“Listen carefully when you hear screeching accusations about fairness. Just below the surface, you’ll hear an appeal to greed and envy totally inconsistent with the American spirit.”—Ronald Reagan, 2/20/1984 (via kimpriestap)
“I’m so mad, I’m just shaking! I have no words to say to this, you’re just ignorant!”
This has a few interpretations • I am unable to provide any reasonable or rational argument so I’m informing you of my emotions • I lack the mental abilities to argue this, someone please do it for me instead • I’m upset so you’re wrong
“Says the white straight male”
• I cannot think of any way to actually argue against your point, so I’m going to inform you of your race, sexual orientation, and gender in an attempt to shame your position (sometimes this response can be appropriate, but it’s usually not)
"What do you guys think about me buying a fertilized female embryo, growing it in an artificial womb, birthing and raising it, then waiting until she was of age and making her my sex slave? She’s essentially just a lump of biomatter. She never lived a real life. People are only people if they had lived actual lives and had relationships, so since my bitchslave’s entire life was under my control, I own her and she doesn’t have any rights, right? I want to know your honest opinion on this.”
this doesn't make any sense. 1. if the current tax revenues are more than is needed to run the gov without incurring any debt, than how is 2. if all gov spending was cut, except to pay for entitlements, there isn't enough money. You can't have both, enough money, and not enough money at the same time.
Did you watch the video, Anon? He explains it pretty darn clearly. The entitlement spending eclipses the costs of running the federal government. But here, I’ll try to explain it using small whole numbers and a more basic scenario:
Little Barry has a lemonade stand. Every day, it costs Little Barry $1 for all the supplies he needs to make and sell the lemonade. At the end of the day though, Little Barry makes $2 from people buying his lemonade.
One day, Little Barry sees a kid from the rich part of town enjoying a delicious cookie. Then he notices that the kids from the poor side of town don’t have cookies. Little Barry doesn’t think that’s fair, and the poor kids whine to him that it’s not fair! So, despite the fact that making cookies has nothing to do with the lemonade business, Little Barry decides to start making cookies and giving them away to the poor kids for free. He hopes maybe they’ll buy some lemonade too—but most of them don’t. They just take the free cookies.
Unfortunately for Little Barry, with so many poor kids wanting free cookies, the cost of making cookies every day comes out to $5. This doesn’t bother him at first, because the revenue from Little Barry’s lemonade stand seems to cover it. But soon after, Little Barry’s lemonade stand is running in the red, at a rate of -$4 every day ($2 in revenue - $1 in lemonade costs - $5 in free cookies).
So, Little Barry comes up with a plan—he’ll still charge people for lemonade, but won’t actually have a lemonade stand. What Little Barry realizes then, though, is even without the lemonade stand costs, he’s still spending more on cookies than he’s taking in revenue.
Ultimately Little Barry ends up getting a credit card and just running up charges—never ever intending to pay it back—and simply asking the credit card company to increase his limit every time he reaches it.
Get it now?
$1 for the lemonade stand costs (the running of the federal government).
$2 in revenue (taxes collected).
$5 in free cookies (entitlement spending).
If it weren’t for the $5 in entitlement spending, we’d be just fine. The taxes collected would cover the expenses, and then some (Point #1). However, with the entitlement spending, even if you got rid of the expenses, the taxes collected wouldn’t be enough to cover the spending (Point #2). Even if we cut the $1, we’d still be spending at a rate of -$3.
Not rocket science to understand that’s a problem.
Well, unless you’re a Democrat or other statist, apparently.
If you want to significantly decrease your chances of getting pregnant, you can use protection.
Using protection is not the same exact thing as an abortion, because nothing is fertilized.
Sperm cannot cause pregnancy. Eggs cannot cause pregnancy. The combination of sperm and eggs causes pregnancy.
Even if you use protection, there is a small chance you can get pregnant.
Every time you have sex, there is a chance you can get pregnant.
If you choose to have sex, you consent to the possibility, however small, that you can get pregnant.
The only completely effective manner of preventing pregnancy is to be abstinent.
If there is something wrong during a pregnancy that will effect the health of the child or the mother, the pregnancy is most likely naturally terminated. We call this is a miscarriage. It occurs in 50% of pregnancies.
Holding a child in your body for nine months is not “ordering” you to take care of a child. By engaging in sex, you consented to the chance that you could get pregnant. That is your consequence. You cannot have actions with zero consequences.
If you do not want your child, you can place it up for adoption.
If you cannot take care of your child, you can place it up for adoption.
There are many loving families who would want a child, and a child that merely wants an ability to live.
The first widespread use of the term “wage slavery” was in writings from the 19th century by such pro-slavery writers as John C. Calhoun, George Fitzhugh, and Senator Hammond of South Carolina. They argued the mythicality of free labor, and contended that a slave was far better off than free men in the North for his immunity to unemployment, care taken of him in old age, and his security in his livelihood.
So, the next time you see a statist claiming that capitalism is “wage slavery,” remind them of this neat little tidbit.
This is a fantastic video. Breaks it down for all the pro-taxation/pro-entitlements crowd (ie. leftists, Democrats, progressives, and other Statists) with simple pie charts. I love pie charts, don’t you? Anyway, watch:
I’m going to repeat the two main talking points of the video, because they’re perfectly succinct and dead on:
1. Current tax revenues are more than is needed to run the government without incurring any debt.
And that’s today. With the majority of Americans (read: poor people) not paying taxes at all.
Does that make sense to you guys? What he’s saying, and accurately so, is that all the arguments about needing more money for, as big-government proponents argue, “highways and bridges and military and federal buildings” are bogus. The arguments about tax dollars being squandered on war are bogus. It’s all covered. In fact, there’s a surplus of funds. We could actually cut taxes, and the government would get along just fine. Relatively speaking, it doesn’t cost that much to run a government.
So why do people insist that we need to tax more? The video answers that for us too (though, any idiot should be able to figure it out quite easily): the true goal isn’t government funding; it’s power, by means of redistribution of wealth.
And—ignoring the fact that it’s completely wrong in the first place—it’s totally, undeniably, unforgivably out of control.
Which leads us to Point #2:
2. If you cut all government spending, tax revenues are not enough to pay entitlements without adding debt.
Can you get that through your heads, folks? Even if we didn’t spend a single penny to run the federal government and fund its infrastructure, we still wouldn’t have enough to cover the entitlement programs. It’s that bad. The food stamps, the health care, the housing assistance—it’s too much. We can’t afford it. It’s that simple. The problem with this country, the reason it’s in the state it’s in is entitlement spending. I don’t see how any honest, intelligent, rational person could possibly believe otherwise.
And the thing about entitlement programs is: it’s discretionary. We don’t need to be spending this money. Our federal government doesn’t need to spend this money in order to operate. But here’s the dirty little secret of it (and I’ve been saying this for years): Democrats want people to receive entitlements. Forever, if possible. Every time they characterize it as “giving people a hand up?” Yea, that is an overt lie.
See, Democrats (and Statists in general) require their voting base to be destitute and dependent upon them. I suspect they actually encourage it. It keeps them in power. Because you know what happens after the intention of the entitlements (to get people back on their feet) is realized? The person receiving them stops needing the government. A successful, independent, self-reliant individual doesn’t need the government—and generally doesn’t want them around. This strips the government of power over people in other areas (namely, regulatory areas).
This is also why no Democrat/Statist in the history of the world has ever made good on his promises. They will never fully deliver. Because the minute they do, the people won’t need them anymore. Instead, they partially deliver, and continue to insist that they need to “keep working” and “look to the future.” (Listen to any random speech by Barack Obama, and tell me he’s not the poster child for that.) It’s a perpetual, never-ending cycle of entitlements for votes. And when they talk about helping you—what they’re really talking about is helping themselves, by securing that vote. (It’s not unlike the relationship between a drug dealer and an addict. He gets you hooked, you’ll do pretty much anything for your next fix, and all the while he pretends to be doing you a favor by keeping you addicted—but the reality is: he’s getting paid, and you remain a junkie.)
Problem is now, the cycle has gotten out of hand. The government doesn’t take in enough (despite their efforts to tax the rich and overtly redistribute wealth) to keep the cycle going—so now they have to borrow, and keep borrowing to unsustainable amounts.
So the question remains: Why? Why would a person support this? I’m guessing that nobody reading this actually work for the federal government in any capacity that they could benefit from such a scheme—so what is it? Who in their right mind would support such a thing, and wish for it to continue, seeing it starkly presented for exactly what it is?
Is it simply entitlement addiction? If so, then why wouldn’t you want to break that addiction? Do you really think your subordination to the federal government is worth it?