By Tina Grazier
It saddens me to say this on Thanksgiving evening…it saddens me to say, that every day and in some way Americans are encouraged to be takers!
Do you support an America that would deny basic guarantees of freedom and property to members of our citizenry?
President Obama met with business leaders after his re-election. His message was as expected:
The president wants to find “a balanced solution to our deficit challenges” and a way to move the economy forward, the official said. …Obama insisted in his re-election campaign that the wealthy should pay more as part of any fiscal deal, and has said his victory at the polls is an endorsement of that view.
This message does reflect his mindset as well as his proposals going forward:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own…
The people who built this nation, individual, creative, industrious people, were dedicated to savings and hard work. They sacrificed, persevered and endured hardship. We are the descendents of those who braved the oceans, the unknown, and the cruel hardships of settling in a wilderness for religious liberty. As such we have inherited the values of individual effort and reward. We have inherited the ideal that one can improve his life by his own efforts in a free country. But we are rejecting those ideals as too hard for some people…impossible for some “folks” to duplicate in their lives.
I disagree. I think the problem isn’t that some people aren’t capable but that they have been taught to think of themselves as incapable. they have been taught to think that some of their fellow Americans will always work against them. They have been taught that diversity makes America strong…when in truth it is our liberty! These people have been trained to be divisive and needy, a lesson in defiance of their heritage
The alternative to liberty has been pressed on the American people for the last six or seven decades It is the socialists idea of sharing…an idea that was rejected by the Pilgrims when they discovered that it leads to less prosperity…and even death. History has shown that the socialist model always leads to the same blunted state of increasing poverty, less abundance, largess invested in government and wealth in the hands of the few. President Obama has shown us in four short years how to accelerate toward doom.
Now that he’s won a second term, the single biggest proposal President Obama has suggested is to take money from productive people. He calls this “making everyone pay their fair share,” a statement so absurd it defies logic.
We have witnessed this thinking as a gathering storm for many decades. Half of America now holds successful people in disdain and believes that wealth should be confiscated by government even though they can plainly see the debt, the waste, the oppression that follows when government gets too big and has promised too much.
When our paychecks fall short of expenses we notice, and it hurts…but we don’t seem to notice the horrendous harm we are forced to endure. We don’t seem to care that more money from the wealthy will not begin to decrease the unsustainable expense required to keep big government operating. Our leaders pit us against each other and as we bend to the lie we fail to notice how government has been the cruel task master and robber of our potential.
Friedrich von Hayek:
“It is true that the virtues which are less esteemed and practiced now–independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors–are essentially those on which the individualist society rests. Collectivism has nothing to put in their place, and in so far as it already has destroyed then it has left a void filled by nothing but the demand for obedience and the compulsion of the individual to what is collectively decided to be good.” Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
If you won’t read the book, at least read and absorb the quotes here!
The book is also available online in PDF format from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Great quotes. Liked this one the best, so far.
Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another. In any society freedom of thought will probably be of direct significance only for a small minority. But this does not mean that anyone is competent, or ought to have power, to select those to whom this freedom is to be reserved. It certainly does not justify the presumption of any group of people to claim the right to determine what people ought to think or believe.
Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
Having trouble with the links to down the Road to Serfdom. I keep getting “page not available”.
Tina Grazier, Friedrich A. von Hayek, Ayn Rand, Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan — JUVENILES ALL!
Sorry, I just had a Chris moment.
Ooops, I left out the juvenile Milton Friedman in the comment above.
Dag nab it! I left out the juveniles Thomas Sowell, Walter Edward Williams, and Robert Emerson Lucas, Jr.
Oh the heck with it, I’ll never be able to pull up all these juvenile economists, juvenile politicians, and juvenile writers who have championed conservative economic models.
Sorry about that Jack. Try this condensed version from Readers Digest:
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook43pdf.pdf
“…independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to bear risks, the readiness to back one’s own conviction against a majority, and the willingness to voluntary cooperation with one’s neighbors…”
Juvenile virtues all! Probably racist too, doncha think?
