Audio: “You don’t deserve to keep all” your money, Dem Congresswoman says

posted at 4:05 pm on September 16, 2011 by Tina Korbe

It was the top question of the night. Napa Tea Party Teen Tyler Hensley stood up at Monday’s CNN/Tea Party Express debate and asked the GOP presidential candidates, “Out of every dollar that I earn, how much do you think I deserve to keep?” And conservatives everywhere wished Hensley could have put his question directly to the president.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is no Barack Hussein Obama, but she did recently reply to Hensley’s query on the Don Wade and Roma show on WLS-AM. Her answer was instructive.

“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together,” Schakowsky said.

On some level, Schakowsky is right. The question is far more complicated than it appears.

At first glance, it’s tempting to reduce the argument for little to no taxation to this: “He who possesses it (money, land, whatever) ought to keep it regardless of whether he deserves it simply because it’s his.” Nobody has the right to forcibly take what’s not his — it’s called stealing. But, as appealing as it is to equate government taxing and spending with stealing, in a constitutional republic like ours, it’s simply not.

The federal government has property rights, too. For, in the end, a property right is simply “the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used.” Sad to say it, but the government does have that authority over the resource of our tax dollars. But, crucially, it derives that authority from our consent, the consent we express in the U.S. Constitution, which does give the federal government the power to tax (although it’s worth noting that it originally wasn’t constitutional to tax income — it took the 16th Amendment for that). When the federal government taxes us, then, it doesn’t really take our money. We freely — if indirectly — choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place. We consent to giving the federal government authority over a particular portion of our private resources, making those private resources public. In effect, we cede our right to that property to the federal government. The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right.

The question, then, is not: How much money do our representatives in government believe we deserve to keep? Rather, it is: How much do we think we deserve to keep, to command as we wish? How much do we think the government deserves to command, to use for those few things that only the collective can provide (e.g. defense!)? In other words, it is ever and always a question about the size, scope and purpose of government. And our opinion on that will necessarily inform whom we elect.

This raises another question: Why don’t liberals think they deserve to keep more of their money than they do? The first part of Hensley’s question reveals the answer. He didn’t ask, “Of every dollar I possess, how much do I deserve to keep?” He asked, “Of every dollar that I earn, how much do I deserve to keep?” For there are many means by which we come by property and not all of them involve earning. But what we earn, we are much more loathe to part with stupidly. That might explain why earners don’t exactly want to hand their hard-earned cash to a government that has proved itself, time and again, to be horribly irresponsible with tax dollars.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

On some level, Schakowsky is right.

And on another level, she’s a commie dingbat.

Akzed on September 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

What an impertinent cow!

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Spoken like a true Democratic Socialist of America.

steebo77 on September 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Obama is practicisn venture socialism

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Semantics, it’s the liberal’s best weapon. The only reason this story has any appeal is the typical liberal doesn’t have a compelling answer.

You can not separate the taking of money through taxes from the use the government choose to apply that money. Which brings us back to he reason why we choose to have a government, and then the argument starts.

Skandia Recluse on September 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM


Why don’t liberals think they deserve to keep more of their money than they do?

Because …


earners don’t exactly want to hand their hard-earned cash to a government …

Looks like you answered your own question, Tina :-)

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Well, he’s practicing socialism.

This cow is just a cow.

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2011 at 4:12 PM

It’s called collectivism.

Dr Evil on September 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

We’ve reached a point where half of the people eligible to vote do not pay any income taxes.

Beyond that, most of the people eligible to vote aren’t (*gasp*) rich.

This means that the “we” who pay income taxes are no longer able to select who gets sworn in as a Congressman.

At best, for every vote from an income tax payer there is a vote from a non-income tax payer to cancel it out.

When you’re not paying any income taxes, it’s a heck of a lot easier to keep voting in the people that promise you freebies as long as you’re willing to raise the rates on ‘others’ (especially those evil rich others).

JadeNYU on September 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Actually, it’s not a complicated question. It’s just the wrong question.

Each of us deserves to “keep” all his money. If we don’t, we’re all slaves. This is an either/or thing, and there’s nothing complicated about it.

The real question is twofold: what role government should play in our lives, and how government should operate.

The principle on which America was founded is that we the people decide how much government should do, and how much we will give it to perform its assigned tasks. We owe government nothing. We decide to pay for it to perform services for us.

How childish we have become, to run around asking how much we “deserve” to keep like a bunch of 6-year-olds trying to frame a philosophical question.

J.E. Dyer on September 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM


“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it.”

I hope ‘Pubs add this to their campaign commercials.

Tony737 on September 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM

On some level, Schakowsky is right.

I don’t believe in levels.

faraway on September 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Jan is a commie straight up.

tim c on September 16, 2011 at 4:17 PM

“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together,” Schakowsky said.

Then why did you exempt yourselves from ObowmaCare…?

Seven Percent Solution on September 16, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Who exactly is paying this person´s salary again….??

gullxn on September 16, 2011 at 4:17 PM

“You don’t deserve to keep all” your money, Dem Congresswoman says

The same dems think babies DON’T deserve to live, and convicted murders DO deserve to live.

portlandon on September 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

The principle on which America was founded is that we the people decide how much government should do, and how much we will give it to perform its assigned tasks. We owe government nothing. We decide to pay for it to perform services for us.

How childish we have become, to run around asking how much we “deserve” to keep like a bunch of 6-year-olds trying to frame a philosophical question.

J.E. Dyer on September 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Spot On!!

AH_C on September 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

The problem is not taxes per se, it’s paying taxes to support unconstitutional (illegal) operations of govt.

Akzed on September 16, 2011 at 4:18 PM

These idiots who like to mouth the line “I’d be happy to pay more taxes,” or “I should be taxed more,” are never willing to say how much more they should be paying. And, they never seem to be willing to write a check to the IRS to make up the difference between what they are obligated to pay and what they think they should pay.

These people need to continue to be pressed whenever they bring this topic up until they either go on the record, cut a check, or shut the hell up.

Mallard T. Drake on September 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I am not keeping all my money, I am spending it at the local shops, buying gas, ordering online. I believe that does far more good than what this cow would do with it.

bopbottle on September 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Says the Congresswoman married to a tax cheat criminal.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!

ButterflyDragon on September 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM

The funny part of the interview was her telling us we don’t really deserve the money we’ve worked hard for, then telling us that the Stimulus didn’t work because it wasn’t BIG enough, then say saying, Oh yeah, that Solyndra thing… we’ll look into that.

The absolute trifecta of liberal stupidity.

Take your money. Blow your money. Take some more.

12thMonkey on September 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Her husband spent several months in jail for wire fraud and tax evasion. So she should know, eh?

Dhuka on September 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I agree that the underlying premise of Obama et al is that you get to keep what the government decides you get to keep. This is obviously a different, more socialist, view than conservatives.

However, this formulation of the question is really stupid. What’s the answer? You ‘deserve’ to keep everything? OK, we’ll just live in anarchy.

Clark1 on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM


On some level, Schakowsky is right.

And on another level, she’s a commie dingbat.

Akzed on September 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Ha ha ha !

MCGIRV on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

So the government taking my money against my will is not stealing? Next you are gonna tell me SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme.

Trying to put the issue in nicey nice terms does not change the dynamic. Is part of your paycheck confiscated without your say so or not? And if you do not consent to be violated what will happen to you? Screw the lipstick on a pig and call it exactly what it is.

But having said that I do think the government has a right to steal our money. To a certain extent anyways. Just don’t dress it up because that only legitimizes asshats like Schakowsky.

NotCoach on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

If I don’t deserve to keep something, then how can it be mine to begin with? I don’t accept the premise of the question.

OhioCoastie on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

We deserve to keep all of our earned income. We choose to give the government some of it.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have it backwards. It thinks all of our money belongs to the government, and they let us keep some of it.

hawksruleva on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Good idea. When can I pick up my check from you b**ch? I need car parts.

faol on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Then why did you exempt yourselves from ObowmaCare…?

