» Innovation vs. Redistribution
I heard that Mr. Obama has essentially outlined his goals as “redistribution of wealth.” If memory serves me right (with apologies to “Iron Chef”), Obama believes all the money America needs is right here and we just have to get it into the hands of the people who don’t have as much (read: raise taxes, but only on “rich people.”) Then everything will be fine.
Put another way, Obama is buying votes from the masses with a promise: I’ll take money from successful people and give it to people like YOU who are not as successful. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor? The question: who’s rich and who’s poor? The answer: only your government knows for sure!
Ask yourself this question: Do you want to be rich? If the idea of writing a great novel, inventing a new product, or starting an new business with the intent of being successful (aka “well to do”) sounds good, do you want someone to take away half or more of your profits and give them to someone who didn’t think up your idea or didn’t work hard writing your book? Overtaxing “the rich” makes people reconsider where they’d like to keep their wealth or live to spend it. There are plenty of other countries in the world that “rich people” would be invited to live.
But that’s the so-called “filthy rich,” isn’t it? Small business doesn’t need to worry, right? Okay, what is a “small business?” If you work for a company that’s big enough to offer health benefits, chances are it makes more than $250,000 a year, which is Mr. Obama’s cutoff for where the secret wealth of America is hidden and must be obtained to share with everyone. So, he’ll take the money from them (kiss your raises and holiday bonuses goodbye), divide it up and give it to you… unless the company goes out of business, in which case you’ll have get to another job and start at the bottom again. Or you could collect unemployment… you know, from the government.
Here’s a question I want someone to ask Mr. Obama: under his administration, what is considered “my fair share?” He should be able to define or outline that, right? Wine or beer? Blu-ray or DVD? Lexus or Honda? House or apartment? Paper or plastic? We ALL should get our fair and equal share, right? And if my neighbor gets something new, when do I get one, too?
Really it comes down to this. If you have “enough” money and choose to give it away to someone YOU feel could use it, that’s fine; it’s YOUR money. If the government puts a gun to your head and tells you to give your money to whomever THEY choose, that’s something else (thank you, Penn Jillette). Whether you call it a tax credit or not, welfare (yep, that’s what it used to be called) has never been more than a temporary solution at best.
Today’s Lesson: “Teach a man to fish, he’ll eat for a lifetime. Give a man a fish, and Barack Obama probably took it away from a successful fisherman.”
5 Comments so far
Leave a reply
This “redistribution of wealth” thing has been starting to float around, and I am sorry, but I just do not buy it.
It is a gross over-simplification of the entire picture, and a highly unfair one at that.
This why every time Obama said the word “change,” I worried because it was never originally followed by any specifics… change WHAT exactly? Now he IS being specific, and if it’s more complicated than that, I’m all ears. You have it, they want it, we’re taking yours and giving it to them because we’re the government: instant socialism.
To be fair, I don’t think McCain’s idea about the government buying up bad mortgages and reselling them at current rates back to the people living there is a great idea. But I’d rather have death and taxes than endure death BY taxes.
Hey, didn’t you want to be a wealthy author? I think Obama may be eyeballing that wallet of yours just in case it gets too fat…!
If I take your words as authoritatively true, yes, Barack’s stance of “wealth redistribution” would be troubling. However, my larger view of his positions leads me to believe his form of “socialism” is much more in tune with mine; billions wasted on unworthy efforts could be used, instead, to make life better for those US Citizens who work hard and are deserving of better lives, yet suffer under the burden of an intensely greedy minority.
Neither Barack nor I advocate a direct redistribution of wealth as stated or implied in the above presentations.
But finding ways to help the middle class recover from the downward spiral that rampant unethical behavior on the part of Wall Street and Washington is a worthy goal that I support fully.
Aw heck… maybe *I* should run for president. Here’s my 3 step plan to help out the middle class to become more financially secure:
First, stop buying things you don’t need. Two, stop signing up for all those credit cards. And third, pay off the credit cards you’ve got instead of keeping them maxed out.
Note how I didn’t raise taxes or cut any programs? And don’t tell me that you don’t know anyone who lives like this… for every person that really needs help due to medical bills or existing conditions, there are nine more that can’t wait to buy another DVD, video game, big screen tv, or new rims for their car (and yeah, I’m guilty of it, too, ’cause it’s easy, but that doesn’t make any of us less responsible).
But it does point the finger at the problem of welfare; what is really needed (and should be taught in schools) is fiscal responsibility, not waiting for handouts when the money is all gone.
Agreed. And isn’t it usually the folks who do little more than watch TV, have children, and refuse to work (sober or not) who tend to get this welfare? (I.e: my money).I want to be rich; I’m working, planning, striving and sacrificing to achieve this goal. No one who isn’t doing the same “deserves” a nickel of my money. I have my favorite charities. While middle class, I give what I can. When I achieve wealth, I can give a LOT more. But I want to chose when, how much, and to whom. Socialism does not work. Why? Because people want to be elite. I assure you, the government of Communist Russia did not do without caviar, whether their “comrades” had any or not.