More Corporate Welfare

To those who support welfare, I'm sure you will be glad to know that Dell, Inc. is getting some of your welfare money -- I'm sure, just because Dell is impoverished, black, or "trapped in poverty." I'm sure they wouldn't survive without the $318+ million dollars of taxpayer money they are receiving.

This example CAN be compared the the welfare that is giving to individuals -- in order to have welfare at all, no matter the recipient, you have to accept that government has the right to take money from one person or individual and give to another.

If you accept that position, then you give government the ability to determine who it is, exactly, that gets to have that money. Government is now in the business of determining how much money every person has in this country. If government likes you, you get cash -- taken from someone else. If government doesn't like you, you get money taken away from you.

This is wrong. This is anti-freedom. This should not happen in a free country. However, in North Carolina, this is what Democrats believe -- only they can determine how much money each person and business should have in the state -- and if you're not a Democrat, they don't like you.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 AM

Comments

1 Amen! It is completely wrong, and it happens all across America.

Posted by: Jay at September 28, 2005 08:28 AM (2FcUc)

2 Where are the Constitutionalists that believe people should be free? Certainly not in any levels of government that I can see...maybe with the exception on Ron Paul.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:37 AM (/k+l4)

3 Man that's harsh.

Posted by: Jeff at September 28, 2005 08:40 AM (ICddU)

4 Yes, yes it is, Jeff. So I think we should stop doing it to people. We should stop taking away money from people to give to other people who didn't earn it.

And thanks for stopping by!

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 08:47 AM (/k+l4)

5 It gets worse. Ask any guy on the street for two free market economists in the 20th century. He'll say "Milt Friedman" and "Alan Greenspan." We shan't talk of Greenspan.

Milt Friedman, widely considered a defender of capitalism, pushed for the Witholding Tax in the 40's so that government could delegate its tax-collection to the efficient private sector and at the same time hide growing taxes from the citizens. In step with this sick invention, Friedman proposed a "negative income tax," a welfare scheme couched in free market rhetoric.

The man about whom many in the MSM and the public consider the strongest defender of capitalism in the 20th century, would agree with the NC government in principle, but would probably chide it for "not doing it well enough."

We have a long way to go...

Posted by: Tom at September 28, 2005 09:40 AM (iinH5)

6 Indeed we do have a long way to go, and not much time to get there. You don't want to get me started on hidden taxes!

But we have a short time, because if we are not already at the tipping point, where less are supporting more, we will soon be there.

And I think if you ask the "guy on the street" that question, I don't think they could answer it at all.

Posted by: Ogre at September 28, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0068 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0049 seconds, 14 records returned.
Page size 6 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.