Those Lies That Government Thrives On

[HereWeGoAgain]

Even you know that isn't true.

Tariffs

Taxes.

Tariffs are taxes that redistribute wealth to prop up specific groups that happen to be politically desirable by a certain individual.

You mean like the US worker?

Only some US workers. Other workers are paying the tariffs to prop up the politically favored.

So who are the beneficiaries?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no “fair” rate of taxation. It’s a juvenile myth."
Spoken like a true Bolshevik.

Hate to burst your bubble. Welcome to the real world.

Time for some of the education you missed out on in government school.

1. Who is to decide what is fair, and what is too much? Some religions suggest tithing, and government demands taxes.
   1. Joseph gathered very much grain: It seems it was customary for Pharaoh to take 10% of the grain in Egypt as a tax. Essentially, Joseph doubled the taxes over the next seven years (Genesis 41:34 mentions one-fifth, that is, 20%).
   2. That 20% figure appears again in the relationship of colonists to North America, and the English crown "....colonists were free to retain all the profits and fruits of their labor save for the crown's 20 percent share of any gold and silver discovered." "Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828," by Walter A. McDougall, p.33

Your explanation conforms with every other communist.

"Like Father, Like Son – Obama’s Father: Government 100% Taxation of Income OK"
https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/10/like-father-like-son-obamas-father-government-100-taxation-of-income-ok/

I could easily make a counter argument that assessing a tithe or other taxation based on percentage of income is fundamentally unfair.

I'm perfectly content to allow both of our positions to be reflected in our posts:

I'm fine with noting the historical view of taxation being in the 10-20% range, ...

...and you feeling that 100% confiscation from earners is perfectly acceptable.



I have always written that the result of every totalitarian political scheme...communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism or Nazism....is ....serfs, slaves….or corpses.



You've been a great help...thank you.

 

[alang1216]

The problem is the social consequences of life in a knowledge-based economy, where education and ability disparities drive income disparity.

You forgot two avenues of increasing income disparity, having rich and generous parents and living in a country with limited vertical mobility:

Does the U.S. Have Lower Economic Mobility than Other Countries?

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem is the social consequences of life in a knowledge-based economy, where education and ability disparities drive income disparity.

You forgot two avenues of increasing income disparity, having rich and generous parents and living in a country with limited vertical mobility:

Does the U.S. Have Lower Economic Mobility than Other Countries?

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Try reading the link before you stand by it....

"The South has lower relative mobility than the rest of the United States, as Raj Chetty’s research demonstrated, but we don’t know whether it has lower absolute mobility than other regions, and we don’t know that the United States has lower absolute mobility than other countries. Lind’s just wrong on this point."
Your link.



You're not very good at this sort of thing, are you.

 

[alang1216]

The problem is the social consequences of life in a knowledge-based economy, where education and ability disparities drive income disparity.

You forgot two avenues of increasing income disparity, having rich and generous parents and living in a country with limited vertical mobility:

Does the U.S. Have Lower Economic Mobility than Other Countries?

Today there is more inter-generational social mobility in Europe than in the United States, contrary to the American myth that the United States is still the world’s No. 1 land of opportunity. The Economic Mobility Project of Pew Charitable Trusts has shown that children are far less likely to rise above the socio-economic levels of their parents in the U.S. than are those in Britain, Canada and Australia, as well as Germany, France and the Nordic nations. The American South, with the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility in the U.S., clearly skews the national statistics, creating an embarrassing and depressing version of American exceptionalism.​

Try reading the link before you stand by it....

"The South has lower relative mobility than the rest of the United States, as Raj Chetty’s research demonstrated, but we don’t know whether it has lower absolute mobility than other regions, and we don’t know that the United States has lower absolute mobility than other countries. Lind’s just wrong on this point."
Your link.



You're not very good at this sort of thing, are you.

My bad, I forgot I'm only supposed to present one side of an argument. Curiously Scott Winship didn't mention that most households today are two-earner, but just because he doesn't agree it doesn't mean I'm wrong:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop the presses!!


More "inequality"!!!!!!!!


"Inequality: Study Finds Top 1% Of Conservatives Own 50% Of Libs
March 9th, 2020

U.S.—One of the dreams of every conservative is owning libs, but a new report says that this dream has become unobtainable for many. That’s because of the vast inequality in lib ownership where an elite top 1% of conservatives own 50% of all libs.


According to a report from the Center for Conservative Studies, the bottom 50% of conservatives hardly own any libs at all while those at the top hog all the lib ownership, dunking on them left and right. “The average conservative has barely even tasted liberal tears,” said Dr. Edmund Martin, who conducted the study, “while someone like Ben Shapiro has a whole tumbler full of tears.”

According to Martin, most conservatives post a meme or two on social media in the hopes of owning perhaps one lib a week -- and those are usually randos with ten followers. This is while people like Steven Crowder are owning whole swaths of libs each and every day. And the inequality grows as one goes even farther to the top, as estimates show that President Donald Trump owns a full 20% of libs all by himself.

Trump was unapologetic about this. “We’re all better off when I own libs,” Trump said. “I mean, do you want libs walking around unowned? Horrible. And everyone benefits from making sure all the libs get owned by someone. Liberal tears trickle down.”
Inequality: Study Finds Top 1% Of Conservatives Own 50% Of Libs

 

[DustyInfinity]

On the one hand, the free market, the vehicle to prosperity and liberty. On the other, the desire to balance material wealth, that chimera called ‘income equality. One is based on reality, the other a wish for what has never been, and never will be…no matter how many are slain in the attempt.

The problem is the social consequences of life in a knowledge-based economy, where education and ability disparities drive income disparity.

Political differences, therefore, are based on lies told by government. Government school grads believe them.




1. “A society that values individualism, enterprise, and a market economy is neither surprised nor scandalized when the unequal distribution of marketable skills and inclinations produces large disparities in the distribution of wealth. Long experience with government’s attempts to use progressive taxation to influence the distribution of income suggests the weakness of that instrument and the primacy of social and cultural forces in determining the distribution of wealth.” George Will, “The Conservative Sensibility,” P.281


2.The highest rewards are offered to those who delay gratification, and obey the well-known three rules of avoiding poverty.

1. Graduating from high school.

2. Waiting to get married until after 21 and do not have children till after being married.

3. Having a full-time job.


If you do all those three things, your chance of falling into poverty is just 2 percent .Meanwhile, you’ll have a 74 percent chance of being in the middle class.

Applies to everyone
These rules apply to all races and ethnic groups. Breaking these rules is becoming more commonplace, unfortunately, for all racial groups."
Three rules for staying out of poverty

Consider what would happen to the welfare roles if it was restricted to only individuals who could prove that they have followed those three rules, yet remained in poverty. Or, explain why we don’t mandate that requirement.




3. Even knowing the ‘rules,’ and that they work for everyone, Liberal/Progressive leaders behave like over-indulgent mothers, never holding their ‘children’ to any self-discipline.

“Government uses redistribution to correct social, meaning market, outcomes that offend it or some its powerful constituencies. But government rarely explains, or perhaps even rarely recognizes, the reasoning by which it decides why particular outcomes of consensual market activities are incorrect….taxes are levied not merely in order to efficiently fund government but to impose this or that notion of distributive justice…” p. 282

“By 2000, federal transfers had increased to 10.9 percent of GDP, or approximately 60 percent of federal spending;”
Redistribution - Econlib




The fact is, we live in a redistributive society: today, 67% of the federal budget involves transfer payments. (George Will)


Why?

why? Because both political parties use those transfers to buy votes. And people that keep voting for the two major parties enable the behavior

"..both political parties use those transfers to buy votes..."


Even you know that isn't true.

The party of welfare and open borders....their last President was known as the 'food stamp President'....is clearly the Democrat Party.


What's the reason you feel it necessary to lie for the Democrats?





But....glad that you've admitted the reason for the government welfare system....to buy votes.
81% of people receiving public housing benefits vote Democratic – and that’s just the tip of the handout iceberg
Read more at Bernie Sanders peddled a false story on Russian election meddling, and people noticed


A survey by the Maxwell Poll on the political affiliation of those receiving government aid showed this to be the case.

Type of Benefit Received

Percent Voting Democrat

Percent Voting Republican

Public Housing

81%

12%

Medicaid

74%

16%

Food Stamps

67%

20%

Unemployment Compensation

66%

21%

Disability (from Govt.)

64%

25%

Welfare/Public Assistance

63%

22%

Attributing the problem to red states is false; the problem lies in the blue parts of the red states.
Read more at Bernie Sanders peddled a false story on Russian election meddling, and people noticed

Republican politicians are still politicians, I'm sure they buy every vote they can. They don't openly spout communism and equal outcomes, but I'm sure they'd use tax dollar bribes for votes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The correct way to treat the whole human being is not with hand-outs. Sometimes, even Progressives slip-up and admit this:

"The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.



On Dec. 7, 2012, liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
“This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”




7. “Earned success is the secret to meaningful happiness. The government can improve your net worth with a check, but it cannot improve your self-worth.”
Jonah Goldberg
Wealth is redistributed not by giving a check to each but by equipping individuals with the education, and the values that allow them see the route to success and begin the journey.



Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings before FDR assumed the task- not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..


The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Ronald Reagan


In short.....government is not the answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “The philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt argues that economic inequality is not inherently objectionable…”To the extent that it is truly undesirable, it is on account of its almost irresistible tendency to generate unacceptable inequalities of other kinds.

…Frankfurt’s alternative …is the ‘doctrine of sufficiency….’…imperative should be that everyone has enough.

This should have nothing to do with ‘the quantity of money that other people have’ because ‘doing worse than others does not entail doing badly.’ George Will, “The Conservative Sensibility,” p. 284-285




9. The empty promises of the failed doctrines of Socialism/Progressivism are not the answer to material inequality. Capitalism is. Direct the populace’s attention to how much more some have and they don’t see the point: under capitalism, the consumption gap has lessened.


Once, the rich rode in carriages, the rest of the people walked.
Today both ride in cars, whether or not they are all the same model.

“Nobody, not even Bill Gates, lives like Marie Antoinette. And nobody in the US lives like her peasants. “ Cochrane's Questions About Inequality - Econlib



Nobody is starving, never was....there is no Dickensian poverty.....no home,no heat, no food.......in America.
The Left lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Whether stated or not, the term ‘poor’ is in political parlance, synonymous with ‘black.’ It is essential to Democrat success that the terms remained forever joined. What follows is that there is some sort of conspiracy among white folks to keep blacks poor, and to that end the elites employ Pavlovian conditioning using terms like ‘racism,’ ‘white privilege,’ and ‘white nationalist.’

These are words sans any significant constituency.




“In his book "The Philadelphia Negro" (1899), W.E.B. Du Bois posed the question as to what would happen if white people lost their prejudices overnight. He said that it would make little difference to most blacks. He said: "Some few would be promoted, some few would get new places -- the mass would remain as they are" until the younger generation began to "try harder" and the race "lost the omnipresent excuse for failure: prejudice."




"…if historical injustices and persecution were useful explanations of group disadvantage, Jews would be some of the poorest and least-educated people in the world today. Few groups have been victimized down through history as have the Jews. Despite being historical targets of hostility and lethal violence, no one can argue that as a result Jews are the most disadvantaged people.” Discrimination and Disparities


The moral: don't put your faith in government.