TruPolitics Podcast Episode 3: G-20; Economy; Islam; Independence Day
July 25, 2010 21 Comments
The third TruPolitics podcast episode. Episode 3 takes a look at: President Obama’s statements from the G-20 Summit; Fiscal policy to spur economic growth; The challenge of Islam; A local government lesson from Indepdence Day. The best way to listen to the podcast is directly through iTunes. Seach “TruPolitics” and hit “Subscribe.” Or, you can download by hitting “save” here:
TruPolitics Podcast Episode 3: G-20; Economy; Islam; Independence Day
**Download and subscribe through iTunes as well**
Hey,
itunes is a much easier way to listen to the podcasts, the in browser player does not work very well. You ended with the fireworks discussion again and it still bothers me a little that cutting the fireworks is considered a huge success and brilliant display of liberty. I know I commented on this before and as I mentioned last time I don’t really disagree with your decision, but I wanted to pick your brain a little more. Would it be considered a success if all programs that are not “essential” and are payed for by taxes were eliminated? If so, it sounds like a town I don’t want to live in. Clearly you don’t let the citizens decide everything for themselves (then you wouldn’t have this new job) and clearly you can’t pay for everything, so its just a matter of where you draw that line, and personally I still think where you would place the line and where I would place the line are pretty close, hardly the difference between liberty and tyranny. It’s just a difference of opinion, I gladly pay taxes to live in a town, state, country that uses the money to enrich the community. That belief of mine has not changed despite being brought into question many times by your words.
Along those lines, the topics about spending and economics make sense. You mention that the Clinton administration was great at this even though he was a democrat (to me it seems like although this is considered a conservative practice, it is something democrats do just as well, or poorly, as republicans, although I am certainly no historian). Anyway, didn’t the poor love Clinton? He must have kept many liberal policies and social programs alive to keep the poor and democrats in general happy. Perhaps I’m wrong here, but the way you put it makes it sound like liberal policies and fiscal responsibility are incompatible. Also I’ve heard many republicans say, “despite all the bad things Clinton did ….”, but I’ve never actually heard any specifics …. so what were some of the bad things he did? I realized now I kind of rambled but if you could find time to answer some of these questions (I know you are a busy guy) that would be great.
Dan,
To answer your first question, I do believe that all “non-essential” programs paid for by taxpayers should be eliminated from government oversight or ownership. But let me stress something: Those programs should all be discontinued, per se. Many have merit, or belong in the private sector or with charities.
To make it simple, consider food stamps. The government issues food stamps to citizens that qualify based on a very low level of income etc. In order to do this, government pays a worker to review the application, a supervisor to review the work of the first worker, a manager to manage a department of supervisors, etc. The paperwork is then sent through a massive bureaucracy, and the food stamps are physically issued by another worker. All of this is paid for by taxpayers, to the benefit of a small group of citizens.
Now consider a charitable food bank. Here, volunteers collect food from private donors (including companies–my company just gave close to 1 million cans to local food banks as part of a great charity drive), and distribute food free of charge to those in need. There is much less bureaucracy, and any that exists is not a cost to taxpayers—it is simply a cost of time to volunteers who have given their time willingly.
What’s the difference between the two? Choice. For food stamps, government has chosen to take your money and give it to others that the government deems “in need.” Many of those people may indeed need the food stamps. Many, however, could also have avoided their situation through hard work or by making proper choices. Regardless, government action has forced you to pay for someone else. The food bank, by contrast, allows you to give of your own volition—it is the definition of charity through choice. The freedom to choose how your hard earned money–the product of your labor and careful saving–is spent, is a critical part of liberty. You are free from government control, and you can choose where your money goes.
I don’t believe in anarchy (no government), and I’m not a libertarian (exceptionally little government). Rather, I believe the government should be Constitutionally limited, and should only provide what only it can provide: National defense; the rule of law; domestic safety/protection (police, fire, emergency services); resolution of interstate conflicts; maintenance of shared services (roads etc.); regulation of industry (a “referee” to the free market; zoning). Outside of that, I believe government (including me as an elected official) has no place.
