Saturday, July 24, 2010

Your money? The government’s “income”

From RedState:

There was an interesting comment made on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday.

I first noticed in from Senator Jim DeMint’s twitter feed. DeMint tweeted, “Sen. Dorgan just said a vote for tax cuts is a vote to ‘reduce this country’s income. To Democrats, it’s the government’s money. Not yours.”

Really? I mean it wouldn’t surprise me, but we rarely hear the Democrats speak so bluntly about it. But sure enough, here is the rush transcript from the floor yesterday from 4:36 p.m.:


You can watch it here.

Really Senator Dorgan? Voting to give Americans back their own money was a vote to “reduce this country’s income with the biggest benefits going to the wealthiest Americans?”

Certainly cutting taxes reduces the governments’ income in a static calculation, but we also know that revenue into the treasury went up after those tax cuts.

The Democrats really do think it is their money


  1. These are simply the perverted, impetuous ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.

    Proponents of conservative tax schemes are good at stirring their cultists into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that for the nonce, it is content to make a fetish of the virtues of obtuse, unprincipled Chekism. But quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "methylenedioxymethamphetamine", it will make our country spiritually blind. I am tired of hearing or reading that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to their demands. You know that that is simply not true.

    Believers in conservative tax schemes recommend emblematizing an increasing deturpation of cultural standards and a triumph of the meretricious. Am I aware of how Conservatives will react when they read that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because unless you define success using the sort of loosey-goosey standards by which they abide you'll realize that true measures of success involve dealing with Conservative tax schemes appropriately. I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that once Conservatives have approved of something it can't possibly be puerile. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools.

    I dare you to reply to this comment without partaking in an ad hominem attack. Conservatives are apt to respond to this letter in the same emotional way that a devout Christian in the 15th century might have responded to someone who announced publicly that he didn't believe in the virgin birth.

  2. Robert,

    I accept your dare to respond without "partaking in an ad hominem attack" for the ad hominem attack that you made in your comments was enough.

    Please detail, for myself and the other "unsophistcated" or less "educated", how sending more and more of our tax money to Washington to be "redistributed" is more beneficial than keeping that money and spending it on the things I need and want, while at the same time providing jobs for those that make those goods and services so that they can do likewise. It is obvious from your comments that your vocabulary is quite extensive and that you are an educated person. But might I suggest to you a closer reading of Bastiat, Smith, Hayek and Friedman, as opposed to Marx, Engels, Keynes and Lenin.

  3. As you read this comment, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading. The rationale underlying Frédéric Bastiat's views disturb me. Fortunately, as you read the superfluity of examples about how Bastiat has been trying to pursue a twofold credo of exhibitionism and faddism, this comment will slowly begin to make sense. I assume you already know that his French contemporaries were in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting (from a philosophical perspective) so let me begin by remarking that his harangues are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're entirely bad-tempered, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, he explicitly sought out situations where his oleaginous behavior was tolerated, condoned, and admired. I would drop the subject except that I have to wonder where he got the idea that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never read anything to imply that it is.

    Some people apparently believe that if we don't follow the teachings of Bastiat, chaos will befall us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Bastiat wants to fleece us. We, in contrast, want to alert people of morally repugnant things like pharisaism and stoicism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, simple-minded brain was too small to understand. Unimaginative buffoons like Bastiat are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, Bastiat's policy was to provoke bloody-minded bourgeoisie into action. Then, he used their responses in whatever way he saw fit, generally to institutionalize vandalism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. My eventual goal for this exchange is to resolve a number of lingering problems. I'm counting on you for your support.

  4. OK, so you don't care for Bastiat - fair enough. You state that your eventual goal for this exchange is to resolve a number of lingering issues" - I'll bite, what are those issues?

  5. Stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

  6. Robert,

    Sorry that I have not responded sooner - I see that you have been checking back for my response.

    Your last comment left me a bit confused. For all the things that you mention above sound, to me, like a platform for social conservatism, not like the previous screeds against conservative tax policies and individual liberty.

    I don't know of any conservative that is against any of the things that you have outlined in your last comment. But, I suppose it is obvious that we disagree as to the means to the ends. Further confusing me is the fact that the link to your name takes one to a Pentecostal Ministries website. It seems to me a contradiction that if you are connected to this ministry that you would also be in favor of a massive progressive redistribution of income scheme in which to achieve your stated goals, as opposed to the "Love thy Neighbor" individual approach that is espoused by most Christian denominations.