Barack Obama's Spread the Wealth Plan

by Josh Greenberger

(October 17, 2008) Barack Obama to Joe the Plumber on October 13: " ... I'm gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need. And for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well -- even though they've been working hard, and I appreciate that -- I just want to make sure they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear, it's not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you -- that they've got a chance at success too."

If this statement doesn't worry you, you haven't looked at it too closely. It's been proven over and over that taking from those who've earned and giving it those who haven't, doesn't help those who gave or those who received -- it ruins everybody!

The mortgage crisis we're currently experiencing was about exactly that -- giving "opportunities" to the less privileged, by taking (undeserved loans) from the banks. We all know how that turned out. It did not spread the wealth. It spread disaster.

Social promotion does not help underachievers, it only reduces overall achievement.

What Obama is proposing is another form of Affirmative Action. But, instead of giving a job that you qualify for to a less qualified person, he wants to give money that you've earned to someone who has not. This is absolutely outrages.

Institutionalized handouts do not make people do better; it only makes them expect more. Obama's plan would turn the entire U.S. into an "inner city." Can you think of a more counterproductive plan?

Why does Obama's plan for giving people a "chance at success" revolve around taking from others, to begin with? It does not produce more goods and services, it only (unethically) reshuffles what we have.

There are options that take from no one and give to everyone.

A reduction in fuel costs would put money in the pocket of every American by reducing the price of a long list of other goods and services -- and we wouldn't have to take money from anyone. All we have to do is lift all oil drilling restrictions.

But Obama's answer to lifting oil drilling restrictions, as Senator McCain pointed out, is he'll "look at it?"

Let me see if I understand this correctly. To take money from one person and give it to another, that Obama doesn't have to "look at," he "knows" it'll work, despite the fact that other such programs have failed miserably. But lifting drilling restrictions, which has absolutely no drawbacks, no downside, it takes money out of no one's pocket, it'll produce jobs, it'll stimulate the economy even before gas prices drop drastically -- that he has to "look at?" Is he kidding? It's almost as if Obama's working for an enemy country and trying to bring us down.

And this nonsense about how well Obama carries himself in debates is idiocy. There's no question Obama came off calmer and "cooler" than McCain in the presidential debates. (Maybe Obama wouldn't be so calm and cool if he had gone through in life what McCain has gone through, but that's a whole other discussion.) But the notion that Obama would do better as a president because he debates better or comes off better is foolish. Who's he going to debate as president; bin Laden, Achmedinejad, OPEC, the Caribou reindeer in Alaska?

And do we really want a president whose going to look calm and cool while we're being nuked by Achmedinejad, or would we rather have a president who knows how to deal with brutal regimes?

Obama being plagued with allegations of links to shady people and activities -- from associating with a terrorist to ACORN's election scandals to threatening legal action against people who criticize him -- should give you pause for thought. McCain, on the other hand, who's been reviled by a media that is no friend of republicans and attacked by Obama, has not had one credible accusation of unethical behavior lodged against him that even needed defending. Doesn't this alone tell you something about the character of the two candidates?

It's difficult to understand why even blacks would want to vote for Obama. Sure it would be nice to have a black president, but doesn't the character of the person mean anything? If we had a respectable black candidate running against a shady white candidate, the majority of whites, I believe, would not vote for the white candidate simply because he's white. What good is a president of your ethnic background if he serves no one's interest?

Essentially, what we're faced with is a saint who doesn't come off very well and a devil who wants to sweet talk you out of your soul. Which one do you think is in your interest to vote for?

by Josh Greenberger