Yesterday, Dem’s went ballistic because Mitt Romney commented several months ago that 47% of voters won’t select him, whereas they strongly feel entitled to governmental support. Then, this morning, a 1998 audio clip of the incumbent gave Romney a key issue to pursue in retaliation, since in that clip the incumbent embraces “redistribution” of wealth.
I mention it because although I think both issues clearly illustrate fundamental differences between the vying presidential candidates regarding entitlements, I also have questions about “redistribution” theory altogether.
To me, there's no such thing as redistribution because U.S. “wealth” was never distributed to begin with. The Founding Fathers came here to form a free country and began with nothing financially, since there was nothing here back then at all. So they went out and built the foundation themselves, laying the groundwork for the greatest nation on earth. In fact, income taxes weren’t even applied until 1913, to help raise money for war, and even then, were meant to be only temporarily employed.
Consequently, if the incumbent want’s to restart fairly as it was originally done, he has to take everything from everyone, leaving them with no money, no government support, no welfare or medical aid or anything else but their innate ability to get things done. Because any other approach is simply a new form of government here, known as socialism everywhere else, where the helpless, hopeless and outright lazy feed off everyone that produces.
However, for the sake of discussion, let’s say that wealth was actually distributed equally among our population. And in that case, I’d have to agree with J. Paul Getty who said “I contend that if all the money and property in the world were divided up equally...within a year or two at the most, the distribution of wealth would conform to patterns almost identical with those that had previously prevailed. Some individuals will always rise to higher levels of recognition and reward than others."
So, in the case of individual economic success it isn’t really the “wealth” that’s the issue, it comes down to the people themselves. And for those who believe it’s the successful one’s responsibility to carry those who aren’t, I have some very simple questions. What would happen if all the producers got together and out of governmental frustration left here to begin somewhere else? Who’d support those who stayed here? And once all the remaining wealth here was exhausted, who'd there be to replace it if nobody worked or paid taxes?
On the other hand though, for those who left to found a new place for workers and doers, I think we’d soon see the formation of a brand new greatest nation on earth.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment