"The battle over money going on between President Obama and the House of Representatives is worth watching because, for years to come, it will be used as an example proving something. Just ask Newt Gingrich.
Exactly what it proves remains to be seen and is largely a function of the degree to which those of us who oppose government-gone-wild make our voices heard in support of what the freshman class and Speaker Boehner are trying to do.
So, good citizens, speak up.
Last night in his plea for support of unlimited government, President Obama said:
Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get.
To understand such deceptions...
...keep in mind that "to give up tax breaks" is the opposite of asking an elderly woman to "pay more for her Medicare." What that elderly woman is paying more for is not, actually, her Medicare, but the services and products she's buying from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacists. And the tax breaks President Obama is asking the rich man to give up are not, actually, money that belongs to the elderly woman that the rich man is selfishly keeping from her.
Either implicitly or explicitly, what government-gone-wild men always try to do to confuse the matter is speak as if government is a commodity both the poor elderly woman and the nasty rich man are purchasing, and the problem is that the nasty rich man is refusing to pay his fair share, thus leaving the frail elderly woman to pay more than she can or ought.
But can we clarify matters, here? The elderly woman and rich man are not buying "government." The only thing being bought is doctoring and pills and that doctoring and those pills are being consumed by that elderly woman--not the rich man. Further, she isn't his mother--some other man not in the picture is the one who should be helping her pay for her doctoring and pills because she's his mother. But instead of honoring his own mother as he ought, he's demanding the president and his cronies force some other mother's son to fork over more of his own mother's support for the support of another son's mother.
Government isn't a commodity that the elderly woman pays for. Contrary to our unlimited government men like President Obama, no limited government man has ever asked any "senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare." What we've asked is for that senior citizen to pay more for her own pills and her own doctor and her own hospital room.
Medicare isn't a commodity that's paid for either by the frail elderly grandmother or the mean grasping rich man--take your pick and show us what you're made of. Medicare is products and services senior citizens holding membership in the AARP demand and want President Obama to force rich men to buy for them. And rich men don't give up "tax breaks." They look down the barrel of the gun held to their head by President Obama and pull out their wallet and pay for the pills and doctor and hospital of some other man's mother.
That's what it means to "give up a tax break." It's not to stop holding on to money that rightfully belongs to the government or another man's elderly mother. It's to fork over your own elderly mother's money so some other man doesn't have to support his own mother.
When the rich man gives up tax breaks, he is submitting to the government forcing him at gunpoint to work for that elderly woman rather than his own wife, children, parents, grandparents, church's diaconal fund, African orphans, crisis pregnancy centers, and on the list goes until the government steps in and forces his duty and charity to stop.
Never forget this. Unlimited government men are always trying to destroy marriage and the covenants of love binding us together as God ordained with goverment and its police and courts and social workers and transfers of wealth done at gunpoint.
Limitless government is always about it taking a village--thus rendering fatherhood impotent.
Ask African American men.
Does this mean I'm opposed to any transfer of wealth or ministry of compassion carried out under the aegis of government and funded by taxpayers?
No. There are times when this is right.
What I oppose is rhetoric intended to bamboozle the serfs or foment class hatred. Also the taxation without representation we habitually give ourselves to by spending the money of our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren who will be forced to spend their lives working to pay taxes that service debt they've inherited from us. Also the limitless goverment men hiding their pandering to the NEA and the AARP behind talk of "senior citizens" and "our children."
Also the transfer of our entire economy to the jurisdiction of King Obama and his cronies.
Also the transfer of authority over our own households and children to Queen Michelle and her dieticians.
Stuff like that."
Couldn't have said it better, myself.
(HT: Eddie Taylor.)
No comments:
Post a Comment