Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Your Fair Share is not in MY WALLET!

Since when, in our society did it become the providers responsibility to deliver the needs of the recipient? Put another way, when did the needs of the recipient trump the rights of the provider?

What we have going on in our country now, and it started under Bush (most recently but really began as far back as the 1930's), is that when you are too lazy to work, don't worry, the government will give you money. When you are hungry, don't worry, the government will give you bread. We are on a path where if I own land and build an artisian well to bring water from under the soil of my property up (and please don't legalize this hypothetical with mineral rights issues, etc) for my family to drink, the government will soon tell me that I must provide for the needy neighbor who has no water. But why should I? I am the one who put in all the hard work and my family should prosper from our hard work. I am not taking from someone else and I am not on anothers land taking their water. So why is it my responsibility to provide for my needy neighbor?

It's not my responsibility. If he is too lazy to build his own well, then I am sorry, but he should suffer the consequences of his inaction. However, the government now believes that the rights of the provider no longer outweigh the needs of the recipient. What this will soon do, and we are on a crash course to learn sooner rather than later, is that when the provider has to do 2x the work to see half the benefit (since the recipient isn't providing anything but realizes the other half of the providers benefit) then the provider will either produce less or stop producing. Why? Because it is economically not in his best interest to provide it if the costs outweigh the benefit. And guess who steps in and picks up the pieces....you guessed it, the US Federal Government. This, in turn, makes you more dependent on them to solve your problems. When this happens then the government creates 3 classes of society, 2 of which don't favor the working class. These classes are broken down in a 1) provider class (the employer), 2) the recipient (the worker) and 3) the access class (the wealthy, aka employer, celebrity). Put a simpler way as it relates to health care...what wealthy group is out there touting the most that we need government run health care? Hollywood! And their cadillac plans will leave them with the best quality health care. I mean, do you really think that Ashton Kutcher or Ben Afleck is going to stand in line next to you while trying to see a doctor? Not on your life. Is your elected politician going to hang out in the waiting room to live with the same level of health care service they voted to have you live with? Yeah, that's about as likely as Obama turning fiscally conservative. So what does that do? It places an even wider barrier between the working class and the class who provides the work. Get used to it. It's the 'change' and 'hope' you voted for. You asked for the mandate, its just too damn bad you have to live with that mandate. Like I now say, just because I empowered you doesn't mean you are empowered. Think about that for a second. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean that that person does not now have to answer to me. But your liberal democrat friends say, 'we were voted in on a mandate.' No you weren't. If you were then you would have already passed health care, passed cap N trade, probably would have already rammed through another stimulus bill and would have gone ahead and bailed out another failed industry. Mandates are governed unfortunately by economics in a capitalist society. Of course, with the current administration it's just a matter of time before the laws of economics in a free market society ceases to exist.

If you want to understand a great example of economics 101, please click on the link below. This very short book, easily readable in about 20 minutes online, is an elementary guide to understanding the laws of economics and how it effects us every day. It's called, Economics in one lesson. It quite simply is the best, shortest and most to the point economics lesson one can learn. This teaches you for free what an economics major will teach you for about $100,000.

http://jim.com/econ/

1 comment:

  1. it is sad that our government takes us for fools...its more sad that these fools trust their government. As long as fools are in the majority then we are doomed. At the present time we are foolish. We voted for change but somehow I don't see it as 'change you can believe in.'

    ReplyDelete