Earth To Axelrod
Sitting here in a Denny's on the outskirts of St. Louis, I can't help but notice a delightful elderly couple a few tables over. She's small framed, her white hair pulled back while she sits there demurely, her slender hands around a cup of coffee as she smiles softly at a person I assume is her husband. He's wearing one of those beige lightweight jackets that has the word "Members" on the front. Peering through his silver metal framed glasses, he's diligently applying just the right mixture of butter and syrup to his pancakes. They arrived about ten minutes ago in a white Lincoln Land-Yacht, which is parked just outside the front door.
I wonder how much money he has in his wallet? I'm sorry, is that an untoward thought? Does it strike a jarring chord? Stay with me here, because I'm not done. What are the odds that he has a hundred, or maybe two hundred bucks on him? Yes, let's say he's got that much on his person. Unless he's armed, which I doubt, I'm pretty sure that I could quickly relieve him of the contents of that wallet. But since I choose not to rob this couple, can we conclude that I've just given them two hundred dollars? Then again, after considering my own bank account balance, I think I need the money more than they. In fact, I'm sure of it. What's more, I don't have two hundred bucks to give him, which is what I would be doing if I didn't rob him, so I have no choice but to go after the wallet. Bad luck for you, Gramps.
If any of the preceding made sense to you, your position in the Obama administration awaits. David Axelrod will welcome you with an open wallet, though not his of course. On Meet The Press yesterday, the President's senior advisor rationalized raising tax rates for those earning over $250,000 thus: "...we can't afford to borrow another $700 billion to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." So people keeping what they earn is akin to the government borrowing money? Earth to Axelrod: It's not your money, dweeb.
Yes, I understand the economic stipulation that the government is supposed to plan expenditures based upon anticipated revenue, and that a decrease in revenue equals a shortfall in expenditures. I get it. But the planted axiom in Axelrod's formulation is that your earnings do not belong to you, but rather to the government. Therefore, whatever portion of your earnings you get to keep is not the result of your toil and talent, but of government benevolence. This is the working assumption of the left, from the White House to the editorial page of the New York Times, from the ivory tower to Havana. Your property is really not yours. And when you successfully lay claim to it, it is the despot who feels that he has been cheated.
Why is it wrong for me to rob this gentle old couple of their property, yet entirely acceptable to some that such as Mr. Axelrod can stake a claim on the earnings of them and others? Does an official title erase the distinction between right and wrong, between charity and theft? In the last analysis, government is force, and theft in the name of compassion or utopia is still theft. If the Obama administration's moral compass is so horribly askew as to make these truths incomprehensible, then the "change" they advertised was nothing more than a euphemism for the sort of thuggery the Founders warned against.
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
I love Dr. Walter E. Williams' quote: "To take money out of my own pocket to give to the less fortunate is called charity. Taking money out of someone else's pocket to give to the less fortunate is called stealing."
Beautiful illustration, Dave!
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Bravo, Dave! This is a point that conservatives really must belabor until it becomes second nature to the American people. I suspect it already is, but somehow dimwits like David Axelrod are still able to get away with spouting such claptrap.
Edited on November 16, 2010 at 6:25amRe: Earth To Axelrod
Political philosophy and gorgeous prose...at Denny's. Dave--only Dave.
Oct '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
"...then the "change" they advertised was nothing more than a euphemism for the sort of thuggery the Founders warned against."
Dave, you are spot on. And you wouldn't believe the numbers of residents of the People's Republic of Del Mar (California) who, themselves, have made it and want to pull up the drawbridges and prevent others from following in their footsteps. Instead, many of them openly and without apology wish to redistribute the income and wealth of other people at the point of the State's gun.
It bears repeating to observe that most California voters either a) fail to realize we are in a hole or b) do not know the First Rule of Holes.
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Peter, I came close to going on a first-rate rant on this topic, ...but the Cowboy Chopped Steak is so delicious!
Aug '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
If you can't ken that metaphor... well we have a DOJ drink special tonight with four eggs,bacon,sausage, pancakes, and a big Denny's apology of $ 54,000,000.00 to a class action civil suit for "slow service " to black students . When I was in college I don't remember any slow service in a similar , but poorly named, chain called "Sambos". Memory hole on that one ! How about things that PC just completely zapped ? Easy one - Gay Nineties !*!
Oct '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
"We have no permanent deficit anymore, the natural condition is a surplus, okay — so the question is, what do we do with it? We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But I think — here's the problem. If you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen." - Impeached President Bill Clinton
The raw arrogance of these people is staggering, isn't it? In their heart of hearts, they actually do believe it's their money. Any attempt to apply logic to their mindset will fail, because their mindset is simply an unexamined assumption filled with greed: a Twinkie from hell.
Jun '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
So, how do we get you out of that big rig and into Congress?
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Pilgrim, you're very kind, but I've had about all the government work I can stand from a career in the military. But I am happy and willing to engage and make the case for liberty on this and any other forum that will have me. Then again, it would be the most entertaining 10 minutes in congressional history.