“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business–you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
That’s right Tina. The revamping of 99 is/was none of your doing, but the work of that taxation which makes you howl.
Howl away … you will be taxed. And someday you and your husband may develop a business plan NOT dependant on government contracts.
We live in hope.
“That’s right Tina. The revamping of 99 is/was none of your doing, but the work of that taxation…blah blah blah.
There’s a problem with your preaching Libby. You pretend, like a good little commie, that the 99 project couldn’t happen without a big government funded project…which is bogus. We do roads and bridges through the government with TAX MONIES but it could be done another way. We don’t depend on the government; the government depends on those who create wealth and opportunity.
My business has been taxed. I provide a really good product to local municipalities at reasonable “low bid” prices. I have also provided good jobs to college students, musicians, and housewives wanting part time work (all needing flexible work hours)…complete with good sized bonuses in good years. I then also pay personal taxes. Not one dime of government money was spent to start my business…WE DID THAT OURSELVES! The government did not develop the product or spend five years putting the designs, packaging, and manual together…WE DID THAT (old school technology-before computers!) Not one hour of government TIME/EFFORT/MONEY did that…we, and later our employees, did that!
The only thing government did in 25 years is think up new ways to create another layer of paperwork…and taxes OR fees.
The problem with the way you and Obama think is that you actually believe “the great American system” is government…no sweety pie, the great American system is a free people…free to innovate, invest, expand, buy, sell…CREATE WEALTH!
Without the people there is no “system”.
And it’s about time you and your party showed some respect for the people…you use people as pawns in a big government game…you use them against each other! DESPICABLE! Your party is a fake, a fraud, a phony bag of lies and promises it ultimately can’t keep.
And by the way, that 99 project could have been done at least twelve times over on the federal money that’s been wasted over the last four years.
“The alternative to liberty has been pressed on the American people for the last six or seven decades It is the socialists idea of sharing…”
I didn’t realize that sharing was a socialist idea. Does this mean you won’t be donating to the local food pantry anytime soon?
Jeff, giving to the local food pantry is a choice we make.
We give from our own pockets.
Has nothing to do with government imposed socialism.
Jeff, thank you for your comment/question and to answer you…yes, sharing is absolutely a fundamental premise of socialism! Sharing is a very nobel idea, but not forced sharing under the following conditions: When government takes from you and your family then shares it others who refuse to work like you did to get it. They sit while you work…wrong. We’re rewarding slackers and taking away the incentive for hard working people to achieve wealth. That’s socialism.
You need to read PS more often Jeff.
-Jack
“… however socialism is more often sharing gone bad.”
Because it requires people who can’t bring themselves to do so … to do so? Share, that is.
Just so you know, that is how how the ideology of socialism come into being. It’s an institutional effort to drag society up from the barbarism of its members who cannot bring themselves, of their own volition, to contribute to the maintenance of the “poor in spirit”. Socialism is institutional evolution of charity.
If you disapprove of socialism, it’s because you disapprove of charity. Face it.
Yes, Jack, I do need to read PS more often. 🙂
But as a former libertarian who cut his teeth on Rand, Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Reason magazine, etc. for too many years I’m a little burnt out on radical libertarian talking points. Taxation is not theft, redistribution of wealth is not immoral, and a social safety net is a good idea.
That said, I completely agree that the nanny state is much too big, that taxes are too high, and that people need to take responsibility for their own lives. But part of the reason the nanny state is taking over and regulations are strangling business is that our society is crumbling. The cult of “personal autonomy” is just as destructive on the right as it is on the left. In a healthy, moral, God-fearing society with strong families and communities, the state would have a much smaller supplementary role – but it would still be perfectly legitimate to “redistribute wealth” to help those in need.
Jeff: “I didn’t realize that sharing was a socialist idea. Does this mean you won’t be donating to the local food pantry anytime soon?”