Briefly, on your question on economics and Clinton. You are right, Republicans and Democrats can both do well and very poorly on economics. I’ve attacked President Bush’s spend-heavy philosophy as much as I’ve attacked President Obama’s. I care very little about party affiliation, and I try to stray away from partisan rhetoric as much as possible. I only care about doing what’s right. To me, that’s conservatism. President Clinton and/or the Republican Congress under him (led by Gingrich) was decidedly fiscally conservative. It paid off hugely for the nation. For what Clinton did poorly, the list is long, but the main highlights are as follows: Poor national defense and international policy (read Bob Woodward’s Bush at War to see how weak he was on terrorist prevention etc.); Lying to the American people and to Congress in the Lewinsky scandle (I believe this, along with President Nixon, has taken away respect from the White House and led to widespread mistrust of our leaders); Weak judicial appointments as all levels. The list goes on. Like all Presidents, he made a lot of mistakes. But, he did a great job with the economy, and I wanted to highlight how his fiscal conservatism should be emulated.
I see your point but just like you don’t exactly have faith in the government, I guess don’t really have faith in people as a whole. I imagine that food stamps was not some policy created out of the blue, but rather it was created out of necessity. Sure, I donate to charity when I can (I don’t exactly have an income right now) but is it enough? Is money going to people with different needs? I know plenty of people that WOULD NOT donate to charity because they feel that the poor got themselves in this situation. I think if we left taking care of each other to ourselves, our country would be in big trouble.
Thanks for addressing the Clinton issues … I was not aware of what people considered his flaws (besides the Lewinsky scandal of course). I know that obama is spending a lot, but you said something about liberalism being about social programs etc and not about the economy. Didn’t Clinton prove that you can do both? Or did paying for these things come at the expense of things like defense that you mentioned above? The reason I ask is because I believe that many social programs you want eliminated should stay in place. I think thats what a country should do to a certain extent. Now, if you can’t pay for it without absurd taxes, thats the reason for not doing it; however, I’m not convinced that these things can’t be paid for.
Dan,
The point you make is, to me, the best argument from progressives/liberals, and a place for honest disagreement with conservatives. I’ve seen this argument put this way: Since individuals and society as a whole will never step up to defend the less fortunate, the government must do so through programming.
Where this idea breaks down for me and most conservatives is in two places. First is the idea of liberty, which we’ve discussed often on this site. To reiterate, forcefully taking from some in order to give to others that the government deems “in need” restricts the property rights, earning rights, and liberty/freedom to choose. We’ve hit on this a lot, but I tried to lay it out clearly in three articles with analogies: “Robin Hood Government,” “Casey at the Bat: A Redistribution Parable,” and “Mr. and Mrs. Smith: A Redistribution Parable.” I’m curious as to your thoughts on those articles.
The second departure comes in the idea of human nature and the place that faith can play. First, liberalism places great faith in government. It holds that central planners, elites, and bureaucrats can create a utopian society that eliminates or at least minimizes societal issues. Let government actively control or readjust society, and it will be more fair, more balanced, and more prosperous. Keep in mind that this was the same philosophy underpinning Karl Marx and various Communist countries from China to the Soviet Union. It’s never worked. In fact, China, India, and Russia have all seen tremendous growth since beginning to embrace free market principles. Essentially, conservatives place great faith in the markets and in individuals. Liberals feel individuals can’t create economic prosperity as a whole, nor can all take advantage of opportunity through hard work. Conservatives differ greatly, and I believe the data backs up the idea of broad economic growth through less government intervention.
