Clinton: "Tax cuts immoral, unethical, hurt families..."

NewMax.com is reporting that Bill Clinton called President Bush's tax cuts (although, they are really the Congress' tax cuts since only Congress can make laws and set the budget...but lets not let facts get in the way of good PR) are immoral, unethical, and hurt families.

This gives us a clear indication at the framework/mindset that liberals come from. Morality deals with that which is innately regarded as right or wrong. The key word here is innately, which deals with those pieces of knowledge a person is born with. In other words, there are certain principles which are always wrong no matter the time, place, culture, or circumstances. Every person knows what these are, things such as it is always wrong to murder somebody*, it is wrong to take things that don't belong to you (i.e., steal), it is wrong to lie to somebody (act fraudulently), etc. These things are usually codified by a society into law and all major religions have these same principles as central tenets to their faith. My basic morality can be summed up in this phrase, "Do nothing which deprives another individual of his right to life, destiny or his property through the use of force or fraud." This is a central tenet to my being.

When a person breaks one of these central, inborn guides, he is acting immoral. So, are Bush's tax cuts immoral? Do they break one of these central inborn guides? Well, its a pretty easy check:

• With the tax cuts was anybody forcefully or fraudulently deprived of their life? Well, no, of course not.
  

• Did anybody have their property taken by force or by fraud as part of the tax cuts? Now, this one is tricky for liberals, but the answer is still no. "Allowing" an individual to keep more of what is actually more moral. When a person pays taxes, he is having his property forcefully taken from him. When he is "allowed" to keep that which is his, we are actually returning to a state of morality, not moving to a state of immorality.
  

• When the tax cuts were implemented, did anybody lose their liberty (i.e., their ability to freely choose what is in their best interest, a.k.a destiny) through the use of force or fraud? Well, no. When individuals get to keep more of their money, they are actually empowered in this area. They have more choices. They have more freedom because they get to choose how to get to spend the money they earned rather than let the government decide what is in the wage-earner's best interest.
  

So, we can conclude that it is not immoral to give income tax cuts. What former President Clinton cites as his reason is an old friend had been hurt by cuts in subsidies. Subsidies are a form of welfare where the government props up a business that the free market has proclaimed has collapsed. Basically, a company, farmer, or some other individual who failed to make it gets a government check**. A person receiving subsidies from the government has just been on the receiving end of a transfer of wealth. He has asked the government to do that which he can not do himself, force another individual to pay him for work he did not do. This blatant socialism and I think that this kind of behavior is much more immoral and unethical.

So, what we learn is that in the liberal mind is that: Allowing people who work for their money to spend it the way they want to is immoral while paying someone to not work is moral. I must admit, that just doesn't seem right to me. Something about it seem innately wrong.

---

*Note: I used the word murder, not kill. There are times when it is acceptable to kill somebody like self-defense, defense of another person, war, etc... Murder is the forceful killing of someone with malice and (many times) forethought.

** Note: I am as against corporate welfare as much as I am against individual welfare. A person who accepts subsidies is no different (in my mind) than a welfare queen who makes babies to get checks.