Actually I do give generously to several groups that help the poor, the homeless, single mothers…
I also find it telling that conservatives give more in general to charity both in terms of time and money that do liberals. And America is the most charitable country in the world.
“Taxation is not theft, redistribution of wealth is not immoral, and a social safety net is a good idea.”
Taxation that kills the overall economy and punishes the private sector is legalized theft, especially when it is done for votes or to push a specific agenda, i.e., green energy.
Redistribution is an immoral form of greed. It’s a power play that pits one group against others demeaning them in the process…suggests they are lesser and incapable of improving their lives. Its a form of soft bigotry.
What we have now isn’t a “safety net” but a terrible trap. Charles Payne of FOX Business calls welfare “a curse” because it breeds dependency, low self esteem, and broken families. Statistics indicate the utter failure of these programs to TEMPORARILY assist people until they get back on their feet. Instead we have created a permanent and growing dependency class.
Conservatism isn’t about anger or rebellion. It’s about addressing problems with intelligence and foresight. It’s about noticing when something isn’t working and having the courage to change course. It’s about working toward a citizenry that is strong, capable, productive, creative, and charitable…personally charitable.
“…but it would still be perfectly legitimate to “redistribute wealth” to help those in need.”
Since charities do it better, and more personally, at the local level why create a bureaucracy that eats up capital, is easily grifted, and creates more dependency?
“If you disapprove of socialism, it’s because you disapprove of charity. Face it.”
If you approve of socialism, it’s because you disapprove of freedom.
Face it Libs, you socialists are just a bunch of busybody power and control freaks.
Tina, I want to make it clear that I’m not defending “the system we have now”, and especially not the tax rates we have now. I think we’re on the same team here, more or less. But what I object strongly to is the rhetoric. You note that our current programs tend to breed dependency, low self-esteem, and broken families. I agree 100%. But it’s not a one-way street. Historically – this is important – historically it is the weakening of religious faith, the breakdown of the family, and the loosening of morals that preceded the welfare state as we know it.
You can’t blame the welfare state for easy contraception, no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, or the fact that up to 40 percent of our young people no longer even believe in God.
There’s no reason why our public services need to be as amoral and atheistic as they are in practice. There ought to be behavioral requirements for public assistance – no co-habitation, for example, and certainly no abortions or contraception, no overnight unrelated visitors, no drugs or pornography, etc. Agencies should be referring clients to churches instead of Planned Barrenhood. A big part of the problem is that our institutions are deliberately perpetuating the kind lifestyles that create the need in the first place.
Another HUGE component of the problem is our abnormally small families today. There is longer any extended family support for millions of Americans. Four generations of tiny families not only deprives people of brothers and sisters, but also of cousins, aunts, and uncles that might be able to help with a spare room or a job.
Tina once more has driven the point home to Libby, but it will be a wasted effort as Libby is nothing more than a usurper of socialistic Government,(actually we have more than one that post here) she has a claptrap mentality of ‘do for me’ because she seems jealous of those that do for themselves. Her attacking messages she post only supports the vile dislike she has for capitalism and the rewards derived through self reliance and risk taking. It is more than clear that her love affair with an Socialist form of Government is never going to change until the dole of entitlements from others work ethics runs out and she may have to fend for herself. Much like Greece, and its failed Government supported sloth, Libby fears that day, and her riles against those pointing out that form of Government is inevitable doomed to such failure. Libby would do better to listen to the Words of Margaret Thacher’ Socialism only works until you run out of other people money’ then dwell on the words of Marxism.
Indeed, I do disdain the “freedom” to refuse to hold up your end of this … our civilization.
It really bugs you that the world ain’t fair, right Libby?
How does paying 40% of all federal taxes (the percentage now paid by those earners in the top 5%) translate into “not holding up” ones “end”?
