Our Founding Fathers believed in limited government and low taxes. Sure they believed in limited government, but why did the believe in the low taxes? Because… limited government is impossible without low taxes.
In the comments section of my blog “The Pachyderm and the Scorpion(s)” I had stated that “As a conservative; I think the Republican Party should adhere to the conservative principles of our Founding Fathers like limited government, personal liberty, individualism, low taxes, etc… ”
To which an alert reader asked “Who among the “founding fathers” was for low taxes?”
A valid question…
First of all; our Founding Fathers did not trust government. They knew that it was at best “a necessary evil and in its worst state an intolerable one” as stated by Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776). If government was a necessary evil to be constantly checked by the alert governed; it was also to be as limited as possible and still provide the security for which it was chosen over the evil of anarchy. So, if government is the lesser of evils, and is to be limited, then for what purpose would we need high taxes? To the contrary, excess money in the treasury would encourage the exact opposite of limited, checked government.
Having read much of Paine’s work and remembering much of his sentiment on the subjects of government and taxes, I’ve included some of his writings on the subject to further prove my point. Most of my examples are from Mr. Paine’s, The Rights of Man; a book concerning the French Revolution and the English policies against that particular struggle. In this writing, Mr. Paine often refers to the evils done by unfettered government made possible by high taxes.
I’ve always assumed that those on the left knew (at least subconsciously) that their beliefs were in direct conflict with those of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps they can indulge me with references where the Founding Fathers expressed a desire for big government solutions through money confiscated from the people.
(Please see conclusion at the bottom)
=-= QUOTES =-=
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
— Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776)
LJ – This beautifully captures the nature and purpose of government, evil but necessary.
LJ – Notice the Judeo-Christian reference to the Garden of Eden and God.
LJ – Notice the importance of private property, a man “finds it necessary to surrender up part of his property (taxes) to furnish means for the protection of the rest. No other purpose of government is even mentioned here.
LJ – Finally notice, that the form of government that we must tolerate is whatever form appears most likely to ensure security, with the least expense and greatest benefit.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretences for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey, and permits none to escape without a tribute.
— Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)(Dedicated to George Washington)
LJ – Back to the nature of government and its greed for power and revenue. Mr. Paine is not thinking about all the good the government can do with that money. He knows better.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I do not believe that the people of England have ever been fairly and candidly dealt by. They have been imposed upon by parties, and by men assuming the character of leaders. It is time that the nation should rise above those trifles. It is time to dismiss that inattention which has so long been the encouraging cause of stretching taxation to excess. It is time to dismiss all those songs and toasts which are calculated to enslave, and operate to suffocate reflection. On all such subjects men have but to think, and they will neither act wrong nor be misled. To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not. If such a case could be proved, it would equally prove that those who govern are not fit to govern them, for they are a part of the same national mass.
— Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Mr. Paine here states that part of the problem is the English citizenry’s inattention to the excesses of their government; a dilemma we now face today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effects. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.
But as a fact is superior to reasoning, the instance of America presents itself to confirm these observations. If there is a country in the world where concord, according to common calculation, would be least expected, it is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable; but by the simple operation of constructing government on the principles of society and the rights of man, every difficulty retires, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison. There the poor are not oppressed, the rich are not privileged. Industry is not mortified by the splendid extravagance of a court rioting at its expense. Their taxes are few, because their government is just: and as there is nothing to render them wretched, there is nothing to engender riots and tumults.
— Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Comparing (1790s) England to the United States, Paine states that the U.S. is made up of people from different nations, speaking different languages, worshiping differently, etc. He says the union of such people seems impracticable; but good government based on the rights of man diffuses these differences. He then proceeds to discuss some of the characteristics of such a society; one of which is “Their taxes are few, because their government is just.” Now (2010) where does the U.S. fall in this description.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
It is now very probable that the English Government (I do not mean the nation) is unfriendly to the French Revolution. Whatever serves to expose the intrigue and lessen the influence of courts, by lessening taxation, will be unwelcome to those who feed upon the spoil. Whilst the clamour of French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes could be kept up, the nation was easily allured and alarmed into taxes. Those days are now past: deception, it is to be hoped, has reaped its last harvest, and better times are in prospect for both countries, and for the world.
— Thomas Paine (The Rights of Man, 1791)
LJ – Paine tells how the governments of Old Europe kept is citizenry easily allured and alarmed (through mistrust of other nations) into accepting high taxes. He hopes those days of deception are in the past; and he notes that those who feed upon the spoils of high taxes will not be happy.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CONCLUSION
1. Government is a necessary evil.
2. Government should be limited and constantly checked by the governed.
3. Government should extract the least expense necessary to perform its limited function.
4. Government that extracts more than necessary is closer to being un-limited, un-checked, and now has the means to impose its true nature.
These universal truths observed by Thomas Paine are as relevant today as they were over 200 years ago. Maybe more so. These truths are not malleable living documents that change over time. They are as unchanging as the laws of physics; AND they are just plain common sense.
Good stuff.
More fuel for the fire:
My effective federal tax rate for 2009 was 3%, after refunds/head of household deductions, and I made somewhere in the lower/middle tax range.
So, how do you figure we the people are being overtaxed?
Not trying to be a jackass. Serious. As I understand it, we have one of the lowest personal income tax rates in the modern world — but, we also have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the modern world, so maybe that’s just a Three Card Monty-ism.
Rick: You are neglecting to include your state income tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, corporate or business tax (which you pay when you buy products), etc. Something tells me you don’t pay property tax, at least directly. I paid multiples of 3% last year, and that is money I very much needed. I paid approximately 30%, and that was just the income tax.
Another problem is that government is NOT supposed to use taxation for anything but raising NECESSARY revenue. The Founding Fathers warned against using taxation for social engineering, but our tax code is as much for social engineering as it is for raising revenue. As soon as one starts using the tax code to influence behavior, a nation is on the road to big trouble. Using taxes to influence behavior is tyrannical. Don’t think this happens? Go to your favorite search engine and type in the name Cass Sunstein.
>> More fuel for the fire.
You got that right you $#%#$^.
>> My effective federal tax rate for 2009 was 3%
Sorry, this blog posting was meant for those who pull their share of the load in this country. 😉
Not that I’m talking just about income taxes. You have to look at total taxes and then deduce how they affect everything.
Looking at your Rick’s tax burden (low tier):
— Because of circumstances largely beyond Rick’s control; he fell right on the cusp of the 50% mark. Below the mark you pay no income tax; above you start paying in a progressive manner. The upper end of the bottom 50% still pay some into the system via FICA (Social Security & Medicare taxes); but the lower you go, the less they pay. Unfortunately, you don’t have to go too far down to find people who drain more than you put in.
— Rick also pays 7.65% in FICA taxes. 7.65% paid into a ponzi scheme he is on the wrong end of. But maybe he’s like most people and don’t consider that his money. It never reached his hand. It was never deposited in his account. How was it ever his?
— So Rick, on the low end (of tax payers) is paying 10-12%
— Take into account state sales taxes and spending habits and he’s paying another 3-4%. It all adds up.
Looking at Lynn’s tax burden (middle tier):
— Lynn’s income tax rate was 20% after deductions. (He’s in the 20-25% range)
This is after taking a pay cut to move to Center. (He was in 25-30% range in 2008)
Remember, He gets hit harder than most because He’s single and never gets any (no kids).
— Lynn’s ponzi/FICA taxes are the same as Ricks, 7.65%
— Lynn’s state sales taxes are also about 3-4%.
— Lynn’s property taxes were 4% of his income for 2009
— So Lynn’s federal tax rate is close to 28% with his overall tax rate around 35%
Looking at Nathan Rymers tax burden (Upper Tier):
— You know… now that I think about it… What has he done for this country?
— Risked huge amounts of capitol for profit, that greedy $#%#$^!
— Employed (more like indentured) people to help him make that profit!
— Screw ‘im, I say…
>> We also have one of the highest corporate tax rates.
So here is Rick paying a paltry 12%, and Lynn paying 35%, and Nathan paying who cares what…
Meanwhile in the boardrooms across America those executives are complaining about how those taxes are eating into their profits. Yeah right… their passing on the costs to us; call it a hidden tax. So, in essence; we’re not really paying 12 or 35%; it’s even more, a lot more.
And talking about insidious “hidden taxes” the VAT (Value Added Tax) is designed to hide itself in the price of goods so the serfs blame the evil corporations instead of Uncle Obama.
I’ll be honest with you. I think the highest federal tax rate should be 10% max; with the state and local (combined) not exceeding 5%. I really think the income tax should be abolished and replaced with a consumption (sometimes called a fair) tax. Corporate taxes should be very low (or non-existent); because Corporations don’t pay taxes… people do.
And more, I think taxes should be up-front in all cases and not hidden inside the price of products, services, etc… That means, I see the tax amount on every receipt. There is no automatic withholding; you receive every penny of your paycheck and write Uncle Sam a check or wire him the money (every month, year, whatever). That way, you are reminded that the money is yours and are better able to judge if you’re getting a fair shake for service rendered by Uncle Sam.
Yes. I’m pissed because I think I (and even Rick W.) (and maybe Nathan R.) pay WAY TOO MUCH to Uncle Sam; for crappy service!
But it’s more than that. It’s about the principle of limited government. Government is inefficient, wasteful, and evil by nature. I mean that in the same way as the sun is hot. It’s a fact.
And giving too much money to a government is like giving a chainsaw to an evil monkey. He’s going to use it and not for anything good.
>So here is Rick paying a paltry 12%, and Lynn paying 35%, and Nathan paying who cares what…
Oh sh*t, I laughed through a Coke that time.
>I’ll be honest with you. I think the highest federal tax rate should be 10% max; with the state and local (combined) not exceeding 5%.
I agree.
>And talking about insidious “hidden taxes” the VAT (Value Added Tax) is designed to hide itself in the price of goods so the serfs blame the evil corporations instead of Uncle Obama.
LMAO! Third laugh in one lunch. Good times. (I’d never heard “Uncle Obama” before. That’s funny on many levels.)
>Yes. I’m pissed because I think I (and even Rick W.) (and maybe Nathan R.) pay WAY TOO MUCH to Uncle Sam; for crappy service!
*THAT* I fully agree with. Their best service seems to be leaving you the hell alone. Ugh. Send me some cookies or a Christmas card or something.
And yeah, normally I pay in the 20-25% range. Last year/part of this year, I was a po’ fool, so that was unusual. My 2010 taxes will get me cussing, too, no doubt.
Sh*t, if this keeps up, and I keep finding myself agreeing with you, I may turn into a Conservative.
(Checking pupils in the mirror, looking for an evil red glow….)
Join the dark side, it is your destiny… and… we have cookies.
HAHAHAHAHA!
>> I’ve always assumed that those on the left knew (at least subconsciously) that their beliefs were in direct conflict with those of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps they can indulge me with references where the Founding Fathers expressed a desire for big government solutions through money confiscated from the people.
(Crickets Chirping)…
Of course the left know it. They know they aren’t intellectually honest. It’s how they gain power. The ones that don’t know are the ones they are gaining power over, who mostly don’t have a clue that the leftist uses the I care about you line just to cement their power. FYI to the leftist voters: Your favorite leftist politicians don’t really care about you or people like you.
I get so tired of people who vote for leftists. They can never be convinced. They’ve been indoctrinated.
[…] yourself a favor, and read the rest at Our Founding Fathers Believed in Limited Government & Low Taxes « The Texas Piney Woods. Mark Steyn: ‘I think Lindsey Graham is unfit for […]
I know this is an old post, but ran across it by accident. Very nicely done. Consider it snagged…hehe Link is here: http://theoldgeek.com/2011/04/11/our-founding-fathers-believed-in-limited-government-and-low-taxes/
Thanks, I’m glad you liked it.
I do like to try backup my points, and put a bit of research in this post.
Please stop by and browse when you get a chance.
— Lynn J.
You don’t throw something out just because it is old. I often get lots of inspiration from occasional forays into my old posts.
this did not help me at all
>> Kayla: this did not help me at all
Sorry to hear that… but thank you for the critical critique of my work.
Next time I would appreciate a little more… uhhh… detail…
Did it “not help” you bake muffins? I mean if that was your goal, I could definitely see that and agree…
What exactly were you hoping to get out of “this”? Did you not understand the points of the article? Were the words to big? Do you disagree with the premise? Can you offer any argument or evidense to support your opinion as I did?
Please… if you’re going to critique my work, at least have the &^%#* to back it up with something tangible.
Stop feeding the trolls…lol
Sorry… Kayla displayed as much depth and intellectual honesty as a drive by shooting. 🙂
Just as an aside my previous post was from our home of 14+ years north of Chicago. We are now in a lovely little spot known as Katy. These Texas summers will take some getting used to, but considering the time of year I don’t miss blowing snow at all. Just what SE Texas needs… another old computer geek.
>Did it “not help” you bake muffins?
HAHAHAHA!
I lived in Houston (Meyerland area) for twenty years (college graduate through about 3 years ago) before I finally threw up my hands and said these city people are nuts! 🙂 Not that I regret it or anything. Living in Houston was the right thing for me at the time. I made a lot of great friends that I still visit quite often.
Now, not living in Houston is the right thing for me. Being back home (rural East Texas) has been great and I hope to stay here from now on. Of course you never know where the good Lord will take you.
Welcome to Texas. The state has a lot to offer if you can put up with the summers. That’s why air conditioning was invented… Hope you like it here.
I like to keep the big city at arm’s length. It has it’s advantages, and can be wonderful to visit on occasion. I also like my creature comforts too much to be totally out in the backwoods. To me “roughing it” is when the cable goes out, or you run out of toilet paper. I can handle myself out in the boonies if necessary, but would never want to make a steady diet of that lifestyle. I was originally raised in very rural Georgia where you didn’t just take a leisurely stroll in the woods if you weren’t from around there. Moonshiners shoot first, and ask questions later.
I agree
Your article is accurate about Paine, not the founding fathers. There were more than one and they seldom all agreed.
>> Your article is accurate about Paine, not the founding fathers. There were more than one and they seldom all agreed.
Thank you for your comment. I agree that much of my article is based on the writing of Paine; but that does not support your thesis that many of the founding fathers did not agree with Paine.
Did they have disagreements on many issues great and small? Yes. On these two basic principles? No.
The founding fathers definitely agreed on the principle of limited government. The entire debate and ratification of the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the size and power of the central (federal) government. They accomplished this task for over a hundred years before the Democrats simply decided to ignore their wisdom and the rule of law. A common mistrust of government as a necessary evil is a recurring theme in the establishment of this great nation. And they (the founding fathers) have been proven right.
As far as lower taxes… My article uses quotes from Paine heavily; but I think the founding fathers would agree abusive taxes are an impediment to freedom. Abusive taxes (far below today’s rates) after all were largely responsible for the Revolutionary War in the first place. The founding fathers would consider today’s tax code an abomination and would be asking the citizens why they tolerate such an injustice.
You are correct to point out that I use Paine’s writings in this article. You are incorrect to just assume and assert that many of the founding fathers disagreed without offering proof. I look forward to you next comment quoting any founding fathers pointing out that Paine is wrong… or their statements supporting big government and/or taxes anywhere above 10%.
Had to peek in while waiting on my wife, who’s shopping. Sorry for typos, on a phone.
The founders didn’t rebel because if taxes; they rebelled because they were taxed without having representatives in Parliament.
As for the 10% figure, and our abusive tax code, taxes were much higher during our great growth period in the 1950s-1970s. To get to 10%, you’d have to go libertarian and cut defense spending to nothing but a local defense force, a la Japan. No Republican could do that.
Bull. We built all this infrastructure on a tax rate lower than the current tax rate, and we can’t even maintain it on this higher tax rate. Why do you think that is? It’s because we had fewer dependents on the welfare, a more robust economy generally, and weren’t crippled by union labor. Ever wonder why it takes so many years to build a bridge or a skyscraper now (several to 10+) when it used to take two years or less? Think what a drain that is when it takes several years to get renting tenants in a place.
A cornerstone of America was that a person should be able to keep what he or she earned, but now those in government view it as their money first and they a gracious enough to let us keep a bit. That’s slavery and tyranny by any measure.
>> The founders didn’t rebel because of taxes… taxation without representation.
While not THE main reason for rebellion; taxes were part of the equation.
>> As for the 10% figure… cut defense…
Supposedly a flat tax of 18-20% would allow us to maintain our current spending levels. So 10% would be more than adequate once you apply it across the board and gut the bureaucracy, social, foreign aid… (all the crap that the founding fathers never intended).
Defense could still be funded adequately.
Back to the main point, the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the level of taxes and the size and abuse of the Federal government. They would be very disappointed in us… as they should be.
You’re sounding libertarian. Foreign Aid is just the pc word for influence. The GOP is big on that (as are the Dems).
But to the broader point, which you and I bat around… I was thinking of this during my drive yesterday. You like to say “we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” And that’s conservative mantra, of course. But, it’s wrong.
Here’s what I mean:
If the House approves a budget, and the President signs off on it (or however exactly it works… I’m not Googling this right now), and there’s more spending than money, we have a revenue problem. That’s the budget. That’s the list of things our elected representatives said are important, and must be funded.
Now, I’d agree that there’s a lot of silly crap getting funded, on both sides, at federal and state levels. But I’m not on their budget committees. So, to come up with an arbitrary number, like 10% or 20% or even 50% is just a way of saying, “This feels right to me.” Without having a budget, with items identified, it’s just using numbers as a Rorshach test.