Seven Percent Solution on September 16, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Because she is your superior.

Schadenfreude on September 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Our job as citizens is to ensure that the government takes as little as possible. Larger government equals less liberty. Right now we are taxed by Federal, State, Local, School Boards, and special districts.

We taxed by every event: turn on the light taxed, flush the toliet tax, drive to work tax, mow your grass. What these people don’t understand is that tax burden is breaking our system. This is reaction of the people saying no more, live within your means, and yes we less taxes in the future when the debt is repaid.

Oil Can on September 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

At some point, you’ve taken enough money.

faraway on September 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM

However, this formulation of the question is really stupid. What’s the answer? You ‘deserve’ to keep everything? OK, we’ll just live in anarchy.

Clark1 on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I think his question has merit. Just because you deserve to keep it doesn’t mean you aren’t willing to part with some of it for the common good.

Answering his question is a pretty good test to see how conservative someone is. If someone says you don’t deserve to keep it all, you know they believe government owns the economy.

hawksruleva on September 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Wow.

She better update her resume.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

It Takes A Pillage

John the Libertarian on September 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

She didn’t have the guts to say “YOU DESERVE NONE OF IT!”.

GarandFan on September 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Husband in prison for tax fraud, poorly crafted comment about the legitimate use of taxes, member of a class exempted from ObamaCare. Priceless! You can’t make this stuff up.

Mason on September 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Wow.

She better update her resume.

MadisonConservative on September 16, 2011 at 4:25 PM

She reps a heavily Jewish district north of Chicago. She is safe. NY-9 safe!

WashJeff on September 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I think anyone named Schakowsky should pay 100%.

mwdiver on September 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Finally, an honest Democrat! At least she’s not hiding it.

cktheman on September 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Bet she damn well tries to keep all of hers.

coldwarrior on September 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Her teachers must be very proud…

Seven Percent Solution on September 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I always believed the major difference between the two parties was: democrats believe all the money you earn belongs to the government and they’ll let you keep some. Republicans believe that all the money you earn belongs to you and they ask for some of it to be given to the government.

Zaggs on September 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Outstanding writing Tina, you literated this subject well.

paulsur on September 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

They’ll decide how much you deserve, and how much of it, they deserve. They are your United States Commies, and they know what’s best for EVERYONE!!!

Is that pretty accurate Commrade Skankcowsky?

capejasmine on September 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Also, how was Tyler a “kid”?

Zaggs on September 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

The Democrats have become the face of the Communist Party in the USA. It’s time to stop them. Do we have the courage or will we let them get away with it?

BetseyRoss on September 16, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Good idea. When can I pick up my check from you b**ch? I need car parts.

faol on September 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

No checks. Get cash.

Archie Noble on September 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM

The question, then, is not: How much money do our representatives in government believe we deserve to keep? Rather, it is: How much do we think we deserve to keep, to command as we wish? How much do we think the government deserves to command, to use for those few things that only the collective can provide (e.g. defense!)?

Sorry, but I disagree, though I see your point. IMO, those like Schakowsky don’t see it as a matter of how much one is allowed to keep, because that means that the money was one’s in the first place. Rather, I see their mentality as “How much should Big Government decide to let one have?” wherein the government is the main owner of one’s wealth and determines how much to dole out to whom.

Maybe it’s a distinction without a difference, but I think don’t think so.

Christien on September 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Funny song By Ray Stevens:

If 10% Is Good Enough For Jesus (It Oughta Be Enough For Uncle Sam).

Fallon on September 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Bet she damn well tries to keep all of hers.

coldwarrior on September 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

But of course!!! She knows what’s best, as do all the commies in D.C. and around the country!!!

capejasmine on September 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM

To Quote Clint Eastwood from Unforgiven:

Deserves got nothing to do with it.” *BANG*

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on September 16, 2011 at 4:35 PM

“You don’t deserve to keep all any of” your money – What she really thinks.

