The Moral Objection to Higher Taxes…Even Those I Can ‘Afford’
by Brad SchaefferA Parable If You Will…
A friend of mine has a sister who has been broke for years. Ten years ago he could no longer watch her struggle while his own career took off and he began supporting her by supplementing her small income with his own money. He makes $300,000 a year and gives her $30,000 a year to help her out…roughly 20% of his take-home after all of his taxes (federal, state, local) are taken out of his paycheck.
Now, in those ten years of supporting her, she has not used that money as a foundation to build herself a better more independent life contructed on sound financial footing. If anything, her situation now is even worse than it was a decade ago because she continues to make bad decisions again and again. She married an alcoholic husband (despite warnings from her family this was the case) and she then had a child with that same husband who is now of course estranged, voluntarily putting exponentially more strain on her already stressful life. As of now, despite my friend having willingly given her all in $300,000 over ten years – money he could have put towards his kid’s college education, paying off his mortgage, or just socked away in the bank for a rainy day – she is no better off because the way she is running her affairs is still a disaster. She hasn’t learned a thing.
Still, he continues to pay her because he believes it is his moral obligation to give back to those in need, especially as he has done so well in life. He’s not thrilled about it, but he gets the concept and bucks up. Plus he genuinely cares for the down-trodden, realizing that a few bad decisions in his own life, a wrong fork in the road taken, and he could have been there with her…still could be even. He made need help himself someday. Who knows what the future holds?
Now, the other day she came to him for her annual $30,000. But this time, because of new credit card debts accumulated, she asked him for $35,000. Her logic? He can afford it and she needs it.
But he balked at the increase. Her friends (also dependent on their siblings for help) rallied around her and called her “rich” brother selfish and “a whiner.” Awww, they mocked, poor rich guy brother has to pay an extra $5,000 more when he makes $300,000 a year. (This sarcasm was accompanied by fake violin motions.)
But here is his point: can he afford to pay more? Sure he can. Although he will then not have that money to do something fun with his own family, his quality of life will not be noticeably impacted. BUT, the bigger question isn’t whether he could pay her more, but whether he should have to pay her more. After ten years and $300,000 or transferring his wealth to her, the very situation he’d hoped that portion of his income would go to improve has only gotten worse. The reason isn’t because his sister doesn’t have an income but rather she is incompetent with the money she does receive. She is, in fact, incapable of making proper decisions with her finances and indeed her life choices, no matter how much cash she receives. The brother has reluctantly concluded that if he gives her 35k next year she’ll turn around and spend 40k. If he gives her 40k, she’ll spend 50k, etc. It will never end without her being first forced to work within her existing budget, even it means taking some pain. (Note the empasis here): If he thought it would do good, if he thought she would spend his money wisely to improve her life, he’d gladly give her twice as much if not more so…because he can “afford” it. But he knows from her past that the more he gives her, the more she’ll waste and so he prefers to keep his contribution at 30k and decide for himself how the 5k more she demands of him can best be put to use in his own life, or even for the greater good if he so chooses to give it to a charity he knows from research will used it to make a real difference…a charity he has been quietly supporting for years in fact. And for this he is labeled selfish. Go figure.
Does this mean he would ever cut her off cold regardless of his frustration over her profligate spending and/or mismanagement of his money? Of course not. That would be downright cruel for he knows that without his supplemental income she would spiral into destitution. He cares too much to see that happen so long as he has the means to help prevent it. But, he does feel that he should have a say in how much she needs and should demand to see real progress and discipline on her part before giving her yet more of his income without being ridiculed as selfish or worse…labels usually hurled by either guilt-ridden super-rich who could live the lives of sultans on just a sliver of their net worth or those who are bitter towards his modest success and feel his sister deserves whatever she can squeeze from him as a matter of social “justice.”