My solution would be to have a balanced budget and a consumption tax, and eliminate the income tax system. I think if done right, that could be supported by both major parties. It would force the lower 50% to contribute, and it would tax the rich proportionally (if you buy a yacht, you pay more taxes). It would also encourage savings (you only get taxed on what you spend, not what you earn).
But I know that’s something that gets tossed around every few years, and never gets traction. Alas. 🙂
Coming back to this…
We actually do have a revenue problem, and my previous suggestion in this comment thread would not address it.
When we let major corporations like Amazon, Apple, and Google hide their revenues in holding companies in Ireland and Luxembourg, we cut our own revenue stream.
Sure, it’s legal. But it shouldn’t be. Giving giant companies a break that Main Street doesn’t get isn’t ensuring a level playing field. It’s giving the game to the major donors of both parties.
A balanced budget and consumption tax would not solve the problem. We can’t truly balance a budget if we’re giving away legitimate revenue. Changing federal tax revenue to a consumer tax, without reforming corporate tax, would only shift the burden to the lower classes.
What on earth brought you back to this… other than it being a brilliant post on my part. 🙂 This is one of the most visited posts on my blog by the way.
>> We actually do have a revenue problem… [Big companies don’t pay enough… so let’s go get ’em…]
This is the standard stance of the left. We can spend our way out of this mess. We just need to be better and fairer at collecting taxes.
Just mention spending or budgets or taxes and your guys froth at the mouth at the prospects of sticking it to evil corporations. It’s like yelling “squirrel” amongst a pack of dogs… 🙂
I’ll throw you a bone and agree that fairness in the code is a problem. Conservatives have been trying, and begging, and pleading, to scrap the code and implement something fairer for years, if not decades. And we are about the only ones…
But… this (revenue collection fairness) is a tangent. It totally misses the point Thomas Payne (and other founding fathers) were trying to make; and what this post was trying to bring to light.
That being…
The real problem is an issue of volume and the abuse that excess creates, not function or fairness.
A government with excessive capital (no matter the sources or fairness in collection) will by nature use it in an abusive manner. Payne used the abuses of the British government at the time to support his argument… today I think our own government is well beyond even what Payne and the other founding fathers could have imagined possible in our republic.
Power corrupts, power with capitol and few restraints goes ape-shit crazy… which is where we are today. Payne saw this and wrote about it. We don’t know history so we’re blindly repeating it. Same story, different villains.
This basically gets back to… we have a spending problem. We need to cut, cut, and then cut spending if for no other reason than to reduce government power and abuse. If government is spending twice or three times as much as it should be rationally allowed, then no, we don’t have a revenue problem other than they are collecting too much revenue?
You may disagree, and that’s fine, but argue why big government is good, argue why they are not abusive, argue the abuse is not caused or enhanced by excessive capitol; save the “get those corporate bastards” argument.
The fairness of our revenue collection is indeed a problem. And I’m all for addressing those inequalities… as a separate issue. But I also understand that this will never be addressed by tinkering about the edges of the tax code which is all the left (Democrats and Establishment Republicans) are interested in doing. Scrap it, or don’t waste my time…
That said, I consider fairness in collection secondary and less important. I would rather address the real problem facing this nation; the one that most threatens our liberty and stability (fiscally, militarily, and socially). Again, it is an issue of volume (excessive amount of revenue collected) not function (how fairly revenue is collected).
Yeah, I noticed it on your Top Posts list, and gave it another glance. 🙂
>This is the standard stance of the left.
And your argument is a standard stance from the right.
>We can spend our way out of this mess. We just need to be better and fairer at collecting taxes.
I don’t think we can do any single thing to fix our perpetual deficit.
Part of it will be actually collecting taxes that we should be collecting, which we’re not doing. Part of it will be reducing spending on social services and the military, which we’re not doing. And a big part of it will be not throwing a hissy fit, shutting down the government, and refusing to pay the bills we already owe — which is what raising the debt ceiling is all about.
>Just mention spending or budgets or taxes and your guys froth at the mouth at the prospects of sticking it to evil corporations. It’s like yelling “squirrel” amongst a pack of dogs… 🙂
That is a popular conservative myth. The truth is, Democrats are just as deeply indebted to big business as Republicans, and it shows in the policies they promote — like Obama patting Amazon on the back. Now, I love Amazon. I just want to see them pay American taxes, not Luxembourgian.
I’ll save you your reply: You’re a conservative, and not a republican, so what I’ve said doesn’t apply. OK, fair enough. I’m a liberal, not a Democrat, so what you’ve said doesn’t apply. 🙂
Again, we are off on a tangent. The point of the original post is not the system is messed up (no matter how true that may be).
The point I’m bringing to light is…
The founding fathers, and in particular Thomas Payne, believed in limited, small government. And one of the main limits these wise men wanted to place on government is to severely limit its revenue and its ability to raise large amounts of it.
Why?
Because they recognized that unrestrained government; government with excess capital in particular; would use that capitol to do bad things. This was evident in the abuses of the British government in the late 1700s as Payne pointed out.
I further submitted that this realization influenced the creation of the Republic in that the founders sought to keep the federal government in check in regards to revenue.
I further submitted the premise that 200+ years later we have utterly failed in that regard (reasonable revenue limits) and are now reaping the abusive results from our own government (as opposed to the British).
I can only dream of receiving a comment that expands on or challenges that premise… Something like…
No, the founding fathers and/or Thomas Payne in particular did not believe that, and here’s where you misinterpreted what they said and did…
No, they were wrong, big government with lots of money will do good things with it and here’s the proof….
Instead, when I say government with excessive revenue is by nature an abusive government… I get a knee-jerk (topic ignoring) response of… “we need to raise more revenue” [exasperated groan] from those who aren’t paying enough… and those bastards (tea party guys) are deadbeats who don’t want to pay the bills… I can get that from CNN, MSNBC or the Obama/Democratic talking points 24/7.
>> I’ll save you your reply: You’re a conservative, and not a republican, so what I’ve said doesn’t apply. OK, fair enough. I’m a liberal, not a Democrat, so what you’ve said doesn’t apply. 🙂
Looks like your attempted save, bit the dust…:)
Your points (however off-topic) can almost be lifted verbatim from the latest Obama speech of Democratic press release. Find the words “revenue”, or “taxes”… copy/paste response here… and don’t forget to slander the tea party… There is little if any difference between the words liberal and Democrat any more.
The same cannot be said about conservatives and Republicans. The only “Republicans” who seem to share my (conservative) views are the mavericks being slandered and persecuted from all sides (the establishment GOP, the Democrats, the media, you, and the liberals) (sorry for so much redundancy in that list). Not that we really mind. To us, it’s just confirmation that we’re on the right side of the issues.
Personally? I like the philosophical company that I keep. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Heritage… keep up the good work. The only time you guys should pause in your work is if the shrill voices cursing your names diminishes or stops for some reason. 🙂
Well, it’s been fun. No, wait. It hasn’t.
What I mean is this: You’re a great guy, and fun to talk to in person — even on difficult topics like this. But on the internet, you come off poorly with me. I’d rather keep you as a friend in the real world, and drop this blogging borderline-insult thing we have going. And yes, half of that is on me. 🙂
>> Well, it’s been fun. No, wait. It hasn’t.
>> What I mean is this: You’re a great guy, and fun to talk to in person — even on difficult topics like this. But on the internet, you come off poorly with me. I’d rather keep you as a friend in the real world, and drop this blogging borderline-insult thing we have going.
I apologize for your hurt feelings and my role in that.
My frustration in this and other discussions is simply that it seems to me you don’t read the post as much as notice key words (like “revenue” or “tax” in this case) and go into current popular tangents/arguments related just to those key words…
I’m not a man of subtlety. It’s never been one of my strong points, nor have I ever wished it to be. I think I would say “face to face” the things I write (if I could think on my feet that fast) and accept the bloody nose or broken knee-caps as they come. 🙂
Rick’s Explanation on His Blog
I’m not being facetious when I say this: I probably am too sensitive, and I need to work on that. I’ve found working out regularly helps. If I do a couple of hours of karate, or do a long walk every day, I’m less irritable.
And, I believe that you would say the same things you say here, in person. It would just be interpreted differently. Your typed words are very… rough to my ears. There’s no humor, no friendship in them. They look like they’ve been shot out of a shotgun, usually at my face.
It seems whatever I say, you diminish it to “blah blah yeah just another liberal talking point,” as if I were a person of no individual thought. While self-delusion is a deeply human trait, I don’t think it applies to me 100%. The reason I end up having some (but not all) of the same thoughts as many liberals is, we’ve come to the same conclusions. It’s not a press club.
>My frustration in this and other discussions is simply that it seems to me you don’t read the post as much as notice key words (like “revenue” or “tax” in this case) and go into current popular tangents/arguments related just to those key words…
That’s fair.
My frustration is, I get the sense your conclusions are predetermined, that no matter what was said or done, you’d come down on a certain side, and that’s that — so reading the details more carefully seems pointless.
