The following has been attributed to Alexander Tytler but whoever wrote it, it seems to be where we're headed: A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. -Benjamin Franklin
However when they lose in speculation, the single woman with 2 kids working $10/hr is the one who will be taxed more to pay off the elites speculative losses. The capitalist systems core is rotten, the only solution is massive destruction of this hidden wealth. Either put these trust fund elite on the streets begging or put them back to productive work. What's a woman who makes only $10 an hour doing with 2 kids? That kind of stupidity is far more destructive than any banker since it is multiplied by about 30 million.
No solution is going to be fair. Yes, I hate going to work so that I can subsidize freeloaders. But I think we have to face facts. 1. There will always be people who borrow money they can't pay back, have children they can't support, and believe they are entitled to sit on the couch and smoke crack while the rest of us punch the alarm and go work every day. This is not going to change. Further, those people are multiplying faster than the rest of us, so there will continue to be more and more of them. 2. The government will always rob from the rich and give to the poor. Numbers are how you get elected. There aren't enough rich people to elect anyone. 3. There is a personal safety issue. If the haves don't hand something over (via the government) to the have nots, the have nots will come to your house and take your shit. You and your family may get hurt in the process. So, the lesser of two evils (or maybe of several evils) may be to bend over and get screwed by those who are getting a free ride. If it calms down the angry masses, helps the economy recover a bit faster than the laissez faire approach, and keeps the dirtballs way on the other side of the tracks from my house, I think I may ultimately be better off than I would have been without it. It is pointless to argue about whether this is right or wrong. Yes, I think it's wrong. But we have to move from the realm of theory to that of reality. If you have to pass by an angry dog every day, you won't remedy your situation by arguing that someone should have tied the dog up. Your best bet is to throw a steak at it that will allow you to slink by, and then get on with your life. Mary
That's a poor solution but workable until you run out of steak. We have run out of steak. Time to summmon up the courage to train the dog, if we had done so when he was a pup we wouldn't have wasted so much steak.
This is a very good post. Don't forget that the current code gives Congress large amounts of power (through creating tax credits, deductibles, etc) that they would otherwise NOT have if we were to go to a "fair tax". Another reason why Ron Paul, despite being a real fiscal conservative, is absolutely unelectable (ie abolish IRS).
No, your best bet is to put the dog in a cage. So you would have us tolerate crime and cower while the inmates take over the asylum? Get a grip and a backbone.
I am sure you realize that the price of putting the dog in a cage is much higher than what we are doing. Imprisoning someone for a year is much more expensive than throwing a few food stamps and Section 8 subsidies at them. Just being realistic.