May '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Well said, Dave. Republicans should be in the habit of saying "taxpayer's money" whenever talking about government revenues or expenditures in interviews. The Left is committed to propoganda on many fronts. We must actively counter it every chance we get.
Just as importantly, I'd like to hear a Republican politican come right out and say we don't need any more programs or agencies -- we'll work with what we've got.
Jun '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Aaron Miller:
Just as importantly, I'd like to hear a Republican politician come right out and say we don't need any more programs or agencies -- we'll work with what we've got. · Nov 15 at 6:19pm
I'd like to hear a Republican politician come out and say we can eradicate a few government agencies completely, and do with less. Less We Can!
Re: Earth To Axelrod
I'll one-up Pilgrim: Dave Carter for Treasury Secretary. Brilliant illustration of applied common sense. Thanks.
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Aaron, good point on the left's use of propaganda, Lackoff's protestations notwithstanding. It's time we frame the debate, e.g., by pointing out that it wasn't Mr. Axelrod's money to start with. I'll have more to say about this soon, but I like your point, Aaron.
Oct '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Thanks Dave... we all need to be in constant touch with reality. And keep in mind the simple definition of government... "the guys with the most guns". We each surrender a piece of ourselves to the collective to achieve security. But those to whom we surrender ourselves each accumulate those pieces of each of us, and when their pile overwhelms each of us as individuals, we now have an enemy we cannot overcome. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? are..we..there........??
Sep '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
I've been grinding my teeth and throwing things against the wall - often things I love, such as my sanity - every time I've had to listen in impotent rage - my least favorite kind of rage - while Obama says "we can't afford to give the rich another 700 billion" ... dear darling lad, it's NOT YOUR MONEY.
It's theirs.
They figured out how to earn it - and in the doing they made money for other people along the way - and now you say, we can't afford to let them keep it? Dave is right. This is the kind of thuggery he stood the long silent watch on the Rhein to keep at bay. Thanks for making me feel slightly less crazy, Dave.
Carsten Stroud
Edited on November 16, 2010 at 5:32amOct '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Unfortunately, as I mentioned here, it's not just a problem of the left. It's also a problem of the whole language of the tax profession. I learned this first-hand from my significant other as she took tax classes in law school and from her comments of the accounting profession. There's a real problem in the language of the whole subject. Everyone approaches the question of tax policy as if the government is the actor, never the taxpayer. Whether it began as a thing of the left, I don't know, but it's now common place. Even Republicans unwittingly buy into this language even if they try to oppose the "it's the government" attitude.
I liken it to how the debate over abortion, and when human life began, has been framed as a religious issue. That certainly was a tactic of those who were pro-choice, but so many people have for so long ceded to that framing, that it has almost become impossible to convince people it isn't. It's now an excuse (it's just religion) to avoid engagement on the substance.
Reminder of the power of language to shape opinion.
Re: Earth To Axelrod
This is just excellent. Nothing to add.
Aug '10
Re: Earth To Axelrod
I understand the revulsion at the notion that everything is the government's to start, and anything you get to keep is a gift from their beneficence.
But...
I think we are going too far here. Is all taxation theft? Are there no legitimate claims that the collective, organized as a state, can make on the individual?
Certainly life with the rule of law is better, for all, than anarchy. With the rule of law, life is less nasty, brutish, poor, and short: the pie is bigger for all. Don't we all accept that it is a good deal for everyone, provided that the cost of the state is less than the increase in wealth that the rule of law allows?
To compare taxation by the state to theft by an individual is not helpful. It goes too far and allows our opponents to dismiss us as kooks. Axelrod, as a part of our elected government, can make demands on us in the form of taxes.
The real arguments we need to make are much harder: what are the necessary. minimal, functions of government, and why it is a mistake for all when the government steps beyond these functions.
Re: Earth To Axelrod
Mark: Considering the flagrantly unconstitutional purposes for which the government routinely spends OUR money, I don't think it's too kooky to sometimes liken taxation to theft.
But the major reason for Dave's revulsion at Axelrod's comments was the latter's obvious attitude that the income individuals earn is the government's. It is also revolting, as others (e.g. Diane) have elsewhere noted, that these deceivers continue to refer to the extension of the Bush "cuts" as cuts. They are in place and to keep them in place does not constitute a cut. Nor does the extension of the lower rates on lower income earners constitute a cut -- as if the government is doing any of us a favor. Yet that's what Axelrod is saying, essentially, when he says that the government will have to borrow $700 billion unless the "cuts" for the upper income earners is ended, i.e., unless their rates are raised. Another offensive thing about Axelrod's quote is that it assumes a zero-sum game with respect to taxes and revenues, and that's just empirically false -- no matter how many times they propagandize to the contrary.
Edited on November 16, 2010 at 6:57amRe: Earth To Axelrod
Me neither. But I have to add: I loved this. Thanks, Dave.