It is my impression that I’m the more open-minded person — I can genuinely recognize where the conservatives have it right — where I have never heard you say the same of the liberal position. Even those topics where liberals were clearly the vanguard (e.g. civil rights), you just say “the conservatives were actually there first.” It’s like you can’t see past your own team, or allow any weaknesses. Conservatives have never been progressive. That’s part of the definition of what “conservative” means. When Moses gave the “eye for an eye” law, and when Lincoln freed the slaves, they were being progressive — heading toward a more liberal position, away from the current, more conservative, culturally-accepted position (where you knock out my eye, and I get to kill you). It doesn’t matter if they were God-fearing Jews or 19th century Republicans, they were best-known for promoting a liberal ideal, for progressing towards a more free and fair society.
Now, maybe you sincerely believe that half the country, or 45% of Texas, is completely wrong-headed, selfish, stupid, and ignorant, with no thoughts of merit or value. If that’s correct, then no adjustments need to be made — you’ve communicated that well. 🙂
I take the more liberal position: there are conservative ideas that are worthy, and which I sincerely think should be considered and adopted. I am really only a “liberal” in the 21st century sense, where thanks to decades of propaganda, anything not on the far right is “liberal.” If we lived in more sensible times, without the baggage brought from the mid-90s on, I’d be a centrist. I’m pro-business, pro-gun rights, pro-marriage equality, and pro-choice — like the majority of Americans. What the tea party branch of the GOP has done is tell us “go away, fags.” That’s why the tea-party repackaged version of Romney lost. It’s why the next GOP candidate will likely lose, too, unless he can shrug off that influence and return to a right/center position — and have the majority of Americans believe him.
Let me say it again, for clarity — I will gladly vote for a Republican who is pro-business, pro-gun rights, pro-marriage equality, and pro-choice — like the majority of Americans (and like Gov. Romney was before he got re-cast into some guy who opposed his own career-long positions). I will not vote for one who isn’t. If that makes me “liberal,” then OK, 85% of America is liberal. Might as well call me “American” and ditch the other words.
>> I’m not being facetious when I say this: I probably am too sensitive, and I need to work on that.
And I am the exact opposite. I may be passionate and comfortable (you would call it stubborn) with my beliefs… but I’m not sensitive even to a fault, which causes me to have a hard time relating. And no I’m not being facetious either.
>> It seems whatever I say, you diminish it to “blah blah yeah just another liberal talking point,”
You’re right and I probably do that more often than I should… but in my defense in some cases I think I’m justified…
Case in point…
>> “And a big part of it will be not throwing a hissy fit, shutting down the government, and refusing to pay the bills we already owe — which is what raising the debt ceiling is all about.”
>> The reason I end up having some (but not all) of the same thoughts as many liberals is, we’ve come to the same conclusions. It’s not a press club.
Can you honestly say that you thought about this and have concluded with the rest of the left that tea party conservatives want to not pay the bills we already owe? How did you reach this conclusion?
What conservative (aka tea party) person has actually said we should default or “refuse to pay the bills we already owe”? None.
And would “shutting down the government” cause bills not to be paid? How did you reach this conclusion? The last time I saw it happen, the social security and welfare checks (essential services) still went out on time, the military continued to run, and the government continued to function. I remember some bureaucrats getting furloughed and people making a bigger deal out of it than it actually was. (aka propaganda) With the sequester I remember some (on the left) going out of their way to make it as painful as possible for the people they “serve”. But in all of that who didn’t get paid that was owed something?
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy. All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.” — Barack Obama (9/19/2009) (Sound Familiar?)
The narrative in this statment has little to do with reality and everything to do with emotional propaganda. It’s like conservatives wanting to starve children or push the elderly off cliffs. It’s like liberals wanting to turn your children gay or confiscate all your guns (bad example on the last one… some on the left DO want to confiscate all your guns) 🙂
But OK… maybe I’m missing something… Maybe I’m just not getting the details. How do you (and Obama) conclude that tea party conservatives want to default on our national bills and obligations and intend to do that by not raising the debt limit? Words? Actions? Bills? Something tangible?
I admit it, when I read stuff like this my eyes glaze over and I dismiss it out of hand. There’s nothing behind it, nothing supporting it. Perhaps it’s the boy who cried wolf syndrome… maybe you’ve pointed out a few wolves I’m missed.
