During Obama’s presidency I have grown tired of hearing about what people are entitled to. Whatever happened to duties and obligations? There can only be one answer, socialism places entitlements above duties and obligations. But let us not forget that Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery (Winston Churchill).
Many state attorneys general have noted that ObamaCare is the first time Americans would be forced to buy a good or service, which is why they are challenging the constitutionality of it. So how do they justify this? As a bit of a fitness fanatic I bet we could save just as much money by literally forcing people to work out. Obama tried to pass a law that for the first time in American history would force Americans to buy a good or service, so why not force them to buy a gym membership and force them to work out? Is this ok with you socialists out there? If the justification for forcing them to buy health care is b/c it is good for them, well I submit so isn’t working out and would absolutely improve their overall health, thereby making it cost less to insure them. So Socialists is that ok? Socialism is absolutely an infringement on individual rights, socialists cannot get around that fact no matter how hard they try.
For the record I reread the constitution and only found the word entitled (or any permutation thereof) once in Article IV Section 2 basically stating that a citizen of any state had the same rights as the citizen of any other state. Interestingly enough Article IV Section 2 also guarantees a “Republican Form of Government”.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. This country was born out of a set of ideals, the key components of which were rugged individualism, that the best government is the government that governs least, and that individual liberties must be protected. That no one was to be given a free ride, and that government was meant to treat us all as equals before the law, and give us all one vote. Government was never meant to be, nor should it ever be, meant to make us all equals in terms of wealth, property ownership, or even the level of education we all receive. It is about guaranteeing equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Obama has said on more than one occasion that the rich need to pay their fair share, according to figures from the IRS it appears to me that they already do. “The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns. The bottom 50% on the other hand paid just 2.89% of income taxes collected. “
I support a progressive tax, it is the only way this country will work but as Sam Seaborn once said " I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And I'm happy to because that's the only way it's gonna work, and it's in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don't get twenty-seven votes on Election Day. The fire department doesn't come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn't come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let's not call them names while they're doing it, is all I'm saying". I find it offensive when the president, or anyone for that matter says the rich need to pay their fair share for the exact same reason Same Seaborn did. I am not in the top 1%, may never be, but that doesn't mean I support taxing them at a ridiculous rate when almost 50% of this country pays no taxes at all. If he honestly believes that the rich are not paying their fair share then he is more out his mind than Charlie Sheen banging 7 gram rocks. To even suggest the rich need to pay more, or their "fair share", is socialist.
Being a citizen of the greatest country on earth is not about entitlements, even though this president would have us believe that being a citizen of this country is something that everyone is entitled to, including those who broke the law to get here. It is about duties and obligations. It is our duty as citizens to work hard and pay the taxes we owe. It is our duty that if we choose to have kids that we raise them right, and provide them with a safe home that fosters stability and is conducive to learning. Sometimes I get the feeling that this White House feels that government is better for children than parents are. That it looks at 40 years of degrading and humiliating free lunches handed out in a spectacularly failed effort to level the playing field and says let’s try 40 more. This White House that says of anyone that points that out to them that they are cold and mean and racists and then accuses the Republicans of using the politics of fear. And just yesterday a school in the city of Chicago (Obama’s hometown) banned kids from bringing lunches made at home. Are you f-n kidding me? If that is not clearly an infringement on individual rights, and a move toward socialism, than I do not know what is.
As Cecil Palmer once said ““Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn't needed, and in hell where they've got it”.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment