Posted on 01/14/2013 5:58:54 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
On any day of the week you can hear someone declaring the injustice of insufficient government spending on this or that deserving group: the ill, the old, the unemployed, university students, filmmakers, rail passengers, you name it. Yet they rarely explain why it is unfair. They speak as if the injustice of it ought to be obvious to any decent person.
Perhaps it is obvious to most people, and especially to members of the allegedly mistreated groups. Nevertheless, it isn't true. They want the money, of course, but they have no proper claim on it. This is easier to see if you recognize that "government spending" is no such thing. The money is provided by taxpayers, who part with it on threat of imprisonment.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Brillant article. Sort of a Steyn meets Von Mises mashup. Mr. Whyte is a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London but he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything.
“...he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything. “
And we’re not robbing the neighbor, just his grandkids, many of whom will now never be born because of the excessive debt that has accrued.
I expect that next: The IRS threatening kids with “Penalties for avoiding Obamacare mandates by failing to be conceived so they can pay their “fair share””
Maybe the IRS will go after the abortion mills for killing future tax payers?
Some gov't programs are "fuzzy" in that they may or may not fall into one of the two real areas of gov't spending. But cells phones for poor people? Really? Other than getting reelected, how do programs like that make any sense?
Obozo bitches about tax breaks for the rich. Really? Who the hell does he think wrote the Tax Code. You and your cronies did and you did it to give them breaks so you could do them favors in return for election contributions.
It's time to clean house...both houses, both parties.
Good point. I am exhorting my children not to view US debt as their “sacred” obligation. Jefferson didn’t see it that way and neither do I.
It’s like people complaining that the government needs to pay them because a hurricane hit. You can predict a hurricane, but you can’t stop it. It’s not like the government has anything to do with that. Yeah, I’ve had people that I care about affected by it; one friend’s basement flooded, and another friend out on Long Island lost the first floor to her house, but seriously, why is it the government’s responsibility to pay you so you can rebuild? I learned my lesson the hard way, by myself as well as observing those close to me, that it’s better to hold on to money as long as you can, instead of spending it on useless things (like a vacation). Yeah, I needed new boots for work, so I went out and bought new boots.
Why should the federal government be responsible for roads and bridges? Even if Fedzilla was somehow, someway kept small and lean, they’d still hold that over every state’s head, keeping billions from them.
Maybe the IRS will go after the abortion mills for killing future tax payers?
You know, that gives me an idea. Instead of trying to point out the evils of abortion as used for “birth control”, let us instead get laws passed that will “impute” a certain income level for each child aborted and have the “Egg Donor” and the “Sperm Donor” have to pay yearly for the income taxes of the aborted child that will now not be collected due to their being removed from the potential work force.
Who knows.... I’m sure that some tax hungry politician will find the idea to be a good one.
You pwn me!
Unfortunately, more politicians wanted the feds to get their hand in that pie. It's been downhill ever since.
Eisenhower built the interstate system as a military measure, that started it
I wouldn’t say that Eisenhower “started it”. Perhaps the Erie Canal started it, but “internal improvements” may have begun even earlier than that.
The Interstate system might fall under the Commerce Clause, since it crosses state boundaries. But the Commerce Clause has been so screwed and abused since Wickard v. Filburn that it requires serious repair.
One item of government spending that usually DOESN’T cross state lines, however, is disaster relief.
I don’t mean to sound cruel, but why should my tax money be spent to provide relief for tornado victims in Oklahoma, or a forest fire in California or a flood in Alabama? Shouldn’t the states and/or insurance companies provide that relief?
I’m aware of the story of Davy Crockett and the farmer who was pissed at him for voting to provide federal relief for the victims of a fire, and that story does have a certain resonance here.
Charity is not a legitimate function of “limited” government and it certainly does not appear in the Constitution. Americans have proven themselves amazingly generous in helping their fellow citizens, but that beneficence should be voluntary, not mandatory.
Again, I don’t mean to sound unkind. But if my home got flattened by an earthquake, I could not, in good conscience, expect some taxpayer in Nevada to cough up for the rebuilding effort.
There are some things that just wouldn't be provided without the public sector. The earliest private road (sometime in the 1700's) was what is now known as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Back then, it was a "corduroy road" made up of split logs. When you reached a certain point, there was a small hut with a long stick (i.e., a "pike") across the road to stop you. You paid the toll and the pike was lifted (turnpike). It didn't take long for users to build little shortcuts around the turnpikes. Without revenues, the roads fell into disrepair and commerce suffered (especially in the wet seasons).
In Boston, you can still see private homes with a fire company name on them in the form of a plaque. If there was a fire, you read the plaque on the house and ran to that fire house. Heaven help you if the plaque was destroyed or otherwise missing when a fire broke out. In this case, duplication of services made a natural gov't-provided monopoly more sensible.
There are plenty of other places to get rid of long before you remove the road system.
In 1918 railroads were how people and freight traveled across the country. That year Dwight Eisenhower was a junior officer in an operation designed to see if it was possible to get a motorized convoy across the country.
There was very little paved road. There were very few maps for the primitive roads that did exist. It was a long and arduous trip. This trip was the genesis of the Interstate Highway System built during his presidency.
Yep. And did you know that every 5 miles on the interstate highway system there has to be at least on stretch of road that is straight for 1 mile. This was so aircraft could use the highway as an emergency landing strip.
West Virginia musta not got the memo on that!
Actually, I just checked it out and it’s an urban legend...I fell into it without checking first. They pointed out that bridges and overpasses also make it a bad choice in many situations.
Sorry ‘bout that.
This nation owes veterans, so much more, than what if being done, period.
Every stoop-sitter, basement dweller in mama’s house, or daughter that shows up at mama’s empty nest house with baby in arms, deserves nothing.
I served this country,because I love her. I handled barrels of agent whatever, but becaue I did not fit the reported years of time, I, of course, do not have any tainting from agent whatever. I have paid my “forty quarters” twice, but -I- had to sue, to get my social security benefits. Yet some confounded KID gets it, and more, just for not wanting to say “NO”?!?!?!?
Then, those ‘fredding buzzards’ talk about not being able to pay the military paychecks, but they have been cutting checks to unions all year?!?!?!
Do I trust the government? Not since the one bullet theory of Kennedy’s death; not since the greatest swimmer Harvard had ever had on its swim team drowned a woman on Chappaquiddick; not since a future President named FORD served on the Warren Commission; not since a member of The Keating Five ran for President. I’ll stop there.
“Again, I don’t mean to sound unkind. But if my home got flattened by an earthquake, I could not, in good conscience, expect some taxpayer in Nevada to cough up for the rebuilding effort.”
Almost everyone seems to have something or some reason that justifies their taking from others. You seemed to have avoided that.
My great uncle was killed at Kasserine Pass. He died with no wife or children. My great grandparents got a small death benefit. 6 other great uncles were scarred for life serving as a tail gunner, BAR man, and infantrymen all over the Pacific islands and the Italian/French/German countryside. Not a single one ever said they were owed a thing by our government.
My point is many people on this forum believe their take from taxpayers is justified. I am surprised their are not more flames since the military is mentioned. Bottom line is that the nobody gets a single cent from the US government that does not first come from someone else and that by the threat of force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.