From WashingtonExaminer.com
Slaves to the government dole
Examiner Editorial
May 26, 2010
Throughout our history, politicians and pundits have often said "America is at a crossroads." Sometimes it was true, as in the final convulsive years leading up to the Civil War when we decided to end slavery. New data on personal income, taxes and dependency makes clear that the country is again at a historic crossroad and another form of slavery is the central issue. There are no iron chains involved this time, but dependence on government for economic sustenance is no less an enslavement.
Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, USA Today reported Tuesday that the portion of personal income received from private sector paychecks declined to 41.9 percent, its lowest point ever, during the first quarter of 2010. The figure was 44.6 percent in December 2007 at the outset of the current recession and 47.6 percent in the first quarter of 2000. By contrast, the personal income received from government programs climbed to 17.9 percent. Add another 9.8 percent for government employee compensation and 27.7 percent of all personal income is derived from government sources. (The remaining 30.1 percent of personal income results from small-business proprietor profits, farm profits, privately funded pensions, investment sales and dividends, and insurance annuities.)
The problem is that government only redistributes income to dependent individuals after taking it from productive individuals, a process that is reflected in tax returns. As the Tax Foundation recently pointed out, 36 percent of all individual returns in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, showed no net tax liability. That is the highest level of non-paying tax filers in American history. As recently as 1990, only 21 percent of tax filers paid no levies. The result of this trend is that millions more Americans today pay nothing for the benefits they receive, which are paid for by productive taxpayers.
It's no surprise then that measures like the Heritage Foundation's Index of Dependency are curving steeply upward. Preliminary figures from Heritage's Center for Data Analysis show a 13.9 percent increase for 2009, the biggest single-year increase since 1962. The massive one-year jump in dependency -- indexed according to changes in government spending on housing, retirement, health and welfare, etc. -- was mainly caused by President Obama's unprecedented expansion of federal deficit spending and national debt through corporate bailouts and the economic stimulus program. But what happens when productive taxpayers can no longer pay enough taxes to support benefits promised by "progressive" politicians to dependent America? With European welfare states like Greece teetering on this threshold of collapse, our crossroad is whether to continue down the same road or to return to the path that once made us the freest and most prosperous country the world has ever seen.
The progressive model currently running the show has shown itself to be both defective and unjust. The Left will obviously disagree with this assessment, and will try to obfuscate and redirect attention to unrelated issues. But as one commenter stated: for the Left, the issue is not the issue; the issue is CONTROL. And the 'progressive' Left would rather gain complete control rather than ensure liberty for all. Liberty is counter to control. Liberty to the Left, therefore, is the enemy.
Yes, Eric. We hate liberty. I desire to be enslaved and I wish that for my children and their children, too.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, then, do you favor liberty when it comes to gay marriage and abortion? Or do you prefer CONTROL?
ReplyDeleteWow, Eric! You called it, didn't you?
ReplyDelete"The Left will obviously disagree with this assessment, and will try to obfuscate and redirect attention to unrelated issues."
And Dan obliged.
Again.
And I'll acknowledge Dan, Mark.
ReplyDeleteYes Dan, I favor liberty. I won't pretend to approve of gay marriage-- you know I don't; that I find it both abhorrent and abominable... as does God. BUT, yes, I favor liberty. I favor every gay individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As does God, I might add. He gave us all the liberty to choose for ourselves whom we will follow-- God's holiness or our own filthy lusts. I would prefer our government not redefine the definition of marriage for our society. Marriage-- BIBLICAL marriage --is defined as one man joined with one woman; this is the ONLY Biblical definition of marriage. But seeing as how my government doesn't give a rat's patootie what I or any other majority of American citizens think or want, what choice do I have? I prefer that gay marriage NOT be legal; it is an affront to God's holiness. But neither do I want any "gay" persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness curtailed. If they want to engage in a sham marriage? Fine. But personally speaking, I think by calling "gay marriage" equal to that of Biblical marriage, cheapens and denigrates the institution began by God in the garden of Eden, and affirmed by Christ himself in Matthew 19:4-5.
Abortion is not a matter of liberty-- no one has the right to commit murder. I would "control" that so-called "liberty" if I could. Control it, and abolish it.
But then, the issue of gay marriage is not the issue, is it Dan? The issue is whether or not America can survive what's coming, assuming entitlements, government union rolls, and the percentage of those with no net tax liability continue to rise.
