General discussion

Locked

The biggest threat to individual freedom

By maxwell edison ·
.
In another thread I suggested that the biggest threat to individual freedom in the United States is the U.S. tax code and the myriad of U.S. social programs. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I sadly realized how true that really is. And what's really sad about it is twofold. One is that people, as a whole, don't realize it. And the second is that people are asking for (voting for) more of it.

The camel is indeed in bed with us. Or we are only but frogs in a pot of cold......make that warm water. (Ask and I'll explain - unless someone knows, and wants to reveal the meaning.)

More to come.......

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

33 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Entitlements

by DC_GUY In reply to The biggest threat to ind ...

People who receive something from the government feel more or less content with the way things are. They can't be convinced that in a truly free economy they'd be able to buy what they get from the government for a fraction of what they pay in taxes. It's just too easy to let the tax be withheld, pay somebody to fill out the tax forms, and sit passively while the government gives them back about five cents on the dollar.

So all the government has to do is see to it that a majority of the people receive something, and they will stop complaining, or at least not complain very sincerely.

Deficit spending makes it all sweeter. We're not really paying for a lot of this. We're passing the bill on to our grandchildren.

Personally, I don't have any children, much less grandchildren. Nonetheless as an elder of this community, I care about the future that I'm leaving to all of my Children. What I can't figure out is why the people who really do have children of their own don't care.

Collapse -

On "entitlements"

by maxwell edison In reply to Entitlements

.
Entitlement: (noun) A government program providing benefits to members of a specified group. The state or condition of being entitled. A right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.

Entitled: (transitive verb) To furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something <this ticket entitles the bearer to free admission>.

Government: (To paraphrase President Lincoln) We are a government "of the people".

Government Entitlement: A person is "entitled" to take the property (money) of another person.

What's wrong with this picture?

Collapse -

by Montgomery Gator In reply to On "entitlements"

If you read my other posts, you know I agree with you on this subject. We in the United States are getting in a dangerous situation where, if not already, a minority of people pay taxes, so we will get in a situation where the majority will vote for people who will increase entitlements, and the minority will have to pay higher taxes to pay for them. Although I supported Bush's tax cuts in general, they increased the minimum income at which people paid taxes, and increased various tax credits, so that fewer people pay taxes. Instead, it should have expanded the 10% tax bracket (new bracket that replaced much of the 15% bracket) so that more people paid taxes at that low amount, and decreased personal exemptions. I would rather have a flatter tax with fewer exemptions, so that more people would pay their fair share based on a proportion of income than the current situation where many are exempt, and do not have to pay for government. An even more radical suggestion (would require constitutional amendment) would to say that in order to be eligible to vote, a citizen would have to pay more in taxes than received in "entitlements", so that only those who paid for the goverment would have a say. No net tax paid, no vote. Similar to the concept that only shareholders can vote for a corporation's board of directors, except that all shareholders (taxpaying citizens) would have only one vote instead of votes proportional to taxes paid (number of shares). "Entitlement" is a very bad word for government transfer of wealth, since no one should be entitled to money from the government.

Collapse -

Everbody's on Welfare

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to Entitlements

re:
People who receive something from the government feel more or less content with the way things are.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----

It would be nuts to think that Americans, *any* Americans, don't receive something from the government.

We ALL rely on our entitlements - we're entitled to police protection, and fire protection, and clean air and water, and protection from burglers - white and blue collar.

Folks who whine about the government handing out entitlements do not appreciate the Blessings of Liberty... and want to take them away from those of us who DO appreciate the Blessings of Liberty.

God knows, you'll never hear anyone speak out about the Blessings of NeoConservatism. It's a curse.

Collapse -

You're either extremely disingenuous or very naive'

by maxwell edison In reply to Everbody's on Welfare

.
To compare taxpayers paying for police protection or fire protection (your examples) to paying for viagra or knee replacements (my examples) is ridiculous. In fact, it deserves no further comment.

Except I will say this. Liberty is not "paid for" by dollars. It's paid for by hard work and self-responsibility.

Collapse -

Socialist

re:
Except I will say this. Liberty is not "paid for" by dollars. It's paid for by hard work and self-responsibility.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----

In a socialist Utopia, that would be true. But we live in Captialist USA. Here, freedom has to be paid for in Greenbacks. No money - no freedom.

btw - It's kinda cool seeing you slowly come around to realizing tha Socialism is a good thing.

Collapse -

Bucky the socialist - by his own admission

by maxwell edison In reply to Socialist

.
You and I must have different definitions of socialism.

My definition of socialism:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I abhor that principle. It's absolutely wrong for a government to take a dollar from the person who earned it just to give it to a person who did not.

I'm in favor of the following:

Phasing out social security over the next 70 years, eventually eliminating the program all together.

Phasing out Medicare over the next 50 years, eventually eliminating the program all together.

Phasing out Medicaid over the next 20 years, eventually eliminating the program all together.

Never implementing any nationalized health care.

Eliminating all foreign aid to nations that do not have a real democratic form of government and a society that guarantees freedom and liberty to all - and free elections.

Eliminating the Department of Education, returning full control of the public school system to the states.

Encouraging competition in the public school system by allowing school choice for the parents of the kids they chose to have.

Keeping "social spending" (that is community help for the needy) at an amount not to exceed 10 percent of all federal spending.

Overhaul the "welfare" industry, force able-bodied people to work if they receive any assistance, and make it so difficult and miserable for them that they won't want it. But most of all, make it perfectly clear that they are "entitled" to absolutely nothing.

Keeping federal spending at an amount that's significantly less than 10 percent of our GDP.

Institute a flat tax not to exceed 10 percent of a person's income, or an equivalent VAT (Value Added Tax).

Absolutely no tax for corporations.

Abolish the Internal Revenue System.

Reduce the federal tax code to no more than 10 pages.

.....I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

If you think I'm a socialist thinker, you're more deranged than I thought.

Collapse -

Sociopathic Republicans

by Bucky Kaufman (MCSD) In reply to Bucky the socialist - by ...

re:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

I abhor that principle. It's absolutely wrong for a government to take a dollar from the person who earned it just to give it to a person who did not.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Why do you jump to the conclusion that those in need do not deserve help, and that those with money deserve their treasure? Why do you measure morality in terms of dollars and sense?

Do you know that people who totally dismiss socialist values have a mental disease? They're called sociopaths. They, like you, have a pathological fear of their fellow man especially when grouped into societies.

Are you sick, or just stupid?

Collapse -

Sick or stupid? Neither

by maxwell edison In reply to Sociopathic Republicans

.
I'm confident.

Collapse -

Because......

by olprof67 In reply to Sociopathic Republicans

Why do you measure morality in terms of dollars and cents?

Because, my share-the-wealth friend, those dollars and cents are the single most accurate judgement of a free society's actions.

Everything else is just the ranting of the power-obsessed (like yourself) who want to structure things according to their own visions.

And in the real world, it's the capitalist democracies which have the strongest safety nets. There is no deliberate starvation, but plenty of malnutrition, particularly among children....

due to the neglect of irresponsible parents, often complicated, rather than corrected by the welfare bueaucracy.

Those who fall on hard times through no fault of their own will usually find somone ready and willing to ease things, but those who fail through fault of their own character usually go whining to some left-wing politician.

It is the socialist, commmunist, and native-nationalist societies whose record is written in blood.

Back to Community Forum
33 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums