Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

You Owe Me!
WSJ via Google Search ^ | January 9, 2013 | JAMIE WHYTE

Posted on 01/14/2013 5:58:54 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety

On any day of the week you can hear someone declaring the injustice of insufficient government spending on this or that deserving group: the ill, the old, the unemployed, university students, filmmakers, rail passengers, you name it. Yet they rarely explain why it is unfair. They speak as if the injustice of it ought to be obvious to any decent person.

Perhaps it is obvious to most people, and especially to members of the allegedly mistreated groups. Nevertheless, it isn't true. They want the money, of course, but they have no proper claim on it. This is easier to see if you recognize that "government spending" is no such thing. The money is provided by taxpayers, who part with it on threat of imprisonment.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: government; handouts; takers; welfare
Spoiler alert. Last sentence, "Asking the government to imprison your neighbor if he does not pay you is a dreadful thing to do. It needs to be dressed up in pieties, no matter how absurd they are."

Brillant article. Sort of a Steyn meets Von Mises mashup. Mr. Whyte is a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London but he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything.

1 posted on 01/14/2013 5:58:57 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

“...he could have just as easily wrote this about the USA. Except of course that we are not trying to cut anything. “

And we’re not robbing the neighbor, just his grandkids, many of whom will now never be born because of the excessive debt that has accrued.

I expect that next: The IRS threatening kids with “Penalties for avoiding Obamacare mandates by failing to be conceived so they can pay their “fair share””


2 posted on 01/14/2013 6:04:09 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Maybe the IRS will go after the abortion mills for killing future tax payers?


3 posted on 01/14/2013 6:12:49 AM PST by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety
Every politician should read Charles Beard's classic An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. In it, he specifies those areas where gov't is deemed responsible for spending. The areas narrow to two centers of spending: 1) policing of property rights (e.g., a legal system), and 2) social overhead capital (e.g., those things the private sector won't provide but are necessary for the Republic to survive (e.g., a standing military, bridges and roads, etc.). I would venture to say that the overwhelming percent of gov't spending takes place in other areas when the gov't has no legitimate reason for spending other than buying votes. Why, for example, if I live in the Midwest, is my tax money being used to restore private property due to Sandy in NJ? NJ has the highest property taxes in the country. Why isn't that money being used to clean the public buildings and roads up? If your house was swept away by the storm, why should my tax dollars fix it just because you didn't buy enough (or any) insurance? Are the owners of the beachfront property going to ask you or me to spend a week at their place this summer? I don't think so.

Some gov't programs are "fuzzy" in that they may or may not fall into one of the two real areas of gov't spending. But cells phones for poor people? Really? Other than getting reelected, how do programs like that make any sense?

Obozo bitches about tax breaks for the rich. Really? Who the hell does he think wrote the Tax Code. You and your cronies did and you did it to give them breaks so you could do them favors in return for election contributions.

It's time to clean house...both houses, both parties.

4 posted on 01/14/2013 6:24:36 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Good point. I am exhorting my children not to view US debt as their “sacred” obligation. Jefferson didn’t see it that way and neither do I.


5 posted on 01/14/2013 6:27:18 AM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

It’s like people complaining that the government needs to pay them because a hurricane hit. You can predict a hurricane, but you can’t stop it. It’s not like the government has anything to do with that. Yeah, I’ve had people that I care about affected by it; one friend’s basement flooded, and another friend out on Long Island lost the first floor to her house, but seriously, why is it the government’s responsibility to pay you so you can rebuild? I learned my lesson the hard way, by myself as well as observing those close to me, that it’s better to hold on to money as long as you can, instead of spending it on useless things (like a vacation). Yeah, I needed new boots for work, so I went out and bought new boots.


6 posted on 01/14/2013 6:41:47 AM PST by wastedyears (My life mostly completely turned around in a few weeks. Now to leave NY...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

Why should the federal government be responsible for roads and bridges? Even if Fedzilla was somehow, someway kept small and lean, they’d still hold that over every state’s head, keeping billions from them.


