Tax the rich, seems to be the current theme of worldwide liberal/progressives (Libpos). I suppose if the truth be told it’s not exactly a new theme for them, but between the new French president and our own Incompetent in Chief, it seems to be gaining a lot of momentum. This seems to be gaining more and more favor as more and more of the populations become dependent on the government for their livelihood instead of their own productivity.
The indolent look at the productive and say “It’s not fair that they should have so much and I so little, let’s have the government take it from them and give it to me.” (Something that if they were to do it themselves it would be called robbery or theft but when they get the government to do it they call it a progressive tax rate. Progressive meaning different people pay different amounts, which to me would seem to be the epitome of unfair! By the nature of math, those who make more pay more by paying the same rate. Additionally, those who pay more, use fewer of the services they are paying for than those who pay less or even nothing. Where is the fairness in that?)
I’m sure to the Libpos this seems like a wonderful idea. Those nasty productive types getting lucky (if by lucky you mean work hard and make wise decisions) and having so much. They can be the ones to pay for all our giveaways that we buy votes with.
But there is a fly in the Libpo ointment.
What do people do when they feel they are being unfairly treated? The productive class figures out how to do something about it. And that is exactly what is happening, both here and abroad.
If you look at the States with the most long standing Libpo governments (read Democrat)you will find they tend to be the states with the highest progressive tax rates and the most generous state benefits. Unsurprisingly, these are the states with the largest percentage of people on the government dole. Equally unsurprising is the fact that these are the states that are in the most financial difficulty. California and New York top the list in this category.
So how then do the Libpos propose to deal with their financial issues brought on by punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive? Will they see the error of their ways and do things to reward the productive and disincentivize (I think I just made up a word there) the indolent?
No, no, no, no, no, of course not. Why would they ever look to behavioral science where long ago Pavlov and Skinner proved that you will get what you reinforce and will extinguish what you don’t.
They of course choose to increase the taxes even further on the productive class so as to avoid reducing or possibly even increasing their rewards for the nonproductive.
Quite predictably, the productive class is finding a solution. They are leaving those states. Californians and New Yorkers are abandoning their draconian states for more favorable business climates. Ones where they are not excessively punished for being productive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are nearly 200 Californians a day moving to Texas alone. Similar moves are taking place from New York to Florida, and other more friendly climes.
On the national level, Libpos like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are looking to make similar tax hikes on the productive. The mere talk of it has caused many of the productive class to become expatriates. The most recent of which was one of the Facebook co-founders who gave up his US citizenship rather than submit to their oppressive taxes.
The newly elected French President Hollande ran on a platform, not of austerity but of taxing the rich at a rate of 100% over some set amount and increasing the size of the French government and what it would give away. To no ones’ surprise, other than the Libpos, as soon as Hollande won the presidency, the productive class in France started making their escape plans. Reports from around the globe are popping up of productive French citizens moving to less restraining environments.
When will these Libpos ever learn? I believe a quote from Ron White probably explains the attitude of the productive class as it relates to the Libpos, “I’m a pretty good dog, but if you expect me to stay on the porch, you got to pet me every once in a while.”
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Evil Republicans For Gay Marriage
I was listening to Mark Bellingham (sp?) while out to lunch and he said something that got me to thinking. He said, and I paraphrase here, that to “legalize” a marriage between same sex couples is to say there is legally no difference between men and women. And I can see where he is coming from. To say that there is no difference between a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman than there is between a man and a woman marrying is to say that in the law’s eyes, there is no legal difference between men and women.
To remove that distinction in this instance removes it in all instances. You can’t say that a fish is a fish except when it’s a cow. A fish is a fish whether it’s in a lake or on your plate. In the legal sense to say that the fish is a fish in one instance but it’s a cow in another, that doesn’t work. Once you set the bar, the bar must remain the same in all instances. If not, the whole concept of impartiality of the law and the law being “blind” becomes null and void.
Let me say up front, I’ve done no research to back up what I’m going to say next, but I would bet that the majority of folks who favor gay marriage consider themselves to be liberal. (I myself neither favor nor oppose gay marriage. I believe that is up to the individuals involved and the state should not be involved in either the sanctioning or vilifying of any unions. As long as it doesn’t lead to someone losing life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it’s none of the government’s business. Oops, sorry for the mini libertarian rant.)
I doubt seriously that most of these supporters would like to see the logical extension of removing the legal differences between men and women. Wouldn’t this simple act, by definition, undo decades of laws the liberals have shepherded into being, either by legislation or through judicial fiat?
Think about it. If there are no legal differences between men and women, doesn’t that make Title IX superfluous? Schools could choose to have whatever sports they wished to support, regardless of the gender of folks participating. If a school chose to only have football, basketball and track, and only have the best participants on the field, there would be no legal ground for a liberal to stand on to complain that such a move discriminates against women. Since the law says men and women are equal in all ways.
If there is no legal difference between men and women, all talk of gender discrimination and the laws relating to it must go away. Since legally there are no differences.
Think of all the money businesses could save by only having to provide 1 restroom facility. No need to provide redundant facilities since there are no differences, right?
No need to have different sets of qualifying scores on physical fitness exams for such things as law enforcement, fire services, emergency services, the military. There are no legal differences. There is one and only one standard all must equally achieve.
The cosmic bunny hole that would be created by legalizing same sex marriages could be all consuming from a liberal perspective. A truly evil conservative might push for legalizing gay marriage merely for the havoc they could wreck upon the liberal agenda once the legal precedent was set that there was no difference between men and women.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
To remove that distinction in this instance removes it in all instances. You can’t say that a fish is a fish except when it’s a cow. A fish is a fish whether it’s in a lake or on your plate. In the legal sense to say that the fish is a fish in one instance but it’s a cow in another, that doesn’t work. Once you set the bar, the bar must remain the same in all instances. If not, the whole concept of impartiality of the law and the law being “blind” becomes null and void.
Let me say up front, I’ve done no research to back up what I’m going to say next, but I would bet that the majority of folks who favor gay marriage consider themselves to be liberal. (I myself neither favor nor oppose gay marriage. I believe that is up to the individuals involved and the state should not be involved in either the sanctioning or vilifying of any unions. As long as it doesn’t lead to someone losing life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it’s none of the government’s business. Oops, sorry for the mini libertarian rant.)
I doubt seriously that most of these supporters would like to see the logical extension of removing the legal differences between men and women. Wouldn’t this simple act, by definition, undo decades of laws the liberals have shepherded into being, either by legislation or through judicial fiat?
Think about it. If there are no legal differences between men and women, doesn’t that make Title IX superfluous? Schools could choose to have whatever sports they wished to support, regardless of the gender of folks participating. If a school chose to only have football, basketball and track, and only have the best participants on the field, there would be no legal ground for a liberal to stand on to complain that such a move discriminates against women. Since the law says men and women are equal in all ways.
If there is no legal difference between men and women, all talk of gender discrimination and the laws relating to it must go away. Since legally there are no differences.
Think of all the money businesses could save by only having to provide 1 restroom facility. No need to provide redundant facilities since there are no differences, right?
No need to have different sets of qualifying scores on physical fitness exams for such things as law enforcement, fire services, emergency services, the military. There are no legal differences. There is one and only one standard all must equally achieve.
The cosmic bunny hole that would be created by legalizing same sex marriages could be all consuming from a liberal perspective. A truly evil conservative might push for legalizing gay marriage merely for the havoc they could wreck upon the liberal agenda once the legal precedent was set that there was no difference between men and women.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)