Thursday, September 23, 2010
Cost of Government
Never in my younger years would I have believed that a tax cut would be labeled as a "cost" to the US Government. But listening to the Liberal Left holler and scream about extending the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" this is exactly how they describe it, as costing the government too much!
How does this perversion of word meanings become entrenched in national discussions? There is one simple little fact that all who use this terminology forget; all of the government's money comes from individuals. Every single solitary penny is taken from individual people in the course of their lives. Government has nothing that they don't take from you and me. NOTHING.
How then can anyone rationally say that a tax cut costs the government anything? How can the act of creating a tax cut be a "gift" to the people they are taking the money from in the first place? Obama thinks it is wrong to "give" rich people any more money. He does not acknowledge that this money is earned by these very same rich people. They're just words after all. Who cares?
Well, I care very much. It is the very choice of words that frames the argument in favor of government-loving liberals. To these people all money is rightfully owned by the government and we are only "allowed" to keep whatever sum they feel is appropriate. Obama feels that at some point you have made enough money, and he is quite willing to define what that point is for every single individual in this country.
PrezBo is probably giddy with excitement over the release of a proposal in the UK whereby all paychecks to individuals would first be sent to the central government so they can deduct the "proper" amount of taxes and then forward the balance on the wage earner. Now there is a grand idea that I'll just bet Obama wishes he had though of first.
Politically left pundits and politicians describe the extension of the tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners as costing the government $700 Billion over ten years. They say the cost is too high. However they fail to describe the extension of the tax cuts for the bottom 98% of wage earners as "costing" the government about $2 Trillion. Why not decry the "cost" of this tax cut extension in the same terms? Politics.
It is very easy to spend other people's money and the Washington elite think they know the right places to spend this money for our own good. I remember President Clinton saying he didn't like the idea of stimulus checks sent to the people because we wouldn't spend it on the right things. Let the goverment know-it-alls spend this money instead in ways that will benefit all of the country better. Yeah, right. Now I'm rotf-lol. (rolling on the floor laughing out loud)
Sure, we'll let the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, benevolent government elitists have all of our money and we'll be perfectly happy taking whatever they feel we each deserve and spend all the rest on whatever pet projects they "feel" are in vogue at the time. Cradle to grave, our government is the provider of all things good.
And when Atlas shrugs, what will these government elitists do then?
OH
How does this perversion of word meanings become entrenched in national discussions? There is one simple little fact that all who use this terminology forget; all of the government's money comes from individuals. Every single solitary penny is taken from individual people in the course of their lives. Government has nothing that they don't take from you and me. NOTHING.
How then can anyone rationally say that a tax cut costs the government anything? How can the act of creating a tax cut be a "gift" to the people they are taking the money from in the first place? Obama thinks it is wrong to "give" rich people any more money. He does not acknowledge that this money is earned by these very same rich people. They're just words after all. Who cares?
Well, I care very much. It is the very choice of words that frames the argument in favor of government-loving liberals. To these people all money is rightfully owned by the government and we are only "allowed" to keep whatever sum they feel is appropriate. Obama feels that at some point you have made enough money, and he is quite willing to define what that point is for every single individual in this country.
PrezBo is probably giddy with excitement over the release of a proposal in the UK whereby all paychecks to individuals would first be sent to the central government so they can deduct the "proper" amount of taxes and then forward the balance on the wage earner. Now there is a grand idea that I'll just bet Obama wishes he had though of first.
Politically left pundits and politicians describe the extension of the tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners as costing the government $700 Billion over ten years. They say the cost is too high. However they fail to describe the extension of the tax cuts for the bottom 98% of wage earners as "costing" the government about $2 Trillion. Why not decry the "cost" of this tax cut extension in the same terms? Politics.
It is very easy to spend other people's money and the Washington elite think they know the right places to spend this money for our own good. I remember President Clinton saying he didn't like the idea of stimulus checks sent to the people because we wouldn't spend it on the right things. Let the goverment know-it-alls spend this money instead in ways that will benefit all of the country better. Yeah, right. Now I'm rotf-lol. (rolling on the floor laughing out loud)
Sure, we'll let the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, benevolent government elitists have all of our money and we'll be perfectly happy taking whatever they feel we each deserve and spend all the rest on whatever pet projects they "feel" are in vogue at the time. Cradle to grave, our government is the provider of all things good.
And when Atlas shrugs, what will these government elitists do then?
OH
# posted by OH @ 9:58 AM 