7 posted on 01/14/2013 6:45:31 AM PST by wastedyears (My life mostly completely turned around in a few weeks. Now to leave NY...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

Maybe the IRS will go after the abortion mills for killing future tax payers?


You know, that gives me an idea. Instead of trying to point out the evils of abortion as used for “birth control”, let us instead get laws passed that will “impute” a certain income level for each child aborted and have the “Egg Donor” and the “Sperm Donor” have to pay yearly for the income taxes of the aborted child that will now not be collected due to their being removed from the potential work force.

Who knows.... I’m sure that some tax hungry politician will find the idea to be a good one.


8 posted on 01/14/2013 6:47:04 AM PST by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

You pwn me!


9 posted on 01/14/2013 7:03:50 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
One of the very early political fights in our country's history was over "internal improvements". A lot of politicians thought the feds should have no role in canals, bridges, roads, etc.

Unfortunately, more politicians wanted the feds to get their hand in that pie. It's been downhill ever since.

10 posted on 01/14/2013 7:10:21 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Eisenhower built the interstate system as a military measure, that started it


11 posted on 01/14/2013 7:15:22 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

I wouldn’t say that Eisenhower “started it”. Perhaps the Erie Canal started it, but “internal improvements” may have begun even earlier than that.


12 posted on 01/14/2013 7:17:40 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

The Interstate system might fall under the Commerce Clause, since it crosses state boundaries. But the Commerce Clause has been so screwed and abused since Wickard v. Filburn that it requires serious repair.

One item of government spending that usually DOESN’T cross state lines, however, is disaster relief.

I don’t mean to sound cruel, but why should my tax money be spent to provide relief for tornado victims in Oklahoma, or a forest fire in California or a flood in Alabama? Shouldn’t the states and/or insurance companies provide that relief?

I’m aware of the story of Davy Crockett and the farmer who was pissed at him for voting to provide federal relief for the victims of a fire, and that story does have a certain resonance here.

Charity is not a legitimate function of “limited” government and it certainly does not appear in the Constitution. Americans have proven themselves amazingly generous in helping their fellow citizens, but that beneficence should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Again, I don’t mean to sound unkind. But if my home got flattened by an earthquake, I could not, in good conscience, expect some taxpayer in Nevada to cough up for the rebuilding effort.


13 posted on 01/14/2013 8:49:44 AM PST by DNME (Without the Constitution, there is no legitimate U.S. government. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Why should the federal government be responsible for roads and bridges?

There are some things that just wouldn't be provided without the public sector. The earliest private road (sometime in the 1700's) was what is now known as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Back then, it was a "corduroy road" made up of split logs. When you reached a certain point, there was a small hut with a long stick (i.e., a "pike") across the road to stop you. You paid the toll and the pike was lifted (turnpike). It didn't take long for users to build little shortcuts around the turnpikes. Without revenues, the roads fell into disrepair and commerce suffered (especially in the wet seasons).

In Boston, you can still see private homes with a fire company name on them in the form of a plaque. If there was a fire, you read the plaque on the house and ran to that fire house. Heaven help you if the plaque was destroyed or otherwise missing when a fire broke out. In this case, duplication of services made a natural gov't-provided monopoly more sensible.

There are plenty of other places to get rid of long before you remove the road system.

14 posted on 01/14/2013 9:55:35 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears; econjack; yldstrk; DNME; ClearCase_guy

In 1918 railroads were how people and freight traveled across the country. That year Dwight Eisenhower was a junior officer in an operation designed to see if it was possible to get a motorized convoy across the country.

There was very little paved road. There were very few maps for the primitive roads that did exist. It was a long and arduous trip. This trip was the genesis of the Interstate Highway System built during his presidency.


15 posted on 01/14/2013 10:08:53 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Yep. And did you know that every 5 miles on the interstate highway system there has to be at least on stretch of road that is straight for 1 mile. This was so aircraft could use the highway as an emergency landing strip.


