Barack Obama tells this plumber that, yeah, he's going to tax the heck out of him, but hey, Obama wants to spread the wealth around.
Obama wants to spread this plumber's wealth around.
Just as, if you are a producer and one of the evil rich, Obama wants to spread your wealth around.
They used to call taking someone's property "theft."
Wouldn't it be better to allow this plumber the freedom to decide where and how he spreads his wealth around?
James Madison obviously had it right when he said
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
It's probably easier to lay one's finger on a reason to authorize legal plunder when one is ignoring the Constitution altogether, as Barack Obama is wont to do.
3 comments:
The taking of what belongs to one person and giving it to another cannot be moral under any circumstance. What Obama proposes is the equivalent of taking your wallet at the point of a gun because I want to give your money to the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF may be a worthy cause and deserving of our support, but there is no moral basis upon which theft of another's property is justified--such is the morality of Obama and other socialists.
If taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another cannot be moral under any circumstance, then I guess America was built on immorality. Did the Native Americans give us permission to take their land?
I think in most cases the land was sold, though whites probably did take advantage of them in man cases.
Are you arguing that two wrongs makes a right? The more theft, the better?
Post a Comment