Wealth Redistribution

November 1, 2008

Did you ever notice that the ones who push for mandatory redistribution of wealth (socialism) never seem to voluntarily give all of their money to those less fortunate? How can someone who is worth millions claim that WE should be willing to redistribute OUR “wealth” until there is financial equality with the least fortunate, while they themselves still have millions?

Do they want to pass laws to force the rest of us to share our money because they believe that everyone is just like them (greedy), or is it merely a ploy to further increase the size and reach of the federal government?

Why do they prefer that WE give our money to a government agency, which, in typical government fashion, will squander %70 of it on ‘administrative fees’ and paying government salaries, instead of giving it directly to the poor, or to a local charity which can more efficiently help those in need in our own towns and cities?

How can any thinking person advocate such a federally-mandated redistribution of wealth, while the previous New Deal program (Social Security) has proven to be such a boondoggle that various persons in government now want to privatize it? Why would we want to replace one unConstitutional, inefficient program with another program that is even more unConstitutional and more inefficient?

Those who advocate a great “Nanny State” cry that it’s about compassion. Fine, let THEM give all their money to the poor, until they have the same amount as the least among us. I don’t even want to hear their claim of compassion while they drive their Cadillac SUV by the homeless and poor.


What about Article 1, Section 7?

October 1, 2008

Hmm, my copy of the Constitution has an Article 1, Section 7 which states:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concure with Amendments as on other Bills.”

So, how is it that the Senate has originated a Bailout Bill, since it did not come from the House?  They may not have read THEIR Constitution, but do they really think that we are as ignorant of its contents as they apparently are?

Risk vs. Profit

October 1, 2008

I remember my freshman Economics class. Our teacher was explaining the stock market to us in a way that 9th graders could understand. He told us that the stock market was all about risk. If you were willing to assume more risk, you could earn more potential profit. If you wanted less rick of losing money, you could expect a more moderate profit.

Fast forward to 2008 – Corporations (banks, insurance companies, etc), in an upward spiral of greed, have happily made riskier and riskier investments, in an effort to make more and more profit. They have lobbied government to help them in this endeavor by relaxing laws which govern fiduciary responsibilities. Legislators, blinded by their own greed, and seeing Special Interest dollars at every turn, gladly obliged. Morals and common sense were a thing of the past.

Well, those riskier and riskier investments which made those corporations trillions of dollars for so long, finally began to sour, due largely to the fact that those risky investments were in the form of loans made to people who could not afford to pay their bills.

Now that the corporations are seeing their huge profits dwindle, they are crying and demanding that the government force us, the taxpayers, under penalty of prison, to pay those multi-trillion dollar corporations a huge some of money to make up for the loss they voluntarily incurred by making risky investments.

Ironically, most of those companies’ CEOs each make more in a year than an average American family does in ten years.

I think we should all go out and get enormous loans and use all of the money to buy lottery tickets and play blackjack. After we’ve lost everything, we should demand that the American taxpayer reimburse us for what we lost. After all, it worked for the trillionaires.