Fox Business
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Increased Spending is Immoral

Details

  • Description

    Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute discusses why we need to cut spending.

  • Duration 7:20
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Latest Video

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Look at that number that's what congress says it needs to spend this year can you break.

3000000000800.

Billion dollars twice what they spent just ten years ago.

President Obama talked about taking a scalpel to the budget but we it's not like this bigger.

Paulette overspending may be this what are my knowledge.

Some good even bigger now we need to make huge cuts and later in the show how cut the deficit down to surplus.

-- -- When I hire others talk about making significant cuts and here's scathing criticism like that this.

I should.

And -- This said it's been approved by the mainstream news.

OK my producer made that it's a joke but the point is serious anyone who proposes cuts to the budget is branded cruel.

But one person -- cutting that down it's just economically smart it's the moral thing to do.

Arthur brooks of the American Enterprise Institute says that so what do you mean is the moral thing to do.

-- John well you know when when the other side talks about doing the moral thing they usually say that it's only fair for rich people to pay more.

That's only fair that we take from people who have more society that it's unfair to take to take actually cut.

Programs especially if it would affect anybody who was less than average incomes but.

And I think it matters that's the resonates with people that there's a lot of money and redistribution.

Is the moral thing to do.

Sure and and in truth that sells really good and -- start thinking about what most Americans think fair is.

Redistribution.

Is not that definition of fairest most Americans most Americans think that fairness has to do with.

Keeping what you earned and that doesn't mean you have to penalize poor people are.

You know take money away from those who don't have enough but is certainly not fair to take more away from people just because we can and especially.

Former robbing our future because we have a spending disorder in an in our in our government.

It's really a moral to be stealing from future generations and taking away their opportunity to their pursuit of happiness.

If you will.

Simply because we can do that mean that governments today's treating American citizens like ATM machines.

Most Americans -- say that's not fair and fairness is a really moral thing.

You said -- op Ed in the Wall Street Journal when you withdraw money from citizens against -- against their will.

You make them less free.

We -- yeah sure I mean well when it doesn't know the state needs to function.

We need to have taxes to pay for government we all know that the question is how much do we need for how much government that we actually want as bad as a society.

The government goes way beyond what we need -- to fix certain market failures way beyond to create are creating a minimum basic safety net for the for the economically vulnerable.

It has all kinds of middle class welfare that we you know they think.

What people think that sales kinda like a good idea you know why not a few bucks here a few bucks there but you know that's really quiet.

Hi act was talking about what are your great heroes I know when He talked about the road to -- -- you know this is what economists say.

You know little a bridge -- to the freedom of the people pretty soon we have a different kind of society we have a different sort of economy.

We have something we're we're less insulin and then you work hard to take it away.

It changes the culture when people become dependent I can see -- people say.

You know it's immoral that just take it from people but people also say.

What's moral about taking the money that government gives to poorer people and limiting -- -- or religious advisor to Obama says.

The debt debate is a clash between two competing moral visions between those who believe in the common good.

Vs those that's him my guess abated and those who believe any individual.

Good is the only way.

The Bible says we should be wary of the rich and defend the poor.

Yeah and you know I agreed that it is definitely a clash of moral visions.

One side says it's more role for the government to be bigger and taking more away because it -- and re distribute re distributing -- between people.

The other moral vision says that people should be able to be free now.

I like the founders the United States and their concept of what a moral society was if you go back two to 1776.

Declaration of independence.

Originally was going to say that we have unalienable rights like life liberty in the possession of property.

All Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin reconsidered that language and put in the pursuit of happiness understanding that.

Possession of property is too materialistic it's not moral enough for the freest nation on earth.

The laughed which talks about redistribution.

Basically says that if you wanna stop cultural problems you -- -- problems of poverty.

You do with the welfare check back and you called social justice that's the most materialistic philosophy possible it has nothing to do with individual opportunity.

He I love the phrase social social justice that they argue if if I resist is that mean I'm for social injustice it's very hard to.

To fight that but.

I still don't quite get what year how I answer these people when they say.

You can't pursue happiness if you're horribly poor if you're sick and we need government to step in to help those people.

We have to do -- is there are still poor people.

And that's the moral thing to do.

Look.

-- -- act once again we talked got a minute ago what economists -- the age isn't group including Adam Smith.

Knew that we need a safety net we need -- basic safety net for the government anybody says get rid of all the government programs and cut it down to zero was crazy.

They're not paying attention to what we need it goes beyond however help for the vulnerable I want to help the vulnerable to.

But I don't want middle class welfare I don't want forced sharing.

I think that morality comes when people volunteer -- above the level of basic poverty when when people help each other voluntarily it.

And voluntary charity doesn't happen when the government is re distributing too much income we know that from.

The social democracies the Western Europe we know that from the former Soviet states.

The United States is the most charitable country -- on the face of the earth and a lot of it has to do the fact that we believe that.

Individuals need to make these choices so we have to get away from this dichotomy this idea that.

If you believe independent limited government if you believe the moral thing is rewarding merit rewarding entrepreneurship the you think it's unfair for the state to force people pay more than the state needs to function.

Which is the current case.

That you somehow hate the -- now I wanna help the poor with a minimum basic standard of living and beyond that I wanna create an opportunity society where everybody can -- And -- that's actually of course -- ancestors came here for that not for forced income redistribution.

Thank you Arthur brooks I would just also like to -- -- pure libertarian point that if you remove the government's safety net.

OK with me because I think a private safety net would come in and fill that do it much better but.

Load More