|To: ms.smartest.person who wrote (53445)||10/29/2008 10:58:21 AM|
|From: ms.smartest.person||Respond to of 167387|
|Obama’s Wealth Redistribution - He Likes It and We Like Him For It |
October 29th, 2008
By: marc moore
Chris Coffey says, “Of course Senator Obama wants to redistribute wealth. The real story is that Republicans are still trying to convince voters of such an obvious point just one week before the election.”
McCain and Palin can try as hard as they want to sell that can of Spam as Grade A Beef but it ain’t gonna work. It’s certainly true that the basis of liberalism is confiscatory taxation and welfare. The problem that fiscal conservatives have is that too many Americans have come to accept the liberal premise as gospel. Where have all our principles gone?
I mean that question sincerely because, to the extent that people cast their vote for Candidate X because they will be granted more governmental largess than if the other guy/gal is elected, we have a serious problem with the electoral system.
Such a voting pattern will inevitably lead to the wrong leaders being chosen because all a politician must do to be elected is promise to spend more tax dollars than the competition. That’s a recipe for disaster in a country that already has massive entitlement programs and even larger debts that it’s been unsuccessful paying down.
Moreover, the “I-vote-for-big-spenders-because-I-get-bigger-checks” pattern is self-reinforcing. People who vote themselves a tax reduction in 2008 while increasing taxes on corporations aren’t going to undo that change in 2012 because then they’d be giving “their” money away. Conversely, voters who are left out of the 2008 redistribution are going to attempt to get a piece of what’s left of the pie in 2012.
Coffey says that this math doesn’t work for Barack Obama or anyone else. Here’s why:
The good news is that Obama’s plans to redistribute wealth do not add up. He cannot cut taxes on 95% of working families, provide universal health care and balance the budget, as promised.
The bad news is that we do not really know what Barack Obama will do as president. Will he increase the deficit even more? Raise taxes on additional families? Give us universal health care? Or chart a different path all together?
We do know that if Obama fulfills his spending promises, then he will have to raise taxes on the middle class if he expects to balance the budget. That means even more wealth redistribution.
By then it will be too late for ordinary, productively-employed Americans to stop him. First Obama will tax the rich and few will complain. The wealthy ought to pay more than their fair share, after all. Noblesse Oblige. But the liberals will come for the middle class after the rich have been bled out.
This is all for our own good, you understand. We need the progressive’s entitlements to survive: universal health care, social security, medicare, welfare, affirmative action, et al - each program is necessary for the country to continue to progress. Or so they say.
It’s been said that democracy works until the people realize that they can vote themselves checks from the government. Well, the people have known it for some time now and the politicians have responded in kind: elections are now a race to see who can gift the most favorable offerings to the most people whilst pretending to be doing the opposite.
What has happened to the idea that we earn our pay according to the value of our labor? That we’re not entitled to any financial compensation except what we earn? That other people’s money is theirs by right and we have no claim on it?
This isn’t Social Darwinism or Cutthroat Capitalism - it’s simple ethical behavior. And what’s right doesn’t change based on where one is in the economic food chain, no matter how much we pretend or how hard the politicians sell it during the campaign.