President Obama's obsession with "income inequality" seems to be spreading around the globe. This ideology leads proponents to enact policies that take money from those who earn it and redistribute it to those who are less fortunate and/or less industrious. I can't help noticing, however, that these ideologues don't seem to redistribute their own wealth. They only want to use other people's money.
It would be wonderful to have everyone making good money and having a high standard of living, but this is not likely to ever happen. People are equal in the eyes of their Creator and should certainly have equal opportunity to become successful. People, however, differ in their levels of intelligence, ambition and personal discipline. For these reasons, equal opportunity can never assure equal outcomes.
Why don't wealth redistribution and socialistic policies work? These are things that might be good in theory, but in reality have unintended consequences. Throughout human history, there has been one thing that has remained constant and unchanged. It's also the variable that liberals try to ignore: human nature. The human race has a certain number of "slackers", those who don't pull their own weight. I'm not referring to those who can't work, I'm referring to those who won't work. If the government is taking money from those who produce wealth and giving it to those who won't work, it essentially is giving the slackers a reason not to work. Why work for money if you can just have it handed to you?!
On the other hand, the drive to work hard and earn a good living is dampened by the knowledge that the government is just going to take a huge chunk of it. Thus, both earners and takers end up losing the incentive to become productive and in the end, wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of a few, while the great mass of people are poor and miserable, albeit equal.
Human nature is not going to change. It's normal for people to want to keep what they earn and, unfortunately, it's also a human weakness to want things to be easy. The goal should be to provide ample opportunity to everyone and educate people to the fact that dependence on government will never provide financial security or true freedom.
Showing posts with label income inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label income inequality. Show all posts
Friday, April 4, 2014
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Sorry State of the Union
As many people know, tonight is the annual State of the Union address, in which the president lays out his agenda for the coming year. Although this is a long-held tradition, it often is an exercise in frustration and futility.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the country is "increasingly worried" about the president's abilities and are fearful about America's future. A Washington Post poll revealed that fully 63% of Americans have little or no faith that Mr. Obama will make the right decisions. At the same time, the public seems to support many of the president's themes and policy ideas. There seems to be some kind of disconnection here.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats have certain phrases that they use over and over, knowing that they resonate with people: "income inequality", "war on women", "minimum wage", etc. When it comes to income inequality, for example, who could possibly be against helping the poor improve their lot in life? No one whom I know. But pay close attention; what has Obama actually done to address these problems? His "solution" is to take money that the wealthy have earned and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Would it not be better to empower people to rise out of poverty through their own efforts, rather than simply taking from the wealthy? Our economy remains anemic, millions of people have simply given up on looking for work and the median household income has decreased during Mr. Obama's presidency, due to his failed policies. We could all possibly end up poor and miserable, but, boy, we'd all be equal!
The United States, although weakened, is still a strong country, but we will likely not recover fully under this president. Mr. Obama seems to confuse rhetoric with action, and there is a dichotomy between what he says and what he actually does. We would do well to follow the example of Andrew Carnegie, who said "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
According to the Wall Street Journal, the country is "increasingly worried" about the president's abilities and are fearful about America's future. A Washington Post poll revealed that fully 63% of Americans have little or no faith that Mr. Obama will make the right decisions. At the same time, the public seems to support many of the president's themes and policy ideas. There seems to be some kind of disconnection here.
Mr. Obama and other Democrats have certain phrases that they use over and over, knowing that they resonate with people: "income inequality", "war on women", "minimum wage", etc. When it comes to income inequality, for example, who could possibly be against helping the poor improve their lot in life? No one whom I know. But pay close attention; what has Obama actually done to address these problems? His "solution" is to take money that the wealthy have earned and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Would it not be better to empower people to rise out of poverty through their own efforts, rather than simply taking from the wealthy? Our economy remains anemic, millions of people have simply given up on looking for work and the median household income has decreased during Mr. Obama's presidency, due to his failed policies. We could all possibly end up poor and miserable, but, boy, we'd all be equal!
The United States, although weakened, is still a strong country, but we will likely not recover fully under this president. Mr. Obama seems to confuse rhetoric with action, and there is a dichotomy between what he says and what he actually does. We would do well to follow the example of Andrew Carnegie, who said "As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