ThePrez on September 16, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Shakowsky commie: we will take the money and impliment many qualifiers like, hiring by race, this way even though the money will be poorly spent but we will fi d a way to be even more inefficient

Sonosam on September 16, 2011 at 4:36 PM

“Deserves got nothing to do with it.”

-William Munney

portlandon on September 16, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Burn her!

BURN HER!!!

I hate commies

Sonosam on September 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

I always believed the major difference between the two parties was: democrats believe all the money you earn belongs to the government and they’ll let you keep some. Republicans believe that all the money you earn belongs to you and they ask for some of it to be given to the government.

Zaggs on September 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

I think that says it.

rrpjr on September 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how poorly many of our elected officials debate. Instead of rejecting the premise outright and making a pretty straightforward nonpartisan argument about the necessity of the government to be funded to provide basic services, she blurts out this nonsense. Sure the question is loaded and the interviewer antagonistic, but this is basic politics. It just goes to show how soft and lazy the political class is – they go easy on each other, going along to get along, and the dull and inarticulate who should be washed out thrive. “Civility” is killing American politics.

Dead Hand Control on September 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

A better question would be: “Since the only way people can completely escape taxes is to die, why do you tax people for actually dying?”

Bishop on September 16, 2011 at 4:39 PM

The best government is the least government… at the lowest practical level. A flat tax of 10-15% to sustain it would seem a reasonable limit.

petefrt on September 16, 2011 at 4:40 PM

This raises another question: Why don’t liberals think they deserve to keep more of their money than they do

They do think they deserve to keep more of their money. They also believe they deserve to keep more of other people’s money.

Pervygrin on September 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM

I have no problem contributing to those things that benefit us all.
Police, fire protection, (real) education, infrastructure, national defense and the like all fall into this category.

As soon as government uses tax revenue to reward one group of people at the expense of another we have taken the first step down the road to tyranny.

When government is too small we have anarchy, as system where the people abuse each other. Towns in the old west were in anarchy. They had to hire a sheriff to clean up the town. Once they have law and order, they add infrastructure, a fire department, parks, etc.

When government is too large you have tyranny, which is a system where the government abuses the people.

Freedom only exists when government is large enough to prevent anarchy and small enough to prevent tyranny.

Freedom is the absence of abuse.

Politicians want to buy votes with tax payers money. This temptation is significant. It is a time tested formula that leads to long term majorities for the abusers. The final result will be tyranny and then revolution, including dead elected officials.

The most insidious thing about socialism is the fact that the abusers look compassionate.

The Rock on September 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

“You don’t deserve to keep all” your money, Dem Congresswoman’s husband says, before heading off to prison.

FTFY

MNHawk on September 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

…“Civility” is killing American politics.

Dead Hand Control on September 16, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Great argument.

rrpjr on September 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Well we do have to pay some tax to fund Constitutionally mandated national defense, border protection and the handful of other things the federal government actually is supposed to do… so a reduction to a 3 percent federal income tax seems about right. All other departments and bureaucracies go back to the states or to the people.

viking01 on September 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM

They should have asked Herman Cain that question. He’s the only one who would have had the balls to answer it with an actual number. 91 cents.

The 9 9 9 plan.

milwife88 on September 16, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Shackcowski can take over as spokesperson as soon as they get tired of little Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz. Shack would be perfect, she’s only slightly to the left of Fidel.

exceller on September 16, 2011 at 4:55 PM

The Rock on September 16, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Clear and concise. Nice.

petefrt on September 16, 2011 at 4:56 PM

Sad to say it, but the government does have that authority over the resource of our tax dollars.

No amendment, nor constitutional phrase, gives the federal government the power to take tax dollars from a taxpayer, and give it to someone who doesn’t work or pay net income taxes.

You want my tax dollars for public goods, like a military or a highway, I can accept that, but redistribution is unconstitutional.

Vashta.Nerada on September 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Just who the hell does this woman think she is and why, exactly, is she serving in our government.

It is the government that must justify the taking of my money from me. I don’t need to justify my desire to keep it.

