mcmick
Rookie
The shams are piling up. The so-called stimulus package is the latest, following close behind its predecessor the bail-out.
Before FDR, when federal spending was less than 4%, the population understood wealth creation because it understood that government was strictly a parasite that had no money of its own.
The selection of jobs was far more limited and appreciated, because the general population lived much closer to wealth creation in those days.
The Constitution protected us from the confiscation of wealth by government before the income tax in 1913, a tax which was passed with very serious deception on the public.
Without thinking about it the population knew all wealth creation came from the private sector.
As that reality has been obscured, we have evolved into believing that when states send far too much of their income to the Washington Jobs Factory in which each job costs literally 2x as much as employee total compensation in the private sector, this will "put people back to work."
They do create jobs of incredibly inefficient programs and bureaucracies,
and construction jobs that are too often the equivalent of constructing new buildings then tearing them down, i.e. the jobs created have a long term effect of reducing wealth for the general population.
When states receive a far smaller portion of revenues back, than the amount sent to Washington D.C., they are reducing wealth in the overall economy and to that state, unless there is a clear benefit to the nation as a whole such as the national highway system, expanded under President Eisenhower.
Americans totally accept paying a fair amount of taxes and spending money efficiently.
Now the Democrat Party which exists to make us more dependent on government, is gleeful over a possible $825 billion dollars to get 3 to 4 million new votes.
As usual the bulk of the money will go to the districts of the most powerful committee chairmen, who have achieved their seniority position from public dedication to the redistribution of others' earnings.
What's bad for America is good for Democrats.
Reply With Quote
Before FDR, when federal spending was less than 4%, the population understood wealth creation because it understood that government was strictly a parasite that had no money of its own.
The selection of jobs was far more limited and appreciated, because the general population lived much closer to wealth creation in those days.
The Constitution protected us from the confiscation of wealth by government before the income tax in 1913, a tax which was passed with very serious deception on the public.
Without thinking about it the population knew all wealth creation came from the private sector.
As that reality has been obscured, we have evolved into believing that when states send far too much of their income to the Washington Jobs Factory in which each job costs literally 2x as much as employee total compensation in the private sector, this will "put people back to work."
They do create jobs of incredibly inefficient programs and bureaucracies,
and construction jobs that are too often the equivalent of constructing new buildings then tearing them down, i.e. the jobs created have a long term effect of reducing wealth for the general population.
When states receive a far smaller portion of revenues back, than the amount sent to Washington D.C., they are reducing wealth in the overall economy and to that state, unless there is a clear benefit to the nation as a whole such as the national highway system, expanded under President Eisenhower.
Americans totally accept paying a fair amount of taxes and spending money efficiently.
Now the Democrat Party which exists to make us more dependent on government, is gleeful over a possible $825 billion dollars to get 3 to 4 million new votes.
As usual the bulk of the money will go to the districts of the most powerful committee chairmen, who have achieved their seniority position from public dedication to the redistribution of others' earnings.
What's bad for America is good for Democrats.
Reply With Quote
