Fair? You Want Fair —–

Work for it !!

 

.

.

Sorry but any more fairness out of the government/liberals and everyone will be flat broke.

HILLARY CLINTON, CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT: Now today — today, as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer- term challenges come into focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy.

And just how much of that crisis was generated by the government mandates, laws, regulations, actions — and effing inaction ? A large portion of it Mrs. Clinton. Mortgage crisis exacerbated by the requirements from regulators that more loans be made in low (and no ) income areas for example.  My taxes keep going up and the only thing keeping pace with them is the number of rules I have to follow; in my personal life and in business. Let’s not kid ourselves here; this isn’t code, this is flat out calling for more income redistribution.

You can’t have one without the other

Well, according to you we already do. And for decades it was a system that lifted millions out of poverty. Strangely enough it was working quite well until we declared “War on Poverty“.

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.

This week, the Census Bureau will most likely report that the poverty rate last year was about 14 percent, essentially the same rate as in 1967, three years after the War on Poverty was announced. As Chart 1 shows, according to the Census, there has been no net progress in reducing poverty since the mid to late 1960s. 

The static nature of poverty is especially surprising because (as Chart 1 also shows) poverty fell dramatically during the period before the War on Poverty began. In 1950, the poverty rate was 32.2 percent. By 1965 (the first year during which any War on Poverty programs began to operate), the rate had been cut nearly in half to 17.3 percent

So we are supposed to elect you as President to do what couldn’t be done in your first try as Co-President?
When do we stop doing the same things over and over again ?

More importantly, when do we admit that ‘fair’ isn’t always a desirable goal? Should everyone have a fair chance? Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean every chance will work out the same for everyone. Some people will have bad luck and have to start over. Some people will run into medical problems that derail their plans.

And some people will flat out simply work harder, longer or better than other people. It is ‘fair’ that they get to experience all of the results of that hard work. And that does include more money then some people could ever spend in a lifetime or 10 lifetimes. And yes, it means that some of those people will chose to be selfish with their money. For me it is fair; they earned it, they get to determine how they spend it or not.

 

Let’s not kid ourselves about her ‘plan’ it is still more tax and spend. I do have to wonder why Mrs. Clinton waited until now; surely as a Senator she had a chance (after chance after chance…) to introduce such legislation.
Sorry Mrs. Clinton but unless you come up with something new; I don’t think I’ll be voting for you.

Please join the discussion.

One Response to this post.

  1. Posted by GomeznSA on 14.07.15 at 06:00

    We are already flat broke, and yet the polly tishuns just keep digging deeper, I mean spending even more of that money we simply ain’t got.