Custom Search

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Less Social Works Programs=Less Taxes

Social programs, the government’s way of pretending to be altruistic. It's a politician’s way of raising our taxes in a way that makes them look good. They take money out of our checks and charge us taxes on top of that for our daily necessities and recreational items. They get away with doing it by convincing gullible people that without installing new social programs the country will fall apart and people will starve and there will be anarchy on the streets. Ok, maybe it's me being melodramatic in that statement, but I'm not stretching the truth too much. The fact of the matter is they install the programs, play on voters emotions, raise our taxes, and in the end it's all for votes. After it's installed they come back the next election cycle and have the audacity to say, "Look, I fought for us to have this." These politicians fought for one thing, their own image and their job; they don't care about the people.

Socialism sounds good on the outside, and in theory it works, however socialism is nothing more than a buttered up way of saying, "kleptocracy" which is what it truly is. These social programs are put in place as a way of convincing us that we're paying taxes for the greater good, which isn't even remotely true. Anything a person works for should go into their wallet, and the only taxes paid should go straight into public safety and defense and little more. While some social programs are good, and do help protect people, most of the good ones are abused and broken and politicians are less interested in fixing them so we can pay less taxes and more interested in proposing more spending bills that come out of our paychecks.

There's no moral obligation on the part of any working human being to be forced to pay for another. In Peoria, the tax payers are paying for a museum to be erected and the tax payers get absolutely nothing back from it. In other words, people are working to pay for someone else’s success. There is no difference between this and slavery. The definition is the exact same and it should be treated as such. If a person has absolutely no direct benefit from something, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

Most argue that capitalism is fueled by greed and oiled by the blood of the worker while the hot shot business owner does nothing and gets all the money for it. This is the moral justification, according to most left wingers, for establishing social programs. This couldn't be further from the truth. The rich get richer, not by exploiting, but by working and making good decisions. Most socialist enthusiasts say "the rich are getting richer" as if it's a bad thing, when in fact the rich getting richer shows success not only on their part, but the part of the workers and consumers that supported these people. With more social programs in play, failing businesses are given an unnecessary second chance that's supported by tax payers who did no wrong and did nothing to cause the collapse. It's then, and only then, that rich people getting richer becomes wrong, when they're given the money of people who did nothing to cause their collapse.

The most frequently used argument for the justification of social works and welfare programs is that without them, the poor would starve and people making bare minimum wage would suffer and never be given a chance, but this is also an unfounded argument. Few, very few, working adults and families survive on minimum wage, if any at all. The majority of people who make minimum wage are people who have never had jobs, or people that are 16-20. The majority of these still are teenagers that live in houses with people, i.e. parents or grandparents, which have jobs that are well enough to support them. The idea of families starving because they're making minimum wage is nothing more than a pathos argument based in no fact. Again, it boils down to the fact that the only reason why people don't have enough money to support their families is because they're being taxed to death by the government because of broken and unnecessary social programs. Don't believe the lies, it's time to make real change and stop this autocratic nightmare now.


  1. Unemployment, Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare, combined, comprise about a third of the total budget. The other "social programs" that are, according to you, ruining the country? The Department of Education takes less than 2%. Health and Human Services take about 2.5%.

    The military costs around 40% of our total budget, beating all these evil "socialist" things combined.

    Gee, should we deny health care to old people, keep children from attending schools, stop public vaccinations, condom distribution and health clinics (which save untold billions of dollars in health costs, not to mention lives), and tell people who have been laid off thanks to the free market types on Wall Street... or should we reduce military funding, whose baseline budget is ten times that of the next biggest spender (the U.K., our ally)?

    Hmmmm, this is a tough one. *facepalm*

  2. It's not tough. There should be less strain on the private sector and less taxes so people can afford these things privately so we can have economic growth. It Besides, you're still missing a chunk of where I taxes go. At best you covered 70% of all funding's, and not the rest. I'm saying there needs to be a lot of clean in the social programs. I'm sorry to say this, but you're playing the pathos here.