On the role of faith, as I wrote in “The Politics of Compassion,” I believe there is a place for charity and giving in society. I just don’t think that place is with government. In fact, neither did Jesus, or for that matter, most other major religious figures. Charity can come only from the individual through love and sacrifice. Society will always have the poor, but it is the responsibility of the church or of individuals to care for them freely, not the government. As a Christian, I think it’s clear from Biblical text that Jesus/God knew that neither government or society as a whole would care for those in need effectively; that’s why you need the church.
Conservatism is often painted as a philosophy of “we don’t care about you or the less fortunate, just ourselves,” while liberalism seeks to take the moral high ground (i.e. Howard Dean: “In contradistinction to the Republicans … (Democrats) don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night”). But, I view it quite differently. Conservatism allows for liberty and the pursuit of success for all. It also leaves open the chance for charity through the private sector. Liberalism, by contrast, forces money away from some into the hands of others as dictated by a small group of bureaucrats. It chokes out individual choice.
But aside from all of that, even if you discount the role of religion or the nature of man, the power of free markets has shown to be the rising tide that carries all ships. That is best for the whole of society, and a far better way to care for the poor.
There is no easy answer here, and there are drawbacks to both philosophies. With conservatism, you will never have all of the poor cared for or an immense rebalancing of society. But, you allow for opportunity, allow for the human right to liberty and property, and create through free markets a rising tide that carries all ships (just compare U.S. standard of living to the rest of the world, especially those countries with strong central planning or socialist governments). If you pair this effectively with faith-based initiatives in the private sector, poverty falls away. In the end, these are all important questions, and I’m glad we can engage in this type of dialogue.
Dan,
You make a good point about the moral failings of the general scope of people, when you doubt their willingness to step up in order to take care of the poor. However, the conclusions you draw contradict this realization. Liberalism in all its forms is based upon the assumption that people are good in their core. That’s why the social programs are viewed as necessary, because if everyone is good then obviously all of the poor were just unlucky getting there, and with a little help they’ll become productive members of society. This thinking has been proven false throughout all of history, when despite what may be a good intentioned government agent tries to help the less fortunate, he/she ends up subsidizing the selfishness within the people.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ever help the poor, but if you talk to any social worker (or anyone who works with the poor) I garuntee you that they will be able to tell you many stories about people who’s entire lives revolve around receiving government money. The inability of the government to discriminate between individuals (I know discriminate can be a loaded term associated with racism, age, gender, but here it is used in the general sense) is its failing. They are unable to discriminate between those who need temporary help through some event that happened against those who are milking the system. Inevitably, when people see the success of the latter, society begins to crumble as it becomes mimicked.
A second aspect that liberalism is based upon is closely related. It began is Rousseau’s theory of the social contract. America was built upon Locke’s theory, in that the state is meant to protect individuals’ sovereignty, whereas Rousseau believed individuals give up their rights to the community and its success. This is extremely dangerous, I think–downright terrifying. Even if you believe our president is a noble man who would truly provide peace and prosperity if we gave our rights over to him, eventually there will be a Bush (or insert a different guy that you hate), who would rule with tyranny. Just as Castro (or any 2nd world leader) has appeared to be the peoples’ hero, he then oppresses them when power is acheived. These social programs trample upon the sovereignty of the individual in the country and slowly replaces freedom with being “good for the country/community/etc.” I personally do not want to give up my freedom to any government official, do you? Who do you trust enough to say that they can claim your freedom as long as the “promise” to work it out for everyone? We too easily allow the government to take from those that are richer than we are, but we have to consider its attempt to take the sovereignty not just of them, but of all people.
I started writing this big long paragraph but then I realize its more of the same. Basically, you’re right. There is no easy answer and there are drawbacks to both. However, I’d rather err on the one side, while you would rather err on the other side.
The problem I have is with the third paragraph. Nobody wants communism, or everybody to be equal, and nothing is going to end up fair and perfect. I don’t see that as the goal, the goal is just to take care of your fellow citizens that are in need. I know we don’t agree on how to provide that help, but nobody wants what you said. Also, I don’t get why you always bring up economic growth when discussing topics like using tax dollars to help people. They seem different to me … I know these programs were in place to help people when Clinton was in office and you said the economy was great and growing then. I don’t understand why those ideals of opportunity and economic growth can’t be paired with helping the needy through tax dollars.
