Spreading The Wealth-Because You Earned It
Ever since Joe the Plumber stepped into a Democratic-controlled media so they could take him apart him for his own personal mishaps in life to divert attention away from the Marxist comment of Senator Obama–I have been more and more startled to hear people lining up to vote for this man. A man who believes that it is okay to take money away from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not.
“Spreading the Wealth” is not a new concept–why Karl Marx had this idea years ago. You have already heard some of his words in different contexts.
For example, Obama would like to take the “windfall profits” of Exxon and Shell and Chevron because he deems those profits to be too large. Interestingly, Karl Marx had a theory called “surplus value.” That is the difference in what a wage earner makes at a company and the value of the work actually performed (in other words, the profits made by the company). He believed that “surplus” belonged to the worker.
Marx believed that capitalism is the root of social class warfare and unfair distinction–therefore, only a system where the wealth of the whole is redistributed more evenly to that same whole, can we finally get rid of class elitism and envy.
In other words, get rid of wealth and we will all suffer the same.
Sounds awesome!
So for those of you that have worked for years, decades even to finally reach that point in life where you make a comfortable living and can afford a few vacations, nice bottles of wine and new cars, it is time that all that hard work be punished.
Time to beat the drive and work ethic out of you by having the Government take your money and more “fairly” distribute it where it is really needed.
Here are some other famous quotes from the author of every idea Obama has for our Country:
1. On Religion: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
2. On Judiasm: “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, selfishness. What is the secular cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his secular god? Money. Well then, an emancipation from haggling and money, from practical, real Judaism would be the self emancipation of our age.“
3. On Democracy: “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
4. On Redistribution: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
5. On Labor’s Value: “We should not say that one man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour.”
6. On Peace: “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”
Ahhh, and the 6th one is the most scary. See if you oppose the movement to more plainly “socialize” our Nation, then you will be the root cause of why there is not peace in our lives. Does the media’s attempt to demonize Joe the Plumber and make fun of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe sound like this?
On its face, redistribution of wealth sounds great—to those who have no wealth to begin with. The reality is that socialist ideas have shown that what really happens is the lower class expands to suck up the middle class leaving rich and poor and nothing in between.
Getting something free–is not always a good thing. I would compare Obama’s socialist policies to this:
Free is not always better.
-Murphy
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events, Democrats, Economy, election, Government, Life, News, Obama, Politics, Socialism, Thoughts on the World
Murphy Klasing's Conservative Blog 
October 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Aaaah, the abysmal state of political and economic education in this country. What it hath wrought!
I’ll never understand one basic belief a modern socialist purports to hold; that once you confiscate the wealth of producers and give it to non-producers (or, to be fair, less effective producers), those non-producers will, against all evidence and past experience, turn into successes. Your money as a magic wand!
October 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ya know, I have always been curious why Obama had that logo designed to represent him. I do not understand what it implies. Most symbols represent something about the person who owns them. What do you see in that circle with the watered down version of red and blue. I’d be curious what you think.
October 24, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I can see both sides of the coin on the issue of taxation.
In a pristine laboratory scenario I have no doubt I would come down on the side of fiscal conservatism. Government should perform only the barest of services required to keep the country healthy and safe, and I’ll take care of the rest. From this it follows that I should get to keep every cent of my earnings, minus the small amount owed the government. I like that ideal.
But living in the ultra-dense population of California cities has shown me some things I’d never considered. Take for instance the woeful conditions of public schools, schools which are so terrible that I can’t in good conscience take advantage of the fact that they are free. In three years I will be paying more than $50,000 per year to private schools. There’s not a tax-break in the world that can compensate me for this and still hope to balance the budget. From my point of view, I’d happily pay an extra $25,000 per year in taxes if it allowed me to save $50,000 on schools. Easy math.
Another consequence of dense population is that there is virtually no physical separation between rich and poor. Neighborhoods of good families with responsible mortgages are literally a stone’s throw from subsistence renters and incorrigible squatters. I don’t one bit like being asked to help pay their bills with my tax money, and I don’t have high hopes that all they need is a few paychecks to help them get back on their feet. I’m not that naive. But I do know that having them living 5 blocks from me and receiving welfare is realistically better than having them live 5 blocks from me and not getting welfare. Way better.
The root causes of the breakdown of our public services are systemic, and they are not going to be easy to correct. I’m not expecting that even a 25% tax hike across the board would fix the problem. Not with corruption and cronyism and outright embezzlement running so rampant. But, like Obama, I’m willing to pay a little more to see if we can fund our way back to a situation less grim. Doing nothing certainly isn’t working, not here on the coasts at least.
I’m sure it’s tempting to say “move some place less populous”. And that’s definitely a compelling option at times. But it’s also not the long-term answer. If we want examples of what happens to democracies with high corruption and low government oversight we need only look to India and Brazil. Those are not societies I want to emulate. If higher taxes will buy us a little more time before our densest urban areas look like Mumbai, then sign me up. High density living is an inevitable future for all of us, and continiung to pretend that cheap-and-self-regulating is a viable option seems foolish.
It’s not coincidence that the coasts vote Democrat and the inlands vote Republican. Stark differences in living conditions prompt proportional disagreements on how much should be spent to “fix government”. And I fully appreciate that it seems absurdly unfair to live in one area and be asked without end to help pay for the problems of another. But that’s where we are, and I can only vote for what seems most beneficial for me and my family. On that I’m sure we agree completely.
October 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Pat: We do agree on that point. My problem may be that I’m just too cynical. I’m about as close to Libertarian as I can be without crossing over into coo-coo land. The reason being is this–the Government has no accountability–therefore higher taxes are almost never temporary. The other economic truth is that lower taxes always generate more revenue for the government because we are a Country of spenders. Higher taxes forces more savings and less spending because the people (who actually earn the blessed money) are not able to keep as much so they nervously horde it more.
One of my close friends runs an investment company–he tells me that the majority of his clients have been wanted to sell investments lately–not because of the market but because they are genuinely afraid that if Obama is elected they will lost substantial dollars to higher taxes on capital gains. These are people that have millions in the market. So they stand to lose staggering numbers in that situation.
World history has taught us one thing–the bigger the government the more control it exercises on its population–and the more control it exercises, the harder it is for the population to exercise basic freedoms. We cannot be naive enough to think that just because we are not Italy, Russia, Germany, Uganda, Yugosolovia, China, etc… that we can “handle” a trend towards bigger Government and less freedoms–because after all–we are Americans–and therefore we are more honest and faithful to the ideals of liberty and justice. Bull–we are humans. Human nature does not support a system where there is no accountability.
The frightening thing about next year is this–Democrat President with Democrat controlled House and Senate—yikes–even less accountability!! Well maybe the rapture will come before January–I can only hope. 😉
-Murphy
October 27, 2008 at 6:45 am
Like you blog. Great post.
It’s scary how the country’s anger with Bush is projecting into a willing ignorance of the dangers that Obama presents. And if he should win and get a Democratic super-majority, the damage done could be fairly irrevocable. Just imagine what these Marxist morons would do to the Supreme Court?
Anyway, I too have a blog, asking voters to ponder a question a day leading up to the election. Today’s question has to do with Obama’s religion, Black Liberation Theory and Jeremiah Wrong. Had no idea until I researched for writing the question how Marxist BLT really is. By his words and political view, it’s clear that Barrack was listening to Jeremiah all those years.
Check my blog out here, and please vote in the polls on it: http://election20questions.blogspot.com
October 27, 2008 at 6:47 am
Oh, and No Compromises –
GREAT question above about the Obama logo. To me, it says Zero. As in Zero accomplishments that qualify him to be President
November 14, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Someone did that with a prairie dog here. Sign, pointing arrow, free prairie dog. I laughed for days. The cat crosses the line though. Cats are actually useful.
Hope you’re well my friend.
November 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I know Stacy–it does cross so many lines. and–I’ve just made every cat lover hate my guts–but in my defense—um… well….okay I don’t have one. As for an explanation, when I saw this picture I laughed so hard I almost stopped breathing–so I had to share it in hopes that the laughs would outweight the hate. Hope I guessed right–thank goodness Obama is not a cat-lover or I’m sure the black helicopters would have come to my house by now.