Trent discovered an idea that I think ought to be spread and understood. In a nutshell: the rights of the individual pertaining to taxes. Here are my thoughts on the idea.
Each individual has the right to earn money to provide for himself or herself and his or her family. Obama's, "For 95% of you taxes won't change," may fly for some, but not me. What about the other 5%? Consider this in terms of slavery. Would we support a movement that supported slavery of 5% of the population for the benefit of the other 95%? "For 95% of you, your lifestyle will not change." I think not.
Discrimination is defined as follows in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently.
Can we apply this to Obama's tax increase proposal? Two families differing in the amount of income they generate are taxed differently...a higher or lower percentage. Yep, it fits. Allowing or supporting an increase in taxes to a specific group or social class of the population is discrimination.
Lets look at this in another aspect. Does it matter if the 5% whose taxes won't change are the poor, the middle class, or the wealthy? Does the amount of money someone has or does not have determine their rights? No. Of course, not. All of us have equal rights under the Constitution, and it would be a violation of individual rights to force 5% of our population to provide for others through heavier taxation. Giving to others should be a personal choice, not a governmental tax or imposition.
Here we have a democratic presidential nominee openly supporting discrimination toward one social class of Americans. Worse than that, we have Americans following his lead. We cannot support this. The rights of the individual are too important to allow them to be tampered with or destroyed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well said. I think the one major weakness in our system of government (currently, and as it was originally established)is the fact that people can vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.
I wish I knew a way to fix that.
Through the grapevine (Chris Brady) I've heard that Christopher Reeves once asked, essentially, shouldn't it be the greatest good for the largest number of people? Great guy, wrong thinking.
I've heard through the same grapevine that it was this same reasoning that Hitler used to push his heinous extermination agenda. It was the same reasoning used by many southern preachers to justify slavery.
This seems to be the same reasoning that is implied in the "tax cuts for 95%" doctrine. 95% of the nation can vote themselves money from 5%. Pretty good deal for most. But what about the slaves? What about the Jews? What about you and me when we fit into some particular 5% that the other 95% wants to vote against?
A central part of God's plan is the agency of his children -- each individual child, not just his children as a singular group. Individual rights are important to God. Individual rights should NEVER be sacrificed for the benefit of the collective unless the sacrifice will be made by the entire collective. An individual sacrifice should only be made voluntarily. We, each one of us, should always protect the rights of the individual.
I just read an article about the last presidential debate, and was interested when Senator Obama made a comment about "spreading the wealth around" to the different classes. If I understand correctly, he would like it if the poor classes of people received more money than they earned, putting them on the same level as the middle class, and the richer classes had their money taken from them, putting them on that same level too. That's a pretty good idea. I know Senator Obama is a smart guy because he must have learned this from history class. Wait, I learned that too. Isn't that what the history teachers call communism?
People seem to be forgetting that what made the American Economy as strong as it was is capitalism. Free Enterprise. Granted, there need to be some regulations in place to protect the consumer and the the investor, but when the government starts getting their fingers in everybodies business, and 'robbing the rich' to give to the poor, that's getting to close to communism for me.
How could a nation, that only half a decade ago was hunting people who even sympathized with communism (not that that was justified), now be so close to being a communism? If things progress like Senator Obabma keeps talking, the only difference between the communist nations and ourselves will be that we get to elect our communist leaders. How long will that freedom last?
Wow, Chris. I had no idea that your thoughts would be so well developed on this subject.
Tell me something. What's really wrong with "communism" if we still get to elect our leaders, and the only difference is equal distribution of wealth?
Thanks for your comment, Chris. Pretty insightful. The problem I'm having is that so many people don't seem to recognize that Obama is moving toward that sort of change and others that do can't seem to reason why that would be a bad thing. And it would be a VERY bad thing.
Post a Comment