Kids, Start Looking for Refrigerator Boxes

Our Future?

We're being told that Social Security is going broke. We're being told that Medicare is going broke. And we're being told that the engine of economic growth in the United States -- the "wealthy segment" -- needs to "pony up" a bit more in order for our survival.

Economists, to a large degree (Paul Krugman notwithstanding), agree that the best use of the money from the wealthy is in the private sector. When those alleged barons are able to keep more of what they earn, they invest in new ventures which create jobs for those under them. During Reagan's administration, it was referred to as the trickle-down economy.

George H.W. Bush, in the campaign of 1980, ridiculed his rival, Ronald Reagan, for what the candidate Bush called "voodoo economics", but when he was defeated and ultimately Reagan's vice president, he changed his tune. Seeing Reagan's policies become so successful had that effect. Reagan thought it best for government to get out of the way and let the American people do what we do best; succeed and prosper.

It's no accident that the American poverty level is head and shoulders above the actual poverty of the third world. Certainly there are very few people in America who actually suffer but for the most part, our "poor" experience the inconvenience of basic cable and slow internet speeds. Never mind that they have multiple television sets, laptop computers and several vehicles. Bad things do happen to people every day, but some can be avoided quite easily.

Imagine the following scenario:

Mom, with a solemn-looking Dad at her side: "Kids, Daddy and I want you to start looking for large boxes, like refrigerators come in when someone lucky gets a new one". 


Sally: "Why Mom?" 


Mom: "Well honey, by this time next year, we will be living in some of those under the bridge on Maple Street". 


Billy (horrified): "What? But you and Dad both have jobs and seem to make a lot of money!"


Dad:  "We do, Billy, but we give so much to the Johnson's down the street, the Smith's across from us, and the nice folks around the corner, that we're going to be unable to pay our mortgage or utilities in a year".

While the above may sound ludicrous to the sensible, consider that it is precisely what our federal government is telling us. As our social "safety nets" are slowing sinking below the figurative waves -- and as the rolls of the "needy" continue to grow -- our leaders declare the answer is to seize more money from the haves to hand to the have-nots, including foreign countries who may need help, but not to the detriment of our own citizens.

Drowning in Debt

Consider this, however; while our own seniors are seeing the realities of precariousness and destitution rush at them from the horizon, our tax dollars are being spent on propping up young, able people who have been conditioned to rely on hand-outs for their sustenance. But it gets worse...much worse.

This country hands out roughly $20 billion annually to foreign nations in aid. Yes, Israel and Egypt are the largest beneficiaries of that aid, but we also aid Pakistan, Bosnia and Russia, to name a few. We also give nearly $100 million to Gaza and the West Bank. Why? Well, that money is given as a token of "balance" to Israeli aid from the U.S.

It may not sound like much in the total budget, but if you were in danger of losing your home to the bank, would you be handing out twenties to your neighbors? Likewise, would you be buying two hundred dollar Nikes for your kids, or fifty dollar Keds?

I still believe that most people in this country would rather be productive and, as a result, self-sufficient rather than wards of the State. And I still believe that trickle-down economics work well. The misnomer lies in the pejorative "trickle", which is designed to sow the seeds of envy among the classes. The question remains...would you be happier working for a wage as the beneficiary of a wealthy man's investment, or laying about in squalor waiting for the mailman to bring your welfare check?

All the rich owe us is a modicum of gratitude for our labors in making their investments profitable. We owe them a debt of gratitude for providing our livelihoods.

That being said, if our government has its way, we'll be living side by side in refrigerator boxes under the overpass, while the inhabitants of Gaza, et al, swim in the Mediterranean buoyed by wads of U.S. dollars snatched from the drowning Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

Fair Share of Taxes

Equal is Equal, Period

The disgusting class warfare that continues to rage in this country - waged by Democrats, and applauded by Liberals - is based upon a lie that should be self-evident to even the most politically unaware of our citizens. Yet all it takes is to read the comments after any article dealing with taxation in America, and it is clear that too many people want to be subsidized by those whom they envy and despise, simply because they themselves have not achieved the same level of success.

We constantly hear the cries of these people demanding that "the rich pay their fair share" of taxes. While that is an annoying and misguided complaint, it is more annoying that the plaintiffs engage in it without the slightest idea of why, other than that they have heard their politicians make the same argument.

Percentages do not lie, however, nor do they discriminate. Therefore, even if the burger-flipper pays the same percentage as the corporate CEO, the actual amount of the remittances is enormously disparate. For the sake of simplicity, we'll use a ten percent federal tax rate, where person A has an annual income of $100,000 and person B has an income of $1,000,000. Person A has a tax liability of $10,000, whereas person B has a tax liability equal to person A's entire income, or $100,000.

There is an incredible irony in our tax codes and the expectations of the alleged champions of the poor. While we are incessantly bombarded from the Left regarding "fairness for all", those same people somehow think that it is perfectly fair for person A to have a ten percent tax liability while saddling person B with a fifty percent burden. When depicted in simple language, the injustice is stark.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

For example, how is taking one tenth of one person's earnings and one half of another's considered "fair? Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described Socialist from Vermont, thinks that person B "has enough". Envy, sinful though it may be, is still the prerogative of the individual. But when that individual has the power of confiscation of others' property, it is a dangerous emotion.

