A Quote by Ron Paul

If people won't spend any money, the government has this moral obligation to do it. — © Ron Paul
If people won't spend any money, the government has this moral obligation to do it.
It's our moral obligation, as well as, I believe, it is the government's obligation to take care of its people.
Socialism is when government's taking care of you, you send all your money to the government, the government decides how to spend it instead of letting the people spend it and make all those decisions.
The point of taxation isn't that the government knows better than you how to spend your money - it's that the government, by virtue of being the government, can spend money in ways that no private citizen or group no matter how powerful, can.
Any government in the world, when facing an armed rebellion, has a constitutional, legal, and moral obligation to resist these militants.
Once people know that you can spend the money and that you're willing to spend the money and that you're set up to spend the money in politics, then your threat to spend the money is as convincing as actually spending it.
There isn't a single government agency that can't function. There's more money in this federal government, there's more money allocated than these people can possibly spend. They have to concoct asinine ways to spend it, like advertising for new food stamp users. I've gotten to the point, I'm just so righteously indignant and offended at the very idea that our government could ever run out of money when we've got a printing press, for crying out loud. Printed three and a half trillion dollars over seven years and flooded Wall Street with it.
There are some people who seem to think that the way you reduce the cost of living in this country is for the state to spend more and more taxpayers' money. It is as if somehow you measure the compassion of the government by the amount of other people's money it can spend.
There's an obligation to let people know where their money is going, so the tour has an educational aspect, mostly as a way to thank people. But the most practical use is to raise money and do the research to figure out the proper ways to spend it. You want to make sure that the money doesn't just go somewhere where it does more harm than good.
We confuse insurance with our moral obligation to provide health-care services to people. And what we try to do is finance our moral obligation through the insurance system, which punishes the people who are fiscally responsible to buy insurance.
I've got enough money in my life to retire now and do nothing. But I've got a duty and obligation to see if we can create more jobs in this state, and the government's got an obligation to approve projects and to assess them for the benefit of the people of Queensland.
I'm against government giving money to artists, but I'm not against artists taking money. Just like I don't have a moral problem with people taking healthcare from the government, but I don't think government should give it.
The people of Montana understand that you will never be able to take enough money from them and give it to the government to quench that thirst. The government will always spend more money.
Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money.
The suggestion that liberals aren't moralizers is so preposterous it makes it hard for me to take any of them seriously when they wax indignant about "moralizers." Almost every day, they tell us what is moral or immoral to think and to say about race, taxes, abortion - you name it. They explain it would be immoral for me to spend more of my own money on my own children when that money could be spent by government on other people's children. In short, they think moralizing is fine. They just want to have a monopoly on the franchise.
The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.
We're now moving into a stage where the green economy isn't just going to be the place for people to spend money. It's going to become a place where a lot more people can earn money, and also save more money. These kind of solutions require collective action and government action. So as an advocate for government change, even somebody like me gets to have a role.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!