How fair is it that many of the taxes that will go into affect next year will harm the middle class, small business, seniors, and the disabled but they will not make a dent in the problem, which is spending, or the debt…,the result of excessive spending?
How fair is it that people have suffered more than they needed to because Obama’s policies have made the economy worse?
What part of holding up ones end is satisfied by asking seniors to accept medicare cuts to pay for Obamacare, by asking seniors on fixed incomes to pay more tax on interest in their little retirement nest egg account? How “fair” is it to these people that worked and saved all their lives that some schmuck installed in DC calling himself the President can arbitrarily grab their retirement nest egg while he plays golf, goes on expensive vacations, and dines and entertains like royalty…all on the public dime?
See you don’t mind taking food and medicine from seniors, middle class or wealthy, as long as a democrat does it and while sticking it to a few rich guys…pathetic.
It is particularly pathetic because it will not work to solve Americas serious financial problems.
Tina: “What we have now isn’t a “safety net” but a terrible trap. Charles Payne of FOX Business calls welfare “a curse” because it breeds dependency, low self esteem, and broken families.”
Well, he’s wrong. Welfare does not create these problems–it exists because these problems already exist.
What breeds dependency is low wages and a lack of jobs.
You’re right about one thing: welfare, by itself, cannot solve those two problems. It’s a temporary fix, not a real solution.
Regulations requiring large corporations to pay their workers more, and stop outsourcing jobs to foreign countries, would do a lot more to create well-paying jobs.
Unfortunately, Tina, along with most Republicans, opposes this.
“How does paying 40% of all federal taxes (the percentage now paid by those earners in the top 5%) translate into “not holding up” ones “end”?”
Because the top 5% of earners own 41.5% of the wealth in this country, according to the Economic Policy Institute:
“The disparity of changes in wealth over the last generation is portrayed in the figure, which shows the shares of the wealth gains for various wealth classes. All of the gains in wealth accrued to the upper fifth, with 40.2 percent of the gains going to the upper 1 percent and 41.5 percent going to the next wealthiest 4 percent of households. This translated to gains of $4.5 million per household in the richest 1 percent and a gain of roughly $1.2 million per household in the next richest 4 percent of households.
In other words, the richest 5 percent of households obtained roughly 82 percent of all the nations gains in wealth between 1983 and 2009. The bottom 60 percent of households actually had less wealth in 2009 than in 1983, meaning they did not participate at all in the growth of wealth over this period.”
http://www.epi.org/publication/large-disparity-share-total-wealth-gain/
“How fair is it that many of the taxes that will go into affect next year will harm the middle class, small business, seniors, and the disabled but they will not make a dent in the problem, which is spending, or the debt…,the result of excessive spending?”
That wouldn’t be fair, if it were true. But you haven’t provided any evidence that it is true.
“How fair is it that people have suffered more than they needed to because Obama’s policies have made the economy worse?”
Again, you have no evidence for this, and most economists have said Obama’s policies such as the stimulus helped the economy.
“What part of holding up ones end is satisfied by asking seniors to accept medicare cuts to pay for Obamacare,”
Those were cuts to beauracracy and waste, Tina. The cuts do not affect seniors’ access to care. Paul Ryan’s cuts, which you supported, WOULD have limited access to seniors’ health care according to most analyses. In fact, part of his goal was to limit access by raising the eligibility age. But you seemed to think that was perfectly fair…actually, I remember you saying that “fair” is just a communist code word, so is there something you’re not telling us? Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
“by asking seniors on fixed incomes to pay more tax on interest in their little retirement nest egg account?”
This is false. The tax only applies to high-income earners, not seniors on “fixed incomes:”
“The Obama administration has proposed trimming tax incentives for contributions made by higher-income taxpayers to IRAs and defined contribution retirement plans in an attempt to reduce the federal deficit…This is currently defined in the proposal as applicable to single filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, and if married filing jointly, adjusted gross incomes of $250,000 or more.”
http://www.cuinsight.com/obama-budget-proposes-trimming-retirement-tax-incentives.html
“How “fair” is it to these people that worked and saved all their lives that some schmuck installed in DC calling himself the President”
Well, now you’re just displaying sore-loser-itis.