What if that individual, in this case Bernie Sanders, should decide that person A also has enough? Who is to say that the person earning half of person A - or $50,000 annually - won't demand some of what person A earns?

The arrogance of our elected officials, Sanders included, in claiming that the government can't afford to allow the people to keep what they earn is stunning and frightening. It has actually gotten to the point where the federal government believes that all money is theirs, and we get some only through the grace of their magnanimity. What is truly frightening in that mindset is the fact that the federal government is insatiable in its need for more and more money.

They show virtually no fiscal restraint, believing that theirs is an endless supply of constituents' cash. Sadly, we have allowed that seed to germinate through passivity, or worse, active participation by an equally envious portion of the population. Those who have succumbed to the seductive notion of a Nanny State, and become conditioned to accept reliance and dependence, have aided and abetted the theft of a nation.

Worse yet, the philosophy of confiscatory Socialism - here in America - has comfortably emerged unashamed from the shadows, parading around like a proud peacock courting a mate. Once there was a time when the proponents of such policy were careful in how they chose to present the ideas, delicately avoiding the overt endorsement of anything Socialist or Communist.

No longer can that be said. Today, we have Bernie Sanders, a member of the United States Senate, proudly wearing the badge of Socialist, and unabashedly expounding on what he considers to be the virtues of such a system. Generation Y, having been subjected to two decades of deprivation of proper education and a healthy dose of counter indoctrination, proudly and ignorantly wear Che Guevara tee shirts and listen to a White House member extol the merits of Mao Tse Tung.

Is it any wonder that the pitchfork-and-torch-bearing mobs rally for the heads of the successful?

Sphere: Related Content

Beg, Borrow Or Steal

Despite the palpable erosion of moral values and personal pride in America, it is still true that a vast majority of the people, no matter their economic condition, have boundaries they will not cross. Borrowing has lost all of the stigma formerly attached to it, but people recoil at the notion of begging and - thankfully - persist in the realization that stealing is taboo. And while for some, when desperation allows for brief moments of unthinkable thoughts, they are still able to push them aside and not act on them to better their own circumstances.

How odd it is, then, that these same people feel no compulsion whatsoever to refuse the bounties bestowed on them by the government despite the fact that what they receive has been stolen from another. Worse yet is that the recipients actually encourage such behavior in the form of "taxing the rich".

One of my favorite stories of how to deal with the unscrupulous is the story of King Solomon, who was faced with a dilemma. Two women came to Solomon both claiming to be the mother of a baby, and asked the king to decide who should have the child. King Solomon summoned a soldier and ordered him to cut the baby in half so that each woman could have her share. The first woman agreed while the second, in horror, begged the king to give the child to the other woman in order to spare its life.

In his wisdom, Solomon knew instantly who the real mother was and declared that the second, merciful woman would have the child. Today I came across another story of a king whose wisdom and judgement is unassailable, and his lesson pertinent.

It was written in 1962 by a Fort Worth, Texas businessman named Lewis Love, and I found it on thefreemanonline.org, presented here in its entirety:

There once lived a king in a distant land—a just and wise old king, for he had observed and learned much about his people and about himself and his power. His people were free to go their way, and were fearful of the king and his soldiers, for his rule granted no privilege to one that was not a privilege to all equally. And they were free to petition their king and seek his wisdom in their affairs.

Thus there came one day to the royal court an artisan, a mason, and a beggar who was lame.

"O great and wise king," they cried, "we are sorely troubled with our plight." "I," said the artisan, "make many useful goods. I use great skill and labor long, and yet when I am finished, the people will not pay my price."

"And I," said the mason, "am a layer of stone for houses and fine walls, yet I am idle, for no one gives me work."

"I am a poor lame beggar," said the third man, "who seeks alms from those who pass, as they find it in their hearts to do so, but alms are so few as to be of great concern lest I perish."

"I can see that your trouble is great," consoled the king, "and what would you ask of me?"

Then, they spoke as a group, the artisan, the mason, and the beg-gar who was lame: "Your power is very great, our king, and you can make the people see the folly of their ways and aid us in our troubles."

"Perhaps," said the king, "perhaps my power is great, but I must use it wisely or it shall be lost." And he called to the captain of his guard.

"Bring forth three swords," he commanded, "one for each of these men, and instruct them in their use. These three shall go forth in the land and compel those who will not voluntarily deal with them to obey their command."

"No! no!" the three men called out, "this we did not ask. We are men of honor and could not set upon our fellow man to compel him to our will. This we cannot do. It is you, 0 king, who must use the power."

"You ask me to do that which you would not do because of honor?" questioned the king. "Is honor one thing to a beggar and another to a king? I, too, am an honorable man, and that which is dishonorable for you will never be less dishonorable for your king."

So it is, perhaps, that if those who cry most shrilly of the injustice of the wealthy were brought to the gates of the mansion and told to go up, knock on the door and demand cash, or go home without any further assistance from a third party, it would cause a bit more self reliance and less envy.

Just a thought...

Sphere: Related Content