This week’s comment was written by James Miller and appears in the ‘The One Chart Which Best Explains The Debt Ceiling Crisis’ post. In it, I put up a chart which compared spending costs under two presidents – George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In true Libertarian fashion, Tommy questioned why Bush’s tax cuts should be considered a $1,812 billion cost.
I’m amazed when someone thinks it’s an expense when we let people keep their own money. That thought presupposes that everyone’s money is actually public money, and that keeping it, is taking something away from the government.
James took it upon himself to clear up the issue for Tommy.
Your argument is a giant arm waving distraction. No matter how you call it, Bush cut 1.8 trillion in revenue that he didn’t budget for, and is the first President in US history to go to war without RAISING taxes. I really suggest you read my article, you’d learn something. [Great article by James, btw. You could read it here or here. -mario]
Also, it’s actually not just their money. I suggest you reconsider the writers of the enlightenment. Government serves as part of the social contract, a social contract that also ensures that the rich don’t eat the poor. As nations throughout history have discovered, the nation that best manages their social contract is successful, the government that allows society to break its contract falls apart. Let’s take wealth disparity:
Between 1930 and 1970, America saw an incredible DROP in the gap between rich and poor. During that time, taxes on the highest earners ranged from 50% to 90%. And yet, we built the Jefferson Memorial, created the highway systems, build and improved many national parks, created a space program, put a man on the moon… AND WON A WORLD WAR. That sounds like the heart of the America I know.
In the 1970s, a faltering economy hurt wealth disparity, but the gap has been racing wider since the election of Reagan in 1980.
So, despite the fact that wealth disparity is at record high, corporate profits are as well, and taxes are at their lowest point in 60 years, apparently Obama is a socialist because he wants to raises taxes. While, by the way, cutting $4 trillion from the deficit by slimming government programs.
For perspective, a week ago 5 democrats voted for a bill Boehner suggested. Tonight, Boehner’s bill was so radical that no democrats would vote for it, and yet it still wasn’t radical enough to get the support of the tea party. So who is the radical? Who is unwilling to compromise?
Who is unAmerican?
A question for Tommy: Do you ever at times read any of this stuff and think that maybe, just maybe, some of your thoughts on government and Libertarian ideals are not as utopian as you’d like to believe they are? Ever? Just a little?
James Miller publishes Dissected News.
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s Facebook page. Click on ‘Like’ here.