Martin Jr.
Well-known member
This is an article found in a local newspaper by a local CPA on October 15th of 1985:
"A recent article in the U.S. News & World Report pointed out that 'Nearly half the populations has a share of the U.S. Budget.' It then listed the tens of millions receiving benefits directly from federal spending programs.
We can complain all we want about the growth of federal spending and the resulting high taxes and huge budget deficits, but we will never do anything about them until we once again accept the fundamental American principle that it is immoral - it is WRONG - to take the property of one man - through taxation - in order to give it to another - through government benefits.
For the first hundred years of our nation's history this is clearly understood. This fact is illustrated by the following true story:
'During the first term of President Clevaland congress passed a bill appropriating money to pay for distribution of seeds to West Texas farmers who had suffered a two year drought. Cleveland vetoed the bill, stating that it was wrong "to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose." He argued correctly that it was not the function of government to relieve individual tragedy "not related to public service." His veto was upheld.
The American people understood the importance of this principle. They also understood the importance of helping others privately. They sent $100,000 in private funds to the distressed farmers of West Texas - ten times the proposed federal funding.
But note the difference: The federal appropriation would have involved the unwilling confiscation of money from taxpayers - the private contributions were freely given charity.
There is an economic fact of life which we simply must grasp if we are ever to halt the economic decay we are curently experiencing. And that fact is: The more government spends, the more it must take!
Obviously, the more government takes, the less is left in the hands of the people. The less left in private hands, the less can be saved. The less saved, the less invested. The less invested, the fewer jobs created - and so on.
The more government takes from the "national pie" the closer we are to socialism, for it is the move toward socialism which causes government to take more so it can spend more. And socialism means more equal distribution of poverty.
When considering the size of the federal budget, the extent of the deficits, and tax reform, it is simple truths such as these which must be kept in mind. We must not permit ourselves to be moved by emotional, but totally irrelevant arguments.
The plain fact is that if we really want to help the less fortuanate in our society we must demand more economic freedom, not less. We must permit the people to keep more of their earnings, not tax away more.
This means we must drastically cut government spending so that taxes can be reduced and the deficit can be erased.
In the midst of all the demagoguery in the Congress, remember No one has the right to live at the expense of his neighbor, without his neighbors consent. That's the bottom line."
"A recent article in the U.S. News & World Report pointed out that 'Nearly half the populations has a share of the U.S. Budget.' It then listed the tens of millions receiving benefits directly from federal spending programs.
We can complain all we want about the growth of federal spending and the resulting high taxes and huge budget deficits, but we will never do anything about them until we once again accept the fundamental American principle that it is immoral - it is WRONG - to take the property of one man - through taxation - in order to give it to another - through government benefits.
For the first hundred years of our nation's history this is clearly understood. This fact is illustrated by the following true story:
'During the first term of President Clevaland congress passed a bill appropriating money to pay for distribution of seeds to West Texas farmers who had suffered a two year drought. Cleveland vetoed the bill, stating that it was wrong "to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose." He argued correctly that it was not the function of government to relieve individual tragedy "not related to public service." His veto was upheld.
The American people understood the importance of this principle. They also understood the importance of helping others privately. They sent $100,000 in private funds to the distressed farmers of West Texas - ten times the proposed federal funding.
But note the difference: The federal appropriation would have involved the unwilling confiscation of money from taxpayers - the private contributions were freely given charity.
There is an economic fact of life which we simply must grasp if we are ever to halt the economic decay we are curently experiencing. And that fact is: The more government spends, the more it must take!
Obviously, the more government takes, the less is left in the hands of the people. The less left in private hands, the less can be saved. The less saved, the less invested. The less invested, the fewer jobs created - and so on.
The more government takes from the "national pie" the closer we are to socialism, for it is the move toward socialism which causes government to take more so it can spend more. And socialism means more equal distribution of poverty.
When considering the size of the federal budget, the extent of the deficits, and tax reform, it is simple truths such as these which must be kept in mind. We must not permit ourselves to be moved by emotional, but totally irrelevant arguments.
The plain fact is that if we really want to help the less fortuanate in our society we must demand more economic freedom, not less. We must permit the people to keep more of their earnings, not tax away more.
This means we must drastically cut government spending so that taxes can be reduced and the deficit can be erased.
In the midst of all the demagoguery in the Congress, remember No one has the right to live at the expense of his neighbor, without his neighbors consent. That's the bottom line."