Tax Cuts for the Big Do Help the Little, & Government Welfare Doesn’t

Concerning Trump’s 2018 Tax Cut Debate:

Joel Skousen, several attorneys & I defend lowering taxes.

Getting away from non-constitutional federal government welfare (forced redistribution of wealth)


Topics: tax, constitution, SSI, states’ rights, federal system, 10th amendment, deficit, government welfare as forced redistribution of wealth, inflation as government thief

I commented on tax cuts for the big guy helping the little guy after all as seen in the Walmart wage increase result and bonuses given, accredited by Walmart to President Trump’s tax cuts.


Response by someone against the tax cut:


“To bad we all pay for it. No one is arguing that it will raise the deficit 1.5 trillion. So how do we fix That? The republicans will gut social security and Medicare, all under the banner of saving us from the deficit they made.”


My response:


“Interesting thanks (name). It seems to keep up with the federal spending we have no choice but to be heavily taxed, perhaps fed spending could go down, as for SSI and Medicare, gutting that would be a hard blow, I’m not sure of a good way to transition out of that. Perhaps just regulating who gets SSI etc. more strictly would be a big step forward, like more auditing of people who receive these and other benefits to see if they’re really in need, and perhaps throwing in a volunteer requirement. I heard M Savage say immigrants now come here for welfare rather than to work and climb, do you think there’s any truth to that? The ACA is an interesting thing that I don’t know a lot about, though it seems insurance companies will manipulate anything they can. Thanks again”


Another Response by someone against the tax cut:


” SSI is paid for by payments on ur income, as u probably know, so it is not an entitlement. The issue is Republicans have borrowed billions from the SSI fund which they cannot payback and this contributed to the debt. Second, I would really want you to really learn who benefits from Medicare and Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc. These are not freeloaders, there is a very small group that games the system but not nearly the amount they try and make u think. I agree with the volunteer for welfare benefits, but it needs to be closely monitored and well directed to ensure it doesn’t hurt those we are trying to help. I wrote a 20+ page paper on the ACA. If u would like I can try and find it for u. It compares our medical system to the rest of the world. And some cool knowledge for you. Welfare accounts for only 3% of the GDP. It was at a high of 4.7% during the recession, 2005 ish, and is expected to be 2% by 2020. Military is between 3.5 to 4%, healthcare about 4.3%. These are huge amounts of money but not half or more like some untruthful talking heads want people to think. Just food for thought.”



In this debate, I asked some attorneys and Joel Skousen their thoughts, particularly refuting the commentator against the tax cuts, their responses are listed below.


Response by conservative political analyst Joel Skousen of

“First of all, every administration has robbed the SS fund, not just republicans. Second, there is no backing for the statement that Republicans are going to gut SS and Medicare to pay for the deficit. Three, SS benefits need to be limited to the amount people paid in, adjusted for the inflation that robbed them of partial value while in the hands of government. All his other arguments are irrelevant to the issue that all welfare is forced redistribution by government and improper.”

Response by conservative civil Attorney Chad Shattuck:

“I don’ know the numbers well enough to debate them, and as we know, nobody wins an argument. …it is my belief that lowering taxes will stimulate more purchasing because every person and company has more money available for such and all such purchases will be taxed, so there is much more revenue from that source than there would be from simply trying to tax our country out of overspending issues. Certainly this will not be the solution in and of itself and needs to be coupled with cuts to unnecessary government spending. To reduce debt, reduce spending, don’t tax more. Proponents of higher taxes are muck like a breadwinner giving the the person he supports a credit card and planning to outwork the spending – typically not a good idea. Better to spend less.”

Response by conservative Air Force Attorney Darrin K Johns:

“I don’t believe he has all of his facts correct. He relies on some of the Democrats bullet points.

First off, we do not all agree that the deficit will increase by $1.5 trillion. No one knows at this point. The CBO has predicted the rise, but the CBO has been wrong in the past and fails to properly account for the total increased revenue coming in from changes in business practices. For example, even though the goal was to bring businesses back to the US, a lot of people were surprised when Apple announced it was bring $3.2 billion dollars back into the US from overseas. Huge amount that was not calculated into the CBP predictions. Other companies are following suit. Many liberals were surprised when Walmart announced it would increase its wages, give $1000 bonuses to its employees and hire more employees after the new tax plan was announced. Many other companies are following suit. Conservatives predicted this, liberals are surprised by it. But it just makes sense. Tax cuts in the past have increased revenue, not decreased it, because companies tend to hire and invest more when taxes are lower, increasing the number of people being employed and the number of smaller businesses being created, creating more taxpayers and more tax revenue. It’s plain and simple basic economics. When taxes are too high, the economy is out of equilibrium (same when taxes get too low). You have got to find the equilibrium where you are able to collect the most revenue and not begin losing revenue because the tax rate is too high.

As for social security, I agree with him that Social Security is not an entitlement. We paid into the system and the system should pay us back as promised. I disagree with his statement that makes it appear only Republicans have robbed the system. Yes, Republicans have inappropriately taken money out of the social security system, but Democrats have as well and to an even greater extent. Social Security will probably change from what we have now, but it will not go away. Too many depend on it. Over 80% of the current US population live paycheck to paycheck with nothing saved for retirement. The basic question should be why do we have social security and Medicare in the first place? Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal government authority to create or manage these programs. And the Federal Government is supposed to be tightly limited in its power and authority. The 10th Amendment specifically states that if a power is not specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, the Federal Government does not have the power; only the States and the people have the power. So while Social Security and Medicare may be good ideas, these programs should be State programs, not Federal Programs, if they exist at all.

Some will say “But the States would have different programs and the people in one State would not get all the benefits that someone in another State would.” To that I say, “You are absolutely correct and that is how it is supposed to be.” Our government was designed to be most effective at the local level where the representatives of the people would be held more accountable. If you don’t like the way your State is being run, change the politicians or leave to another State. That is exactly what we the people advocated for with the founding and adopting of the Constitution.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *