Let me start with a nice funny story to lighten things up a bit before I get down to some serious stuff. This story was forwarded to me by a good friend of mine. Here it goes…
Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?” She replied… “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.” Her parents beamed with pride! “Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her. “What do you mean?” she replied. So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out and give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?” I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.” Her parents aren’t speaking to me anymore.
Lately I have been focused on the US Presidential elections, listening and reading the arguments of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. As some of you may know, the two political parties have a fundamental difference in ideology. This is actually a good thing! At least the difference is in the ideology unlike in the Philippines where politics is personality-based. In the Philippines we get all this myriad of political parties and colors but at the end of the day they are all the same guys! Anyway… please forgive the digression… let’s go back to the Democrats and the Republicans.
The Democrats are more inclined towards a collectivist ideal. For them, it is the government’s duty to ensure equality by spreading the wealth more evenly. So in essence, they are proponents of taking from the wealthy and spreading the wealth to the poor or the less fortunate. Sounds noble, right? I mean come on! Who doesn’t like Robin Hood? So for the Democrats, raising taxes (and the debt ceiling) is justified so long as it can promote the general welfare. As one of my favorite Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton) said, “I did not have sex with that woman!†… oops… sorry, wrong quote… I meant to say that for Clinton the Democrats live by the “We’re in this together†mantra.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
The Republicans, on the other hand, are more inclined towards individualism. For them, they prefer to have the free market and capitalism run its course with very little government interference. The Republicans are strong advocates of the principles of the nation’s Founding Fathers – man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness. Philosopher Ayn Rand interprets this to mean…
“…man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.â€
As one of my favorite Republican Presidents (Ronald Reagan) said, “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15â€. (By the way, for those who may not be familiar with April 15, it is the tax deadline date in America)
So based on the contrasting ideals, it certainly sounds like the Democrats are the nicer fellows and that the Republicans are the selfish evil bunch. Who in their right mind and heart would even consider the Republican ideals noble and even plausible? Even if the Democratic inclinations are towards socialism, if it eases the pain of the poor and the middle class and if it promotes equality, why is that such a bad thing? Canada, where I hail from, is a socialist country and they certainly have been the envy of a lot of other countries including a lot of folks in the United States. Well, I always tell them that they probably feel that way because they have not lived in Canada yet.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Canada and I believe it is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, especially my province of British Columbia. What I do not like about Canada is the socialist style of government. The style of government just isn’t conducive to business and it offers very little opportunity for personal and career success. If you are the type of person who is content to have just the basic needs in life such as food, shelter, and health care, then Canada is a great place to be. But if you are in your productive years and if you have ambitions in life then Canada does not offer the same luster in opportunities as the United States does. If Americans would like to go towards a system of government like Canada, they better think again. Socialism (also Communism and other shades of Collectivism) hurts the pocket a lot and it fosters a culture of mendicancy. It hardly translates to equality especially for hard working and diligent people and it is tantamount to rewarding failure.
Consider this story taken from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shruggedâ€:
So, there was a motor factory called the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which was highly successful, known as being synonymous with quality through the country. Then, the owner died, and the factory went to his three children (two men and a woman), who had big “progressive†(in that context, an euphemism for “socialistâ€) ideas – the main part of it being that well known communist ideal, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.â€
The six thousand workers approved, of course – since they were made to feel that anyone who didn’t agree with such “brotherly love†was an evil, selfish monster. And so, that ideal went into practice – everyone worked, supposedly as much as he or she was able to, but wasn’t paid according to time, or results – instead, all of the profits from sales were put together in a common “poolâ€, then divided according to need.
However, they immediately had a problem: what is really “needâ€, and what is but a desire? What defines “needâ€? There’s no absolute standard for it, since what to some is just a pleasure, to others may be a vital need, and vice-versa. And so, they voted. Yes, every 6 months or so, they had huge meetings where they all voted on each one’s need – and how did you convince others? By begging, by pleading, by convincing everyone that they were worse off than others, that they had more health problems, had more children to feed, that they suffered more, and therefore had a greater “needâ€. In a little time, six thousand workers had turned into six thousand beggars – because no one had any “right†to the result of their work, that line of thought was dead, by then.
Naturally, since work wasn’t tied to earnings any more, no one had any incentive to work harder, and production dropped sharply in the first year. In a meeting, then, they decided that it had happened because some workers weren’t giving their all, they weren’t using all of their ability, and therefore would have to work extra hours at night – without pay, of course – to improve the situation. Who? The most able, of course – and again, they voted on who those were. Obviously, since that day, everyone would hide the slightest sign of ability – indeed, they would compete as to who would appear more incompetent. Being incompetent meant being “needierâ€, and was rewarded; being competent was a curse, since it meant you “needed†less – and had to work harder, to support the “needy†ones.
For some reason (!), production dropped even more.
It got worse. It was decided that no one could have any kind of luxury until everyone’s basic needs were met – and any kind of entertainment, cultural activity or amusement were the first to go. Books? That was a luxury. Music? The same. What right had anyone to a book when there were people starving? And the standard of living – for everyone just kept going down. Lots of people turned to alcohol.
Anything that made people “needierâ€, such as becoming ill, or having a baby, was a reason for everyone to hate that person – since he or she would be, supposedly, “taking†more from the pool. People also began to spy on their neighbours, so that they could report on anyone who was faking his or her “needsâ€.
In four years, the company was bankrupt. What a surprise.
In Canada, the less you work or the less money you make, the more benefits you are entitled to from the government. On the other side of the spectrum, you get taxed more as your income increases. The idea is that because you need less, the government takes what they deem as excess from you to give to the needier ones. Never mind that you work 2 or 3 jobs, the fact that the multiple jobs you have translates to more income this puts you on a higher tax bracket where the government will take more from you (regardless of the blood, sweat and tears you put in your multiple jobs) so that the wealth will be redistributed to the needier through the social programs and dole-out programs supporting the general population especially those who are “needyâ€. This is the kind of system the Democrats are trying to sell to the American people. They call this “paying one’s fair shareâ€. The idea is for the wealthier to pay more as this is taken as paying back to the community responsible for their success. As President Obama contended in one of his speeches, successful businessmen “didn’t build their businessesâ€; their success was only made possible through other people.
But if Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy and to redistribute the wealth through social programs and dole-outs will strengthen the middle class and uplift the poor, wouldn’t this be better for the economy? Wouldn’t this make the economy more vibrant as the middle class will have more money to spend? Well, the problem is…. it isn’t as simple as that especially in the current global financial turmoil.
Let us consider one of the proposed tax hikes on the rich – the estate tax . Let us suppose you are a rich old tycoon and you hear of this upcoming estate tax to be implemented. If you have loads of money, would it make sense for you to put your money into your business for expansion or would you rather keep your assets more liquid so that if and when you die your heirs will have enough liquid cash to pay one third of the estate to the government? Wouldn’t you rather do that than to watch all your assets be taken away and auctioned off by the government at fire sale prices?
If you are a businessman in the medical or health care sector, if the Democrat plan to close some tax breaks on you (because you are wealthy) such as disallowing reimbursements for costs in running your business gets implemented, are you going to buy an expensive equipment or even develop a new and innovative drug knowing that the government may disallow reimbursements? Do you know how much it cost (let alone how much regulatory hurdle companies deal with) to develop and get a new drug (or medical device) approved for market?
If you are a tycoon in the manufacturing sector, with the Democrat “Cap and Trade†legislation (all in the name of environmentalism and green energy fixation) how can you expand your factories if you are facing heavy taxation on your increased output? If you are in the coal and oil business, Obama’s carbon tax proposal (again, because of his over-fixation on taxation to support his inclinations towards environmentalism) will obliterate any incentives for new investment, exploration or drilling.
These are just a few examples of Democratic tax hike plans. With all the tax increase proposals of the Democrats (even for just the wealthy folks the Democrats love to vilify) in order for the government to have enough funds to sustain its multitude of social and dole-out programs, why is it any wonder why businesses do not invest more and create jobs in the country? With Obama’s taxation increases, there aren’t many incentives for businesses. Why are people still wondering why businesses aren’t creating jobs in the country and why businesses are moving out of the United States to operate in countries where the cost of doing business is much cheaper and the governments there are “friendlier� So if you believe in the Democrat punch line that their plan will create jobs and strengthen the middle class, then you better stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid! Going to the direction of Socialism entails increased taxation and with increased taxation without much incentive for success, there won’t be any jobs left and there won’t be any middle class! The rich are still going to be rich, only they won’t be in the country but in another place where the business climate is more conducive for profit. The working and middle class however will end up getting the shaft. If the rich aren’t in the country to tax, who do you think will be next in line to get the tax from in order to sustain the social programs and entitlements of the Socialist government?
If businesses transfer their manufacturing and business operations to other countries that offer better incentives, America will become more of a consumer-based economy. Without the manufacturing jobs, people may end up moving to foreign countries where the jobs are. The country, then, will become dependent on the remittances that overseas American workers will send to the States to support their family’s needs. This will awfully be similar to the situation in the Philippines and last I checked, the Philippines isn’t exactly what other countries aspire to be like.
Anyway, even with Obama’s populist rhetoric the polls show that the contest is very close. Even with all the smear campaign and the gutter politics the Democrats are waging (using class warfare, war on women, and other divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriages) they still cannot seem to get much ahead in the polls. Fortunately there are lots of American voters who can see through the distractions; fortunately there are still lots of intelligent and thinking American voters. Now I can only wish that this were the case for Philippine voters too.
Calling a spade, a spade…
Thanks so much for enlightening your readers on this. Admittedly, I didn’t know much of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats and this article makes some of it clear.
Thanks for reading, Josephine! I’m glad the article was appreciated. Cheers!
Family members wonder why I am not Democrat. Maybe being traumatized by the Left might have something to do with it. Quick example. The first unionized McDonalds and the first unionized Starbucks were both in British Columbia. Like that just screams to business “come here and bring your jobs with you!!” I am being sarcastic of course. In the mid 90s the British Columbia provincial government was adored by…. Alberta because all the jobs went there. Forget ideology that is tangible data. From out here I seem to see that the Liberals (right of the New Democrat Party) have screwed up the province that the NDP will once again pounce on B.C. Seems to be quite the cycle.
Oh don’t get me started with the unions! I heard a few days ago that the BCGEU were planning on staging a one day strike… as if that’s gonna make a difference and as if that action is enough to justify the percentage of pay they deduct from the poor saps working for the government. These unions are dragging the economy down! Back in the early 90s I worked at the Superstore and I used to hate the union a lot because they would take a chunk of my lousy $9 per hour paycheque for union dues as if I don’t get bled dry enough already in taxes by the socialist government. Unbelievable! 🙂 hehehe Some of my Canadian friends have asked me why I am more focused with US politics than Canadian politics. I told them that it is because Canadian politics is boring as all the political parties are pretty much the same – a bunch of leftists! It is only the degree of leftism where they vary. Heck, even Harper’s Conservative party fosters socialist ideals! If you want to vote for someone different in Canada the only real option you have is the separatist party – the Parti Quebecois! Now how pathetic is that?! 🙂 hahaha Anyway, thanks for reading, Gogs!
Great article, but I think you got tricked a little by GOP rhetoric when you said this:
“As President Obama contended in one of his speeches, successful businessmen “didn’t build their businessesâ€; their success was only made possible through other people.”
He was taken out of context. He was referring to roads and bridges.
Here’s the full quote:
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. ”
It has hints of socialism, but it’s not as bad as it first looks.
@Benjamin
The GOP has not tricked anybody. It’s just I’m not sure if you are the one tricking us. How about if we complete Obama’s rhetoric (with my comment in parenthesis)-
“Obama, July 13: There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me (Really? 99% or 1%?) — because they want to give something back (Really? Examples?). They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own (Take note…). You didn’t get there on your own.
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart (That is Obama). There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else (Obama again!).
Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. THAT’S HOW WE FUNDED THE GI BILL. THAT’S HOW WE CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS. THAT’S HOW WE BUILT THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE OR THE HOOVER DAM. THAT’S HOW WE INVENTED THE INTERNET. THAT’S HOW WE SENT A MAN TO THE MOON.
