Journal pudge's Journal: You Can Afford It 14
One of the most offensive things that a politician can say to you is that it's OK for government to take what's yours because "you can afford it." Obama's used that exact language, and it's, in simplest and most direct term, decisively anti-liberty.
How could they know what you can afford? It's quite conceivable that the people who make more than $250,000, or even $2.5 million, a year -- that Obama wants to raise taxes on -- cannot afford to pay more taxes, because they are already using all their money. Maybe it's on investing in businesses, maybe it's on a nice house for your family, maybe it's on a hobby you love, maybe it's just buying as much gold as possible because you think the dollar-based economy is going to completely collapse.
Oh, you reply, but they are spending their money on things they "don't need." But in a free country, who are you to authoritatively tell anyone what they don't need? Why should your opinion that I don't need something have any effect on me at all? If I think I need to spend all my spare money on gold, who are you to tell me I am wrong?
On what objective basis can you assert that I can afford to not use my money how I want to use it?
There isn't one, of course. In order to make the claim you have to either claim that there is no private ownership of anything, and give government the ultimate power to decide what everyone should have, or else draw a completely arbitrary line based on your subjective (and often religiously motivated) belief that there's more important things to use my money for than what I want to use my money for, and that you can force that belief on me.
Obama and Biden say they don't want to force their religion on people when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to "charity," they will force whatever they can on whomever they can. Neither hypocrisy nor assaults on liberty are new in politics.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I can tell... (Score:3, Funny)
Good luck (Score:2)
With all due respect, you're going to have to do a lot better than this to get the people who believe that to move an inch. You might be able to open up the eyes of a few people who float with the breeze, but for so many who truly hold this view, it's just so entrenched that it would crush their world. In their eyes, it is unfair that some are rich and others are not. They will fight the socialist/communist labels, but at their core it's just an immovable world view. They don't see society in terms of liber
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect, you're going to have to do a lot better than this to get the people who believe that to move an inch.
I am not trying to get the socialists to move. I am trying to get the people who agree with me to move. To vote.
I don't try to change anyone's view. I will gladly give them arguments to help them consider changing their view on their own, but I don't try to change their view. It's fruitless.
Whoever wins (Score:2)
Is very likely going to have to raise taxes to pay for fixing the economy.
For the sake of argument say you are John McCain. What spending would you cut, what taxes would you cut? Does this lead to a balanced budget or ever larger deficits? Remember anything you want to do has to get through Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Is very likely going to have to raise taxes to pay for fixing the economy.
That's not true. Raising taxes is extremely unlikely under McCain, because he knows that kills the economic growth we need to help get out of this mess.
For the sake of argument say you are John McCain. What spending would you cut, what taxes would you cut?
I'd cut every department, significantly, except for the military. And I'd keep his very modest proposed tax cuts to help stimulate the economy and protect taxpayers from the downturned economy.
Does this lead to a balanced budget or ever larger deficits?
Over time, it leads to balanced budgets and decreased debt, if you stick with it.
Of course, that's the problem, sticking with it, and getting people to go along with
Re: (Score:2)
Won't pass Congress. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't pass Congress.
Maybe. So?
Re: (Score:2)
Well the question was what changes in the budget and taxes would you make that will pass Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
But the point is I am not President. If I were, it would be a completely different situation. It won't pass Congress now, but if I were President, maybe it would.
It is quite possible -- especially during a time of "financial crisis" -- that you could get an across-the-board cut through (for general fund programs). And this I would try to do. Indeed, I'd make it a major feature of my campaign.
Obama would say, "oh, you're going to cut funding for educating the next generation of tech workers?" And I'd sa
Re: (Score:1)
There are plenty of places to cut spending. And raising taxes does not necessarily lead to improved revenue as it harms the economy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Fy2007spendingbycategory.png [wikimedia.org]
2% on Department of Education should be cut completely. Education should be a state level function of goverment and can be reasonably transfered without much interruption.
I am sure there are cuts that could be performed in other areas also, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, US Depar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can already see the commercial: "FroMan voted against education. Innocent children, America's future, no longer allowed an education thanks to FroMan's reactionary policies."
"And FroMan voted against raising taxes on big oil."
"We can't afford 4 more years of FroMan."
Re: (Score:1)
It's sad that doing the right thing, the constitutional thing, can be twisted as the wrong thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzt, has to pass Congress. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzt, has to pass Congress.
You're making things up. Why are you doing that?