Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Push Back on the "Give Back"


"Give something back" is a leftist rhetorical trick designed to shame people into pouring even more money into failed state enterprises.
President Obama delivered his official response to the budget crisis: those who have benefited the most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back. (HuffPo - Rev Al Sharpton)
What an absurd statement.  But liberalism has become an eternal fount of absurd pronouncements.

Here is the statement straight from the emperor's mouth:
"It's a basic reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more."  (President Obama - RCP)
"Give back" presupposes that someone took something.  That is why it is an absurd statement.  So until demagogues like Obama can give us details on just what exactly "the rich" took from us, (and which ones?  Name names!), I'll continue to ignore them. 

Speaking of "Taking..." and "Giving Back..."

What have all those recipients of government-subsidized student loans and government grants given back?  How are welfare recipients, government housing residents and food stamp users paying us back?

At the next DC-NY taxpayer-funded orgy, Obama should ask GE CEO Jeffrey HeMelts when GE will "give back" all the damned tax money they have scammed us out of.  When will Obama-owned GM give back the $50 billion he took from us and gave them in a fit of crony crapitalism that would make FDR blush?

And didn't effete millionaire jet setters Michelle and Barack Obama use government-subsidized student loans and grants to attend Ivy League schools?  And don't those schools receive millions each year in government funds?  Have the Obama's given it back?

If liberals really want to go down this road of "give something back," we conservatives and libertarians should take them all the way.

Give Something Back?  Statists Have it Backwards

Government should give us back...

Economic liberty; incandescent bulbs; drilling permits; freedom to travel through airports without being groped, raped, scanned, fondled and strip searched;  Sane immigration policy...

What would you like to see government give back? 

* -  For a more in-depth treatment, see Kook's excellent post, "C'Mon Time to Give Something Back"

25 comments:

amanofwonder said...

"What would you like to see government give back?"

Normally I would find that question to be repulsive. Yet given the context leading up to it, I can give but one answer.

Give me back what was mine in the first place, the freedom to succeed or fail based on my individual efforts.

Country Thinker said...

Can I only name one thing, or can I spend the next week and a half typing non-stop to compile a thorough list?

If I could only choose one, though, give me back my Constitution. That would fix a lot of things.

KOOK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
KOOK said...

I could not agree more. I did a post on "time to give something back" too. That phrase just royally steams me.

I reposted on ALN, hope that is ok.

Jersey McJones said...

This whole "civilization" thing kinda elludes you guys, huh?

We say "give back" because the rich don't become rich in a vaccuum. This great nation provides the environment and opportunities for people to get rich in the first place. We're not Somalia. Given our current budget situation, given that the wealthy are wealthier than ever and paying less taxes than ever, they SHOULD "give back." It is the correct, moral, ethical, RIGHT thing to do.

JMJ

Lisa said...

It is the correct, moral, ethical, RIGHT thing to do.

We know the reason Jersey,it has nothing to do with revenue.
If it weren't for the rich how could we afford all the subsidies given out. I think they have been more than fair.
Using the rich is just another talking point because at it stands it is going to be all of us who pay more just so liberals can blame the rich....oh and Bush.

Jersey McJones said...

Lisa, it is ALL about the revenues. We're in serious financial trouble and the wealthy can easily afford to pull us out of it.

JMJ

Eat Here Get Gas said...

some things just have to be told.

conservativesonfire said...

How about they give us back the government described in our constitution.

Lisa said...

Jersey the revenues required can only be achieved if the taxes raises are spread around to the largest pool of people and it isn't the top 2% or even the top 10%.
It's those making 100,000 or more and the people below tat will be paying in other ways like we are no seeing with gas,food and health care.
Next year copays are going to be the largest we have ever seen even by all to cover those without.You want the rich to pay for everyone's health care too? So in time we will start to see more without because of the burden on those who are just scraping by as it is.
All this does is create more poor people and poorer,poor people.
See how much more poor the poorest are in countries with socialism. Starting with Sweden the role model of the left.

Jersey McJones said...

Lisa,

Don't use such silly hyperboly. Nobody is asking the rich to pay for all of anything. Just their fair share to keep the country moving. It's in their long term self-interest too, ya' know.

JMJ

Leticia said...

Wow! Bravo, Silver!

The first person to be giving back should be Obama and then his cut-throat administration. I think they have benefited quite nicely in their way of life. Spending someone else's money!

Silverfiddle said...

Spoken like a true progressive statist, Jersey.

If we went back to taxing the rich at 1950's levels, as Robert Reich suggests, that would only reap another $350 billion/year or so according to Reich's calculations.

Take everything from "the rich" and you're a little over $1.2 trillion--still not enough to pay for Obama's spreadin' it around profligacy.

What is a "fair share?" Who defines it, and on what basis?

Bastiatarian said...

I'd like the people that are spending the money that was confiscated from me for Socialist Security to give me back that money so I can buy my kids shoes that don't have holes in them, or fix the dead car sitting in front of my house, or buy the new glasses that I've been putting off for months as everything gets blurrier and blurrier. The only thing Socialist Security does is destroy my family's security and well-being. There's a special place in Hell for those who started that Ponzi scheme or who support it now.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

What would you like to see government give back? GIVE US BACK OUR DIGNITY AS A NATION!

Jersey, the federal government can take all the money they want from the rich and perhaps from the middle class as well, but that won't solve the the problem any more then raising the debt ceiling, because the more the government takes in, the more they spend. Wake up.

Jack Camwell said...

Here's a thought for Liberals to consider.