We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
Hi Benjamin! There is a link to the youtube video of Obama’s speech in the article. I find this funny with Obama. Everyone knows the guy is a great speaker and he delivers emotionally moving speeches. However, when there is no teleprompter or when he speaks impromptu… well… that’s when we see the real score. Remember the Joe the Plumber “spread the wealth†thing in 2008? Remember the “clinging to guns and religion†blurb he made during the Democratic primaries 4 years ago? These instances give the public a more unpolished view of Obama’s leftist inclinations. Anyway, thanks for reading!
Look it is completely right to say what the GOP is saying. The government did not build the roads and bridges. The government got the money to build it from taxpayers, gas taxes and taxes from companies. Also it was private companies competing for the contracts to build them that kept the costs down. The government does not build anything.
Hi Jim! Even if the government were to build something, there’s a good chance that they’ll muck it up. It is as if they have a reverse Midas touch. Everything it touches turns to turd! 🙂 hahaha Thanks for reading!
My interest in US politics:
1) Global Terrorism – how the progs and the conservatives in US are dealing with it.
2) Morality – same sex marriage, abortion, and religion.
3) MSM bias.
Hi Trosp! My interest right now in US politics is about the Economy, Morality or Freedom (I tie them together as I find that they are inseparable within the American constitutional context), and the media liberal bias. Anyway, thanks for reading!
Romney and the GOP don’t seem to be much better though. Romney can’t seem to make up his mind on anything, or give much policy other than “Obama destroyed the economy”. He gives the impression (at the very least) of serving corporate interests with his secret meetings with the infamous Koch brothers and big oil industry tycoons. He’s willing to use force, or basically start another war, to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. And he’s actually also going to close numerous tax loopholes for small businesses. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-tax-loopholes_n_1868444.html) Obama’s certainly not any better, what with the unmanned drone strikes, the class warfare he’s promoting and all the promises he broke or took back (closing Gitmo, non-interference in the medical marajuana sale of states, etc).
The two parties look more similar to me every day that passes.
@Benjamin
“He gives the impression (at the very least) of serving corporate interests with his secret meetings with the infamous Koch brothers and big oil industry tycoons”
When was this secret meeting? This is supposed to be a secret meeting and your privy with it. Can you cite the independent source?
Of course, for liberals, Koch brothers are infamous, AND FOR CONSERVATIVES, THEY ARE FAMOUS. Don’t you think this is also worth mentioning? They might even very popular with independents.
“He’s willing to use force, or basically start another war, to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon.”
How about even just a hint that Romney has that in his mind?
“And he’s actually also going to close numerous tax loopholes for small businesses”
Did he really said “small businesses” or are you just campaigning for Obama? How about citing the source where you get that quote?
I like this spin –
“If Al Qaeda wants to destroy US of A, they must hurry. Obama is beating them to it.”
A 6 year old birther reasons of not voting for Obama:
1. Nobody knows where he came from.
2. He bows down to leaders from other countries.
3. Mr. and Mrs. Obama are not proud of America.
4. He wants to take guns away from good guys.
5. He lets bad guys into our country.
6. He doesn’t want Americans to drill for oil or mine for coal.
7. He wants to keep people on food stamps and welfare so they will vote for him.
8. He thinks babies are a burden.
9. He wants everyone to wait in a long line to see a doctor
10. He takes money from people who work hard and gives money to people who don’t work at all.
I’ll sleep better at night if Romney was president.
Thanks for reading, ThorinOakenshield! I know what you mean. But for me, it doesn’t matter whether it is Romney or someone else. As long as the person’s policies aren’t too much to the left, that is what I prefer. Cheers!
From the above article, I would now like to side with the Republicans but it was during the Republican President Bush that the economy went crashing down and America was involved with wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Hi Florefel! I don’t think we can really make a judgment call on which side is better merely based on the period of time America was at a high point or at a low point. Both sides had their ups and downs. America was also in a muck during the Carter administration (Democrats) and Ronald Reagan (Republican) turned things around within 14 months of his Presidency. Bill Clinton (Democrat) also inherited a bad hand from GHW Bush (Republican) but he turned things around as well.. but keep in mind that this was after he was forced to move to the center by cooperating with the Republican dominated Congress. Bush was not a stellar president but the economy didn’t crash just because of Bush alone. It happened to crash under his watch but it was already a ticking time bomb even before he assumed the presidency. The economic mess under Bush was also because of the bursting of the housing and tech bubble which was caused by bad policies adopted from both Republican and Democratic parties. I think it is a mistake to airbrush the Democrat participation of the mess and simply blame Bush for everything. It is really more complicated. With regards to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, well… again it isn’t as simple as accounting these to Bush’s warmongering ways. The Afghanistan war was due to the Sept 11 2001 attacks on US soil. The Iraq war was about the threat Iraq posed against the US through WMD… which we now know in hindsight that Iraq never had. But back then Saddam made the world believe that he had WMD to protect Iraq from its enemies especially Iran. Intelligence agencies from the US and other allied nations were duped into believing that Saddam indeed had WMDs which even Democrats such as Hillary Clinton was convinced of. The Iraq war is another interesting topic for discussion. Bottom-line is, the reason behind it isn’t simply because of Bush being a warmonger or even because of the US greed for oil as most conspiracy theorists from the left would like the world to believe. Anyway, thanks for reading!
Well said Mr. Hector. God only knows what’s gonna happen to us in November. We’re at the cusp of something big. They’re saying it’s the October surprise, an attack on Iran by Israel and the U.S.
Surely you can find a more intelligent and coherent text to support the Republican ideals than Ayn Rand.
Hi Philip! I used Ayn Rand because I believe she makes a good case against the whole idea of collectivism. I suppose I could have used Glen Beck and Sean Hannity but I might get accused of drinking too much of the right-wing Kool-Aid. 🙂 hehehe Thanks for reading!
Sorry, I’ve been watching too much liberal news lately, my mistake in putting lots of misleading stuff. The “secret” meeting was a fundraiser he had with numerous wealthy donors a couple of days after he revealed his energy plan. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-party-yacht-flies-cayman-islands-flag/story?id=17105028#.UE3u-9AjEnW).
My comment on his Iran policy was wrong, I’ll admit. I read too much into some news stories about his stances on doing anything to “prevent a nuclear Iran”, and got caught up in the liberal talking point that that’s tantamount to provoking a war.
“…Romney has promised that his plan will be “revenue neutral,†meaning it would pay for those rate reductions by clearing out the underbrush of loopholes and credits in the tax code.
But each tax break has its own rationale and fierce defenders.
Eliminate the home-mortgage interest deduction (annual cost: $99 billion and rising) and risk that housing prices will plummet just as that sector of the economy is starting to recover. End the deduction for charitable giving (annual cost: $53 billion) and attract the wrath of every hospital chief and museum director. Touch the protections for investment income (annual cost: more than $100 billion) and anger everyone from Wall Street executives to retirees.”
(http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20120910_Romneys_tax_plan_leaves_key_variables_blank.html)
I should’ve said “job creators” or wealthy instead of small businesses though. Paul Ryan was interviewed recently by Face the Nation and said: “…the way we raise revenue by plugging loopholes and tax shelters that are uniquely enjoyed by higher-income earners.”
Lol, and the birthers never fail to make me laugh.
“If businesses transfer their manufacturing and business operations to other countries that offer better incentives, America will become more of a consumer-based economy. Without the manufacturing jobs, people may end up moving to foreign countries where the jobs are. The country, then, will become dependent on the remittances that overseas American workers will send to the States to support their family’s needs. This will awfully be similar to the situation in the Philippines and last I checked, the Philippines isn’t exactly what other countries aspire to be like.”
What a shame! Such powerful countries may inevitably become Philippines.
Hi StrivingIndividual! Yes it would be such a shame if the US becomes like the Philippines. Thanks for reading!
@Florefel
Obama’s continued the Afghanistan war though, and recently signed an agreement that could keep them there until 2024, despite his promise to get all troops out by 2014. This strategic agreement with the Afghanistan government allows some troops to stay there, if approved by congress, to “train” Afghan security forces, and send some more aid. Not to mention the US’ bombing of Libya into oblivion last year. So the irresponsible spending on wars that increased their deficit never actually ended.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/dennis-kucinich-afghanistan_n_1471684.html).
