If we have riots in the street like Greece just did, and we will, we should place the blame on Ronald Reagan. This became very clear to me while I read this, uh, screed, attacking the usual (liberal) suspects...the unions, the welfare cheats, the lazy et al.
Wake up America! How many million unionists are we expected to carry on our public payrolls? How long can we keep government employees on defined-benefit pension plans while the rest of us scramble to fund our 401(k)s ? How many more people are we going to drop from the income tax rolls as we lean on a smaller and smaller slice of citizens to carry an ever greater percentage of the load, leaving the rest free to vote for tax increases? How large a swath of our population can we pretend to keep supplied with newly manufactured economic rights like free healthcare as Social Security and Medicare careen toward insolvency? How much more do we think we can borrow from the Chinese to fund day-to-day government operations? How long do we think we can afford to police the world?
Yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Many, many times.
Only it's utterly wrong. Well, that's not completely true. Rather, it's utterly pointless.
Because it's all Ronald Reagan's fault. Not unionists or gluttonous bureaucrats.
I've tried to explain this to you before, numerous times. I'll try to make myself as clear as I can:
If an American earned $100,000 a year, he/she would spend that $100,000. Well, some would spend a bit less, some actually more. This would continue forever and ever and ever. Thing is, it also works *exactly* the same even if you don't actually *earn* that $100,000. Thus, if someone gave you $100,000 you would spend it all, pretty much. And they come back next year and the year after with that $100,000 check, you'd do the same. Forever and ever.
It's why Reaganomics has had such a devastatingly negative impact on America. Simply put, most people think Reaganomics is about reducing the scope of government.
Wrong!
Reaganomics is about reducing the *burden* of government. And in the aggregate, this burden is measured by how much you pay in taxes. Thus, tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts has basically become our primary governing philosophy, at all levels of government, since the beginning of President Reagan. In other words, it's not about spending, it's about paying! (In fact, boys and girls, no one really wants government spending cut. Not ever. I mean, some want other's spending cut, sure, but not their own. So you can see how this essentially means no spending cuts.)
Solved for X yet? We pay less. We are taxed less. Such a bargain! This means we can get trillions in government benefits and services -- for less than trillions in cost! And everytime we cut taxes just a bit more, we make government spending an even better deal. Every time!
And Americans love a good bargain.
This is why government has grown steadily, and debt has grown steadily, and government spending has grown steadily since Ronald Reagan. Because by continuously cutting taxes, we make government spending a better deal. It out-WalMart's WalMart.
And every single American who's contributed their pennies, nickels and dimes and gotten something in return is convinced they have *paid* their fair share; they have 'earned' their entitlements and benefits. So of course they will riot exactly like the Greeks when government says they are going to take away *their* benefits.
You really want to prevent Greek-like riots on American streets? You really want to reduce government, not just your cost burden for it? Do you actually want spending reduced -- across the board? Then it's very simple: you demand all Americans pay for the full 100% cost of government. Be the anti-Reagan. Not until we have to pay the full cost will we. I mean, it's not like you leave extra money at WalMart, right?
Your choice, America.
