Story #1--I Guess I Don't Like Wealth Redistribution After All
Recently, a radio talk show host (Alan Watt?) was walking toward a restaurant when he saw a homeless man holding a sign that said "Vote for Obama...I need the money." He smiled, and walked into the restaurant. After being seated, he was greeted by a very cheerful waiter, who, as fate would have it, was wearing an "Obama 2008" tie.
In no case has socialism closed the gap between rich and poor. The difference between the top 1% of Soviet wealth holders and the rest of society was far more vast than exists in America today, but through socialism, that divide in America is increasing.When the meal was over, the man asked the waiter to confirm that he would be voting for Obama, which he said he was.
"So you believe in Obama's wealth redistribution?" the man asked.
"Yes, I do," replied the waiter.
"Good", said the man, "because I'm going to give your tip to that homeless guy outside."
The talk show host could see the cheery waiter turn to steaming anger at the realization that (1) he'd been had, and (2) because of wealth redistribution, he wasn't going to get his tip.
For some reason it's easy to feel overly amenable toward wealth redistribution,
Most people choose not to remember that the government thug who just robbed them will invariably become more bold.that is until, by force, it actually happens to us. The point of having been fleeced by our government is coincidentally a tiny window in time through which we can see that it's much more efficient in the long run to give charitably. However, because the task requires courage, most of us don't look through that window, preferring instead to close the blinds of forgetfulness, choosing not to remember that the thug who just robbed us will invariably become more bold.
Story #2--Wealth Redistributes, All Right...Upward
A friend of mine called recently to ask if Glenn Beck was correct in bemoaning the potentiality of falling into a cesspit of socialism were Barack Obama to be elected our next president.
"Good heavens, no (I think I said 'heavens')! We've been
Government cannot be trusted to be the re-distributor of wealth, because perennially socialistic governments have skimmed the cream off the top of the ill-gotten revenue, and then redistributed most of the rest of it to their friends--which happened to be the big guys.steeped in socialism for almost a hundred years!" I said. Not much is going to change in that department, except for the velocity at which we hurtle toward the cliff of America-no-more-dom. Here's a good example of how we don't have to wait for an Obama reign to see how socialism redistributes wealth in a manner opposite of that which is so commonly claimed.
The $700 billion wealth redistribution to American financial institutions does not include the little guys.
...what started as an effort by the federal government to spur lending has transfigured, some analysts contend, to a much more grandiose undertaking that will essentially weed out the weak banks from the strong. Critics argue that such a focus puts too much power in the hands of the government in determining which banks survive the credit crisis.Have you ever noticed that, when it comes to socialism, some institutions are invariably "too big to fail", while most of the rest of us--the little guys--are persona non grata?
By doling out money to only the strongest financial institutions, with the aim of spurring consolidation among banks, the government is protecting itself from having to salvage some of the industry's weakest players, analysts said.
"It appears to us that these 'gifted' banks will receive the capital whether they need it or not, as they will likely do the cleanup on behalf of the Fed and the Treasury by acquiring weaker institutions..."
Whether it is through favors to the corporate world or favors
Have you ever noticed that, when it comes to socialism, some institutions are invariably "too big to fail", while most of the rest of us--the little guys--are persona non grata?to those most greedy for power, socialism redistributes wealth upward. In no case has socialism closed the gap between rich and poor. The difference between the top 1% of Soviet wealth holders and the rest of society was far more vast than exists in America today, but through socialism, that divide in America is increasing. Socialism claims to take "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." But it has never worked out that way.
The only way wealth redistribution can ever hope to succeed is through charity. Because government can never be expected to be charitable, government should only be expected to encourage charity, and to punish violations of peoples' rights, such as the theft of their property. Government cannot be trusted to be the re-distributor of wealth, because perennially socialistic governments skim the cream off the top of the ill-gotten revenue, and then redistribute most of the rest of it to their friends--which happen to be the big guys.