It appears that a lot of people feel that our government should act like their "mother". Who does not want a loving mother? This blog is my attempt to show the truth about a "mother government".
I think that the best way to look at the situation is to use a couple of simple examples. My first example is about "food". Currently people buy or produce their own food. Most of us go to the grocery store and buy the food that we need and can afford. With this system, some people can only buy the minimum amount food, while other buy lobster and steaks. The median family in the USA eats very well. Now, rather than each family buying or producing their own food, what if the government collected a food tax from all of us and then provided the food that they felt we deserved? The idea was to make sure food was shared equally or fairly. I think that you can see that with the government providing the food that the median family would would have less than when they purchased their own food. The only way that the government could provide the "same" amount of food would be if they collected "more" in food tax than we were paying before for our food. Do you know of any thing that government can do "cheaper" than we can do for ourselves? I did not think so.
How about another example? This time let's try "shoes". We all wear shoes and need shoes, so why don't we get our big government to provide us with shoes? With all the waste in government, do you really think that the government could provide us with shoes cheaper than we can do it ourselves? Can you imagine what your shoes would look like or fit if the government chose the shoes that we "deserved"? I don't think you would like that. If the shoes were even close to what we have now would require the government to collect a lot more in tax than we now pay for our shoes. Again, I can not think of anything that government can do "cheaper" than we can all do for ourselves.
With these two simple examples, I think that you can see that the founders of the USA were correct when they tried to "limit" the authority and involvement in our lives by their new government. I know that some people think that services from the government are "free", but someone has to pay and it always turns out that every thing that the government does for us costs more than if we did it for our selves. My problem is that I can not understand how so many people have so much confidence that "more" government involvement in our lives is "good". That was the biggest fear of our countries founders and it is mine today.
PS--Look at the healthcare debate. Why has no one pointed out that since 1975 we have been importing more doctors than we produce here? I checked out a few states to see if they have increased the number of medical doctors that they graduate. The data shows that they have not increased significantly in the past 20 years. In some states it was "zero" increase. Further, has anyone mentioned that the cost of becoming a doctor has significantly increased since the government got involved in underwriting student loans while the number years it takes has also increased? What about our lawyers who we allow to leach off our medical system and add to the cost?
PS--When people say that they want "free" this or that, why don't they tell us which of their neighbors they want to pick up the bill? What if them and some of their neighbors decided to start a business by "pooling" their money by forming a "corporation'? Would that be bad? Exactly what is it about corporation that is bad? How about "partnerships"?
I think that the best way to look at the situation is to use a couple of simple examples. My first example is about "food". Currently people buy or produce their own food. Most of us go to the grocery store and buy the food that we need and can afford. With this system, some people can only buy the minimum amount food, while other buy lobster and steaks. The median family in the USA eats very well. Now, rather than each family buying or producing their own food, what if the government collected a food tax from all of us and then provided the food that they felt we deserved? The idea was to make sure food was shared equally or fairly. I think that you can see that with the government providing the food that the median family would would have less than when they purchased their own food. The only way that the government could provide the "same" amount of food would be if they collected "more" in food tax than we were paying before for our food. Do you know of any thing that government can do "cheaper" than we can do for ourselves? I did not think so.
How about another example? This time let's try "shoes". We all wear shoes and need shoes, so why don't we get our big government to provide us with shoes? With all the waste in government, do you really think that the government could provide us with shoes cheaper than we can do it ourselves? Can you imagine what your shoes would look like or fit if the government chose the shoes that we "deserved"? I don't think you would like that. If the shoes were even close to what we have now would require the government to collect a lot more in tax than we now pay for our shoes. Again, I can not think of anything that government can do "cheaper" than we can all do for ourselves.
With these two simple examples, I think that you can see that the founders of the USA were correct when they tried to "limit" the authority and involvement in our lives by their new government. I know that some people think that services from the government are "free", but someone has to pay and it always turns out that every thing that the government does for us costs more than if we did it for our selves. My problem is that I can not understand how so many people have so much confidence that "more" government involvement in our lives is "good". That was the biggest fear of our countries founders and it is mine today.
PS--Look at the healthcare debate. Why has no one pointed out that since 1975 we have been importing more doctors than we produce here? I checked out a few states to see if they have increased the number of medical doctors that they graduate. The data shows that they have not increased significantly in the past 20 years. In some states it was "zero" increase. Further, has anyone mentioned that the cost of becoming a doctor has significantly increased since the government got involved in underwriting student loans while the number years it takes has also increased? What about our lawyers who we allow to leach off our medical system and add to the cost?
PS--When people say that they want "free" this or that, why don't they tell us which of their neighbors they want to pick up the bill? What if them and some of their neighbors decided to start a business by "pooling" their money by forming a "corporation'? Would that be bad? Exactly what is it about corporation that is bad? How about "partnerships"?