16 posted on 01/14/2013 10:13:14 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Yep. And did you know that every 5 miles on the interstate highway system there has to be at least on stretch of road that is straight for 1 mile.

West Virginia musta not got the memo on that!

17 posted on 01/14/2013 10:15:39 AM PST by don-o (He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Actually, I just checked it out and it’s an urban legend...I fell into it without checking first. They pointed out that bridges and overpasses also make it a bad choice in many situations.

Sorry ‘bout that.


18 posted on 01/14/2013 10:20:22 AM PST by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

This nation owes veterans, so much more, than what if being done, period.

Every stoop-sitter, basement dweller in mama’s house, or daughter that shows up at mama’s empty nest house with baby in arms, deserves nothing.

I served this country,because I love her. I handled barrels of agent whatever, but becaue I did not fit the reported years of time, I, of course, do not have any tainting from agent whatever. I have paid my “forty quarters” twice, but -I- had to sue, to get my social security benefits. Yet some confounded KID gets it, and more, just for not wanting to say “NO”?!?!?!?

Then, those ‘fredding buzzards’ talk about not being able to pay the military paychecks, but they have been cutting checks to unions all year?!?!?!

Do I trust the government? Not since the one bullet theory of Kennedy’s death; not since the greatest swimmer Harvard had ever had on its swim team drowned a woman on Chappaquiddick; not since a future President named FORD served on the Warren Commission; not since a member of The Keating Five ran for President. I’ll stop there.


19 posted on 01/14/2013 1:23:38 PM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNME
“...but that beneficence should be voluntary, not mandatory.

“Again, I don’t mean to sound unkind. But if my home got flattened by an earthquake, I could not, in good conscience, expect some taxpayer in Nevada to cough up for the rebuilding effort.”

Almost everyone seems to have something or some reason that justifies their taking from others. You seemed to have avoided that.

My great uncle was killed at Kasserine Pass. He died with no wife or children. My great grandparents got a small death benefit. 6 other great uncles were scarred for life serving as a tail gunner, BAR man, and infantrymen all over the Pacific islands and the Italian/French/German countryside. Not a single one ever said they were owed a thing by our government.

My point is many people on this forum believe their take from taxpayers is justified. I am surprised their are not more flames since the military is mentioned. Bottom line is that the nobody gets a single cent from the US government that does not first come from someone else and that by the threat of force.

20 posted on 01/14/2013 1:45:10 PM PST by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I understand Ike was also quite interested in the Autobahn.

Much as I love the Superslab — an uninterrupted line of white lines all the way to the coast — I’m a little torn about it. The Interstate is great for commerce and for the traveling public. In fact, out West, most destinations are measured by hours, not miles. When I lived in Utah, Las Vegas was 8 hours away, Denver was 10, Albuquerque was 13, and so on.

But our entire society has become hooked, not just enamored, on the car. Public transportation has withered and possibly killed by our addiction to driving. On most mornings, I’m stuck in traffic jams where EVERY SINGLE CAR has but a single occupant, whereas a single train could eliminate hundreds or even thousands of those shiny metal boxes.

Still, I can’t disparage the Interstate. Heck of a way to drive long distances!


21 posted on 01/14/2013 2:06:36 PM PST by DNME (Without the Constitution, there is no legitimate U.S. government. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DNME

“I understand Ike was also quite interested in the Autobahn.”

I used to think that the Autobahn was his inspiration for the Interstates, until I ran across the military convoy story in a biography.

When I was a boy we traveled across country several times before the Interstates were built. One unfortunate side effect of the Interstate system was the decline of the small towns that lined highways like Route 66. And the other was the disappearance of Burma Shave signs, one of the great, vanished entertainments of America’s highways.


22 posted on 01/14/2013 6:38:29 PM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: econjack

I know that the Germans had designed their autobahns to handle aircraft as early as WWII but I didn’t know that we had done something similar.

The Germans were parking their planes under overpasses to hide them from the USAAF and then wheeling them out and taking off from the autobahn.


23 posted on 01/14/2013 6:49:03 PM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson