Nanny-state-ism

Nanny-state-ism: where the government takes care of us because we are incapable of taking care of ourselves.

If you have ever watched television a month or two before a major election, you would have noticed that almost every ad was a muckraking ad about how bad the other candidate was. What this means is that every candidate on the ballot is a lying, cheating, stealing, back stabbing, kick-granny-when-she's-not-looking, jerk. So when you go in to pull that lever (or create that dangling chad, or complete the ACT, or whatever) you are going in to choose the lesser of two evils.

Muckraking . . . mudslinging . . . it's all better in a Jeep!

Now this is how the system works: People who are incapable of taking care of themselves have the responsibility of choosing those to take care of us by selecting the lesser of two evils who will then take care of us because we are incapable of making good decisions on our own.

Got it?

In other words, the next time a government "official" wants to ban something like trans-fats because he doesn't believe people have enough brains to decide on their own to stay out of the restaurant (or order something healthy), he needs to be reminded that the only reason he is even IN a position of authority to make such a cockamamie proclamation in the first place is that the very people he feels that can't take care of themselves voted his sorry ass INTO office.

(Note: I've ignored many a grammar rule in order to give the above more "punch". I ain't that bad an administrative assistant. Honest!)

Thanks to my friend Mark at the Cutting Edge of Ecstasy for inspiring this entry.

©Emittravel 2010

Taxing into Oblivion - Is That Even Possible?

It is funny to me that the environmentalists have been screaming that we need to find alternative sources of energy and that we need to cut back our energy use drastically, due to the limited amount of oil in the earth, but politicians believe that there is an endless supply of tax dollars to be had, and they think they need to spend more so that we don't run out.

Just let that (incredibly long sentence above) soak in for a minute. I guess that goes to prove that opposites do indeed attract; environmentalists and big-government politicians do seem to spend a lot of time together . . .

Now I do not consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, the way the city I live in got me to recycle was by a monetary incentive: the city pays (we pay via our tax dollars) for trash pickup by the pound - the company that picks up our recyclables does not charge the city, for they make their money in the processing and selling of said recycled materials - for every pound we recycle we save tax dollars - incentive!! But I do believe we are called to be good stewards (managers) of what we have.

(willing to save a buck!)

In MHBAO, fossil fuels ARE limited and we will EVENTUALLY run out - but not tomorrow. So, we SHOULD be looking at alternative energy sources, but without panic and ESPECIALLY without government mandates. And I also believe, and common logic verifies this, that eventually the feeding of government will exceed the sources of food (taxes).

During the last presidential election, the definition of what was considered "rich" was questioned. If the money to pay for everything was to only be taken from the rich, what, exactly, would make a person fall into that category? Would $500k? Or $250k? Maybe it was $150k? How about $100k? Is that combined income for couples, or is that for singles? And is that amount adjusted for inflation? But hey, as long as I make less (and resign myself to NEVER making more) they can punish those "evil" rich.

(the truly "evil rich" - who are exempted from most of what they dish out)

Just a quick look at Social inSecurity would tell you that the government is incapable of keeping their word on anything. Social inSecurity was designed for a tiny percentage of the population, and was to be paid for by a tiny percentage of the population - the most wealthy (a.k.a the "evil rich"). Today I'm not considered part of the "evil rich", according to the gyrations of the oh-so-wise-and-benevolent politicians, but when I look at my pay stub I see quite a large amount being taken for Social inSecurity. So, what am I?

Oh, and let's not forget that the "trust" fund that originally held the money put in, so that there was something to draw from upon retirement, has been sucked dry already. That's right folks, nothing but I.O.U.s. (Quick lesson: there is NO such thing as being taxed and having that money going ONLY for a certain purpose - it is all just one big pie to the politicians.) You and I are paying for those currently receiving it. Think about the effect unemployment has on that!

Before you think I'm just meandering in this blog article, I do have a point to make. The money for all of these "necessary" bailouts, stimulus, and other programs, is supposed to be coming from those "evil rich". We are told that is one of the reasons for eliminating those "evil" Bush tax cuts. But like Social inSecurity, what happens when that oil well runs dry? They start drilling in YOUR wallet. At one point, and we are darn close to it now, there will be more spending taking place than revenue sources.

The solution is simple: you can only raise taxes so much (before you cripple the economy and cause a major collapse). Politicians need to do the unpopular and cut spending. I know, I know - that is political suicide! After all, isn't that what they were elected to do? Spend your money better than you can? They say that if you rob Peter to pay Paul you are guaranteed Paul's vote. What happens when you run out of Peters? Will they decide we've spent enough at that point?

There is an old proverb: When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall.

©Emittravel 2010