So I ask all those who are so pious and so discerning as to what he can “afford” to pay. Is that brother selfish for not wanting to pay his sister more than he has been doing already? Or does he simply understand that to pay his sister more is to just throw even a larger portion of his good hard-earned income down a bottomless hole with no prospect of it improving her deplorable state without her first dramatically changing her ways. And who do you think is a better judge as to how his money can be put towards more productive ends…his sister or him? Finally, who really has the moral high ground here?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
140 Comments
I actually HAVE a brother who is pretty much exactly like the sister in this parable. I give him nothing … not one red cent.
I would gladly help him if he would clean up his life, but giving him money (any money) would only be enabling his self-destructive behavior. I'm waiting for him to hit his "bottom", and be ready to clean his life up.
My thought about "poor" people are the same as my feelings for fat people. YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF! Poor people (like fat people) make decisions every day that keep them in their situation, and all they do is complain about it, but do nothing to reverse it.
I'm not talking about people with medical conditions that are fat through no fault of their own. When you look at the numbers, those people are statistically insignificant.
Good people go broke, but pull themselves up and don't stay that way. Being poor is a lifestyle choice, and the best thing we can do for them is to let them experience the natural consequences of their choices.
Bad behavior will continue as long as those doing it are not held accountable. When people have to pay the consequences of their behavior, it usually stops.
Why won't the left learn that? Probably because they think so highly of themselves and have such little esteem for the average person. That is not the way for society to advance. Believe in people. Give them the opportunity to shine, and they probably will.
What ever happened to being thankful?
No good deed goes unpunished.
He is not selfish but rather mistaken. He is an enabler. Al-ANON has a program for that. If he wants to be charitable he should make demands on her conditional to helping her. Conditions such as shedding a leech and taking classes to improve her lot in life. If he does not force positive change she appears to have no motivation to improve her lot in life. I would also suggest a set of terms as to how long he will assist and at what level. Perhaps 2 years and an associates degree and then 2 more years at a reduced level while she establishes a job that will encourage her to become self supporting for herself and child. If he can do more and wants to then establish an education plan for the child (not a strings free plan though). If he still feels charitable he can match her retirement contributions to help her secure her future.
If he indeed wants to give back more to society, there are many fine charities that expect the beneficiaries to make continuous improvement in order to receive assistance. Also, there is a great College called Hillsdale.
Dear brother to the unappreciative sister instead of giving her $35,000 like she requested (more begging in my opinion) and not give her the normal $30,000 nor should he cut her off which he believes would be immoral of himself, what dear brother should do is deduct five grand and give her only $25,000 instead. Then every time she asks for a raise in her welfare he should deduct that amount instead of helping her fund bad decisions.
Forceably taking something from someone, simply because they have it and another does not, is the ultimate definition of malicious, covetous greed.
Words to live by! My kids know it well.
That's exactly right — you want more of my hard-earned money? Show you can responsibly spend the money I already give you, and then we can talk.
My objection to higher taxes on the middle-class(me and my family)is that we didn't cause the current fiscal mess so I'm not paying any more. There's enough revenue in taxes currently collected to pay for what we need, and then some. Problems start when when they redefined the word 'need'.
"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. "
~ Penn Jillette
Clearly the brother is a racist homophobe. I know because I'm sick of having my income taken away to be handed out to people who can spend "free money" with reckless abandon and that's what I'm called. I know because I grew up on welfare as the oldest of 6 kids in a single parent dwelling. Poor people stay poor because of a series of bad decisions, like spending that $5 that's burning a hole in your pocket or getting knocked up again so welfare benefits don't expire. Balk if you want, but I watched it happen with my own two eyes.
My reasons for opposing higher taxes can probably be summed up in one word: Solyndra. Obama went on a bender investing MY money in risky ventures. If I want my money blown on risky ventures, I will do it myself. At least that way I will get that temporary thrill before the money goes away. No, Obama wants more money so he can go on more benders with out having to feel the remorse of acquiring loses. It's not his money, so no remorse when he loses it. The poor are fed, given welfare, the old are actually paid quite well through SS. All of these people are taken care of. Nobody is starving in america. The poor are not even living like poor people, they have housing, and according to a recent survey, most "poor" people have flat screen tv's. Sucks to be poor. So he thinks things should be fair. Well poor people who can afford flat screen tv's is plenty fair. Obama doesn't need more money for the poor, apparently he has so much, he is showering them with luxeries I myself had to wait to buy because money was tight. So the "poor" got their flatscreen's before me, and I helped pay for it. What's next Obama? A Lexus for every poor person because it is only fair?
