Obama was elected the first time for three reasons: 1. Americans were tired of George Bush was was desperate for effective leadership. 2. White Americans was ready to prove that they could be fair minded when it came to race relations and 3. Blacks were anxious to have a black man in the white house, someone they believed would understand their problems and make life better for them.
Obamas redistribution of wealth idea was believed by many to force the rich people and corporations to give money to poor people. Notice I didn't say give poor people the opportunity to work to earn money or to give them a bigger piece of the action in return for their work. Now that Obama is up for reelection and his promise to redistribute the wealth and to make life better for poor Americans has not happened, he is wanting to blame that failure on the opposition party for not allowing him to raise taxes on the rich.
I agree that the middle class is shrinking and wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people but that can hardly be blamed on the tax structure. What happens when Coke and Pepsi continue to buy up their competitors? Less and less drink companies and fewer executives and the more money the presidents of Coke and Pepsi make. We read about these things frequently where one company purchases another one. It takes less people for one company to run two businesses than for the companies to remain separate.
In order to redistribute the wealth, increased taxes on the rich is not going to do the trick. The only real and lasting and effective strategy is government control of corporations so that the government can set pay scales and dictate production selection and distribution. But it would take a man with a socalist frame of mind to pujll that one off and, of course, Obama isn't a socialist. Ask any die-hard Democrat if you doubt that statement.
No comments:
Post a Comment