made most of the right choices in life, and deserve our fealty.