I can answer that question!!! Growing up on welfare, we often stood in line for food stamps or free cheese (from the government) or free food (from local churches). I stood in many lines growing up and viewed the payout as something as simple as printed money. ("This is nobody's money, we got it from the government!") Then, while I was standing in a church line for free frozen chicken one day toward the end of the month, it dawned on me that we were not at a government office and that the church had no real obligation to give us free frozen chicken. I shuddered at the thought that ultimately nobody else has responsible of feeding us, and that all of this chicken wasn't paid for with a government check but was DONATED BY CHARITABLE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY. For the first time in my life, I realized we had never received anything for free, only anonymously. The answer: people on the public dole see their gain as your responsibility, not as your charity. There is no reason to thank you because you HAD to do it! If those same people had to get it all from charity, though, they'd be thankful every day from that moment forward. And they'd realize their own responsibility in the matter, too.
Facts are facts. Although the economy was on the decline when Bush left office, it certainly wasn’t in the tailspin it is now in. Obama has had 3 years to enact policies that would right this ship, and he has failed to do so. He started with a 2 trillion dolalr deficit and has ballooned that to 14 trillion. There is no President in history who has accomplished such runaway spending as this one.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
Ronald Reagan
My adult daughter has a friend who is on food stamps. After the tornados hit our area this past April, my daughter asked if her friend could borrow $20 from me for laundry detergent, toilet paper and a few other necessities that aren't allowable purchases on food stamps. Things were horrible in our area and I was feeling generous. I had her friend come over and I not only gave her $20 (no strings), I also loaded her up with detergent, paper, etc.
The next time she came to my house (with my daughter who cleans for me once a week), she helped herself. After all, I'd been generous in the past, so she thought she didn't even need to ask. She is no longer welcome in my house. Because I was generous once does not mean I am your permanent, unwilling benefactor.
Well said. To many of the people in our country no longer view it as charity when it comes from the govt because laws are passed and programs are started to Quote help those in need. These people have come to believe that it is their right to have the govt provide for them due to their unfortunate situation.
I have always been willing to help those who are trying to help themselves but seem to keep having bad luck. Those that are unwilling to help themselves have an addiction that is enabled by our govt through the freely handing out of tax payers money.
Until we hold government accountable for their outrageous spending and supporting of the unions and their own campaigns they will just keep raising taxes and it will all evaporate. Nobody knows where our tax dollars have gone. Nobody is holding government accountable. Where did the stimulus go? Nobody knows. Doesn't matter who is in office, they are a bunch of thieves and even if they had 100% of our income they would spend it too and they would whine for more.
Anyone who keeps their head above water as things implode will get assailed from multiple directions for assistance: voluntary donations to charities, involuntary confiscations by taxes and inflation (the stealth tax)…and requests for assistance from relatives who may've ignored repeated warnings and spent themselves into a ditch anyway. In the end, there will be more requests for assistance than means to provide it, so one has to make difficult choices where it will do the most good. Few here would dispute taxes rank lowest on the list. May as well just flush money down the toilet as send it to the government.
"she is no better off because the way she is running her affairs is still a disaster."
That's the key problem there that an entitlement program doesn't address.
3 things-
1) "his moral obligation to give back to those in need," -i HATE the expression "give back" to the poor, community, etc. the successful/productive of society have not TAKEN anything from them/it, but have already added to it. please use the term "give to those in need", NOT "GIVE BACK".
2) if people can be so thankless to their own flesh & blood, it should go without saying how ungrateful they are about largesse from anonymous taxpayers.
3) George Gilder said it best: "The truly greedy are those would take, by force of government, that which has been earned by others."
Remember when you were growing up and a lot of kids thought it was "uncool" for someone to do a good job on tests and homework? The kids who did the best were always frowned upon as making the lazy kids look bad. If you answered a difficult question correctly in class, half the kids would roll their eyes or make an insulting remark.
Flash forward a couple decades and you witness the same phenomenon in adulthood. There are plenty of grown men and women who view success as a negative. If you're successful, you make them look bad because they lack the initiative to work to make their own lives better.
In school, these people would have picked on you and bullied you to make you feel bad. As adults, they use the government to take your money and give it to them.
Well put. Almost simple enough that a democrat would understand.
And usually illegal.
When Pharaoh B-HO said he wants plumbers and secretaries to pay the same taxes as the doofus Buffett, when you actually go through the numbers, that would mean RAISING taxes on the plumber and the secretary!
And that does not even count the fact that the tax cheat Buffett owes the Americans 1 Billion dollars in back taxes!
Between Buffett and Geithner, we seem to have found that Obama loves tax cheats. They are his best friends.
Even SolarGate comes down to tax cheats. Did they pay any taxes? The dirtbags that testify merely take another 5th and hic! their way through the meeting.
I remember a animal parable like this with a moose and how all the animals started to live in his antlers. It started with a hedgehog wanting to get to better foliage and ended with a spider casting a web catching flies between points on an antler. It got to a point wherein the moose could no longer lift his head there were so many riding on him. Fortunately at that moment, the antlers were shed and the moose trotted off. Those left on the forest floor lamented, "What will we do!?" The Moose didn't reply, but simply left, a valuable lesson learned. Trouble is, a liberal doesn't have the sense of a moose, which is why we're where were at today.
seeing as how she's a slow learner, that could cost her a bundle…
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson
The Anti Liberal Zone http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com/
the family equivalent of not giving money to panhandlers, but donating to good programs that teach responsibility.
Thanks to the asinine Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and the down economy, the federal and state government finally paid me back the "extra tax dollars" that they "borrowed" twenty years ago when I exercised some stock options from which I haven't yet benefited. The result was an unexpected windfall of a large tax refund.
I thought that money was long gone. My wife and I fretted over the refund. Knowing the government's poor fiscal condition, we though about donating the money back to the California and federal governments. However, because we would have NO control over how that money would be spend, we instead gave most if to local schools and charities, where we KNOW it will be well spent.
Anybody can give extra money to the federal government. Here's a link how. http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/09/usef...
Strangely, if people could control how those funds are spent, the government might actually receive more donations. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's just more money down the hole.
"Too many of the people in our country no longer view it as charity"
exactly- it's now called "entitlements".
I bet that girl has all the class warfare talking points memorized.
At first, I thought you were writing about my brother in this article and changed the "he" to "she" and "brother" to "sister".
I think almost every family has one who constantly has their hand out waiting, expecting and demanding the family pay up.
"He started with a 2 trillion dollar deficit and has ballooned that to 14 trillion. "
I am pretty sure you are WAY off in your numbers (and exaggerating to such a degree will only bring discredit to fiscal responsibility). The most common figures I have generally heard thrown around is that when Pelosi took the gavel, the national debt was in the $9 – $10 trillion range. Once the latest debt ceiling is burned through, the national debt will be in the $16 trillion range.
Granted, that is quite an accomplishment, to run up half again as much debt in three years as the nation ran up in the first 230…. but it is not that hard to do when yearly deficits are 4 time Bush's worse yearly shortfall, and 8 times what the Dems beat up Reagan for; "$200 billion a year in hot checks."
At least with Reagan's deficits there was something to show for it in the form of shiny new nuclear weapons.
Ayn Rand dealt with this phenomenon in Atlas Shrugged, the scene where Hank's family ridicules him for putting his work ahead of his family and how money is the only thing he cares about.
When he told them that if they don't like it they can get the hell out, they got offended that he didn't take into account their feelings.
