reply to post by Uniceft17
Is there anything at all that limits government that you don't believe is an assault on the poor? How about NASA, or the National Weather Service?
Oh, thats right, the poor might be unable to plan for evenings of star gazing absent good forecasts.
Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization, as evidenced by them coaching underage kids to get abortions (who by definition are victims of sexual
assault - or coach young girls in how to become a successful prostitute), their absolutely corrupt accounting practices, where cash for abortion,
which is supposed to be kept separate from the funds for other services is co-mingled (a violation of federal law, by the way). If you're so
concerned about defunding Planned Parenthood, cut them a check and start up a fund raising program.
The assault in this country is not against the poor, the elderly, the minorities, the handicapped or the sick. It's an assault against the
productive in society who have been having their accomplishments castigated and demeaned by the administration and liberal media. There is no way
that taking all of the money from the wealthy could fund the current size of government, let alone the long-term liabilities. It is basic logic -
when the well runs dry, as it did in Greece, it will run dry. To increase the assault on productive citizens while simultaneously raising taxes at
the local, state and federal levels, increased regulations eroding margins, the incentive to invest and grow a business is ruined. With the increase
on capital gains (money that has already been taxed once), destroys the incentive to invest (news flash - corporations get capital to invest, hire,
expand from funds generated by your hated capital markets, facilitated by evil investment bankers). No problem with that, as Obama said last week,
the government is going to pull a GM move in all industries (that, by the way is not kind of Marxist - it is directly and absolutely Marxist).
That GM bailout coupled with the "green energy" push really worked out. The taxpayers are down $29BN on our investment in GM and as far as the
cutting edge Volt goes:
"(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier,
up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008
for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.
Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” - as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000
per Volt sold."
As much as you hate Ayn Rand, the simplicity of the logic is beautiful - what would happen if the productive simply cashed out, sold all of their
stock, real estate and other assets and thus took their brains and capital off the table? Every day the government grows, the more attractive that
choice becomes. Now the government is advertising food stamps, initiating food stamps with the cooperation of the Mexican government to get them in
the hands of illegals and seeking to drive up the number of folks in the country who are dependant on the government. They've done a fantastic job
- now 30% of the citizens of the country are on the government dole in one form or another.
It would be interesting were the government to give every person or family who is below the poverty line $1M and then eliminate all entitlements.
Might that solve the problem? No, because despite the fact that $1M is the equivalent of 43.4 years of income a (not including any investment income
they might generate), 80% of the recipients of that largess would be broke in three years and need handouts. .
Poverty is in many cases cultural and based on choices, the consequences of which the government has been seeking to eliminate for decades. Does
society need to assist them? Yes - but only when the poor take the initiative to seek help and take advantage of that help. The government has
absolutely no right to take from the productive and distribute it to people who are taking no steps to get to a stage in their lives where they no
longer need assistance. None, which is why Clinton's welfare reform was a success and why it is an outrage to reduce the work requirements which is
what the government is doing at the moment.
One thing leftists don't every seem to recognize - if you can even imagine the brain power, creativity and power that welfare and our current suite
of entitlements takes off the table by destroying the incentive to improve one's circumstances, it is mind numbing. It is also immoral.