ReplyDeleteLaugh if you wish, but when that last number reaches above 50% there will be a backlash the likes of which you never dreamed could happen, here, in the late great United States of America. We will be like Greece (many say we already are, but upon a much grander scale, and a much larger population to spread the impact... but how long will that last?). There will be rioting. There will be bloodshed. The government will step in, and what happens then? Our government, which had spent decades bilking the American people and padding its own corridors with power and perks, subjugating the very people they claim to represent? Like Thailand is subjugating its population? Government troops killing civilians in the street?
Say it can't happen here? Don't be so effing naive. You tell ME what will happen when the percentage of persons in America have no net tax liability? Will government force the productive to continue to support the moocher class? At the barrel of a gun? or threat of forfeiture? There will be a revolt. And it won't be pretty.
Don't tell me the evil rich will be made to pay their fair share! What about the 50% plus of Americans that will expect the government to continue taking care of them? At what point, Dan, do we adopt the very Biblical principle found in 2 Thessalonians 3:8,10? Because I'm here to tell you... at some point the 'evil rich' WILL pack up and leave... the country. Look how the evil filthy rich are fleeing California, New York, and Michigan-- to name but a few.
Obama was right to use the term 'fat cats' last year, but he misdirected the accusation. He should have turned that appellation to congress, the government employee unions, and government itself. It is they who are the real force for 'evil' in this country. That and near NOTHING else.
I need to clarify one sentence in that last comment....
ReplyDelete"You tell ME what will happen when the percentage of persons in America with no net tax liability rises above 50%?"
You DO know that the poor pay taxes, don't you? When they go to the store to shop, they pay taxes. If they drive a car and get gas, they pay taxes.
ReplyDeleteAnti-poor conservatives had a field day when a recent Tax Policy Center report claimed that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income tax. At face value, this statistic is one hundred percent true. But the assumption it generates — that poor people pay no taxes at all while rich benefactors finance their welfare programs — is not.
Courtesy of a new article by the Washington Post's Ezra Klein, we've got some facts in our lie-busting arsenal. Klein starts off by reminding us that anyone who makes an income pays income tax; those who qualify for tax credits, however, can end up receiving more money from the federal government than they paid in taxes, creating the impression that they're not paying any taxes at all. If conservatives are really upset that America's poor are earning more than they're spending come tax season, Klein explains, they should take issue with tax credits — not the income tax brackets.
But here's where Klein's argument gets really interesting. Why, he asks, are we focusing on federal income taxes in the first place? Citing an equally compelling article from Times reporter David Leonhardt, Klein quotes, "about three-quarters of all American households pay more in payroll taxes, which go toward Medicare and Social Security, than in income taxes."
Middle-class and poor Americans may not pay much in federal income taxes, but they more than make up for it with payroll — and, for that matter, state and local — taxes.
source
So, relax, the poor ARE paying, if that actually makes you feel better. EVERYONE is paying and some would argue that, pound for pound, the poor and working poor are paying MORE.
Mark...
ReplyDelete"The Left will obviously disagree with this assessment, and will try to obfuscate and redirect attention to unrelated issues."
And Dan obliged.
Obfuscate and redirect? You mean like making crazy claims that "liberals" DON'T LIKE liberty? That we consider it AN ENEMY? Does that really make sense to you? Think about what that is saying.
"Dan, who has two beloved children, does not want them to have liberty. Dan thinks that liberty is the enemy."
Do you really think that makes even a bit of sense? OR, is it a way of just obfuscating and redirecting?
"Do you really think that makes even a bit of sense?"
ReplyDeleteNo, Dan, it doesn't make sense. But then, you are senseless.
And it's reasonable on YOUR part to assume that I hate liberty?
ReplyDeleteYou're talking in circles and making no rational sense, M-dawg.
As a concept everyone is for "liberty" and against "control". You can tell when a bullshit artist starts up because they use these word in the unspecific tense. Because in real debates the words liberty and control always have preceding terms. So you get complex phrases like personal liberty or corporate control or environmental control. It's when you start to look at these specific complex variations of liberty and control that you really find out where each side favors.
ReplyDeleteIn broad general terms liberals favor personal social liberty (See how I used two defining terms?) and corporate control. While conservatives favor corporate liberty and personal, sexual control.
Anyone who actually believed "the 'progressive' Left would rather gain complete control rather than ensure liberty for all. Liberty is counter to control. Liberty to the Left, therefore, is the enemy." is only hearing the voices of talk radio echoing inside his head. He doesn't actually think about politics.
And of course this whole premise is belied by the fact that under the previous administration a Medicare drug benefit and large tax cut were enacted without any plan for payment.
ReplyDeleteEvery time there discussion of a tax increase for businesses and corporations, Conservative go into a hand-wringing conniption, "Oh the company is just going to pass the cost onto consumers! Why are you taking money from tax payers? It doesn't do anything!" But when conservatives want to give tax breaks to business and Wall Street perhaps liberals should be kicking up more of a fuss? Don't you know that tax breaks and loopholes for businesses takes money away from tax payers too?
"...is only hearing the voices of talk radio echoing inside his head."
ReplyDeleteTo which I repeat: "The Left will obviously disagree with this assessment, and will try to obfuscate and redirect attention to unrelated issues."
You don't like the message so you attack the messenger. This isn't about what any talk radio host believes... it's what I believe. That argument is getting old.
The previous administration, by the way, was WRONG on the Medicare drug benefit. It costs too much. We can't afford it. Especially with Obamacare looming on the horizon-- assuming it isn't repealed before the worst parts are implemented.
And lastly, to both reiterate and expand, taking a quote from a [my] future post,
The modus operandi for the Left (read, Obama supporters), is to 1) 'kill the messenger' (mock the source); 2) disregard human nature (appealing to an unrealistic measure of truthfulness and altruism believed present in the people they adore; absent in those they despise); 3) question their opponents intellectual acumen. Yet in all this they fail to establish their own qualifications for superiority-- calling another's argument 'crazy' proves nothing.
So, I am nonplussed by anyone's charge that I am 'crazy,' a 'racist,' or what-have-you. The simple truth is my mind is as sharp as theirs-- perhaps sharper --they simply don't like the message, the messenger, and they don't like anything that challenges their paradigm. This makes them ideologically rigid-- inflexible --and as such incapable of critical thought, let alone debate. And their hypocrisy is unbecoming.
Here's something to read on the Medicare Drug Benefit from 2005 that is on course to meet or exceed its criticism.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Dan... no one claims the poor do not pay taxes at the check out line and in any number of other ways. I'm talking net tax liability-- in terms of tax returns --the amount of taxes the poor ACTUALLY end up paying... after their tax return. The number of people who "get it all back and then some" is approaching 50%. How do you think redistribution of wealth occurs? Through our progressive system of taxation, via liberal tenets of 'bilking the evil rich' and the so-called 'earned income credit'. Penalize the producers to coddle the 'have nots, because they do naught.'
ReplyDeleteThe question was, what happens when that number reaches and exceeds the 50% mark? I can promise you this much... the party that promises to never stop the gravy train (i.e., Democrats, government employee unions, etc.) will never have to worry about losing power again...
That is, until the revolt begins. Again, you're crazy if you think it can't happen in America. Also, you haven't told us how abhorrent I am for suggesting America's need to adopt the principles espoused in 2 Thessalonians 3:8,10.
I can't think of more meaningful work than that performed to feed and cloth oneself and his family. Now THERE is Godly work. God told Adam...
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Do you think we are any better than Adam? Is there reason why any group of "achievers" should be forced to supply any group of "unachievers" with livelihood? God never taught this. Nor did Jesus.
Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will; until Jesus establishes his kingdom. Look at what he said about these so-called "unachievers"...
continued....
continuing....
ReplyDeleteFor the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Matthew 25:14-29
Yes... we should help the poor... be a blessing to them. But responsibility comes with that help. From the giver? Never give a drunk $20 bucks and think you've helped him. From the recipient? Never think that because someone has given you $20 bucks that everyone who walks by should be as generous, or at all giving.
If you want to eat, you must work.
I don't support government sponsored theft in the form of unjust taxation of achievers to supply the penurious with an unworked-for living.
Do you you see the unjustness of Jesus? To take away everything the poor servant had, giving it to the one who had a lot?
ReplyDeleteThat is how the Lord rewards slothfulness and laziness.
He deals with each of us according to the measure by which he has given us.
Do you think the poor are without hope of rising out of poverty?
What holds them back?
No one holds him back but himself. That, and the government that tells him he doesn't have to work because it's going to make the rich pay for everything.