The Health Care Coup
Mar 22nd, 2010 by Timothy Pancoast
A coup d’état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ or /ku de.ta/) (plural: coups d’état), or coup for short, is the sudden unconstitutional deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to replace the deposed government with another body; either civil or military. A coup d’état succeeds when the usurpers establish their legitimacy if the attacked government fails to thwart them, by allowing their (strategic, tactical, political) consolidation and then receiving the deposed government’s surrender; or the acquiescence of the populace and the non-participant military forces.
The above is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The Congress and President have executed a coup. As of right now they have taken over the governance of American’s health care. Last week we largely governed our own health care. Granted, some did it better than others. Starting this week the bureaucrats and officials in Washington D.C. will begin to assume control over it like never before. Now the usurpers are going to begin a full court press against us to establish their legitimacy. It is up to us to decide if this government coup will fail. If we surrender and acquiesce than it will succeed. America of the People, for the People, and by the People will be over. It is important to remember that while they are going to continue to talk a lot about saving us from insurance companies and big pharma, it isn’t just the corporations that they took control from. They took power from the people.
LOL… what a bunch of drama queens.
Call it what you will. People used to largely govern themselves in America. The Constitution set it up to be that way, but we are loosing the ability to self govern to our elected officials.
We will either govern ourselves or be governed by tyrants. Right now it seems like we have the later, but at least they are benevolent despots.
The partisan block of Democrats that have gotten this confused monstrosity this far have operated on either delusion, plain old deceit or a mix of both. Obama has definitely played this in the column of outright often outrageous lying. Pretty much every claim he has made has been provably false if not outright fantasy. The bipartisanship here existed only in the opposition which will only grow stronger leading to November. The Democrats are simply in complete denial of reality if they actually believe their fairy tale that “Americans won’t wake up to health care meltdown and thus will learn to love” their new government health masters”. The Democrats self serving proclamations of the obvious that there will not be some immediate apocalyptic effects to anger the voting populace against them shows how little they understand what they do.
No there will be no apocalypse to cause a public eruption. Quite the contrary. It will be a slow rising burn as millions realize what the individual mandate really means for them, as just one facet of this legislative Frankenstein monster. How they must suddenly account for their own health care to federal agents in a manner akin to the federal tax system we all struggle with year after year. Those 16000+ new IRS agents slated to enforce all this won’t exactly be well received as they set about their work to hammer the public into compliance.
This will be a slow burn that will only see consequential eruptions with each and every election. But the consequences will be substantial and negative for the Democrat future. This will continue until there is enough of a governing coalition to take this whole scheme out back and put it out of its misery rather than let it continue terrorizing the countryside.
This country was suckered by into the last two major big government entitlements with the good intentions of throwing a social safety for the needy. Of course the good intentions of well-meaning Democrats AND Republicans who enacted these schemes have been polluted corrupted and mutated from safety net to socialistic cradle to grave entitlement giveaways that are demonstrably unsustainable and incredibly costly failures.
What is different this time is that the information and thus public’s knowledge cannot and will not be controlled by the DC power fixers that marked the Roosevelt and Johnson regimes that enacted them. Unfortunately for the latest greatest iteration of socialism on the federal march the public’s knowledge includes an acute awareness of just how the last two major government entitlement programs have actually panned out. The public has seen decades of these programs treated as the most fertile ground for control, tweaking, manipulation buyoffs and class or generational wedging either for raw political gain or simply to delay the inevitable fiscal disaster.
In short, the public in this information age will not be anesthetized into eventual resigned acceptance of such a massive government power and resource grab no matter how much they are bombarded with the same old socialist Democrat happy talk, rosy scenarios and then ultimate blame shifting. So let the Democrat Obama junta have its day of self congratulation and saccharin euphoria. It is better for all of us that they continue living in denial at the storm barreling towards their trainwreck.
“So let the Democrat Obama junta have its day of self congratulation and saccharin euphoria. It is better for all of us that they continue living in denial at the storm barreling towards their trainwreck.”
Wow, is it Bulwer-Lytton time already?
The way this was so staged and theatric was not a smart move.
