Eating the rich makes no sense at all

It is an appealing concept. If we want to balance the budget and repay the national debt, why not take more wealth from rich people? After-all they have most of the money. The problem is it will not work. President Obama and his Progressive allies know it is folly but they propose it anyway because it feeds a sense of envy and retributive justice. It is fun to criticize wealthy people. When people are hurting economically it makes them feel better to blame rich people.


Watch this video to see the folly of wealth confiscation. The only solution is serious cuts in real spending, not just cuts in the rate of growth, but real spending cuts. All of us will be affected by the cuts in some way but there is no other way out of the debt crisis.


One response to this post.

  1. Posted by ___j___ on October 12, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    “Obama and his Progressive allies know [demonizing the rich] is folly [economically] but they propose it anyway because it feeds a sense of envy and retributive justice.”

    That’s true, they are doing their best to make voters hate hate hate. Most of the occupy-folk are not really mad about *corrupt* rich people, the ones who feed at the bailout trough, but are against all wealthy people and all corporations in general — their quest to end corruption has morphed into a quest to end capitalism. Similarly, on the repub side, many tea party folks started out really mad about over-taxation, but have now morphed into being really mad that we don’t have a theocracy. Both groups are played off against each other, one side calling the other racists, and getting called hippie ecoterrorists in return… when at heart, both groups are angry at corrupt rich elites! Sad really.

    There is another side to the Buffett Rule though (pop quiz: why not just lower the taxrate for the “secretary” rather than hiking up taxes on the boss?). This is the campaign against Grover Norquist and the American Taxpayers, which 99% of elected repubs at the federal level have signed. They cannot raise taxes and stick with their pledge. Obama is trying to get them to break their promise — no more, no less. The whole purpose of the Buffett Rule is simply that partisan crapola. Even if enacted, and enforced to the hilt, it would only reduce Obama’s trillion dollar deficits by 2% or something like that — a drop in the bucket. But his goal isn’t to fix the deficit, or even to raise taxes. The goal is to sow anger among elected republicans, just like the overall goal of eat-the-rich-policies in general is to sow anger amongst the voters.

    We have the most divisive president in a long time, not because the country is divided, but because he and his cronies *benefit* politically and financially from such divisions. Quite literally, the strategy is to divide, and then to conquer. Romney isn’t much better — why else would he have oh-so-carefully set the agenda that nobody in Tampa was permitted to speak the name of Ron Paul? The *goal* was to be insulting, and divisive, and unfair. To let pauliticians know that they were not wanted… in the hopes that they would leave the party in disgust, quit and go home, or join the libertarian party or whatnot. No clearer contrast is possible than that of the Ron Paul campaign, which actually has love in their slogan — the r3V0Jution.

    Here’s to love in 2014 and 2016. Can’t we all just get along?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: