Socialist leaning countries have an on-going, permanent economic crisis because there is just so much the government can take from one group of people in order to give to a group they consider more "deserving."
Eventually, with that kind of process, everyone is going to wonder what's the point in continuing to work hard to have good things in life if the government will take it away from you to give to some on else anyway.
Eventually, everyone will figure out that it's just as easy to take it easy, not work harder than necessary, and let the government take care of you . . . yanno, like it turned out to be in Russia, under Stalin.
My husband and I contribute, donate, and give money whenever we can to those less fortunate and to the organizations that support and help them. Many of us, if not all of us, do the same as often as we can, I have no doubt. [Update, 11/08/08: There was a terrible incident in Petionville, Haiti, today. A school with an unknown number of children inside collapsed, trapping the children inside; last mortality count is 75 to the best of their knowledge. We contributed to this cause because it is right to do so.]
The key here is that we determine when and how much based on our own financial situations -- not based on one individual's decision that we should because he feels we should; not because the government has a supposed right to take whatever amount off the top of our hard-earned money, because one person says so, over and above what we already pay to the government (existing taxes).
Allowing the government that much direct decision-making into our personal lives over and above the amount the government already has is really and truly the first giant step toward Mr. Obama's idea of socialism.
Have you noticed how Mr. Obama's idea of "not wealthy" has shifted from $250,000 and below at the start of the campaign, to $200,000 and below after his moment of inadvertent truth with Joe Wurzelbacher, and most recently, according to Mr. Biden, it is down to $150,000.
The question here is, how far will the definition fall. . . will the next group of "not wealthy" under Mr. Obama's definition be those making less than $100,000, and so on, until we get to maybe those making less than $50,000 being considered "not wealthy?" (Goodness gracious, my husband and I hope so! That's our category!)
The theory presented by Mr. Obama is that those making less than the above amounts of income (I guess you'll have to pick one and hope you're in that bracket when it's all said and done if he wins) will not get a tax increase, but those who do make more than the above will get an increase.
From all the independent, non-partisan reviews of the plans that we have seen, almost all show a massive, relatively massive, or just plain large tax increase for everyone in Mr. Obama's "economic" plan, regardless of what he says.
The numbers are the numbers, and wishin' or repeatin' don't change nothin'!
Whatever you do, do not let the "poll" numbers discourage you. I've been volunteering for the McCain Campaign for the past couple of months (I've been unemployed, LOL) and I know that there are "external" polls and "internal" polls.
Senator McCain is within a point or 2 of Mr. Obama in those reality-based internal polls, and we can get Senator McCain to the White House.Think about it, folks, protect our country, protect our future, and vote for John McCain.
Now, if THIS doesn’t give you a complete definition of “redistribution of wealth” I don’t know what does…
FOOD for thought............... ?!?! From the friend of a friend . . .
REDISTRIBUTE, MAKE SOMEONE HAPPY!
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read"Vote Obama, I need the money."
I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie.
Again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept.
He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going toredistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside.
The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank theserver inside as I've decided he could use the money more.
The homelessguy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow inconcept than in practical application.
Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on www.thoughts.com/MCzwz/blog on 10/31/2008
No comments:
Post a Comment