I will bet Atlas Shrugged sells more copies this year–54 years after its publication–than will McGinneses (sp?) anti Palin screed.
I would have cut her off without a penny, then launched a pepper grenade into Her "friends" you know, mob mentality, I was afraid for my life.
The brother is enabling her to get a worse life. That is not help.
He is subsidizing the very evils that cause her harm. That's not moral at all.
And I get the point. Government is leeching hard to make sure people get worse lives. And now the government is asking for more.
Quite frankly the brother is an enabling dumba$$. Cut the POS off, and she’ll either sink or swim.
Really? The 16th Amendment is illegal? When did that decision come down? I missed it.
I felt the same way when Bush invaded Iraq.
"Nobody is starving in america. The poor are not even living like poor people…"
Oh, you must have seen that on Fox. It was pretty funny. Do you know that 98% of the so-called "poor" people also have refrigerators? Sheesh….how poor can they really be?
Even better, when I was growing up it was still cool to be smart, and do a good job in whatever you tried. I'm even more aghast at the current situation.
that would mean RAISING taxes on the plumber and the secretary
It's a fact.
USUALLY illegal. Learn to read. Oh, that's right. You didn't mean your comment to be helpful. You're just here to be annoying. Sorry.
In early 2008, I lost everything. I mean EVERYTHING. Recovering from it was very difficult, but I managed to get by. My mother (who is retired) sent me a $500 check to help out. I was furious, only because I knew how tight her finances were, and that, however hard my life was at the time, she really couldn't afford to do it. I'm the youngest of three, and she still considers me her "baby" (I was 36 at the time,lol). Long story short, she finally understood that regardless of her desire to be "motherly", it's in my best interests for her to keep her money to herself. Had I accepted continuous fiscal assistance, eventually I would get accustomed to it, and therefore put a stop to it before it began.
I have been in a similar situation myself. My view is that it is my mess and I'll clean it up. My family has on occasion offered assistance, but I'll never take it. Slowly but surely, recovery is proceeding. Best wishes on your own recovery.
As for the Brother in this article, he has knowingly become an accomplice in his sisters race to the bottom. if he really wants to help his Sister, he should demand that she first live within her means. Ignoring her ongoing issues does nothing to deter her and her child will suffer as a result. Is he his Sister's keeper? Absolutely not, nor is he her banker, baker or candlestick maker.
Maybe your friend can help his sister find a way to cut her spending by that $5,000 so she doesn't need more.
A few bucks here and there is one thing, but with the amount you're talking about, she really should be accounting for how she's spending the money.
Big Bart, please tell me how the 16th squares with the 14th.
See, there cannot be a command of equal protection, and then a command for unequal protection. Why, that would be like freedom for some, just not for others…….
Do then, would you be endorsing rights for some but not others?
The 16th and the 17th have to go – just like the 18th went.
You miss plenty, BigBart, equality being the among the most obvious.
I'll ask you straightforwardly, how can you claim to support equality, when you oppose it?
I love it when a charity demands something from those asking for help who are able bodied. They run a cooperative of debits and credits. Cash assistance for a family hit by a job loss and some yard work for an elderly widow. Matching a teen with a person who can pay a stipend for some modest help. It becomes a WIN/WIN.
Overall Budget Trends
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/...
Runaway Spending, Not Inadequate Tax Revenue, Is Responsible for Future Deficit shttp://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/runaway-spending-tax-revenue
My friend's sister asked him to co-sign a loan so she could buy a house. When the papers came, it wasn't to co-sign, it was a loan for him, but he figured she needed the money so he signed it and gave her loaned amount of $10K.
She took the money and had gastric bypass done but neveer told the doc she was a meth head. Complications arose and the doctor was going to give her narcotics for the pain until her dad ( a REAL doctor) found out and stopped the whole thing seeing how she already had a tendency for mind altering drugs.
My friend got stuck with a $10K loan. His sister got a crappy surgeon to screw up her bypass and had it removed.
Now they hate each other.
Indeed, no good deed goes unpunished.