“what raising the debt ceiling is all about” is about using the rule of law to allow the federal government to spend more money that it takes in. Literally… that IS what it’s all about. One side wants to do that again, and again, and again and would rather not even have to vote to raise it… just make it automatic (Supporting My Assertion?: Obama and many on the left have said as much). Another side wants to use it as a means to pressure government reign in spending and cut waste.
Does my side use propaganda? Yes. But I think we are rank amateurs in comparison.
>> My frustration is, I get the sense your conclusions are predetermined, that no matter what was said or done, you’d come down on a certain side, and that’s that — so reading the details more carefully seems pointless.
When it comes issues of my faith in God and Jesus, I can perhaps agree somewhat.
Other than that I must apologize, you’ll have to give me an example or two.
As for details, I think I’m one of the most detail-centric people around… to a fault. I’m a type A, give me the facts as bullet points kind of guy. I despise appearance (and those who try to push it) over substance.
I may not agree with what the facts/details are, as they are presented; but I will back up why I don’t agree. (i.e.) Global Warming is caused by man (i.e.) Homosexuality is completely genetic
>> Conservatives have never been progressive. That’s part of the definition of what “conservative” means.
You seem to have defined progressive as “progress towards that which is good” and conservative as “not progress toward that which is good”. With this as the definition of progressive I and conservatives can never measure up. This is little more than defining your enemy in your terms.
Abraham Lincoln was a conservative acting on conservative principles as where the thousands of conservative Christians who supported emancipation because of their religious beliefs. Where leftist also involved? Sure… but you just can’t hijack history and say “Oh, I like what he did so he would have been one of us… He’s on our team… but you, you can have Hitler.”
>> where I have never heard you say the same of the liberal position. Even those topics where liberals were clearly the vanguard (e.g. civil rights), you just say “the conservatives were actually there first.”
With emancipation I would say “first” and “majority”; with civil rights I would just say “too”.
Why would I say conservatives were involved in the civil rights movement too. Some marched with Martin Luther King (like Charlton Heston). Was it mostly a movement of the left? Absolutely. And many of the results were very good for society. Civil rights never would have succeeded (in the timeframe it did) without the Republican Party… Ohhh but the left would claim them on their side… and graciously hand us the racist Democrats who fought it tooth and nail…
On a side note; It was also a movement of some leftist who were very evil men with very evil motives (like President Lyndon B. Johnson) and the “War on Poverty”.
My point being… You (the left) can’t (honestly) just claim everything good is mine and everything bad is yours… any more than we can.
A good article on the subject…
“Liberals look back at history, identify the social changes of which they approve, and define “conservatism” as opposition to those changes, since conservatism is, in this reading, opposition to social change.” — Kevin D. Williamson (National Review)
Yes, the Party of Civil Rights
>> where I have never heard you say the same of the liberal position.
Unions as initially created produced many great advances in society… child labor laws, 40 hour work week, representing workers within the framework of the free market. They could have the same impact and do as much good today, if they returned to those roots. “Republicans aren’t anti-Union. Created for the right purpose they are a great good for workers, business, and society.” — TexasLynn (January 31, 2013)
>> Let me say it again, for clarity — I will gladly vote for a Republican who is pro-business, pro-gun rights, pro-marriage equality, and pro-choice … I will not vote for one who isn’t.
Since we’re being clear… I sincerely hope they do too (go moderate)… which will cause my vote to disappear. (I will never vote for the likes of John McCain or Mitt Romney again… no matter who their VP nominees are.) The question is, would they gain enough moderate votes to offset the loss in conservative votes. You seem to think they will. I don’t in the slightest. But we agree in that we want them to do whatever and nominate whoever it takes to drive the conservative element out of their party; just for different reasons.
As Jonah Goldberg recently said, “A party consumed by the need to prove its purity to its base is going to have a very hard time proving anything else to the rest of the country.”
I’ll be honest with you — and you can scoff, and would be justified in doing so. I really don’t know how I’m going to vote next year, or in 2016. I don’t see as much value in social tolerance if the economy collapses. I’d like to have both, of course, but the way it seems to go is, the GOP can deliver economic growth, the Dems can deliver social tolerance, and neither can keep us out of foreign entanglements. It’s depressing.
I’m going to unplug from politics for a while — I won’t be voting for 13 months anyway — read more classic philosophy (I especially love the ancient Romans), and reconsider things. Right now, I’m too invested in defending my previous positions to think clearly.
[…] authored the Declaration of Independence. Laissez faire thinking was favored in that time. In Common Sense, Paine discusses government as a necessary evil. James Madison favored an impotent government by default with specified special privileges rather […]