Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 18th, 2011

“The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better himself”– Helmut Shoeck

“Envy is counting the other fellows blessings instead of your own”– Unknown

“Where you see valid achievements or virtue being attacked, it’s by someone viewing them as a mirror of their own inadequacy instead of an inspiring beacon for excellence.”– Vanna Bonta

“If you think spreading money around by force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone.”– Arthur C. Brooks 

From the pResident’s taxpayer-funded campaign stop “listening tour” stop in Alpha, Illinois this past Wednesday, comes this convenient exchange with a plant “student” with another question about fairness.

Q My question is about Social Security. I know that one of your ideas to fix the solvency of it is to reevaluate the equation that determines the COLA, the cost-of-living adjustment. But as the law stands right now, we are only taxed on the first $ 107,000 that we make.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q That means every dime that I make is taxed for Social Security.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q I don’t make $ 107,000. (Laughter.) But that means that—

THE PRESIDENT: Somebody said you will—

Q Someday, I hope.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you sound pretty smart. It sounds like you’re going to do just great.

Q Thanks. But that means that people like Mitt Romney only pay into Social Security on the first one-tenth of 1 percent of what they make.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q Can we look forward to you telling the Republicans that it’s time that the wealthy pay their fair share? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first—this is a very well-informed young man here. (Laughter.) You’re exactly right that the way the Social Security system works, there’s what’s called—there’s basically a cap on your Social Security, which there isn’t, by the way, on Medicare. But Social Security, it only goes up to the first $ 107,000; and you’re right, somebody who makes—who has net assets of $ 250 million and are making maybe $ 5 million a year just on interest or capital gains or something, just a fraction of it’s going to Social Security. I think there’s a way for us to make adjustments on the Social Security tax that would be fairer than the system that we use right now.

I do think, in terms of how we calculate inflation, that’s important as well.

Aside from the astonishing assertion that the pResident thinks, there is much that is revealing in both the question, and the answer.  While a FOX reported stated that this “student” was wearing a “Volunteer” tag, it doesn’t make me believe that he doesn’t believe in the essence of his question, that being that anyone who makes more than $107,00.00 a year is no longer “paying their fair share”.  Why do I believe this?  Because he is in the heart of the beast that is the system of higher indoctrination, where he is almost certainly surrounded by other mushy headed young people, most of whom have the luxury of living off of Mom and Dad’s money, as well as student loans, which are all guaranteed by Uncle Sugar.  In other words, they are fat, dumb, and happy on other people’s money.  Of course it would be only “fair” to make some people pay more if for no other reason than they make more.  The only difference between these students and the professors who constantly indoctrinate them is that someday, the students will have to actually start earning an honest living, and finally figure out that all that redistribution means that sooner or later, they have to pay, with little or no say over what is done with the product of their labor.  Add in the payments on those student loans, and a few of them may finally have some moments of clarity that override decades of brainwashing conducted by teachers, by professors, and by a complicit media. 

Further, the question is also believable based on the conflation between a tax for a specific purpose, i.e. FICA taxes, and taxes on income.  To be fair to the mushy head, since it is all taken from him, he may not have given much thought to the fact that there are different amounts deducted for different purposes on his pay advice, so it is understandable that he doesn’t look at a faltering economy, and an entitlement rushing towards insolvency at a breakneck pace and consider whether or not the government has any business providing the entitlement to begin with.  Instead, in a fashion that his professors would most assuredly be proud of, he instead concludes that the entitlement must be saved and that since that can only happen with massive infusions of cash, the rich must pay more, because there is a need.  What the “rich” might need is not a matter for consideration.  Unless today’s recipient receives far more than they ever paid in, this entitlement cannot possibly be “fair”.  And because he , and the OPM addicts in Congress and the White House perceive a need (to get reelected) the only possible solution is that other people must pay more into a system that hasn’t a hope of surviving according to current demographic data to begin with.  This only serves to illustrate that we have allowed entitlements to grow into envy, which has twisted the definition of what is “fair” from what used to be “what I earn is mine” into “what you earn is mine”, and transformed “want” into “need”, which is also determined by other people.  The result is a world where it is celebrated by a large part of the population when a candidate for President says “At some point, you’ve just earned enough money.” and when elected officials take it upon themselves to decide what you need, and scheme to confiscate and redistribute the rest, regardless of how much effort you may have put into earning it, and the fact that such an attitude discourages the kind of diligence that made it possible to earn in the first place all that they would take.

It isn’t just that the pResident and his envious groupies don’t have any real grasp on how capitalism works; it’s that we aren’t even speaking the same language as them anymore. 

The utopia they want to impose would fail.  History teaches us that there can be no other ending.  But rather than lingering on through the destruction and misery that their doomed-from-the-start experiment would bring, it would just be better if we decided to keep freedom, rather than surrendering it for whatever scraps the state would let us have.

Read Full Post »