OK!
Time for a math class, followed by some politics!
Time and again just recently, I have seen emails making the rounds purporting to present "alternatives" to the government "stimulus" plans. Too often, so-called "conservative" commentators make similar prognostications; they usually take the form of, "well, if you divided the latest stimulus bill out and gave a check to every American, it would come to (some fictitious large number) apiece! That would be better!"
Yeah.
First, see, you have to be able to do math. These plans all report huge sums of money in individual checks, enough to pay off mortgages and school loans, buy new cars, that kind of thing; usually followed up by some variation of "now THAT would be a stimulus!"
The problem is that those huge sums of money are entirely fictitious, and based on the notion that you won't actually DO the math yourself.
So.
Glen Beck is responsible for the latest version of this; claims that the current stimulus bill will divide out to $17K per person in the USA.
NO.
NO IT WILL NOT.
It will divide into less than $3, 000, as a matter of fact; in order for 305, 000, 000 people to get $17, 000 apiece, you'd need to be dividing up $5.2 TRILLION, or higher than the entire federal budget for last year. Want to check me? It's easy; go to the Windows calculator, type in 305, 000, 000, and multiply it by 17, 000. What do you get?
Look at the number of zeroes; it sure as hell isn't any $819 billion, that's GODdamn sure.
So, the basic math behind these plans are sadly lacking. I mean, $3k is a nice piece, but you're not paying off your mortgage with it, you know? But that's not the only problem with this.
The other, more serious problem, is that anyone proposing these things either is a "yellow dog" conservative - someone who will vote for a yellow dog if it's a registered Republican - or someone calling themselves a conservative without really understanding the moral principles behind conservatism.
Why do I say this, considering some of the well-known "conservative" commentators who have espoused such programs?
Simple.
That money does not belong to you.
It sure as hell does not belong to me.
It belongs to the people who actually paid the taxes. Since I - and many of you - will be getting either all, or most, of our tax withholdings back this year, NOT A PENNY of that money belongs to me, or you.
So.
When you're talking about taking money from someone, and giving it to someone else, you're talking about communism. Wealth redistribution - "economic justice" as they call it - is a core tenet of communism, and something near and dear to the hearts of nearly every member of today's liberal leadership.
And if you're supporting something that is a core tenet of communism, advocating theft from someone, governmental abrogation of property rights, you are NOT a conservative.
Which is why, for all their babble, people like Neil Boortz and Glen Beck are not conservatives.
They can mouth talking points, but at their core, they don't understand the basic moral principles behind conservatism. You do not have a right to things that belong to other people. That's not an opinion; it's a basic moral principle.
The government does not have the right to take away the ownership of private property. That's not an opinion; it's a basic moral principle.
The government does not have a right to redistribute wealth. That's not an opinion; it's a basic moral principle.
The government CANNOT have a right to take away your ability to feed yourself or your family through your own efforts. That's not an opinion; it's a basic moral principle.
And if you, or a commentator, doesn't understand that, then you're not a conservative. Not REALLY. You may want a smaller government, but you don't understand WHY.
You might think about that.
Because if the only reason you're voting conservative is because you've always voted that way, maybe you need to re-think things.
And if you've always voted liberal, and you DO understand those basic moral principles, maybe YOU need to rethink things.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment