Friday, February 27, 2009


Definition reminder, Socialism: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."


"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher.

My cousin [once removed, I believe] forwarded me the Margaret Thatcher quote above. I thought everyone should see it. If you have read any of my previous posts, we may have clarified where we agree or disagree.
You probably...
....see socialism on the horizon and agree that we must take action to get away from it.
....see that some people talk about socialism, but don't really think we are headed that way, and think it is overly pessimistic to think we are.
....see socialism as a good thing.

Part of the trouble with seeing a policital and economic shift to socialism is that we live in America. The word socialism has negative conotations, so we naturally assume that since we live in America, and America stands for goodness and freedom, surely we would never accept socialism. However, if you remind yourself of the definition, you may see differently. Social programs have been growing and growing, in the name of humanity. People see the benefit, but fail to recognize what is required to make these social services available, we fail to see the cost, which is much more than just monetary.

I have become more aware of some extreme disparity within this country, all in the name of helping people, in the name of goodness and fairness. The message is good and pleasant, but the results are the opposite of what was intended for this country for our forefathers.

"No taxation without representation"

This was the slogan of the revolutionaries. The British government taxed the people of the American Colonies, and the colonists felt that they were not being represented in the government. I feel this way right now.

Take for instance the Earned Income Tax Credit. This law returns taxes to people of low income, in some cases it credits the people with additional funds beyond that of any taxes they paid. This means that if you don't make any money, you may be eligible to receive money "from the government" because you are poor. Do you agree with this policy?,,id=96406,00.html

What does this have to do with socialism and taxation without representation?

Our government collects taxes, I know that I pay them. If you don't make very much money, then that government gives you more than you paid to help you out, to "encourage" you to work. Huh? Our government takes money from me, and gives it to someone who is poor, they deserve it right?

Now my ears start to spout steam when I realize that all these people who are having money redistributed to them are also voters. A bunch of poor voters get together and elect someone who will give them something for nothing in return (except votes...power) and they then take from me, what they cannot or will not earn themselves. 40% of the country does not pay income tax.

Am I being represented? Is this something other than distribution of goods?

I doubt these questions will ever be answered by anyone of consequence, but they need to be asked. I keep going back to Article 1, Section 8 of our wonderful and forgotten constitution..."but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Is this a uniform system? In the name of selflessness and humanitarianism, we will lose all rights, all liberty and all freedoms. Can this lead anywhere else?

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807.


  1. I feel more willing to send tax dollars to the poor, who can't afford basic things like food and shelter as opposed to the rich who don't need it at all. Not all poor people are poor because they are lazy and just think they shouldn't work because the goverment will give them our money. These people also include elderly, who CAN'T work and people who have lost their jobs from disability or a bad economy. It seems harsh to say: you are old or you are disabled and we don't want to help.
    I'm sure the group of people you are talking about does not include those I have mentioned. But how do you seperate them out? The goverment taxes based on income level, regardless of age or disability. Sorry, I guess it's just a sore subject, as my mom has spent her whole career advocating for tax dollars for government programs for the elderly. When I am old, I hope I have enough money saved to take care of myself. But you just never know...pensions and 401K's are disappearing so fast these days. I hope I can still at least rely on the government for a little help when I'm old.
    You are a great writer...I hope you do end up writing a novel some day. I know we differ greatly on politics, but it's still fun to read this and think things through.
    -Laura Millard

  2. Your own sister got Earned Income Credit!

  3. About my sister getting the EITC, yes she did. But she knows full well that her line of work is not as profitable as another line of work that she would undoubtedly be qualified for. She has chosen her position.


    Laura, I understand and respect your sentiment greatly. I have some more posts that will clarify why I believe what I do, but here is some clarification. Although, it will probably fall short in this breif post.

    I agree with you that it is important to help those that cannot help themselves. Jaime and I make great efforts to give from what we have been given, with our aim being at least 10% of our income. It will never be my intent to discount or belittle the actions of those whose aim it is to help said "helpless".

    The issues arises via the "supply" side of this equation. While, yes, it is good to help the poor and sick; but at what cost? Freedom? While the option for me, or any other person earning money, is available to donate to social causes, I don't believe the government should have a right to take my money and do as they see fit. Part of the difficulty when discussing the "government" is that they only have what they take. Freedom means that I help who I want if/when I want. Am I still free if the government takes from me and gives to another it deems more fit for aid? When those in need outnumber the earners in this country, do they have a right to band together and take resources from others?

    It all comes down to the boundaries and extents of the government. It doesn't mean the cause is not worthy, only that basic rights are being taken for that cause.

    I appreciate the push-back, as it forces me to clarify my position, and more fully understand others views. I hope you continue to read and comment, I enjoy the discussion.

  4. Oh this just gets my blood boiling. It seems it would take volumes to mesh it all out! It is so convoluted that we cannot make pat statements, and fix things easily.

    Were the church (meaning the people who claim the Name of Christ) doing its part, the government programs would be unnecessary.

    Were people who CAN work doing their part, the programs would be unnecessary.

    Were those who have an abundance (absolutely nothing wrong with that) doing their part....

    It is when it is controlled by the government that I hate these programs for which I must pay. Now I am nearly 1 Trillion dollars MORE in debt. Add that to my own personal debts: house, student loan, car (an older car w/over 1k miles, thank you), and I barely have room to breathe.

    I accept that some people need help from others. The Bible says to help them. I send money that I earned to many organizations to help others. We all should. But the power belongs to the PEOPLE to decide, not to a government. They do not represent ME with most of their spending choices. It is MY MONEY. I WORKED for it. I WANT to help others in need, but give me the freedom to CHOOSE who, when, where, and how.

    I am with you, brother! I'm going to use Margaret's quote in my signature line beginning in March.

  5. Charity by force is not charity. It is theft.