Your rant here misrepresents basic facts, Tina. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: most of your anger toward the president is based on things he’s never done or said.
Chris, “Don’t invest too much in your youthful opinions, because they all change as you age.” -Jack
My opinions will change when the facts require them to, Jack.
I find that many–not all, but many–older people are very resistant to changing their opinions, even when confronted with objective facts that prove their opinions false. They are too stubborn and set in their ways to acknowledge that their biases do not comport to objective reality. Often this has to do with the way they were raised. In the past, questioning your parents or the beliefs of your community or religion was very much frowned upon, and schools did not teach students how to think critically. College was also not stressed as greatly in previous generations.
Each generation has its faults, so let’s try to stick to debating the facts.
Chris, I couldn’t remember the philosophers name so I wrote the message without quoting, but I think it was Aristotle that said, never hold your opinions formed in youth too dear for you are probably going to discard them with age…something like that. Anyway, it was a good message. As for not willing to change opinions as we get older, and only speaking for myself, but as one of the older group, I am totally open minded and prepared to shift my opinion on some things. But, those opinions formed over decades that have stood the test of time, probably not, well, lets say probably not unless I have very, very compelling reasons.
Chris it just breaks down to this: There are going to be those times when it’s wise to defer to your elder’s wisdom. Now I say this quite seriously, Tina is a good role model for you, a great mentor, but you rarely buy into anything she says and she’s one really smart lady that has so much wisdom to offer.
I find that many–not all, but many–older people are very resistant to changing their opinions, even when confronted with objective facts that prove their opinions false.
Hmmmmm, the torch holder of “objective fact and truth” has moved from slurs of juvenile to senile.
So it goes.
But Jack, much of what she says is not opinion–it is factually untrue. For instance, she claims that the new tax on retirement will hurt seniors on fixed incomes. That’s not an opinion–that’s a mistatement of fact. The tax only applies to the richest 2% of the population, not people on fixed incomes. Our relative ages don’t make any difference on that issue. And this is hardly the first time Tina has misrepresented facts to suit her political agenda. You say she is a good role model with a lot of wisdom to offer, and that may be true, but it is not on display when she says things that simply do not comport with objective reality, and then gets angry when I point that out to her. I would have more respect for her, and you, if you both were more honest and willing to admit when something you say is proven factually incorrect.
Chris we can’t even begin to have an honest discussion about taxes or private business until you gain more understanding of how things work. You don’t have a clue…most Democrats don’t, including the President.
I have tried but you don’t have any grounding. All you see is rich people have money and you know better how to spend it.
You didn’t answer the question: “”How does paying 40% of all federal taxes (the percentage now paid by those earners in the top 5%) translate into “not holding up” ones “end”?”
I’ll put it another way. How much do the wealthy have to pay to pay their “fair share”? Give me a number…a percentage. “Because the top 5% of earners own 41.5% of the wealth in this country” does not answer that question!
Wealth is not income. It’s called the income tax. As the wealth was accumulated, in most cases, income tax, inheritance tax, or investment tax has been paid.
We have low investment taxes as a means of stimulating the economy. I want you to watch what happens VERY CAREFULLY when investment tax percentages are raised. If you think we have low employment now…
A basic truth about money is that the more you have the more you can make.THAT is the major reason that there is a disparity with respect to wealth.
It also happens to be one way that any American who wishes to can create wealth for himself. Government policies that discourage investment blunt the ability of middle and lower class people to move up the ladder. The need for high taxation comes as a result of too much government spending and it robs the people of opportunity and wealth. (This is so simple I feel like a moron trying to explain it…you can’t be this badly schooled and I know you are smart!)
