Thursday, December 5, 2013

U.S. The Leader In Income Inequality?

President Obama recently said that income inequality is growing in the United States and that the United States is the worst country in the world for income inequality.

Really? So the President believes that third world countries, led by dictators and/or socialist governments that keep the masses controlled and "equal", even as the political leaders remain wealthy and powerful, are somehow better than the capitalistic system still used in the United States - at least until Obama changes it? And I believe he means to do just that.

Ever notice that politicians with money and power always talk about income inequality and redistribution but never volunteer to give up their own wealth? Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire whose husband makes most of his money from cheap labor overseas. But she wants to redistribute wealth.

President Obama was worth nearly 12 million dollars in 2012, from book sales and his Presidential salary. Yet it was he who said "There comes a point where you have made enough money."  I can't help but wonder what that point is for him. Maybe he wants to be equal to Bill Gates before he has made enough.  Or maybe he wants to be the richest man in the world and redistribute everyone's money but his own.

That's the whole point.  In a socialist system, where everyone is supposedly equal, the leaders of the government still have the wealth and power.  It's the common citizen who doesn't have it. The only real difference is that in a capitalistic society anyone with drive and determination can become wealthy. There are  more middle class and poor people in this country than wealthy but the opportunity is there for everyone who is willing to put in the time and hard work. But in a socialist/communist society the only ones with wealth are those few at the top and the ones those few allow to be wealthy. So your income might be the same as your neighbor's but unless you're in a position of power, that will be because he doesn't have a large income either.

I will never be happy with the government dictating how much money someone can make.  Ronald Reagan once said "Our loyalty lies with the little taxpayers, not the big spenders.  What our critics really believe is that those in Washington know better how to spend your money than  you, the people, do.  But we're not going to let them do it.  Period."

Wealth redistribution is a form of progressive socialism.  Spreading the wealth around is pure socialism and, as Margaret Thatcher once said, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."  I certainly can understand why poor people, those at the bottom of the income list, would like socialism. It's a way they can "keep up with the Jones's."  But I will never understand why middle class people - the workforce in this country, would be in favor of it. Liberal guilt, I suppose.

No comments:

Post a Comment