The Social Contract

There is this myth out there that Conservatives are only for “the rich” and Liberal Democrats are always fighting for the “working class”.   Even though Liberals claim to be for the poor, or as they say the “less priviledged” and the “less fortunate”, it seems to me that Liberal Democrats don’t give a damn about the poor.  If they did, they wouldn’t continue to push policies that keep people down.

The policies that Liberals have put in place – and continue to push for do nothing but keep the poor poor.  When it comes to economics, Liberal policies and ideas do absolutely nothing to help the poor because all these policies do is maintain the poor.  Liberals are extraordinarily hypocritical – If anyone is for the “rich”  and priviledge it’s Liberals – just as long as they’re one of them.  Barack Obama is a perfect example – he’ll deride fat cats all day long then go meet them for dinner to collect cash.

But something Liberals tend to bring up over and over is this concept of the “Social Contract”.  Liberals want to engage in a system where people that have earned something are somehow obliged under some nebulous “social contract” to give up a portion of their wealth to others that don’t have wealth.

Look at Elizabeth Warren talking about this.  She’s just outraged that people that have produced something of value for their fellow men have not given a hunk of their wealth to the people.

She claims that “you built a factory out there?  good for you!

But then she says she “wants to be clear” talking to the presumed factory owner:

“You moved your good to market on the roads that the “rest of us” built.”

“You hired workers the “rest of us” paid to educate.”

“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the “rest of us” paid for.”

Then she goes on to say..

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea, God bless…keep a big hunk of it, but part of the underlying “social contract” is you take a hunk of that an pay forward for the next kid that comes along.”

Are you kidding me?  First of all who is Elizabeth Warren to decide on behalf of anyone what “hunk” of their business they can keep?

Second of all, just what “social contract” is in place anyway?  A contract implies two or more parties coming together and AGREEING to terms of which all parties CHOOSE to participate.  Forcing one party to hand over some “hunk” of their efforts, brains, ingenuity, or otherwise when they have not agreed to do so is confiscation and there is no “social contract”.

Third of all she keeps saying “that the rest of us paid for“.  Really?  Has she seen who is paying Federal taxes in the USA?

Liberals love to tell you all about the rich and how much money they make, that it’s “disproportionate” and not “fairly distributed“. The somehow always forget to include the part of how much in Federal income tax is paid by the people that produce the wealth.

According to the IRS a few years ago the Top 50% of income earners pay 96.54% of all income taxes.  Last reviewed in 2010 it went up to 97.41%.  Here is the data (click the matrix for full view):

So if we are going to discuss income earned then we also need to discussed taxes paid.

With that in mind, let’s come back to this concept of a “social contract”.  Liberals always want to come at this this from only one direction.

  • What about the social contract where people who can’t afford health insurance rearrange their priorities to not purchase cool toys before taking care of the basics?  Sure it’s expensive but these are choices in life.  Part of the social contract is not obliging your fellow citizen to cover your butt because you chose not to.
    • What about people getting off this idea that someone else is going to pay for their mortgage and gasoline:
  • What about the idea of all American citizens paying something in taxes even if only a little.  When 50% of the country’s population pay absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes, they , as Ms. Elizabeth Warren likes to say so much are living in a society that the “rest of us paid for“.

The “Social Contract” is a two way street. If people of means would agree to “hand over” a hunk of their earned wealth, would it be too much to ask that those on the receiving end not abuse it and do everything possible to stand on their own two feet as best as possible?

The person that started his or her factory and did well did so because he or she delivered something of value to their fellow man who chose to purchase it in the free market – and yes Ms. Warren, the roads those product were delivered on were paid for in a much larger part by the same people that had the ideas, built the factories, and even employed others.

In short, the productive people of this world not only provide value to their fellow citizens, not only provide jobs to their local communities (and sometimes long distance communities), not only indirectly create whole new economies in the towns where they place their factories and offices, but they also paid almost all of the costs of putting the roads there, educating the workforce, and paying the taxes that provide local police and fire protection.

I have watch Elizabeth Warren’s announcement video and in all sincerity it’s pretty good, and she’s welcome to do what she thinks is right fighting for “working families” and fighting big lobby interests, but to attack productive people saying their goods were delivered on roads paid for “by the rest of us” is just factually incorrect.  The people setting up factories and other business are just as much a part of the working class as anyone – maybe even more so as there is no 9 to 5 in the world of the entrepreneur.

For Elizabeth Warren to come at this any other way is only to stir up false rage in some attempt keep class warfare alive.  Good luck up there in Massachusetts.


The Party of No

I was in the car listening to NPR and there was an interview between the host and two people who were complaining that the Republicans have just been the party of “no” for the past two years and that if the Senate remains next week with a Democratic majority and the House goes Republican that the Republicans are going to have to stop just being the party of no for the sake of no.

I don’t think so.  You don’t say “yes” just so its not a “no” if what it is you’re voting on is a bad idea time after time.  If you are presented with virtually nothing but what you think are bad ideas, why would you agree to them just for the sake of agreeing to them?

Would you agree to drive your car off the cliff just so you weren’t called the person of “no”?

What if you were presented with nothing but “drive the car off the cliff” choices time after time, would that make you hard headed to say no just for the sake of it?  No, you say no for a reason.

The past two years, rationally speaking, has been about containing damage.  There is absolutely no reason to cooperate with people that are hell bent on destruction.  You don’t vote with them, you vote against them.  You don’t cooperate, you block, you don’t quietly sit there, you shine a light on the matter.

The premise of the question is wrong.  Since President Obama’s election, and in fact well before that even, the Democrats have been the majority in Congress.  So why all the complaining by the Left?  For the past two years the Left has had all the votes they needed in both houses of Congress plus the White House to pass anything they wanted to pass without any help whatsoever by the Republican in Congress.  So why all the anger?  What gives?

The question in the NPR interview could have also been asked like this.  “Why does President Obama and the Congress continue to propose ideas and legislation that are destructive to the country?  Why have the Democrats blocked the Republicans from contributing their ideas to the agenda?  Do they like to be seen as the party of no?”

The NPR interview had the interviewer asking the genius on the other end if the Republican controlled House would just stop saying no and would start to go along with Obama on important matters.  The answer is that Obama is not going to change, he is who he is.  You don’t “go along” to get along, you contain him, you prevent him from going down the path he wants to force on the country, and you vote him out in two years and relegate him to a nothing but a blip on the timeline of history.

President Obama is an egomaniac, has not the character for the office, could care less about what makes America exceptional, has a chip on his shoulder that he was sent there to make things right, and if you ask me is frankly a trojan horse.  The party of no is actually the party of “yes”.