Just finished Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny" and I must say that it should be required reading for 8th graders. Maybe it will give them some context through which to digest the crapola that will be shoved down their throats by the media. If you have not read it, you should.
You seem to have your own definition of elitist. And once again you make no argument. You infer incorrectly other concepts and ideas that I certainly do not subscribe to. But if you ask me whose opinion I would rather validate with a vote - person A or person B? My answer is a resounding Person A. I am not dismissing altogether Person B's opinion, but I would put much more credibility in Person A's opinion of what is good for our country than I would in Person B's. I think it is a travesty that each has an equal say.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~
Do you know any other words besides "Elitist?" Anyone who disagrees with you is an elitist? Is your answer to our problems get rid of all of the elitists? Please. Read again my original post. Make a logical argument against it. But don't sit there on your couch drawing welfare and food stamps and call me an elitist because you don't agree with my point. Justify continuing to support and subsidize poverty. Justify the continuing handouts. Justify why a person who subsidizes and supports thousands with their tax dollars has the same voice as the individual who chooses to do nothing but sit around and wait for handouts. Make a logical argument! I bet your other favorite word is "racist."
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.-- George Bernard Shaw
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~
Unfortunately, there are tragedies every minute in this world. Are we to mandate through taxation that everyone makes a contribution to help those struck by tragedy? A person who has no means of caring for themselves through no fault of their own is, at the same time, a person who has no means of caring for themselves through no fault of mine. Nor is it the fault of 700 million other taxpayers. This may seem heartless, but In those situations, charity and charitable organizations are the correct avenues to deal with such situations.
Should we subsidize those who have IQ's of 80, since their lack of relative intelligence is no fault of their own? Perhaps we should subsidize those with thyroid problems, since they are obese through no fault of their own? Sympathy and charity are human instincts, and should not only be encouraged but also incentivized (sp?). However, mandating charity is nothing more than taxation, with the added negative of funding a bunch of bureaucrats who dole out what is left to whomever they choose.
Fantastic quote!
I also like..
"When you subsidize poverty and failure you get more of both"
Not Lincoln, but still applicable.
"The greatest argument against capitalism and democracy is a five minute conversation with the "average" voter."
Or perhaps a three sentence blog?
"But that's just the way things are."
Interesting response. I didn't realize that suffering through the toils of, and reaping the benefits of an education, and contributing (financially and socially) to local communities and larger government institutions made someone an "elite" taxpayer. Because someone pays more than their share of taxes, they are to be deemed "elite?" What do you call those who offer nothing and do nothing? Unfortunate wretches?
So what exactly is the point of this reply? Are you submitting valid reasons for government assistance, or are you being cynical? Certainly Person C is a patriot and deserves so much more than they are likely to receive today. Each productive member of our Country owes that person their eternal gratitude, as well as all others who fought for this country.
As far as Person D goes............ is it your assertion that every person born with a disability should be entitled to government assistance without question? In other words, every time a person with disabilities is born, we should all just open our wallets and throw in a $100? Unfortunately, as unpopular as it might seem to be, I cannot agree or subscribe to such a notion.
Please justify and rationalize your response if you disagree.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Experiment