Somehow I don't think Ashrak was talking about anything other than taxes.
That was not a parable.
That was a fairy tale!
Person accountability? Responsible decisions?
Where do you THINK you are?????
Those things only exist in made up worlds.
We don't need them in our Progressive Utopia.
Now……………………PASS THIS BILL!
I'm not talking about financial equality…as is clear from my other post. Nice try.
The John Birch society has been harping on the 17th since the 60's – it's not going anywhere, nor are the others.
When 48% of Americans pay no income tax, confiscating 35% to 50% for Federal and State income taxes from the earnings of the remaining 52% is not "fair". The fall back position of "Tax the rich!" rhetoric obviously means Obama has lost the battle of ideas and is retreating to the bunker of class warfare.
Sorry, this came from a non-political research firm. Nice try though, better luck next time.
When my parents wanted to retire to the country, they really wanted a nice acreage they could run as a small farm. At the time I was looking for ways to invest my money, and because I felt the area they were looking in had a very good chance of rising in value, I agree to pay 40% of the price so they could get the place they really wanted. This was always presented as an investment, and yes, a contract was signed–when the property was sold, I would get back 40% of the sales price.
Flash forward–after a lifetime of bad decisions (and, to be fair, bad luck), my sister has ended up living with them. They want to subdivide the property, sell off half, and use the money to build her a cottage on their half so she can live there rent-free (oh, and she'll own it). And when I mildly brought up the question of how I would be paid my 40%, chaos ensued. It was the same thing you always hear :"but you've got lots of money and she doesn't!" Yes, that's because I worked 14 hour days seven days a week for six years without a single vacation to build my business and I still work seven days a week to keep it running in this economy. And that land was an investment for my retirement!
Bad feelings all around. The family will never be the same, I suspect, and all because of of how people have been poisoned by class warfare. (I might add I also paid–out of pocket and purely as a gift–her entire divorce legal bills which due to the machinations and delaying tactics of her sleazy troll of a husband were well into 5 figures.)
Yes, no good deed goes unpunished.
You just keep thinking that.
Many gun controllers thought gun bans weren't going to go anywhere, but going bye bye they are.
You really don't understand that a Liberty Movement is rolling forward, do you? You are still stuck in the "fringe" mentality or like that of Harry Reid where this will just fizzle out and fade away, huh?
I go news for you Bart, the Liberty Movement is real and our Constitution will be restored. As control over guns is falling asunder because there is no way to ignore the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, so too is the rest of the slate of rights becoming more, shall I say, popular – oh – how about populist.
As folks become more and more familiar on the civic front and question more and more with more and more boldness, you progressives are going to run for the hills in retreat.
Speaking about your "other post" it is clear that you seem to buy into that whole court of 9 kings idea. You know, where those 9 are "above" us all and that they "hand down" their "rulings" and that we just have to bow down.
Well guess what, governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed – and in case you haven't noticed what is happening, consent to what is going on is falling off more and more every day. That will continue, as Freemen will always stand up to defend Liberty when it is threatened enough.
And enough is indeed enough.
Mistakes are going to have to be corrected. The Fed has to go, the 16th has to go the 17th has to go and most importantly privileges and immunities have to be restored. We will be back on track to proper reconstruction as soon as SlaughterHouse goes bye bye and the FFA challenge is gonna win facilitating that happening. There is no way to stop it, it is only a matter of time now. One might say, things are getting quite "ripe"……..
It's interesting that the receivers of other people's money come to resent the givers. They should be thanking them.
This is a great example of what happens when you GIVE people money without expecting something in return. It's not good for the giver nor the receiver.
Nobody should get paid for breathing.
Here's the part that escapes Liberals….she's getting $30 grand for doing nothing, for just existing…….what's her motivation to change? That's an extremely well written piece Mr Schaeffer, sadly, the full meaning of it goes completely over the head of the average Democrat.
We would have a lot more money if not for that foreign welfare state called "Israel."
Ha-ha… I’m glad you have a sense of humor. It’s just too bad it doesn’t make up for your lack of intelligence.
