On the one hand, you have a group of Americans spending their time and money to demand that the government give them more of other people’s money.
On the other hand, you have another group spending their time and money to demand that the government give them less of other people’s money.
Hmm.
Something to consider the next time you hear a lefty call conservatives “greedy.”
Well, it isn’t quite that simple. It would depend on the tax bracket of the individual.
For a wealthy individual (and they exist in BOTH parties) it would mean they want the government to take less of that persons own money to spend on others.
For an individual making less money ($32,550 per year is the cutoff for the 25% tax bracket) it means less of another persons money.
The fundamental difference in most cases (I would argue) is that one group understands where the money comes from. It is their own money. From their own pockets. The government does not earn money, it takes it from the people.
As Governor Ventura pointed out, when you get $100 from the government it means they took $120 from you and kept $20 to figure out how to give you back the rest.
Yes, but it’s not limited to mere wealth redistribution. Health care “reform,” cash for clunkers, cap and trade – all these things are demanded by even the richest liberal, who can’t pay for all those Big Programs himself, and must therefore spend his time and efforts demanding other people’s money.
The key phrase is “other people’s money.” Demanding lower taxes isn’t asking for other people’s money – it’s exactly the opposite. “Progressives” who argue that “tax cuts for the rich” are “greedy” assume that all money belongs inherently to society, and therefore society can take as much back as it pleases. 51% of society, anyway…
I think we have a semantics issue. You are entirely correct that the wealthy liberal (and there are many) want “other peoples’ money” in the sense that they want big government programs. They will not see a net gain, but think that government is the solution.
I was assuming a more literal interpretation in line with re-distribution (ie, somebody pay to give things to me).
I would still argue my final point holds– that a whole lot of people just do not understand that the government does not have money inherently. It takes from us and then gives it back in a different form (redistribution and services) after keeping a percentage due to overhead.
For the conservative and libertarian (both lower case, as in a general philosophy rather than a party affiliation) this points to a need for two angles when discussing/debating the merits of big government programs.
To those who truly understand the funding mechanisms (ie, most wealthy liberals) the debate is about whether the government can really provide a BETTER system (I think it cannot).
To those who do not understanding the funding, then there is a whole argument pointing out that the government is not doing anything for “free”. It is not giving away health care from a Fairy Godmother. It is taking OUR MONEY, keeping some of it, and then trying to provide health care with the rest.
We really don’t disagree. But I think the semantics are important – especially as the tone of the debate on the left side turns to the “fierce moral urgency” of the trillion dollar bill du joure. (What ever happened to not legislating morality? Sigh. But I digress…)
For far too long, wealthy liberals have been commended by the left for being “generous” or “sacrificing for the greater good” if they favor higher taxes. But because they care more about whatever huge social experiment they’re lobbying for than a few million less in their account full of millions, it is still inherently a matter of demanding that other people pay for their “generous” social policies.
Not only is this dishonest, but it further clouds the truth about where this money actually comes from. It abets the shell game of government spending. The siren song of “free” money and government programs that cost us nothing and give us everything we want is seductive and dangerous, and the liberals running the country right now have either fallen for it or are deliberately doing the singing. We can’t (and shouldn’t) put wax in the ears of the electorate like Odysseus did to protect his crew, and so we must do the next best thing – call these lobbying efforts of the left what they are, clearly, loudly, and often.
No matter from whom the government takes the most or to whom it gives the most, the larger point is the government, not the individual citizen, sets the agenda.