Socialism For Me, But Not For Thee?
Neal Boortz slams those who believe that a cry of "need" is sufficient justification for looting.
...Here's the bottom line. Our construction worker made a conscious decision to have four children. He knew, or he should have know if he had paid any attention at all, that his chosen field of construction work was not going to allow him and his family to live at the poverty level. A college education for his children? Well, you can pretty much forget that unless they excel in sports, or they have a rich grandma somewhere.
Well here's someone who deserves our pity, right? Look at the decisions he's made. Education? Maybe high school. If there was a college degree in the picture he wouldn't be a construction worker. (Well .. he could, I guess, be one of those brainiacs who pursued a degree in English or history.) Then ... after deciding to forego higher education, he gets married and starts downloading children - each with a $200,000 or more price tag - at a pretty fair clip; stopping at four. He's chosen employment in an industry where continued and steady employment is, at best, problematic, ... and he starts having children like a hamster; children that he cannot afford to raise. Then the inevitable happens. The work dries up. He can't feed his family ... and he decides it's time to take advantage of the willingness of the political class to seize property from private citizens and give it to him in return for his support and vote(emphasis added). Then, of course, I'm the bad guy when I point all this out...
On a similar note, consult Congressman Davy Crockett:
..."Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks"...
Theft, for any rationale, is theft.
And thieves generally do not cease being same until they are forced to do so.