"…..and our Constitution will be restored."
To what year? Back to the Articles of Confederation? Before Hamilton's stint as Sec. of the Treasury? Before John Marshall and Marbury vs. Madison? Before social security? Before the 17th amendment? Back to when there were 6 million people in this country? Back to when the West was still wide open and land was plentiful?
Pay no Federal income tax….you guys usually forget that.
Are we all sure that the sister is a liberal? What if she's a Republican. Oh, my!!!!!
Being thankful went out of fashion with feeling shame.
I get it: Were the ants and the Government would be the grasshoppers!
And all involved keep their dignity
Considering the Fed has stolen, misappropriated, and entitled themselves to the point that theyre out of stuff to steal—-The only reason were having this discussion at all is the only monies left to steal belong to the public?
It's not about turning the clock back, dumb@ss. It's about restoring RESPECT for the Constitution and actually abiding by it. The 16th and the 17th amendments are bastardizations of what our First Principles are and should be repealed.
BINGO Marco!
This is a fake story right? "Her friends, also dependent on thier siblings…….." this just does not pass the smell test. If he is really giving his money to the person described, he proves the old saw "'a fool and his money soon part."
The reason the 17th Amendment came about in the first place is because state legislatures were 100% bought and paid for, by railroads and corporations. You want to go back to that?
Repeal the 16th and substitute it with a fair tax, flat tax or national sales tax?
When are you going to start to lobbying to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't own property. After all, it's what the Founders intended!!
Yep, the point went completely over your head.
And as long as we, I mean, "he" continues to "give" money to his sister nothing will ever change except that his sister will continue to demand more.
I've likened the government to a teenager chronically over-spending his allowance and taking out credit cards to cover that up myself.
I want the States to have their power back. That was what Senators were for.
I wouldn't go by you as to what the Founders intended.
I'm talking First PRINCIPLES – limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty – not "policies" that some Founders may have had.
If it's a fair tax, flat tax or national sales tax, at least EVERYONE will be paying it; unlike now where over 50% pay everything and the other part pays nothing. Gee I wonder which set wants taxes to be raised? Why not? They're not paying anything anyway.
Need and Fair
This man needs to learn about something called "tough love".
What he is doing isn't "helping" her it is ENABLING her to remain stuck in her miserable existence.
As soon as he cuts her off she will be forced to stand on her own 2 feet and grow up and make responsible adult choices.
She needs to GROW UP.
I'd much rather state legislature be bough off by corporations than scum like you.
It's just not going to happen. The Tea Party is basically nothing new; it's been around in various forms for many years; always pushing the same meme. It's a weird mashup of John Birch Society reactionary paranoia, the gleefully thuggish anti-intellectualism of 1968-edition George Wallace, and Oral Roberts-style Christianist fundamentalism. The only unique thing is the little costumes with the pointy hats.
I'm sure King George thought the same thing. Boy was he surprised!
George Wallace – Democrat bigot. He's one of YOURS.
And social issues are rarely if ever discussed at Tea Party meetings. TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already".
The difference, of course, was that the Revolutionary War was fought by patriots who WANTED to break away from England; the Tea Party is not the majority.
So while you're trying to establish your plutocracy, do you think all the other Americans are just going to go along with you? If not, are you just going to kick them out of the country?
Decades ago, when my wife and I were in our mid twenties, we knew a younger couple with a baby who were going through hard times. The young man worked hard but his employer was struggling and he often went days at a time without work. They lived in a tiny one bedroom converted garage, owned a cheap old car, no TV, no telephone (remember telephones?), used cardboard boxes for furniture, and bought their clothes and shoes at thrift stores. They were truly poor, but trying hard to get by on their own without burdening others. At one point their rent was due, they were out of food, and had no money. So we gave them $400 to help them get by. It was all the money we had but at least I had steady work and regular paychecks. The next day the young man's employer lined up several weeks of work for him. At church a week later the young couple happily told my wife and me that they were able to negotiate terms with their landlord, and someone at church bought them a week's worth of groceries; so they used the $400 to buy two dogs and treat the church youth group to an afternoon of free pizza and arcade games.They weren't lazy, selfish freeloaders, or whatever. They were sincerely grateful for what had been given them. They were just… very young.
