Well, it's true that no man is an island. I don't think anyone thinks he or she is. However, his point, which is that Government provided things like roads, schools, etc lead to the success of the business owner has a few flaws. It is true that businesses need some of the things the government provides to succeed. But it is also true that no roads, schools, government research exist without successful people paying taxes. The government is penniless without tax revenues from those people who've taken the resources around them and made a successful business of them. He went on to say: "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." Again, true. But can you name a wealthy person of business owner who is desirous of getting rid of firefighters? This is a straw-man argument by a man with little to offer as his own success.
If the federal government were merely paying for the essential services like post, security, defense, roads, and infrastructure, we wouldn't even be talking about raising taxes. The success of American business would be plenty to take care of the government revenues. It is because the government wishes to take money from the rich to put into it's own partisan interests that makes the need for more taxes exist in the first place. I can tell you, no business needed the EPA to regulate a form of fuel that does not even exist to succeed. No wealthy person got wealthy because the federal government decided to enact absurd regulations on American Education.
No one is arguing that we should not pay taxes. Taxes are necessary. Even the Founding Fathers knew this. But calling for more taxes from the group of people who are paying for everything to begin with and then calling them "greedy" or "unpatriotic" is laughable. What is a "fair share"? Should the top tax bracket be paying 90% of their income? Would that be a "fair share"? Should the percentage of people not paying income tax rise to 60 or 70%? Would that be a "fair share"? This class warfare is based on no truth whatsoever.
Furthermore, why would anyone want to pay more into a system that is completely corrupt? Would anyone wish to give money to someone that takes 3/4 of that money and flushes it down the toilet? Of course not. So, why should anyone want to give more money to the government? Why does "giving back" have to mean "giving to the government"? We all know how inefficient the government is. For every $1 they spend on something at least 60 cents of it goes to red tape and bureaucracy. Couldn't money be better spent "paying it forward" to charities or private non-profits that actually help people?
This sort of socialist rhetoric is false and insulting. Telling someone who worked hard and created a successful business that they owe their success to the government is, frankly, bullshit. They pay their taxes, which are far higher than anyone else's, and have the right to take in the profit that they made by taking the resources around them and making something useful out of them. Stop with the class warfare, Obama, and start coming up with REAL solutions to our problems. You'll get nothing accomplished unless you scale back the out of control spending and the mentality that the government is the savior, here to fix all of our problems.
2 comments:
This populism is cheap socialist politics.
Socialists love to gloss over the fact that the revenues they are sitting on represent hundreds of billions of dollars from the hard-workers of the country.
I think tax increases are at times justified. But I also believe that governments should do everything possible to avoid any increases first.
I've heard many good arguements on this speech. I've not heard anyone mention these facts: The government doesn't really pay for anything, as it's not their money. Every penny the Gov spends was taken from someone who made money on SOMETHING, or sold something.
Also, he is not saying that those business people had exclusive use of the bridges. Everyone used the bridges, so everyone should be taxed for them to be built. Now, hold on a second here... Why is the FED building bridges? Can't local govs do it? Interesting...
Oh, and another thing... Why is it the default position of these liberal weenies that nothing can happen without federal money? i.e. that bridge would NEVER have been built if not for federal money. Really? No state has ever built a bridge without help AND also no state COULD ever build a bridge without federal help? REALLY?
The liberals always want to accuse the conservatives of not wanting (some service) at all, if we simply say the fed should not be doing it.
Why is Obama talking about firefighters? Is there a federal firefighting dept? Firefighting is a LOCAL concern, not a federal one. Oh, the lib-tards will say that since the local FFs get federal dollars, the fed now has the right to dictate something to those departments. Just because I gave my neighbor a $20 bill doesn't mean I now get to tell him how to run his household. I guess the feds don't see it that way....
I could go on, but this is TOO easy...
Post a Comment