Absolutely despicable.

crosspatch on September 16, 2011 at 5:00 PM

She should have just explained it thusly: from each according to his ability to each according to his need. That has always worked well in practice.

Dhuka on September 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM

These idiots who like to mouth the line “I’d be happy to pay more taxes,” or “I should be taxed more,” are never willing to say how much more they should be paying. And, they never seem to be willing to write a check to the IRS to make up the difference between what they are obligated to pay and what they think they should pay.

These people need to continue to be pressed whenever they bring this topic up until they either go on the record, cut a check, or shut the hell up.

Mallard T. Drake on September 16, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Now I’ll leave you with this noodle: If those idiots happily pay extra taxes, do they know for sure that these taxes will go to the IRS coffers? And if it doesn’t, where does it go?

And for those who don’t pay taxes but want more of our money: How much money do they deserve to spend?

ProudPalinFan on September 16, 2011 at 5:03 PM

She wants all of us to pay whatever amount in taxes she decides we should to finance her vision of her America which coincidentally includes the nominal sum necessary to insure a permanent socialist majority, tiny little bits of coercive corruption also included.

Speakup on September 16, 2011 at 5:05 PM

I used to live in “Jan’s” district (IL-9), a.k.a. the Peoples Republic of Evanston. Her campaign signs just had a big picture of her mug and the word “Jan” and nothing else. That’s all.

I couldn’t stand her so I moved north into the IL-10 where Republicans have a chance of winning the congressional seat every year. Jan is a bad as she sounds on this audio.

Old Fritz on September 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM

For 48% of all US federal income filers, the answer is 0%.

angryed on September 16, 2011 at 5:14 PM

The question, then, is not: How much money do our representatives in government believe we deserve to keep? Rather, it is: How much do we think we deserve to keep, to command as we wish? How much do we think the government deserves to command, to use for those few things that only the collective can provide (e.g. defense!)? In other words, it is ever and always a question about the size, scope and purpose of government. And our opinion on that will necessarily inform whom we elect.

I find this analysis wanting because it only vaguely gets to the heart of the matter. The question is really not what we keep. Rather, it’s first a question of what we honestly want to pay for. Once that’s decided, we devise a tax system to generate the necessary revenue.

As a threshold matter, we’re entitled to all our money. But we decided in some sense to pay for some things. But spending has gotten so out of control paying for things that we shouldn’t that it’s time to revisit all this sh*t.

Taxpayers should be raising holy hell to cut to the bone.

BuckeyeSam on September 16, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Bet she damn well tries to keep all of hers.

coldwarrior on September 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

No kidding. That is a foregone conclusion : what’ hers is hers, what’s your is hers too…

chai on September 16, 2011 at 5:18 PM

But, as appealing as it is to equate government taxing and spending with stealing, in a constitutional republic like ours, it’s simply not.

Tina unless I am missing something you are full of it. With the current scandals involving stimulus money how can you type that with a straight hand? What the government is doing with our money is way past constitutional. I have absolutely no say anymore. The republicans and democrats both ignore us. The producers are being robbed.

arnold ziffel on September 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Sad to say it, but the government does have that authority over the resource of our tax dollars.

However, those tax dollars can only derived from a person’s labor – so the question should be: How much of a person’s labor is their to keep and how much do we owe to the government?

Chip on September 16, 2011 at 5:26 PM

“Freedom is the absence of abuse.”

NO. Freedom is the right of the individual to abuse themselves if they wish. Don’t believe that? Then get drunker than a skunk and start beating your head against the concrete wall at the county courthouse. You will quickly find yourself in lockup where you will REALLY be abused by the system.

Dr. Dog on September 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM

We’ve reached a point where half of the people eligible to vote do not pay any income taxes.

……..

At best, for every vote from an income tax payer there is a vote from a non-income tax payer to cancel it out.

