See other Editorial Articles
Title: Obama's Redistribution Scheme Bites Him In The Butt
Source:
email
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 30, 2008
Author: unknown
Post Date: 2008-10-30 20:16:48 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 364
Comments: 23
In a local Leesburg 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 to redistribute 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 the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy 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 in concept than in practical application.
Poster Comment: The same friend sent me the cartoon and that little story about the mentally handicapped server in a restaurant wearing political bs that he should have known would offend people and thus cost the people he worked for money (not to mention the tips he would lose from the pissed off people he waited on). I have no use for Obama or McCain but thought the cartoon and that little story were worthy of posting.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
#4. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
the cartoon is perfect and i enjoyed the anecdotal story. thanks for posting, JD.
I must be a little dense or something. Can someone set me straight on what the difference is giving a tax break(like capital gains tax reduction) to the wealthy and making the middle class make up the difference versus giving a tax break to the middle class and having the wealthy make up the difference. When the wealthy get a tax reduction it is a healthy thing to do. When the middle class gets a tax reduction it is wrong and is wealth redistribution. Am I missing somehing here or as I asked, am I dense or something?
When the wealthy get a tax reduction it is a healthy thing to do. When the middle class gets a tax reduction it is wrong and is wealth redistribution. Am I missing somehing here or as I asked, am I dense or something? Ever hear the expression that "a rising tide lifts all boats"? Any and all tax cuts are good things. Tax cuts for "the wealthy" only means the government is stealing a bit less of their money than they were before. Tax reductions are also good when the middle class get them--I repeat, any and all tax cuts are good things. What you may be missing is that the government, which is nothing more than a group of individuals, has no right to steal from anyone, the rich or the middle class. If you don't have the right to hold a gun on your neighbor and take some part of what he has earned, either for yourself or to give it to someone who, in your opinion, is worse off than the guy you're robbing, neither does anyone else. I don't know if you have ever read Frederic Bastiat's excellent little book The Law, but if you haven't you should. Here is an excerpt from it which tells you how to identify "legal plunder" and why it is not right. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
But according to you, tax cuts for "the middle class" means the government is redistrubating the wealth and apparently doesn't mean the government is stealing less of their money than they were before. But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. It has been impossible this far to abolish these two illegal laws that have become tools of the rich to steal from us and are used to escape their rightful share of taxation. Their illegal laws have created a monster that has just about wiped out the middle class and no doubt will finish it off with the blessing of many who don't understand that the wealthy are making a criminal financial killing at the expense of the rest of us. When they keep getting tax reductions, we have to pay more to make up their share. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Yes1 The rich complain that there is a redistribution of wealth every time the middle class gets a tax reduction, which by the way, rarely if ever happens. The rich would have us believe we are all better off when they receive tax abatements and reductions from the politicans they own. They claim that the trickle down theory will be a boone to the middle class and will ease our financial misery. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. As for the myth that business will use these tax breaks to enhance the paychecks of the workers is so ridiculous that it should be used as a stand-up comedy routine All the good things like wage increase come from unions or the threat of workers organizing a union. Generally the rich business men hold us in contempt and believe like Andrew Carnegie, that we aren't worth more than 50 cents a day. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. It indeed has already occurred. Our politicans have listened to these arguments, passed legislation, sometimes illegal, and contrary to our Constitution and have made it possible that we now live under a system of legal plunder and it isn't the middle class doing the plundering. I don't know if you have ever read Frederic Bastiat's excellent little book The Law, but if you haven't you should. Here is an excerpt from it which tells you how to identify "legal plunder" and why it is not right. No I have never read this gentleman's book. It probably wouldn't do much to change my mind. I'm sure there are those who disagree with this gentleman and can give differing opinions on their take on the pros and cons of our system of taxation. For too long and with the aid of illegal laws like the federal reserve and the federal income tax, businesses have been running roughshod over the rest of us. You can believe what you want. I believe we need another TEA PARTY and pretty quick before we have no middle class whatsoever. Taxation without representation is the rule now, instead of the exception. Of course if business were really the good guys as so many of you claim, maybe they will start the next housing bubble by building company houses for us and open company stores like in the good old days. Hell, after all we are barely human beings and have very little need for much more than a couple of bowls of slop each day and a good pair of work pants so we can serve our masters in their sweat shops.
I leave you with one thought which has been attributed--some say erroneously--to Herbert Spencer--but, no matter who said it, seems to fit many cases. Another version of that quote, one I used to use on a message board I posted on at the time, is somewhat different.
There are no replies to Comment # 21. End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: christine, All (#4)
the cartoon is perfect and i enjoyed the anecdotal story. thanks for posting, JD.
#18. To: LACUMO (#7)
I must be a little dense or something. Can someone set me straight on what the difference is giving a tax break(like capital gains tax reduction) to the wealthy and making the middle class make up the difference versus giving a tax break to the middle class and having the wealthy make up the difference.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
#20. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
Tax cuts for "the wealthy" only means the government is stealing a bit less of their money than they were before.
#21. To: LACUMO (#20)
(Edited)
No I have never read this gentleman's book. It probably wouldn't do much to change my mind. I'm sure there are those who disagree with this gentleman and can give differing opinions on their take on the pros and cons of our system of taxation. For too long and with the aid of illegal laws like the federal reserve and the federal income tax, businesses have been running roughshod over the rest of us.
‘There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt prior to investigation.’
‘There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is condemnation without investigation.’
Replies to Comment # 21.