“In other words, the richest 5 percent of households obtained roughly 82 percent of all the nations gains in wealth between 1983 and 2009. The bottom 60 percent of households actually had less wealth in 2009 than in 1983…”
How much credit card debt did they have? How much did they save and invest? How much did they waste on frivolous things that they could have been using to build personal wealth? The youth of this country since 1968 are brain dead in terms of economic planning…it was no accident. Democrats don’t want you to know you can “think and grow rich”! They don’t want you to know you can rely on yourself and provide for yourself with a little work and smarts. They love having you hopped up on popular culture and dumb as a box of rocks…just look at the way they pitch candidates as celebrities!
“That wouldn’t be fair, if it were true. But you haven’t provided any evidence that it is true.”
Well there’s the fiscal cliff:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/01/study-fiscal-cliffs-broad-tax-hit/
And then there are the dividend taxes on wealthier investors in Obamacare…these are the folks who pump money into private business:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2012/06/28/dividend-tax-up-spy-down/
See how Buffet avoids high taxes here (two-faced a**h*l*):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2011/11/03/berkshires-clever-tax-free-dividend/
See also the Obama wish list for talks on the fiscal cliff “cure” here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333887/obama-wants-higher-revenues-iandi-rates-larry-kudlow
“you have no evidence for this, and most economists have said Obama’s policies such as the stimulus helped the economy.”
“Most economists” DON”T say Obama’s policies have made the economy much better or that they have made the economy thrive. “Helped” is the lowest level of assist I can think of to use in terms of making the economy grow. He saved a few jobs (temporarily)…he did a few projects (more temporary jobs)…he bailed out a few pension and healthcare plans (temporarily) while making life more miserable for a lot of Americans out of work. He grew the debt, kept unemployment high, and and his debt to GDP is excessive. This kind of help we can do without!
“Those were cuts to beauracracy and waste, Tina. The cuts do not affect seniors’ access to care.”
(bureaucracy)
Not true. Not that you will accept it but here’s the truth:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/
“This is false. The tax only applies to high-income earners, not seniors on “fixed incomes”
You’re right…(for now).
But the blow to our economy that the taxes on the rich will deliver (not to mention his energy policy) will affect that granny on a fixed income. Prices on everything will go up.
“…now you’re just displaying sore-loser-itis.”
Why because you can’t dispute the fact that the president likes to spend large chunks of other people’s money and keeps looking for new ways to take money from the private sector?
The point is there is no telling the amount of damage this man will do to our economy because of his lust for other people’s money and redistribution. Since he doesn’t understand how wealth is made (He’s been promoted and given everything he has) he has no idea how his polices hurt middle and low income people and ultimately the poor who will see downward pressure on welfare and other benefits as people can’t find work and just give up.
Those concerned with American manufacturing will find this information interesting…possibly useful if you are looking for a job:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333981/american-mismatch-jillian-kay-melchior
Baby boomer workers are retiring so if you’ve got skills you don’t need a college degree and you might find a good job in manufacturing…but you might have to get some training and you might have to move.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/27/an_overdue_book_116250.html
Jeff I apologize…I missed your comment in the busy schedule around the Thanksgiving holiday. You wrote:
“Historically – this is important – historically it is the weakening of religious faith, the breakdown of the family, and the loosening of morals that preceded the welfare state as we know it.
You can’t blame the welfare state for easy contraception, no fault divorce, the sexual revolution, or the fact that up to 40 percent of our young people no longer even believe in God.
This is important; I agree with you except for one very important point. The laws enacted in 1965 by Johnson had a lot to do with the break up of the family. To get welfare money husbands in the sixties started moving out of the house. They would sneak back in at night but for all intents and purposes the woman needed to be able to say that her husband had deserted the family. This situation, along with the many other things you mentioned, contributed to the sad conditions in the black community. It is taking root in the white community now too.
We are on the same page. Question: What is the alternative to strong (strident) argumentation?
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-collapse-of-marriage-and-the-rise-of-welfare-dependence
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html