Imagine you pull like $500,000 a year, you own a mid-sized business, and suddenly you've gotta fork over 90% of your $500,000 to the government.

Then imagine that you also are keenly aware that there are tons of people out there who are living off of your back, and they have no desire to ever get off of it, because they know the government will always "give something back," to them, even if they never ever find a job.

Wouldn't it piss you off to know that 90% of your hard-earned money is going to some low-life dead beat that keeps popping out kids because he/she knows that they get more money for having more children?

We need to start talking about actually reforming these programs before we start talking about funding or defunding.

You do realize, Jersey, that welfare in its current state is a black hole? The money multiplier doesn't work when that money is going to someone who's never going to give back to the community.

Giving something back is a two way street.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver,

Again, to you too, please cool off on the hyperbole.

It would be highly unlikely that it would be wise to go back to the 1950's income taxes. In the 50's, we we a quarter of the worlds industry. We were building and investing in massive infrastructural and institutional development both here and abroad. The dollar was constantly on the rise and the GDP with growth and export trade kept up with it. It was a very different world in a lot of ways.

If you wanted to make a historical comparison, you should probably look at the GHW Bush/Clinton years. It wasn't that long ago, and it worked better than anything we've had since.

George HW Bush, Tom Foley and Dan Rostenkowski, and then later Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, negotiated rates that produced the necessary revenues with as small an impact on private investment and political capital as realistically possible. They truly met the minds and worked things out as best as could have possibly been expected.

The effect? More and more and then finally totally, the government paid it's bills without incurring further debt by financing deficits.

That's how the real grown ups figure things out.

This stupid, insipid, retarded, utterly illogical and nonsensical notion that taxes must always go down and never go up defies basic laws of the universe, of physics, of math, of science, of anything.

We need to let the stupid, sleazy, crooked, anti-American - my God man... Cutting taxes when we were at TWO WARS!?! - Bush tax cuts to expire.

That would be a good starting point.

Mr. Camwell,

The welfare state is the least of our problems. We could easily finance it with very little impact on your hypothetical "mid-sized business" guy.

It's not the "mid-sized" guys that are so much the problem. If anything, they're getting sqeezed a lot now.

The problem is that we have an effective rate on the very wealthy, who control a vastly disproportionate percent of the wealth, of about 16%.

Consider also the added differences - like the far smaller share of their income that they spend on consumption and state and local taxes compared to the middle class, and even the mid-sized guys.

We realy need more realistic rates, guys. It's time we grow up and start making better decisions.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey "This stupid, insipid, retarded, utterly illogical and nonsensical notion that taxes must always go down and never go up..."

This stupid, insipid retarded and utterly illogical and nonsensical notion that spending must always go up and never go down has brought this great nation to the brink of bankruptcy.

Finntann said...

I came to the horrible realization this year that I pay more in taxes than I pay on my mortgage, either of my cars, or anything else. It is my single largest expense.

This is fair?

So what? My largest expense is paying for your medical care? your housing subsidies? your kids? Your food?

Screw you, go out and get a frigging job!

Get this threw your thick progressive statist head:

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU

I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR YOU, YOUR KIDS, OR ANYTHING ELSE.

You can't live within your means and neither can your bloated statist government. Funny how the percentage of people who think we ought to raise taxes is about the same as the percentage of those that don't pay any.

Where is John Galt when you need him!

Jersey McJones said...

Fine Finntann. Never drive on the public roads again. Just do that one thing. I promise to point at you and laugh as you try to navigate a modern, civilized society.

Silver, these are not dependent concepts. You can cut spending and raise taxes. There's no law I know of that would prohibit that.

JMJ

Mustang said...

Is it possible for anyone to imagine demanding more money from an employer because it is impossible to buy all the things you want on what he’s currently paying —and doing it without busting out laughing?

We the people are the boss. Government works for us … and while we do recognize that taxes are necessary to maintain our economic infrastructure, why are we spending tens of billions of dollars on a failed education system? Why are we granting hundreds of millions of our people’s money to third-world cesspools? What right does government have to spend trillions on a failed stimulus program? Presently, a majority of our highways and bridges pose a clear and present danger to our society. It will take about $14 trillion to fix what our government has permitted to languish. The I-35B was only the tip of that iceberg.

If anything, our government is incompetent. Don’t talk to me about raising taxes until we first stop wasting money on non-critical expenditures. First, cut spending on worthless things, identify the things that are most critical, allocate funds for that, and then if a tax increase is necessary—sell that bill of goods to the American people. This is how I would describe responsible government, as opposed to leftist government.

Lisa said...

Fine Finntann. Never drive on the public roads again. Just do that one thing. I promise to point at you and laugh as you try to navigate a modern, civilized society.


And the people who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote,especailly on things like school budgets where there are multiple families living in illegal homes. I think you should have to bring your tax bill to the polls.

Bastiatarian said...

>I pay more in taxes than I pay on my mortgage, either of my cars, or anything else.

It's an indication of how far we've fallen that, today, our well-being is harmed more by the federal government than any individual or organization anywhere in the world.

Finntann said...

Jersey, don't be a Jackass... there is a difference between programs that support the common good, meaning that all benefit from them and programs that benefit only the individual.

What does your modern civilized society get by underwriting your mortgage, feeding your kids, and paying your medical bills? Your promise not to riot and rob? Where is your responsibility?

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

- Alexis De Tocqueville

MK said...

"But liberalism has become an eternal fount of absurd pronouncements."

Don't forget- lies, smears, dishonesty, paranoia, violence and other such nastiness.