As we have reported before, Barack Obama believes in the Marxist-Socialist principle of redistribution of wealth. On Sunday, Obama told Joe Wurzelbacher — a plumber in Toledo, Ohio, who is working 10 and 12 hour days to buy the plumbing company he works for — that he believes that spreading the wealth around “is a good thing.”
Mr. Wurzelbacher represents many people in America, and in many respects he represents the American Dream: to be successful, to own a company, and to build something great. “Joe the Plumber” doesn’t have to be Mr. Wurzelbacher… it can be anyone in this country who wants to buy a company, put his name on the side of a truck, and run his business without government interference. “Joe the Plumber” has a vision of how a good company should run, and his goal is to build that company, hire more workers, and get more trucks out on the road because he believes that he can do it better. In his success, “Joe the Plumber” creates jobs because to realize his vision, he needs to hire more people. He stimulates the economy because he needs to buy more trucks and supplies, business cards, maybe some radio or print ads or a website, and let’s not forget he needs to put gas in those trucks. By Joe’s success, other people succeed. Maybe some of them look at Joe and are inspired to start their own business because “If Joe can do it, so can I.” Maybe they work for Joe and think they can do it better, so they do what Joe’s doing and work 10 and 12 hour days to raise the money to start their own business. It’s the American way. It’s the American Dream. And Barack Obama wants to tax it.
In stark contrast of Joe the Plumber, Barack Obama believes that he can do a better job of creating jobs (government jobs, of course) and do a better job of redistributing the wealth of Joe the Plumber than Joe can. In Mr. Obama’s eyes, Joe is “rich”, and believes as running mate Senator Biden does, that “paying taxes is patriotic.”
In a phone interview with ABC News, Mr. Wurzelbacher said:
To be honest with you, that infuriates me,” plumber Joe Wurzelbacher told Nightline’s Terry Moran. “It’s not right for someone to decide you made too much—that you’ve done too good and now we’re going to take some of it back.”
“That’s just completely wrong,” he added.
[...]
“I don’t like it,” said Wurzelbacher. “You know, me or — you know, Bill Gates, I don’t care who you are. If you worked for it, if it was your idea, and you implemented it, it’s not right for someone to decide you made too much.”
The demonization of business and the “rich” began with FDR. President Roosevelt was the first to believe in special interest group politics, and set the course of the Democrat party for the next 80 years. He decided to buy votes by giving government goodies to farmers, labor unions, and the poor under the pretense of “raising up the working class.” Like a lever, to raise one group up, you need to push another group down, so rich people and greedy corporations became his target. Many New Deal policies penalized businesses for engaging in business.
And like every Democrat since FDR, Mr. Obama is picking an arbitrary number to determine who is “rich”, when there is no true definition of how much money defines “rich.” In Barack Obama’s world, he decides who is rich. He decides who is poor. He decides how much money is too much. He decides how much is too little. He decides how to redistribute the wealth. He sees himself as Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, and all the townsfolk love and adore him for it.
There’s only one problem with Obama’s Robin Hood vision of spreading around the wealth:
Robin Hood stole from the Sheriff on Nottingham, because the Sheriff was taxing the people too much. Robin Hood stole from the government and returned the money to the people.
Mr. Obama, Robin Hood, you are not. But a socialist you certainly are.
why were you against the bailout? I definitely think it’s going to create major problems in the long run, but has our government ever looked down the road? Not usually. They look for the quick fix, then leave the mess for the next generation to clean up.
One of the common “causes” of liberals/progressives/Democrats is the minimum wage. Recent developments in Congress as well as several states have mandated raises in the minimum wage. The argument for this legislation is that the minimum wage is too low to be a “living wage”, and that we need a minimum wage to prevent evil, greedy corporations from paying people $1.25 an hour; the argument against is that people earning minimum wage are by and large teenagers living at home with their parents, and that enforcing a minimum wage is superfluous in a country with a free market system.
This story is a case in point to illustrate how the free market works:
Peruvian Ivan Arias said he was happy just to have a job when he came to New York and found himself working as a busboy at the Redeye Grill, an eatery in midtown Manhattan where eight of its signature “dancing shrimp” cost $39.
But Arias, 36, said he soon realized he was being cheated out of overtime, breaks and promotions, and denied a fair share of tips.
“The conditions were not OK. They did not pay me tips. They did not pay me overtime,” Arias told Reuters.
[...]
Arias, married with a young daughter, now works as a busboy at Craftbar, an offshoot of one of the citys top restaurants, Craft. Whereas at the Redeye Grill he earned $400 for up to 60 hours a week, he now earns around $600 for 35 to 40 hours, he said.
“Now I am happy, with my tips, with my check, every time,” he said.
If left alone by legislators, the free market works: people will leave low-paying jobs with poor benefits for higher-paying jobs with better benefits. To stay competitive (and thus, stay in business), companies need to have a skilled and motivated workforce, and in order to attract top talent, companies need pay and benefits that attract — and keep — this talent.
Federal — and state — interference in the free market hurts everyone. Rather than a rising tide lifting all boats, governmental interference in the free market results in sinking all boats in the name of equality.