BigFart, you seriously need to educate yourself.
Actual "patriots" that were fully on board with our Founders were about 20%. Serious Loyalists were about 20% and the rest were apathetic, just waiting to see which side would win.
And the right side won.
The Tea Party is made up of people who WANT to go back to First Principles. There are also many people that may not be official members of a Tea Party, but who still agree with the principles they stand for, that is, individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and limited government.
And a plurality of Americans identify "conservative" and/or "libertarian".
For those that disagree with "classical liberalism", they are welcome to stay and welcome to make the argument for something different, but they will be required to do it OPENLY and without hiding the ball and pretending they like the Constitution and just have a "different interpretation" of it, but which actually undermines said Constitution and makes it meaningless.
We shall meet on the Battlefield of Ideas and see which one will win out.
"I felt the same way when Bush invaded Iraq"
No you didn't. You just hated the idea of America engaging in any kind of miliatary action when a Republican was in the WH and you know it. Also, like the decisons or not, military/defense is a Constitutional function of the federal govt. Giving free money to failed businesses isn't. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE
And a majority of the "poor" in this country have cable. That's a fact.
His name isn't Hank Rearden, is it?
I'm glad you made that point. When people receive help as a gift, they can feel grateful and the giver is blessed. It's a win-win. No one is grateful for what they feel entitled to. That's why it is called entitled. No gratitude required or responsibility either.
Look, it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore.
So while you're trying to establish your communist utopia, do you think all the other Americans are just going to go along with you?
If not, are you just going to kick them out of the country?
Some of the biggest taxes out there are hidden.
For example, when we are forced to use gasoline with ethanol which lowers our mileage, that's a huge tax.
When a business is required to spend a large amount of money complying with federal reporting requirements, that's a huge tax. And that business still has to spend the money even if they are losing money overall, so it's not even like a regular income tax on just profit.
YOU need to wake up. Liberals in general have no problem with smaller government, fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. But the smaller government part isn't going to be achieved on the backs of the middle class.
However, that iNOT what the Tea Party is about. It may have started out that way, but it has been highjacked and you can't even see that. If it were just about being taxed enough already, you would probably have many on your side, but it's literally about changing the culture of this country into what the Religious Far Right wants.
And, no silly, it's not about the battlefield of ideas. It's about money and power.
"I felt the same way when Bush invaded Iraq."
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
For the Iraq War Resolution,
The House voted 297 – 133.
The Senate voted 77 – 23.
Many of the Democrats and Republicans who voted in favor of the Resolution had been in Washington for many years – even decades – and were Washington insiders who had access to the exact same intelligence reports that Bush did. He did not trick people. Go back and read the quotes about what the Dems had to say about Iraq.
BTW, what was the vote in the Senate and the House when Barry decided to invade Libya?
And the average home size for poor family in the US is larger than the average home for the middle class in Europe.
You guys are so funny. Trying to link communism or socialism to liberals because they're not corporatists like you just doesn't work. That fear ship has sailed. You'll have to come up with something new.
Is Willard looking good to you yet?
The economy was doing OK until Dems took total control of Congress on January 3, 2007.
…but if we give money to the government, then the Dems can use it to buy votes!
Right you are sir. The DNC did an about-face on Iraq when it was apparent the country trusted Bush to keep us safe and they realized the "anti-war" radical chic angle was the only way they were going to get any votes. They literally put their political goals ahead of the well-being of the nation.
You are absolutely correct. The facts prove this to be true!
The libunatic racism ship has sailed and their class warfare ship has almost tipped over.
What slanders will you communists sink to in the future?
Apparently trying to demonize capitalists by calling them the ever popular talking-points meme, "corporatists."
You must be logged in to post a comment.