By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to reports, one in every two Americans are poor. Under Obama's historic leadership people are losing sight of the American dream. The fact is, a majority of these people are not poor when they are compared to the standard of poverty presented by the rest of the world. The decision that these folks are poor is based on the fact that they receive some kind of assistance from the federal government, be it food stamps, welfare, or other entitlements.
The democrats will tell you that our National Debt is increasing because there is not enough revenue, and to make up that gap the rich needs to be soaked with higher taxes. 49.5% of folks, as a result, pays no income tax. I don't believe we have a revenue problem, it is a spending problem, but going with the liberal left's argument that it is a revenue problem, then how do they explain that they support only half of Americans paying income tax? If, using their argument that everyone should pay their fair share, why does the democrats find it okay that half of Americans don't when it comes to taxes?
The Founding Fathers believed that government is not a charitable organization, and that there should be no "direct" taxes. Prior to 1900 the federal government's spending was between three and four percent of GDP. Currently, if we were to eliminate all unconstitutional federal spending the current federal spending would be about 5% of GDP. The problem is not revenue, it is spending, but the liberal left democrats tell you it is a revenue problem for the purpose of creating class warfare between the rich and the not-so-rich, and to buy votes.
During the era of this nation's founding, only property owners were allowed to vote. This was a decision of the States, since it is the States that constitutionally have the power to prescribe the times, places and manner of holding elections. The idea was that only folks with skin in the game should be able to vote. As property owners, these people were the ones with the most banking on who was elected. If a voter does not have skin in the game, but is only concerned with what hand-out they get from government, their vote can be bought with the promise of more gifts from the federal treasury. These voters won't care about any other issue. They won't vote based on where the politician stands on the issue. All they care about is that their promised money continues. . . and what this does is open up the opportunity for buying votes, and for abuse of the system.
Also, the poor in America, on a global standard, are hardly poor. A friend of mine who was raised in the Ukraine during the Soviet Union years, came to America in 1978. Arkady was invited for dinner with a "poor" family in Houston, Texas when he first came to the United States. The woman in the house was telling him how difficult it was for them, living in poverty. Arkady remarked that they were not in poverty. They had a car in the driveway, televisions, ample food, a roof over their heads, pocket change on the counter. Poverty, he continued, was in his childhood when they had one pair of shoes for the whole family.
As a new American, Arkady's first job was pumping gas at a service station. In the Soviet Union Arkady was an engineer with a degree from a Russian University, and an engineer so important that he had worked on confidential projects for the Soviet Government. Yet, despite his status and education in the Ukraine, he made more money in America as a gas station attendant.
The number of people dependent on the government has been increasing rapidly under President Obama, and that is the goal. They want to buy the votes of these Americans. The democrat accuse the republicans of wanting to take away the entitlements, which is a method of buying votes. But how long can a system last when half of the people depend on the system, and that is paid for the other half, of which the number is dwindling because of the confiscatory taxes used to fund the entitlements?
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and the way to fix it, or at least one of the avenues that can be used, is entitlement reform. Rather than telling Americans, "You are unable to take care of yourselves so we'll pay you to stay poor," I would rather the government say, "You are able to take care of yourselves, and to help you with your opportunity to pursue happiness, we will decrease taxes, and reduce the obstacles standing in your way by cutting regulations against the businesses that would love to hire you."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling government debt - U.K. Daily Mail
'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income - MSNBC
THOMAS SOWELL: Cutting entitlement programs does not mean poor will suffer - Standard Times
Report: Disability Claims Soar as Jobless Benefits Run Out - Newsroom America
U.S. Federal Debt by Year - Charts Tables History
No comments:
Post a Comment