JadeNYU on September 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Doncha know….representation without taxation……nice! /

herm2416 on September 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM

If you’ve ever wondered where communism went after it was destroyed, worry no longer . . . it’s alive and well within the Party of the Democrats. That dolt can shove it in her ear, or the orifice of her choice.

rplat on September 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM

She doesn’t deserve to keep her money. I’ll take it. Tell her to contact me for mailing address and to make it easy we an set up an electronic transfer for her monthly paycheck into one of my accounts.

aigle on September 16, 2011 at 5:53 PM

It all boils down to who is entitled to the fruits of your labor.

txmomof6 on September 16, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Her husband spent several months in jail for wire fraud and tax evasion. So she should know, eh?

Dhuka on September 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM


This bears repeating.
Plus, didn’t he write the definitive plan for O’Bamacare while behind bars – with a forward by David Axelrod who praised it to no end?

honsy on September 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM

The part about “deserve” pisses me off. Every day of the week I deserve nothing. I have to earn everything. Re-earn may be more like it.

No one deserves anything. Me, you, the gubmint, no one, no thing.

And no matter what you earn, use it wisely. You have to start over tomorrow.

Robert17 on September 16, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I’m sorry but whenever this congresswoman starts spewing this liberal drivel, I can’t help but remember this:

http://gawker.com/5364536/did-this-congresswoman-have-lesbian-affair-with-a-turkish-spy

Hard to take her seriously if there’s even a little truth to those allegations.Plus with all the slime being tossed at Conservatives, he’s a little back the other way.

Shotgun Messiah on September 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Wow. What a fantastic strawman that teen threw out there. Probably without realizing it.
And as much as I want to like Tina, she shows her naivete in her opinion piece.

It’s ridiculous to think the government “deserves” anything.
It’s ridiculous to believe humans belong to the government, which is precisely what you’re saying when you begin to argue that the government does deserve a portion (or all) of an individuals wealth – and the logical extension of that; what is wealth?
You’re not taking money, you’re taking TIME. Life. Free will. Freedom.

When you argue that yes, the government is “entitled” to your wealth, you argue that it’s entitled to your life, and by extension, to everything there is.

Government exists for the benefit of our society. We don’t exist for the benefit of the government.

And to think otherwise, turns the entire concept of freedom, inside out.

KMC1 on September 16, 2011 at 6:38 PM

What about our “human rights” to keep for ourselves the fruits of our labor?

RJL on September 16, 2011 at 7:20 PM

This is a fine example of what we have running this country into the ground. There are many more like her there in Congress.

mixplix on September 16, 2011 at 7:43 PM

On some level, Schakowsky is right. The question is far more complicated than it appears.

And once you reach that level, whichever it is, then the government goes and levels up on you… and you have to pay more until you get to THAT level… then it levels-up once more.

Can we get to the final boss of all the levels and win the game to end the levelling up, please?

ajacksonian on September 16, 2011 at 7:43 PM

They don’t want original, great ideas occuring outside of their control

They are satisfied with a corrupt system that they control

Build the gallows

Sonosam on September 16, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Jan, you ignorant whatever!!

bayview on September 16, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Of course she dodged the question. She is a criminal. She knows it, I know it, you know it, the people who voted for her know it. She belongs in jail.

proconstitution on September 16, 2011 at 9:00 PM

We freely — if indirectly — choose to appropriate our money to the federal government by voting in the Congress that establishes the tax rates in the first place.

we cede our right to that property to the federal government. The federal government, then, has a right to our tax dollars because we give it that right.

Only so long as the parties (The People and The Government) keep up their end of the contract.
The Contract is a “Constitutional RepublicNOT a “Democracy”.

When our last Congress did Obama’s stim plan behind closed doors, without minority participation, passed in the dead of night without allowing debate on the bill (you can’t debate the bill if you don’t have a bill to debate, this should be basic) the Contract a “Constitutional Republic” became null and void.

We did not freely — if indirectly — choose to appropriate our money, that was rammed through with one party rule. This had never happened in the USA since becoming the USA.
The same is true with Obama (you have to pass it to see whats in it) Care, there was no debate.
This became the 2nd time in the history of the USA that our Contract a “Constitutional Republic” became null and void.

DSchoen on September 16, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2