Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
I keep hearing liberals and other socialists say they want to "redistribute" the wealth in this country. But that implies that the wealth was "distributed" by someone to us all in the first place, and maybe that someone did a bad job and the liberals think they can do it better.
But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.
Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.
But if Barack Obama had come along just then, he might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. Barack Obama wants me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked Barack Obama exactly what the money was used for, he couldn't answer the question.
People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.
These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.
"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.
A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.
Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.
But wealth was never "distributed" to any of us, except maybe by welfare clerks to various indigent persons. But the $100 that's in my wallet now, wasn't distributed to me by anyone. A guy with a car and I made an agreement: I'd tune up his car and fix a few things on it, and he'd pay me $100 to do it. I tuned it up, changed the oil, and replaced two squeaking belts that were badly worn. He's happy, now it starts easier, gets better gas mileage, and doesn't make weird sounds as he drives. He'd much rather have a car that drives like this, than have the $100; and I'd much rather have the $100 and don't mind getting my hands dirty to do something I do well.
Nobody "distributed" anything to either one of us. He and I made a deal, both of us gave the other something of value, both of us are happy with the outcome.
But if Barack Obama had come along just then, he might have taken the guy's $100, and the guy couldn't have gotten me to fix his car. He'd still have a sh*tty-running car that sometimes wouldn't start, I'd be $100 poorer... which means my son would be walking 3 miles to school instead of riding the bike I was about to fix up for him. Barack Obama wants me to think that a better use was made of that $100, than we would have made of it... but when we asked Barack Obama exactly what the money was used for, he couldn't answer the question.
People who talk about "redistributing" wealth, are lying. What they are doing, is taking something that was yours, that you earned, and telling you that (a) they know better how to use it than you do, and (b) this somehow makes it OK for them to take it from you, whether you like it or not.
These people aren't "redistributing" anything, because your money wasn't "distributed" to you in the first place. You EARNED it, and you got it because you DESERVED it, not because some uninvolved bureaucrat thought your having it would somehow be a good idea and so gave his blessing on you to receive it.
"Redistributing" is a politician's way of implying you did NOT earn your money, and so it's not really yours. And pretending that his deciding what to use your money for, is the natural order of things. Not the idea that since you earned it, YOU should decide what to use it for. He's trying to get you away from that idea.
A man who jerks you into an alley, sticks a gun in your face, and demands you give him your money or he'll blast you, is doing the same thing that politician is. The only difference is, the guy with the gun is being more honest and straightforward about it. He's not pretending you owe him anything, and not trying to get you to believe that what he's doing is "moral", and not trying to fool you into thinking that your keeping your money is eeevil.
Next time some politician or forum member tells you he wants to "redistribute" the wealth, remember what he's really saying. And remember that in some ways you'd be better off with somebody sticking a gun in your face.
