A colleague posted this on Facebook:
…we have the Tea party types…people with stunted
social consciousness and the need to find a mouthpiece that justifies their
greed.
Let me get this straight. “Tea party types” are people with stunted social consciousness who are greedy. That’s their motivation for holding the government to account for following the highest law of the land (a.k.a. The Constitution) and for being fiscally responsible with money the populace has entrusts them with. This is what qualifies as greed? As stunted social consciousness?
No. I think it’s greedy to demand a check from the government, a.k.a. your neighbors, when you are able to work. Recent television shorts have shown people who brag about scamming the welfare system. I realize that’s not a scientific sampling of those on welfare, but it’s an indications.
I know people who have physical or mental disabilities who can’t work. They would like to work, but the hand they were dealt in life prevents them from doing so. Their families are not financially able to support them. For these, a safety net is required. And we provide that, both a public safety net and private charities.
But we have a huge mass of people who are able-bodied, and smart enough, who choose not to work. They have learned that the government will give them a check if only they can convince the government that they can’t work. I don’t know how large a group this is, but I think it is as large as those who have a legitimate need of a safety net.
America is quickly dividing into two nations: those who receive a check from the government, and those who pay taxes so that others can receive a check from the government. A long time ago, when maybe 1 percent of the population needed a safety net and 99 percent paid the taxes, this was easy. But recently it has been reported that close to half the population receives a check from the government. Is this true?
If so, it means 50 percent are paying the taxes so that 50 percent can receive a check. If this is true, it is not sustainable for a long period of time. I’m not sure it’s sustainable for a short period of time. And while I believe that those who don’t pay income taxes because of law income actually do pay taxes through the goods and services they purchase, I don’t see how any clear thinking person can believe it’s a good thing for 50 percent of the people in the United States to be receiving a check from the government.
So I’m writing The Candy Store Generation to address some of these points. I personally feel a big part of the problem is the Baby Boomers, who are currently in charge of the government, business, and institutions. We seem to think ourselves privileged, and haven’t a clue as to what good government is. I don’t know if America can survive us.
This would be fun to read! I’m a political junkie and love this kind of stuff. I agree with your take on the situation. I fear we’re rapidly approaching the point where those receiving from gov’t exceed those who pay in … and those receiving can vote in their candidate of choice. Then what will happen?
Susan:
I hope it’s a fun read. I hope I can get it out within two months. I believe I can finish it in about a month, but not sure about the editing.
There is a tipping point between tax payers and tax consumers; not sure where that is. There is a tipping point at which the debt service on the national debt becomes unsustainable; not sure where that is, but it’s coming.