[Vision2020] Obama cancels interview with a Free (not in the tank) Press

[Paul Rumelhart]

No Weatherman wrote:
> Paul:
>
> We need to make distinctions between "the war" and the "tanking
> economy" and the "crackheads and welfare queens."
>
> Obama wants to end the war, grease his homeboys on Wall Street, and
> reward the crackheads and welfare queens in ACORN, and he wants the
> middle class to pay for it.
>
> It's immoral, however, to argue that the "rich" have to pay for these
> things because they "stand to lose more without facing hunger or
> eviction or having their power turned off."
>
> Where do you get off playing with other people's money? Would you
> appreciate it if I had the power to take money from you because I
> think you can afford the hit?
>
> It's called theft.
>   

Actually, it's called paying a portion of what you make to a central 
pool which will be used to take care of things no one person wants to 
take care of.  Things like roads, military defense, social security, 
research, education, health care, the national debt, disaster relief, 
veteran's benefits, and the occasional crackhead and/or welfare queen 
that gets away with gaming the system.

It's just a question of details.  Who should pay the most?  Some people 
have proposed the idea that the people that make the most should pay the 
most.  This assumes that there is a minimum amount of money that is 
needed purely for survival that is non-zero.  The farthest away from 
this number can probably afford to pay more than those closest to this 
number.  As it now stands, those farthest away from the minimum amount 
needed to survive have far more options for reducing their tax burden 
than the poorest of us do.  That seems completely backwards to me.

> If you believe society has a moral obligation to help others out, then
> you can go to work in a soup kitchen after you give all your money to
> the Salvation Army.
>
> And don't complain because you can afford it. I know this because I deemed it.
>
> How does it feel now?
>
> Once answer this question, we can begin discussing the merits and
> necessities of various social programs. But if we let the majority
> decide they want to loot the minority's wealth, we'll be forced to
> ask, "Who is John Galt?"
>   

The "minority" has been getting away with murder for longer than you or 
I have been around.  They've been sipping mai-tais in Hawaii and 
complaining that their new Beemer has a scratch on the fender.  They 
don't arouse all that much pity from me.  They can survive a tax hike 
far more easily than the other 95% of us can.

If we took taxes away and replaced it with a "pay what you think you 
should" scheme, there would be a lot of people taking advantage and a 
very few trying to pay to make everything work.  This is human nature.  
If it would work any other way, we wouldn't have the need for government.

Paul