|Five ‘Truths’ You ‘Cannot Disagree With’|
|1||You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.||You cannot legislate the poor out of poverty by legislating the wealthy into prosperity.|
|2||What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.||What a wealthy person received without working for probably came from what another person worked for without receiving.|
|3||The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.||But banks can, through fractional reserve banking, in which the wealthy create wealth by putting the working class into debt.|
|4||You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.||But you can multiply wealth by inventing money, again through fractional reserve banking.|
|5||When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.||But who is working, and who is living off of their labors? The wealthy lay around the pool, counting their dividends, while the working class pays for their largess in the form of bailouts and subsidies.|
|6||(Insert bullshit about trickle down, voodoo economics, etc.)||A consumer economy cannot be prosperous if the consumers are impoverished.|
A few more points about #3:
“The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else.”
If this doesn’t demonstrate that the author of this only cares about money, then I’m not sure what does. Let’s try this out with a few items that a few people might care about the government providing and see how this “truth” is borne out, shall we?
“The government cannot give someone a financial safety net to guard against economic and circumstantial events that are outside of that person’s control without taking away someone else’s financial safety net to guard against economic and circumstantial events that are outside of that person’s control.”
Weird. That didn’t turn out at all. In some magical way we actually *can* provide this kind of a safety net without taking away someone else’s safety net, for the reason that the needs of a safety net are amortized across the population as a whole.
Okay, let’s try it again:
“The government cannot give one individual access to clean water and unpolluted air without removing someone else’s access to clean water and unpolluted air.”
Damn. That turned out weird again. I wonder what’s going wrong? It’s as if there are material things that the government can provide that can be ensured for all people without having to take that very same thing away from anyone.
Alrighty, one more time. I’m sure it’ll be a “truth” that I can’t disagree with this time:
“The government cannot provide for the basic subsistence and shelter of one individual without denying someone else basic subsistence and shelter.”
What the …? How is it that we keep finding things that the government can provide that don’t result in the type of direct accounting of dollars that the “5 truths” above describe?
One last try:
“The government cannot provide an individual with a basic level of security from foreign threats without removing someone else’s basic level of security from foreign threats.”
Well, golly. How can it be that the military provides a benefit for everyone at the same time? That’s just impossible – except it’s not.
Thanks to all the folks that contributed to this.