'Asking' Versus Forcing Folks to Pay a Little More
President Obama raised the issue of why anyone would object to asking the very rich "to give some more." As he put the matter, "What is wrong with 'asking' those who make more to pay a little more?"
As it has been pointed out by all too few people, of course, what Obama & Co. advocate isn't to ask anyone to give. It is about confiscating from them what Mr. Obama & Co. want to have available for the redistribution of wealth just as they see fit. (For, of course, you and I and other citizens are all doing some serious redistribution of our wealth already, with no need for help with this from Obama & Co.) Yet hardly anyone in the mainstream media raises this objection.
Millions of Americans, including wealthy ones like Mitt Romney, are asked to give, mostly by organizations like the American Red Cross, and they come forth with generous contributions in response to the request. I know I often do, though I am hardly what one would consider wealthy. But millions and millions send contributions to victims of tsunamis or hurricanes or other disasters.
The media is giving Obama & Co. a pass on so many fronts one wonders if they are sound asleep at the wheel. A point like the one about "asking them versus coercing them" is never raised even on the Fox TV talk programs. It is as if there were a kind of code of silence in place!
But maybe it is because so many folks, even those opposed to Obama's massive forced redistributions, support some such policies and know that if they raise the issue, then the case for taxing us all for their own pet projects − e.g., the war on drugs, aggressive wars fought abroad, etc. − paid for from such redistribution would get undermined.
The slippery slope may account for this silence. Talk of asking people gets mixed up with talk of coercing people and no one in the public forums objects. But competent journalists are supposed to discern the difference between asking and making people pay! (One can only speculate what sorts of questions are being rehearsed in schools of journalism. It doesn't seem like the students are enlightened about the difference between forcing and asking people for support.)
I am by no means being original in pointing out these matters but few if any prominent journalists, pundits, commentators, et al., make it a point to raise the issue. Why?
Posted by Owen on 10/01/12 11:16 PM
@ Danny B
Thanks for your comments.
The US government itself receives a huge amount of FRNs from dealing drugs via CIA (and other covert) operations.
The private incarceration business is a travesty, no doubt, and is "good for the economy". Justice system is broken.
The ROI doesn't really matter since the Fed can print as many FRNs as it takes to support such a corrupt MO.
Sad, but fixable by us if we can figure out how.
Posted by Szatyor39 on 10/01/12 02:15 PM
The scare quotes around "Asking" should go. No need for them.
Posted by becky on 10/01/12 01:14 PM
the Red Cross is now run by politicos; breast cancer research, all the "pink" stuff supports the major pharmaceuticals.
Posted by Danny B on 10/01/12 11:04 AM
Tibor, re: the war on drugs. It is a common conclusion that the war on drugs is a "jobs program". It also works well at incarcerating minorities.
Here are the economic numbers for the war on drugs.
"A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would inject $76.8 billion a year into the U.S. economy - $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings, and at least $32.7 billion in tax revenue ($6.7 billion from marijuana, $22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, remainder from other drugs)."
$44.1 billion is quite a big payroll.
It appears that GOV wants to keep this payroll going. Social programs are all being cut. Foodstamps are in for cuts but;
"spending 9 billion dollars more next year(33% increase) on the war on drugs "
In any question of forced distribution of resources, it is always important to ask about ROI. So while, there is nothing "good" about social credit, there should be a thorough examination of benefit. The war on drugs is WIDELY recognized as a failure. There is no way to justify an increase in funding for the war on drugs from the point of view of ROI. The war on drugs is beneficial to the court-and-prison industry. It is a good means to further saturate society with the police state. But, in the final analysis, it doesn't give a good ROI.
So, while one can decry the projected cost of social credit, one has to look at reality. Is it cheaper to provide some kind of stipend OR, is it cheaper to spend $26---$46,000 a year for incarceration? The U.S. incarceration rates are a disgrace. I'm not necessarily an advocate for social credit. I do advocate a new M.O. that has less damage and a better ROI.
Posted by Libertarian Jerry on 10/01/12 06:45 AM
If I was asking Mr.Obama about paying my "fair share" of taxes,I would ask him why should I pay my "fair share" when I never get "my fair share?"