Over Bush’s presidency he killed Republican electoral viability over time as more and more voters — not of the blogger activist politico set — came to that threshold moment when political arrogance or trickery quietly solidified their resolve to punish it wholesale no matter who had to take the fall.
The Obamacrats may well have accomplished this same result with millions of voters yesterday in just one fell swoop.
Perhaps their near crazed obsession with Bush’s outrageous arrogance of power caused it to rub off on them because they have pretty much mutated themselves into everything the public hated about Bush and his Republican enablers.
One of the most empowering feelings a voter can have is to join others in handing richly deserved punishments for such vainglory.
It is nice to see I hit a nerve otheranon.
My government owns me. I must spend my money on something (health insurance), simply because I was born.
It is nice to see I hit a nerve otheranon.
It was my funnybone.
David,benevolent despots? One such great leader stepped up for his people,his nation. He championed to end the opressive measures placed upon them by the other nations of the world. He championed to bring them to world prominence and respect. One of his great contributions to mankind was documented in word and photos so history would remember his end result. General Einsenhower ordered the documentation of what he found in the consentration camps of Adolf Hitler because as he said “someday some bastard will come along and try to say this never happened”. This is what happens when “free” people surrender their will,their inititive, and turn to the government for their security. In the end they shall have neither “freedom nor security”.
“As of right now they have taken over the governance of American’s health care. Last week we largely governed our own health care.”
Americans over 65, military, state federal employees, poor people – all use government run heath insurance. The rest have insurance approved, regulated, monitored by 50 State insurance commissioners.
Why does one person have a primary care physician while another goes on charity in the emergency room? Health care is “governed” by ability to pay not individual choice.
Does the definition of coup say anything about counting yeas and nays on television?
You can’t dispense with the constitution on a simple majority vote. That seems to be Tim’s point. Please reread the post.
Right. To dispense with the Constitution, you need a memo from the Attorney General. Worked for Bush…
I guess that you haven’t read that the constitution allows suspension of habeus by the vote of Congress in time of war or insurrection. Congress gave him the power under the Constitution. Did I think it went too far? Yes. Is it the same as a permanent attempt to remake 1/6 of the American economy and mandate every American buy a government approved product or have the IRS down their backs? No.
Yeah, we should have waited a few years when premiums and medical costs were much higher, then we could have impacted 1/5 of the economy.
If banks make up a sizable portion of the economy, should we not regulate them? Would a year of debate be enough to make sure we got it right? Would a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate be enough to pass the bill into law?
We should this and we should that. What are you fricking royals? How about just one lousy vote from anyone not a Democrat?
Sorry but roughly 80% of just one political party alone is not the stuff of economy changing eternal mandates. You have way overplayed your hands.
Irrespective of your ponderings about what it ‘should’ take to do all this, what you did do definitely ain’t it.
Hey, LG thanks for dropping by.
We, we, we!
In the Government of the United States of America there is no more we. That is the point of my blog. The Constitution was created for and because of We the People. This health care reform was created by and for they the legislature and executive branch. A small segment of the existing government of the United States has usurped power from the rest of the government. The attacked government has as of yet failed to thwart them and we are now in the stage where the usurpers seek to establish their legitimacy.
No the definition of a coup does not specify anything about counting votes, but nor does it eliminate that as a method of taking power. The President and Congress are going step by step through the process of a coup. It is pretty straight forward to me, and I think that America should be aware of what is happening.
Does it mean anything that 5 years ago Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, the White House – now We voted them out, We voted in Democratic majorities in Congress and We elected a Democrat President who campaigned for two years on a changing health insurance. What the heck do you want?
Every single Republican voted exactly the same way? Scary. Last time I saw that kind of solidarity was in the old Politburo.
What you are really saying is we had a big national debate, big elections, you lost now it’s all illegal or something?
How many Democrats voted no? The only thing bipartisan was concern about it. The only reason it passed was not on the merits. It was based on political score keeping. It is all Democrats creation. They can have it. They drove away the moderate Republicans who wanted to join them. Snowe, Bennett, Graham, Collins, and others in the Senate and People like Cato, Bono, and others in the house.
Now did the President campaign on individual mandates? He said he opposed them. So do most of the people. Did he campaign on taxes on higher cost existing plans. No. He opposed it and said people should be able to keep what they have. In fact he blasted Clinton and McCain for favoring those positions (her the 1st and him the 2nd). Did he campaign in favor of these type of Medicare cuts? No. The bill actually seems like what he said he didn’t want.
We didn’t like it in 2008, but we are stuck with it in 2010. Changing the label doesn’t make the poison go away.
Rev. Al Sharpton says America voted for Socialism in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqojWrtnieI
I know that isn’t what I voted for. Just in case you try to lable me a Republican shill, I voted for some independent candidates in 2008.
I think that in 2008 a lot of people voted for something without really considering what it would mean. We voted, and in my opinion many did so with limited foresight, but now the people that were voted in all too often aren’t listening to us. That is a problem.
Can I ask you? If the Republicans voted no to socialism and that scares you, do the votes of the Democrats that voted no to socialism also scare you?
What I am saying is that the federal government is taking over areas of governance that belong to the states and to individuals. They talked about it for a long time but the actual takeover took place overnight. We are in the final stage of the coup, where the people choose whether to accept the userper of their governance or not. Voting is NOT illegal but what they voted to do with health care in America IS unconstitutional, and some of the process used to get to this point may be unconstitutional as well.
LOL. So the wacko majority of one political party alone shoves their power fist up the country’s ass against bipartisan opposition and it’s the opposition that resembles the Politburo???
Project much, commie?
Al Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush in 2000. The losing side led by Gore was very respectful of the legal process. Very respectful of our democracy. It hurt bad to lose the election after you win the popular vote. Nobody suggested we take a gallup poll. Nobody was crying coup and communism.
We know what coup means. Here’s the definition of spoiled child syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child
.. You are full of it if you think the Democrats didn’t throw a full fledged hissy fit when President Bush defeated Al Gore in the electoral collage. In fact for some that hissy fit is still in progress. Did people suggest we redo the vote? Yes. Were there court cases over that vote? Yes! Did calls for impeachment begin practically from day one? Yes! Am I still hearing Democrats comment about hanging chads and other things associated with that race to this very day? YES! Conservatives have yet to master the hissy fit to the extent the Democrats and Liberals have. Give us 9 years and we might be getting close.
Now did the progressives make accusations of Communism? No that wouldn’t make any sense comming from them. Instead they went for Imperialist, Facist, and comparisons to Hitler.
To bend, twist, and even break the rules and our Constitution is not to respect it. The power of governance in America has suddenly been shifted away from the people and I believe it has been done in a manner contrary to the Constitution. Call that spoiled child syndrom if you want to, I will stand by that position till the courts say otherwise.
Don’t pay it any mind Timothy. It’s all part of their suite of typical dishonest tactics to avoid the hard questions, the substance and the facts by trying to play the front that they’re the grown ups and they’re “reality based” (HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Ohhhhh that one’s good) and similar such evasive nonsense.
All this so they can short circuit any real scrutiny that would reveal they have no idea what they are doing and, like impeached federal judge now Democrat Congresscritter Alcee Hastings said, are just making it up as they go.
They will never just admit that their progressive agenda does not and will never square with the fundamentals of individual freedom that have defined America for two centuries. It’s why you have commenters like billholt coming here to wrap themselves in goodness and unicornery with the gall to claim he is a conservative.
If they would just be honest that they think freedom is too dangerous and unwieldy for them to permit us all to have we might have an honest debate. But deep down they know they can never come clean like this, except for their most radical and ironically most honest zealots who make no bones that they loathe this country’s founding ideals and what they have produced.
Individual freedom has not “defined America” for two centuries. The “quest” for freedom is what defines us. Freedoms progress.
What defined America for most of the first century? Slavery. The fight to extend freedom to slaves. Then in the second century freedom was extended to women so they could vote. Into the third century freedom was extended so every citizen was free to go to any school or restaurant or hotel they wished. In between we new freedom to children. They could be forced to work in sweat shops.
That facts are more American have way more freedom today than in our first two centuries. If anybody feels cramped for freedom, turn back the clock 100 years. The cops could look you up just for looking at them the wrong way. We fixed that. Progress is good.
Freedom is progress. Not the other way around socialisT123.
The leftist crowing these past few days for police state tactics against Tea Party people because a few are nutbags says it all.
I’d rather be locked up for looking at a cop the wrong way than for using politically incorrect speech or “hate” speech. The latter is much much more dangerous tyranny than a single bully cop.
But to the point of turning the clock back you and your Orwellian self styled “progressives” are pushing everyone else into that forced march, as in:
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation [EXECUTIVE ORDERS]:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: [I.E. MAKING STATE FEDERALISM CAPITULATE TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM]
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. [I.E. UNITARY OBAMA GOVERNMENT FOR WHICH THE 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENTS ARE RENDERED MEANINGLESS]
Yeah, I’d say you all are taking us way back and in the worst of ways.
The only future worth living is freedom from collectivist government not serfdom to your “community”.
Well I guess we disagree. I feel really really free here in these wonderful United States. I love this country. I see it as a shining city on a hill.
We don’t want to be slaves to government or private interests. That’s why we’re trying to fix this little freedom problem; where if you don’t work for the government or some big corporation you have to pay 5x more to be insured. That ain’t freedom. That’s being jerked around by Big Brothers. So freedom is in the eye of the beholder sometimes.
Only thing really bugging me is the way the way we ruined that nice balanced budget we had in 2000. Just think, after 230 years we had a balanced budget. A surplus. The debt clock stopped. On our way to the smallest national debt v GDP since 1915. Then it all got turned upside down.
T123, I think that Individual Freedom is what defines America and the Quest to achieve more individual freedom and use it is what defines Americans. Freedom does not progress. It is what it is, but the level of freedom a person lives with can progress and regress. However, remember that freedom has a corrolary, and that is the responsibility for the outcome of ones actions. If you are not feeling the outcomes of your actions than you are not free.
In Christianity their is more than one reason why Christ is known as the master. One of those reasons is because he pays for the negative outcomes of our actions if we will accept his sacrifice for us. That is not freedom, but according to the theology if we accept it as needed it will enable us to move on and achieve greater levels of freedom in the future. The same is true of a child with their parent. Children experience a fair level of freedom, but because they have a parent or guardian to answer for their actions they are not free. I think this is a fine stage to go through and it helps us progress towards true freedom, however Americans are headed from true freedom into the nanny state, which ultimately stiffles freedom.
Basically, abolishing slavery – good, ending segregation – good, allowing all citizens 18 and up to vote – good, reducing tyrany of police forces – good. All of these things increased the level of freedom that human beings in America had. However, placing a mandate on people and businesses to pay for health care is not increasing freedom.
Nancy Pelosi seems to think that the government making artists get health care so they don’t have to work side jobs and can focus on their art is additional freedom for America. It isn’t. It is merely the displacement of various freedoms to choose with a “freedom from” responsibility for some.
By the way the 2nd Amendment is one of the best ways to help reduce tyranny. And look at that the 2nd Amendment is a freedom.
T123′s problem is that he wants freedom from corporate ripoffs – which everyone already has by freely choosing not to to do business with them — by having many other freedoms taken away by government which none of us can freely choose not to do business with.
These socialists simply see corporate abuses from which you can opt out as worse than government coercion from which you cannot. Conveniently government coercion serves their leftist agenda always. In fact it IS their leftist agenda.
Take coercion and force out of it billholt and we can talk about how you cherish this country and other platitudes.
Taking others’ property so some can have free stuff and they don’t get “ripped off” (in your opinion) by big bad VOLUNTARY health insurance schemes is socialism no two ways about it.
You have the right to make your own bad health decisions. But NO legitimate government exists that would make them my or anyone else’s responsibility to subsidize by force and coercion.
Timothy. a lot to think about there. Your are right about Christ and Christianity and Freedom all intermingled. Why folks talk like this is all perfectly clear is hard to figure.
It really is hard to tell what a mandate for insurance means to freedom. Does it mean one person is no longer free to come to our hospitals expecting free emergency care at the expense of others? The freeloader has less freedom, but those paying for insurance are free of the burden of paying for others.
I am not saying that’s correct, just touching on your observation one freedom displaces another – so the questions becomes is the trade off of one freedom for another just? The slave owner loses freedom, the slaves gain. The polluter loses freedom, the polluted gain.
A basic example recent times is government ban on smoking in restaurants. That was the ultimate ass kick big brother insult. I thought, hold it, politicians pushed it, the voters voted for it, there’s no voter demand for politicians campaign to permit smoking – so in the end this freedom was taken away by my fellow citizens. I lost the freedom to blow smoke their way. They gained the freedom they wanted. Whatta ya gonna do? And plus, it really is a better way to live.
So in the end you can call up the fancy word theories socialism capitalism communism totalitarianism – it all boils down to:
•Do these exchanges one freedom for another make life better for us?
•Did we elect the people who made the changes.
•Can we defeat the people who made changes.
The only major change to freedom I know of that was ever actually reversed by The People was when the 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment.
In 1932, the Democratic Party’s platform included a plank to repeal of Prohibition. The government tried to take away booze. Even put it in the Constitution. The people would not stand for it. Went to all the trouble to take it our of the Constitution. That system still works. Not even Orwell can crack it.
That’s why I feel very very free. Not afraid. No boot on my throat. Just breathing in the sweet smell of American liberty. Never been a more free country.
In the first days of this country there were people that were not free and should have been, but the ones that were free were the freest people to ever live on this earth. Today everyone, (aside from those that are stuck in the human trafficking that still occurs in America) is free, but the rights preserved in that freedom are diminished. The taxes and mandates are increased.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” Samuel Adams
I just saw this on facebook and thought I’d share it. Samuel Adams was far more strident about the issue of freedom than I could ever hope to be.
I think the freest people on Earth were most likely the cave men. In America, certainly the American Indians. Our ancestors had a rudimentary view of freedom. I think we have been refining it ever since. Indians live now on bordered Reservations. If we wanted their land today, I doubt we would kill them. Gets back to one man’s freedom intruding on others. We can venerate the Founders time, but there is much not to worship. We do it better now.
Thomas Paine questioned the relatively new concept of people claiming ownership to God’s land. He conjectured that prior to a new system contrived “ownership” of land by deeding, all humans were born to nature as landowners. God’s earth was for all. Paine wrote about a tax to pay every born person a permanent stipend for the dispossession.
The Samuel Adams quote sounds like advice to Loyalists who put profit before liberty. Many were comfortable with their financial status under the King. Others willing to sacrifice lives and fortunes.
The protection of wealth, the pursuit of Freedom have been an issue in the United States ever since. This health insurance issue is another of a long line of debates that touches on that.
It was status quo for the loyalist content, revolution if you were not content.
Many of us modern revolutionaries are not content with a status quo where health insurance is such a dominant factor in our life. We are smashing that status quo. Making something new.
You consider yourself to be part of the revolution and I see you as a government loyalist seeking to return a largely self governmed people to the global status quo of strong centralized government. To me you are comfortable with your financial status under President Obama and the Progressives in government, while I am willing to sacrifice that to retain liberties I see being taken away. It seems we have a difference of opinion on the matter.
The early American Revolutionaries may have been figting against A status quo but they were also fighting against changes. If the new taxes had not been imposed on them (changes), while they found themselves lacking representation in their government (status quo) than they would have lacked the impetus for a sucessfull revolt.
To me it is a matter of where you want to see the power in this nation. When a centralized government has all the power basically the only way to return power to the people is through revolution. When the power is decentralized shifting it, in cases where an individual or entity has abused their power, tends to be less dramatic. Therefore I prefer the latter.
Timothy, I don’t think I have to convince you there is a difference between a monarchy and our democracy. You’re talking like the Declaration of Independence was directed at the Constitution. Like the Founders were fighting the United States government that they themselves invented. We were fighting a monarchy so we could have this set we have now.
When the communists wanted revolution in the United States in understood. They wanted to destroy the Constitution and set up their Workers Paradise. At least we knew what they wanted. But hearing Americans say they want a revolution? I really don’t get it. A revolution to where? A no Government Paradise? No foods stamps or medicare. No Congress doing this stuff? We have revolutions every couple years in the United States.
The reason I do so much of this back and forth is I really am trying to crack the code. Here we are in one of the richest freest places on earth and I get the feeling anti-U.S government conservatives feel trapped and coerced and the government is the enemy. I want to understand what that is about.
You really don’t get it. The American’s of the original 13 states were some of the richest citizens of any nation on earth at the time. Their government wasn’t but they were. They were a people that were very sensitive to injustice, tyranny, and any form of governance that put them on unequal footing or failed to provide them equal representation in their government. Many of them actually did rebuff the Constitution because they felt it created a central government that was too strong. If the Founders saw what the United States government has become today, and what the three branches have done and were doing I have no doubt they would find plenty to revolt against.
Why don’t you know this or why do you interpret the facts so different from the way Conservatives understand them?
I don’t feel as certain I know what the Founders think. All we have is the paperwork they left us. It’s not the Bible. Not the Ten Commandments. The Founders reference God but they are not Gods.
How could the Founders not be happy about today? There still is a United States of America we added 36 states. More freedom more justice more prosperity for more citizens now. People live happier healthier longer better educated lives with far greater security. Much greater wealth distributed among a much more diverse group of citizens.
It think that is how they would judge. They were very humanistic.
I doubt they would gaze upon all the wonders of modern America and bitch about the commerce clause being stretched. They most likely would chuckle at how well overall we honored their experiment with self government.
The United States is art. You make it sound like science. Like there is an instruction manual calling out every move and somehow we are screwing up. It really saddens me to see such a wonderful Nation scorned for no reason other than the lose of an election.
When you write “Why don’t you know this or why do you interpret the facts so different from the way Conservatives understand them?” Timothy, as far as I’m concerned there are not too many facts when it comes to how we should run things in the United States.
All conservative think in sync? I don’t think so. I’ll never give in to the idea than I am not a true conservative or Republican. I’m determined to ride this anti-government fad out, and still be Republican when things get back to normal for the GOP.
I have to wonder if you have ever read any of the words of our founders beyond what they make you read in school if you think that the people that wrote the Constitution would be thrilled about the distribution of wealth.
Conservatives don’t all think in synch, but they do agree that we need to keep the central government small if we want to retain the right and ability to think and act according to our own will. If you want to avoid group think than you have to retain the power to govern yourself. Strong central governments squelch that power. So feel free to synch your thoughts with President Obama, when you finally wake up you may find it harder to break free than you expected. Don’t worry though, I’ll be there along with others who still think for themselves rather than with the government to help you when you do wake up.
I read a fair amount of the Founders as well as Adam Smith. You might be to vested in the past. We are solving America’s today problems, not trying to restore yesterday.
Distribution of wealth was always a subject of importance. Thomas Paine is said to be the inspiration for Theodore Roosevelt to present day Warren Buffet on the subject of inheritance tax as a way to prevent static wealth remaining families for generations, and how we might avoid the patrician aristocracy oligarchy and all the other dregs of the Old World.
How wealth is distribute controlled managed taxed and turned around is a weighty matter. It’s not as simple as “we don’t do that”. We do it all the time, been doing since day one. It is one of the pillars of why we are a great nation with the world’s most prosperous middle class.
Here in the New World we got it set up where the wealthiest pay most of the taxes for most of everything. The poor pay mostly nothing into the pot, get a lot back. Do we think we paid our share of the space shuttle and the war? No we got most of it from Bill Gates and the rich. The top 20% pay for everything. We redistributed their money for the needs of everybody. We have anti-trust laws to redistribute monopoly power into more equitable portions. Been doing it forever been more people rich doing it that way. For one thing we can conduct commerce with food riots and insurrection among the poor slowing us down. Domestic tranquility does not come free.
I made a lot of money once. In one big chunk. I paid 1000x more income tax than my neighbor. We both get the same back in public service. I was totally redistributed, smiled all the way to the bank counting my blessings. I thought it was a lot of money, but actually it probably was just enough to pay for the windshield on one F-22 Raptor jet. But I did my part.
Capitalism is not a winner take all casino game. We don’t let 10 guys win everything fair and square. We make sure we keep the house pot healthy. That is the redistribution is we are talking about.
Communism says nobody can own anything. Americanism says nobody can own everything.
Like Capitalism? I sure do. Better make sure the wealth is spread. Government is one of tools we use to do that.
i>Like Capitalism? I sure do. Better make sure the wealth is spread. Government is one of tools we use to do that.
I agree with the sentiment but I have a quibble.
“Wealth” is net worth. Nobody is proposing to tax net worth, only income.
If you are running a store or a factory, for example, you don’t get to put 100% of revenue in your pocket. You have to pay off your obligations before you put the money in your pocket. It’s not really all yours.
Taxes are an acknowledgment that, as you are stuffing the money in your pockets, that other people helped you make that money, and provided the market and services that put that money in your cash register.
I don’t know how a person could read Common Sense and then believe that Thomas Paine would support half the systems in our government today that are used to redistribute wealth. I just don’t understand that kind of thinking.
Some of the policies being followed today are designed to exaserbate poverty and desperation. One example would be the forced drought in California. The farms didn’t need to dry up those towns didn’t need to become desolate. Families and businesses did not need to be impoverished. Our government’s policies made it that way. Social justice, economic justice, and ecological justice enforced by a top heavy government are doing that to Americans.
anon, the way you describe collecting a paycheck and earning money makes it seem as dirty and bad as committing murder. It is baffling to me, and it is sickening.
anon2, on the other hand seems to be progressing to the point were they will be able to describe being mugged as a glorious act of benevolence. I can practically see the angles singing every time a person is robbed in that kind of world. Once again I am baffled by the praises of having one’s money taken from them. You might find this supprising but no one has ever been Sainted for paying their taxes. That is because paying taxes isn’t charity.
Your quibbling over the difference between wealth and income is legitimate but it is also interesting. Taxing income is a surfire way to limit an individual’s opportunity of ever generating wealth. It is interesting to see how and how often “social progress” slows and even blocks personal progress. When the individuals that make up a society are limited in how much wealth they can generate the society is also limited. Then all progress tends to slow, stop, and even reverse course.
Bu..bu..but..social justice…equality of everything….unicorns farting rainbows!!
anon, the way you describe collecting a paycheck and earning money makes it seem as dirty and bad as committing murder. </i?
You don’t make that money in a vacuum. The framework of society is what enables you to make that money. That is why the decision on how much money you get to keep is a political decision (i.e., taxes).
Taxes are society’s way of tapping you on the shoulder and saying “Ahem…. you didn’t make that money all by yourself; there are some other costs out there that don’t appear on your balance sheet.”
The Founders wanted a nice happy free prosperous United States with justice for all. We are working out the details everyday.
Timothy, I still say you are advocating we jump into a time machine back to imaginary yesterday that never was. It was dirty, barbaric, full of sickness injustice savagery. Less freedom less prosperity. Streets fouled with sewage. Men died at 45. Women blacks traded as chattel. The crippled, the beggars squatted in the gutter. Infants died terrible deaths. Abortion was rampant. That is why life, liberty, happiness, common defense, general welfare are foundational themes of this still new government. Now look where we are. Everything better. Yet you are bitching like something has gone horribly wrong. We need to get back to 1776.
No doubt Paine talked about permanent tax permanent payments to all citizens dispossessed of land. Paine is widely recognized as one of the great thinkers on inheritance tax as a way to avoid stagnation of wealth among a small number of families. We have quotes to support just about anything. The danger is thinking “you” have cracked the code. The Founders wanted a nice happy free prosperous United States with justice for all. We are working out the details everyday.
And why the overreacting exaggerations. Somebody says money earned is never “all ours”. That’s reinterpreted by you to mean a paycheck is “dirty bad as committing murder sickening”. What is up with that? The point was simply everything we earn in the private sector is made possible by support from the public sector. You are advocating for a free lunch. Tax pays for the public sector. Do we hire our own police to guard our workplace where we earn “our money” no we do the policing collectively. When we flush our toilet at work, do we pay for the elaborate system? No. We do that collectively. That is the point. Not dirty not murder. Nobody wants to “steal” everybody’s money and give it to poor lazy people so we can all be equal. Nobody hates profit and business and rich people. You are fighting imaginary demons placed in your head by professional political wrestlers all huffing and puffing throwing chairs and beating their chests to get your attention. the political hucksters.
Your argument is sincere, but I am afraid it is make believe. You have been led to believe much that simply is not true. First among those falsehoods is the belief that we should apply our war grievances against the King Of England to the Congress of the United States. Second, it the false assumption that we do not work collectively in the United States.