First, to AJ, gotta’ love bringing in Locke and Rousseau. Many people overlook the key distinction between the two, and that Locke was the ultimate father of thought for our Founders. Well put.
Dan, I’m with you–we are both hoping for the same end of a prosperous society that also cares for those in need. It is just a matter of how you get there. To me, government control, or big government spending and planning through programs is not the answer both because of concerns over liberty/freedom and because it simply has not ever worked effecitvely. My point with economic growth is to tie the two together.
So, if you are viewing it from a philosophical lense, small government means greater liberty for individuals. It’s why our nation was founded and woven into the fabric of who we are. We have a Constitution because our Founders realized those in power always want more power, and that always means bigger government. They wanted to keep this from happening and defend certain unalieable rights.
If you are viewing this from a practical lense, small government allows free markets to flourish. Less government spending means lower taxes and a balanced budget. The combination encourages consumption, investment, hiring, entrepreneurship etc. You can check out Alesina’s Harvard study, or hundreds others on the impact of permanent tax cuts to help grow the economy. You can contrast the success of the American capitalist system (which I believe needs some regulation; not just a totally free and reckless market; have government be the referee) with the failure of central planning states like China and Russia (as I previously mentioned).
These ideas intersect and matter to our current discussion because overall economic growth raises the quality of life for the society as a whole. This allows for better private sector charity, cleaner streets, more food supply, technology, and healthcare. Again, simply compare our standard of life, even amongst those below our poverty line, to those in other nations that have chosen central government control. So, the best way to care for the poor is have a free, open society that carries all ships.
As for Clinton, there were certainly programs in place when he was in office. But, he was a major champion of welfare reform, asking people to prove they were looking for a job etc. He also embraced fiscal conservatism. You are saying, “why not use the Clinton model and embrace both?” Well, that’d make you a fiscal conservative and a social progressive/liberal. Which makes you moderate; that, however, is a far departure from the current administration and many, many liberal thinkers.
More to the point, however, is the question of where do you stop? Who deserves help? Who has the right to others’ money? That is a very tough question to answer, even for liberals. You can argue that government should help those who literally had no choice in their own difficult position: Children (through healthcare and public education) and the disabled. I’m okay with that. Beyond that group, however, what about someone who chose to party in high school, not go to college, and got fired from their job because they went out drinking? Do they deserve a welfare check even if they are looking for a new job? Do they deserve the money of people who have consistently tried to make the right choices and work hard for their families? I don’t think so, but that’s an important debate to have. I fear that most government programs and spending become a slippery slope very fast.
Dan, I’d love to know what programs you think should be in place. Or, what programs the moderate progressive movement think should be in place. Are the justified by the Constitution? If so, how so? If not, why doesn’t the Constitution matter? I’m honestly interested and would love to hear either directly from you or from someone else you can find that’s written on this issue. I’m open–I always want to understand the other side, and I think it’d benefit our readership. Look forward to hearing from you.
To respond quickly, since I didn’t see your comment, I understand that people will take advantage of the system and I believe that although people are good, people are also inherently a little selfish. You say the government can’t discriminate between who really needs the help and who is milking the system … how is that not true for any form of charity? How do you know what the people that come to the local soup kitchen do when they go home? That’s going to always be an unfortunate problem.
And again I don’t really see my freedoms being destroyed here. Not afraid of any tyrannical leaders and masterful schemes to reach power and rule the world.
Dan,
The difference with charity is that it is by choice. So, if someone milks the system after I freely decide to volunteer at or give money to the soup kitchen, it’s a risk I’ve chosen to take. With taxes, I have no choice.
My responses are all one behind so hopefully nobody posts while I’m typing. Regarding your last statement, I understand your point, I was trying to comment on what A.J said about that being the failure of the government.
Ok so maybe I’m more moderate than I thought … but does government really have the intention to spend infinitely more money than we could ever have? I know Obama is currently spending a lot, but it doesn’t seem like anybody could have that as their plan. I feel like some presidents find spending money necessary in some circumstances but in the end would like to even out the budget. I know liberalism is usually more spending and bigger government, but I don’t see how the philosophy includes spending more money than we have all the time. Isn’t the difference in spending between liberals and conservatives the difference between the social aspects, which apparently Clinton could pay for and still create a great economy? I mean is anybody that is socially liberal but thinks we shouldn’t go into infinite amounts of debt actually moderate, and true liberals want social programs and debt? I don’t know, I don’t get it, I kind of rambled but hopefully you can see my point through all of that.
And your example of the alcoholic I think is a little unfair. Can you even collect welfare if you get fired for that reason? Anyway even if you can, thats just one example. You can throw around what if’s all day, but I think the biggest one to consider is what if it was me that couldn’t find a job, or what if it was me that couldn’t go to college? Sure its a slippery slope and we should be careful, but when I think greatest country in the world, I think of stuff like that.
You question about programs is a good one because honestly, I don’t know as much as a should. Things like healthcare, welfare, social security etc I’m fairly confident I’m for. Are these things perfect? Probably not, but I can’t imagine there isn’t a way to implement these ideas successfully (excuse the double negative). Again I would rather err on the side of too much than too little. As far as if they are constitutional or not …. I know what you think is constitutional or not, so by your standards, no. But I read the preamble and I read this part “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”, and I know that general welfare is concerning the health, happiness, and prosperity of the people … I honestly don’t see why its not.
Charity is also different because it is small, localized, and without 8 billion bureaucrats. Most charity workers, actually get to know the people they are helping and can help them on an individual basis.
From a practical standpoint, this is important because it allows a true difference to be made in their lives. The government cannot, does not, and will never give the truly poor hope. Not real hope anyway. I thought momentarily that perhaps our current president could do that within the black community especially when teachers would talk about the “Obama effect” in children’s work, but that optimism was merely naivete when a few months after the election the gap between white and black students in the classroom widened once more.
Hope is what allows the poor to succeed, not money nor race. Without hope, the jobless or underemployed stop trying. Without hope, poor people spend any extra cash on $130 pair of Jordan’s. Without hope, kids don’t stay in school. The government in all of its programs have not and are incapable of producing such hope and instead of affirming the imago dei of the poor, it condescends them with handouts. It does not treat them as people, but peasants in need of their government savior.
No, true charity does not do this. Charity in the truest sense (it was once a synonym for love) does not demean or coddle the person, but true charity builds up the person to stand on their own.
Also in regards to the Clinton Welfare reform, the biggest difference was that prior it was set up that if they gained an extra $100 at their job, they could lose $1000 in help. It was so nonsensically put together that people were turning down raises and promotions because they would lose money.
Finally, the reason that one side is liberty and the other tyranny is not because there are a couple disagreements between the two sides, but that the two sides have completely opposing views on the sovereignty of the individual. Those who come from Rousseau, believe that the person gives of their sovereignty to the state. Though how this plays out may seem small now, the underlying mindset of the people working for the government and not the government working for the people is what makes all the forms of Rousseau’s thought (liberlism, progressivism, socialism, faschism, nazism, communism, etc.) based upon the tyrannical assumption that the political class has the right to rule over us “peasants.” It’s this assumption whether it be played out with a penny tax on tea or with many of the current administration’s programs is worth fighting over…its worthy dying over.
I agree with your thoughts on charity, I just don’t think it works on a large scale. There are many people that simply don’t care about the poor, actually hate the poor, or people that say that they would help, but really wouldn’t, even if they “wanted” to.
