>Anyone can "help people" by helping themselves to other people's money.
I don't regard politicians who make politicians' salaries as helping themselves to other people's money.
>I do not trust any politician who has already decided that they can be more "generous" with my money, especially since most of them live much grander lives than I do.
Are you saying that most politicians are embezzlers?
>And even if some politicians live modestly themselves and are true to their altruistic beliefs, I still don't think the question of my "generosity" should be left to them.
The question of how to keep people alive, eating, and off the streets should be. If that involves taxes, then that's the reality of the situation.
>"I am going to take some of your money, and give it to that poor kid, because it's more important -- both to the child and to society -- that he eat, rather than that you ___________."
Sounds about right.
>When you give a politician the power to seize your property, there is no limit to what they can decide. All in the name of "charity." Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In theory, the American system of government, with its checks and balances, is averse to absolute power. Of course, your party seems to think otherwise...
-Z |