You really have to stop quoting the Huffington Post. It is an Uber liberal news outlet. Try to find something a little more neutral and believable.
newsbusters.org and theblaze.com are not neutral but are believable.
I’m thinking of moving to Canada….I’m tired of the U.S. politics…
Hello Hyden! You might miss US politics… Canadian politics is awfully boring! 🙂 hehehe Thanks for reading!
Very amusing anecdote! 🙂
I coincidentally read an article in the most recent edition of TIME Magazine which had photos embedded with graphics showing how much of what Americans consume is also subsidised by the state — e.g. subsidies on farm products, health insurance, and other living essentials, generous tax deductions on mortgage interest, child care, etc., and dole outs for each child among others.
In essence, both laissez-faire America and socialist Canada (and Australia) spend a lot to keep their citizens living at a standard they have grown accustomed to.
It seems to me though that the difference lies in the nature of the “welfare” provided by the governments of these states. Canada and Australia put a premium on egalitarianism. So they penalise the rich and reward the poor to keep everyone equally poor. In Australia, we call it the ‘tall poppy syndrome’. When a poppy sticks out from a field of equally-tall weeds, it gets cut down.
In America, it seems that the idea of welfare there is to put more disposable money into people’s pockets — in a way less-determined by income. But as one of the commenters cited from the GOP rhetoric, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.” The prosperity propped up by the US Government to keep its citizens fat, happy, and consuming has to come from somewhere. Could it be that it is this lack of an inclination to tax people and a strong inclination to subsidise fuel, food, recreation, and procreation is what is feeding the humungous deficit that now hangs above every American’s head today?
If I am not mistaken, Australia has been in budget surplus since 2000 or even earlier and has only descended into deficit following the 2008 global financial crisis when the recently-ascended-to-power Aussie Labour Government was supposedly forced to draw from the national treasury to stimulate the economy with cash dole outs. As expected, the Opposition was quick to point out that the first Aussie budget deficit in over a decade happened to coincide with a Labour government (though that is an appeal to correlation rather than true causality).
As such, I am thinking that there is some kind of middle ground between dole-out socialism and greedy republicanism…
I’m for taxing the rich — but not doling out to the poor. The taxes should go to expanding the capital base, and not propping up consumption. Consumption, I believe, will follow when a strong capital base (i.e. infrastructure and business capitalisation/investment) is present to serve as a sustainable foundation for economic growth and competitiveness. But if said taxes are doled-out to be spent, the money is simply sunk right there and then (yielding no further sustained value to the economy) rather than capitalised over a useful life of a fixed asset that can be sustained over a longer period.
Hi benignO! You may have a good point about how the taxes ought to be used. Instead of consumption, it ought to be spent more on the base. This way the folks who are getting taxed more would have a sense of better proximity to equal benefits from the taxes they paid. Anyway, for me I am not a fan high taxation (well, who is?). I believe that increased taxation would tend to give a negative effect on productivity and the economy. This seems to agree with me – http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm. But as you indicated, if the taxes are mostly allocated to infrastructure and the base, perhaps the motivation would be different. The problem, I think, is that the government has grown too big that is why it has so much thirst for money. I think it will be good to revisit the necessary things a government must provide or to revisit the role of government then prioritize spending towards what is needed over to what is wanted. Thanks for reading!
the problem is that tax money is wasted on big projects that fail. Solyndra anyone?
the problem with taxing the rich MORE is, not only is that not enough to cover the deficit, eventually the rich move their money elsewhere.
how about taxing businesses to the point where they don’t hire anymore? how about taxes dampening the entrepreneurial spirit? and the problem with welfare? it breeds laziness. how sustainable is that?
benign0
You want to best thing about how government is involved in little things. There are about 9 different agencies that regulate a gallon of milk.
As an American Libertarian living here in the Philippines: I salute you….. You hit the nail dead on the head.
Hi Bill! It’s too bad the Libertarians don’t have much strength yet. There are many things that I agree with Ron Paul (prominent Libertarian leader). With regards to some of his unpopular beliefs, I believe in time people may start to appreciate them or at least the beliefs may evolve to be more palatable to the general public. Thanks for reading!