I would just like to pose this question to you guys. Let’s say we got a new president next term and he/she said that in X amount of years there will be no welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare, public schools, or any other program you say takes our liberty. You really think our country would flourish and not hit bottom? Sometimes you say liberals are trying to have a utopian society … personally the world you describe sounds even more unrealistic.
AJ and Dan,
If you both don’t mind, we’ll probably grab some of these quotes for the next podcast, so expect them to be read on air. This discussion has been so good, and is so important, I want more people to hear about it. Good stuff.
I just thought of this on my way home … it is late so maybe I’ll wake up in the morning and wonder what I was thinking. Many times when you make your arguments you pin the good hard working people against the slackers. I know you use this because its an extreme example and helps make your point, but lets say there were no slackers … everybody worked their hardest and achieved their maximum potential. We are still going to have people working at Mcdonalds, washing bathrooms, pumping our gas (yay NJ), because those are jobs that need to be done. Not everyone can be a lawyer, business owner or engineer. There will always be people at the bottom of the ladder and the history of how they got there is irrelevant.
Now I recognize this doesn’t punch a hole in your point. It’s still a matter of liberty and the right to chose, etc, but trying to make it seem like good guys vs bad guys doesn’t really make sense. Just a thought, because I hear it put that way a lot, when in reality it doesn’t matter.
Dan, I will be working through your arguments chiastically.
In reference to your hypothetical where everyone works their hardest, some people are going to have to do crappy jobs. This is certainly true, but it is true that nobody starts at the top. The crappy jobs are given to high school kids or perhaps college kids. You probably wouldn’t have the 40 year old as a McD’s cashier, especially if everyone worked their hardest, so many more jobs would be available.
My second response is that Capitalism is an economic system created for the real world and not a hypothetical one–Another essential difference between it and socialism (which assumes if everyone is treated as economical equals they will produce their best).
Thirdly, it certainly does matter how someone gets there. I heard a story on a financial advice radio show last night where a woman’s brother has been unemployed and is on the verge of losing his apartment that he and his wife (not sure about kids) lived in. She was so empathetic about the situation, but when pressed about it she told how he did find a job for 3.5 hours, but walked out because they asked him to cut his hair. What kind of man on the brink of eviction walks out because they ask him to cut his hair? I agree with the radio host that to bail this guy out is like giving a drunk a drink, you’re just exacerbating the problem as an enabler. To truly be ethical in your approach to giving you have to discriminate (obviously not based on race and generally not based upon gender and stuff, but upon the how/why someone is in their position). Honestly, there are some well-intentioned liberals who really want to help the poor, but I do think that there are some who purposely subsidize poor peoples’ bad habits so that they stay there and continue to vote D. Its Machiavelli at his worst.
Your point about social programs being eradicated is decent and you’re right in thinking it would put a lot of strain on our economy. To take away many of these social programs is like putting an obese person on a diet (a strict one) and if you’ve ever been on a diet you know that you have some serious hunger pains for a while and you crave the fatty/sugary foods. And it doesn’t really matter whether you like them because we are approaching the point where we either diet or die an economic heart attack. Our economy is approaching a death spiral where the costs are becoming so great that politicians feel they have to raise taxes to cover it, which then in turn decreases the amount of available jobs and capital, which decreases production and increases the need of social programs, and then they have to raise taxes continuing the cycle.
This cycle is happening in California as we speak. There’s a reason that over half of all jobs created in the recession have been in Texas which doesn’t have an income tax.
Lastly, charity can and does work on a large scale, especially in the inner-city. I would be more concerned about people in rural areas, though often times they are located in stronger communities that can help. Admittedly a poor rural area like places in W. VA would probably be the hardest hit. The inner-city is currently saturated with different charity organization and know that people would give more when they have more and don’t view it as the governments job to give. The gov. taking responsibility makes people psychologically absolve themselves from their personal responsibility because they are forced to “give” through taxes. Even the current state of charities in Philly caused one friend who did work helping out the poor exclaim that “you have to try to starve in Philly [because of the abudance of charities].” No, there wouldn’t be centralized organizations giving food across the US, but that’s probably good as the bigger charities are often wasteful and bureaucratic.
When I said it doesn’t matter how they got there, I meant more their past and reaching their full potential idea. But you are absolutely right, in that sense of how they get there, it definitely does matter. I don’t think that guy should get any help. Some people will always get around the system but we should do our best to make sure the people like that aren’t benefiting from the system. You mentioned you weren’t sure about kids for that situation. Nothing irritates me more than when a family is poor and struggling to get by and they have 10 kids. The problem is the kids didn’t have a choice and they would be the ones hurt the most if they don’t receive any help.
Matt has mentioned getting rid of income tax before. Interesting thought, I wonder if thats a reasonable solution.
Fair points. Thanks.
Dan,
I had assumed that our debate has come to a reasonable end, but a video clip has recently emerged as epitomizing the point that I was making earlier about the liberal mindset assuming that people give their rights over to the state. The opportunity of having someone embody this mindset in the midst of this discussion was too good to not bring up. In 2.35-3.00 a woman asks a democratic congressman what power the federal gov. cannot have over what an individual does and he responds that “the federal government can do most anything.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE
Now, laying aside the rhetoric of whether they help the poor (and yes, I would say it’s mere rhetoric), in seeing the broader worldview of the liberal establishment, how does having the bueracratic elites assuming their right to run your life make you feel? Do you really trust the current administration to come up with what is best for you and for all? If you do trust them, do you trust the next George Bush that comes along to do the same?
You may think this guy is one goof to which you might be right, but only because he was dumb enough to let the mindset of his collegues slip when pressed.
I would also like to note that democrats have not always had such a mindset, but have been hijacked by the far left. JFK and perhaps even Clinton wouldn’t even fall into this extreme arrogance, but the current democrats fully emody this mindset.
Honestly it really doesn’t bother me. I don’t think its fair to say this is a liberal mindset. You may look at gun control as the government trying to run our lives where as I see it as something necessary for our safety that benefits the country. You may look at abortion or gay marriage as something necessary where as I see it as the government telling us how to run our lives (and please I don’t want to argue about gun control, abortion, or gay marriage those are just my examples). Or the current republican push to not allow the building of an Islamic cultural center 2 blocks from ground zero. It works both ways. I understand your point that its scary if the government can do whatever they want, but I don’t see it getting to the point of tyranny. I’d rather choose a democratic president, who may “run our lives”, to try and help the country as a whole or try and make our country better in the future, than a republic president, who may “run our lives”, to simply make everybody more like them. And if there was somebody who came in and said I’m not going to run your lives at all, I think our country would not do well, because essentially I trust the people in office (even if they have a different mindset than me) more than I trust the country as a whole.
At what point does it become tyranny? When does it go too far? How much do the “fat cat rich” need to be taxed before its unethical? I am curious where a liberal ends up drawing the line and where your limits are.
I don’t know but nowhere close to where we are now. I don’t really know how I feel about taxing the rich more but I think that taxing the poor more would create problems, especially if we removed programs. Plus its not like everybody gets taxed the same and then anybody making a ton of money gets taxed twice as much. Its a graduated scale, at least I think … its too early in the morning to look it up.
Reducing social programs must be combined with reducing the tax load to reflect the reduction in government spending. The idea of conservatism says that we would now have more money in our pockets and that we can vote with our dollars as to what programs (private charities) we would like to support. Though I support this idea, and I feel it is the proper way to take care of the poor, we would need to change our culture of giving. We need to raise our children with a sense of philanthropy and embed this into our society. Sure some people will refuse to help the poor but the private sector is much more efficient than the government in the first place as noted above. Besides, as they spend/save/invest their new found money it will benefit those who will choose to support the poor. It is our responsibility to take care of the less fortunate and because we haven’t done a great job the government has seized control. Let’s start doing a better job of it and put social programs out of business. I will start in my household….