American progressives, those way left of center statist like Obama, are forever pushing the Marxisy meme of the need to redistribute the wealth from those that produce it to those that didn’t produce it. Their goal, of course, is to bring about a utopia of equality of results.
Our Marxist president once said, long before he was president, that Supreme Court judges had not done enough to bring about wealth redistribution. This same Marxist president has said that at some point, the rich have earned enough and they need to give some of their wealth back. Back to whom? Whom, we later learn are those that provided the roads and bridges and police forces and fire protection services that made it possible for those that built businesses to build them. Our Marxist president has become famous for the words: “If you got a business, you didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen.” He was referring to the roads and bridges, and etc. What our Marxist president doesn’t tell the people is who did pay for those things. If he were pressed, he would have to admit that all taxes that governments use to provide services like roads and bridges and police and fire protection come from the only generators of wealth; businesses. They pay taxes and their employees pay taxes, without which, governments would have no funds to provide any services or to pay their employees. Wealth redistribution does not make society as a whole better off. It reduces future wealth creation from what otherwise would be.
Nothing that I said above is new to you. We conservatives have reported these truths to anyone who would listen for a very long time. Yet, our politicians, like our Marxist president, pretend they don’t know basic economics 101. But, they are lying. Their own number crunchers know that redistributing the wealth does not, for example, reduce poverty. Ten days ago I came across this revealing article that quoted from an Adam Smith Institute (ASI) article, which I found at Motor City Times. This is the full quote that Steve at Motor City Times used:
Now, I think it should be obvious to everyone that giving poor people a means to purchase food means that poor people are less poor. We would also assume that some who were poor before this distribution are not poor after it.
But here’s the interesting question. Fully 0.5% of GDP is being given to the poor in just this one redistribution programme. What difference does this make to the number of poor in the US?
The answer is, distressingly, absolutely not one iota. By the official statistics this redistribution does not lift one solitary person up out of poverty: in fact, does not even alleviate poverty in any way recorded by the official statistics. Further, this is true of all of the major US poverty alleviation programmes. Their Section 8 housing vouchers (roughly, housing benefit), Medicaid (health care for the poor), the EITC (working tax credits). Adding these together the US spends a good 4% or more of GDP on poverty alleviation. Yet apparently it alleviates no poverty at all.
So, dear readers, it is not that our Marxist president and his friends don’t know the truth. It is that they chose to ignore the truth that their own number crunchers give them. What the uninformed voters need to know is that their Marxist president does not care one iota about the poor. He and his ilk are only interested in making more people dependent on government and, there by, consolidate their power over all Americans.
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?