The public debate we MUST have is who is “indigent” and needs our help and who must be expected to provide for their own needs. Socialism is the ideology that we each can live at the expense of everyone else. Not only does this violate the Commandments that forbid coveting and theft, but both Hayek and Mises prove (in different ways) that it is not a “sustainable” economic system, a concept the left otherwise loves to scold us about.
Putting aside how government social benefits originally justified to help the indigent have destroyed the charity-oriented social support network that functioned in this country since its founding, these benefits have been expanded and expanded. One study I read stated that for a family of four, in order for a wage-earner to provide the same standard of living, he would have to earn a wage of about $60k/year.
We have made not working pay so much that employers with lower skilled jobs must pay more in order to compete with free medical care, free housing, free utilities, free food, free school lunches and free cell phones. This is one factor in the dismal rate of labor force participation.
Apart from the broader liberty question, or more directly, how this fosters dependency, having government “benefits” that extend to such a large fraction of society means that government must become an economic predator on the shrinking portion that creates wealth. The larger government gets, the less economic wealth creation we will have. We are on the road to serfdom.
Government takes $100 from the half that has taxable income, borrows $40 from China and then offers a $90 “benefit” to everyone who qualifies. The first disqualifier of course is that your income is too high. But those who do qualify climb all over each other to make sure they get what they are “entitled” to. There is never any suggestion that the program is for those who are truly in need and when a person is not in need, even though their income is low, they should not apply.
But even States do this with federal programs. If the States would just say no, the pols in Washington would not be working day and night to find ways to make money flow back home. If States would decline to accept federal bucks, the federal deficit would be much smaller.
We are being enslaved with our own money and our own credit rating. Worse, we are enslaving our children like no previous generation ever has.
Spot on, Buckwheat.
And the thing that’s going to bring this whole house of cards down is runaway inflation.
At its most fundamental level, money is supposed to represent the value of goods and services. True barter is an extremely cumbersome way for people to get what they want or need. The purpose of money is to facilitate the trade of these goods and services between the people who produce them.
The problem is that our government is flat-out GIVING money, in ever-increasing amounts, to people who are producing NOTHING.
The effect on our currency is a steady erosion of its value.
Under Obama, this process has rapidly accelerated and those on fixed incomes are now getting hammered by skyrocketing food and gas prices.
Other prices are steadily rising, as well. The only life vest we have right now is cheap imports, and that will go by the wayside as our currency continues to decline in real value.
At that point, no other countries will lend us any more money to support these massive welfare programs and everything will come crashing down upon us.
If Barack Obama is re-elected, financial collapse and runaway inflation will follow. The first victims will be senior citizens.
I would love to see a Governor that would tell the Fed to stuff it and end the practice of withholding taxes for the Fed.
If every citizen had to file quarterly like small businesses do, the hue and cry would be heard all the way to Washington D.C.
Unfortunately, the current crop of crooks likes having the torrent of tax dollars to purchase votes - largely from people undeserving of the vote.