Even the California water deal is twisted out of recognition to make anti-government points. Who set up that whole incredible network that turned desert into prosperity? Collectivism. The government. Us. Tax payers. We the People. All together for the common good. Those are good words. Not bad words. They are American words.
So the owner of the vineyard, the casino mogul, they are going to claim it’s all “their” money. There genius. How self centered. Did they build the Hoover dam? How do we charge them for common defense general welfare? Do they spit at the thought of being “forced” to put back into the pot? That is not American.
You should not be dipping back to 1775 trying to stretch language directed at the King of England and somehow twist into an attack on the very Congress our Founders put in place.
RE: #45.) anon, I was just getting worried that the maturity level of this thread was too high. Thank you for allaying my fears.
RE: #46.) anon, it is very intriguing to me that you do not dissagree with my assesment that you appear to be putting the collection of a paycheck on par with murder.
Thanks to the health care bill, one of those costs out there that didn’t make it to my balance sheet apparently now includes providing Viagra to sex offenders. Pardon me for bucking against my “CIVIC DUTY.” Even if you believe that social justice inspired answer you gave me expansive government entitlements have made it a bunch of bunk. Am I really paying for things that helped me earn that money when I pay my taxes? At one point that may have been true, but the amount of money taken in taxes that actually benneffits the tax payer and enables them to earn more has been greatly diluted.
Earning a living is not robbing society it is building society. Taking away the justly earned living of others because the politicians have decided how much money they should get to keep destroys society. Your utopia is corruption in my eyes.
I don’t know how a person could read Common Sense and then believe that Thomas Paine would support half the systems in our government today that are used to redistribute wealth.
You are right. Here is Thomas Paine’s system:
And Paine funds this with – get this – a death tax.
SSSSMOKIN’ ………………… !!!
Timothy, the common defense is up to $700 billion a year, that’s not counting Homeland security. What do you think your share should be? We doubled prison beds and staff in Delaware. What should your share be? C’mon, without taxes and government there would be no wealth. no highways for McDonalds to sit on. No suburbs for builders to build. You looking at one half of a really big picture. It is what it is. Make as much as you can. But whining about kicking into the pot is not helping. How about all the pacifists forced to pay for Iraq? You think you got problems. We don’t pay taxes a la carte where you can check off what you like. Don’t let people seduce you out of the real world.
RE: #49.) anon, I choose my words carefully. I am well aware that Paine had some ideas that would grieve the modern Conservative. However, many of today’s other schemes of redistribution would have been equally grievious to him. Even though Thomas Paine may have been in error on the death tax and in my opinion some of his facts on land ownership are a bit off, he still opposed a strong central government that fails to achieve or even seek consent to the governed.
Thomas Paine is the Founding Father of Social Security and the American estate tax.
I always thought the Founding Fathers implemented an estate tax to head off an aristocracy. Turns out I was wrong; the estate tax was implemented in the 20th century. But now I know where the idea came from. Paine was on the right track; the implementation came later.
And if you read the essay, not only is he the father of those particular programs, he identifies the underlying issue as social justice (and he makes a halfway decent run at an economic justification too).
I guess the Founding Fathers didn’t plan much for health care, because back then “health care” basically killed you and didn’t cost much.
They didn’t plan for health care because back then health care was a profession, not a government program; the domain of doctors, not beaurocrats.
Thomas Paine was a great champion of American liberty, but I think we are fortunate that while he helped clear the way for America’s government he did not have direct involvement in its creation. He understood the cause of human freedom. He placed society as a good and recognized that government was evil in all forms but necessary in some. He had a clear and correct picture of what government should not be, but his ideas for what government should be were lacking. Unfortunatly, it appears that he failed to see the some of the evils inherent in the proposals he made for governance later in life.
The one fortunate thing is that if he followed the ideals for governance that he laid out in Common Sense most of his ideas would never come to fruition. He stressed that the interests of the elected should never be separated from the interests of the electors. While the Americans of his day were not interested in the governance of England they clearly didn’t favor Paine’s later ideas of spreading the wealth. So Paine saved America from himself as long as America would stick to his guidance of government fidelity to the public.