Redistribution of Wealth

I have said and will continue to say that it does not matter who is elected President. I have no preference between dumb and dumber, they are both liars. Having said that, as between the two, Romney seems much more heartless and concerned only about himself.

I want to look a little deeper at something he recently said. He is reported to have said, "I think a society based upon a government centered nation where government plays a larger and larger role, redistributes money, that's the wrong course for America." The focus of government is not the redistribution of wealth; but, it is a natural consequence of any taxation. When you tax me and spend half of the money on the military, you have redistributed wealth and in favor of military spending. Who gets that money, his friends in the military industrial complex.

Redistribution of resources (wealth) goes on everyday, sometimes by choice (I choose to buy your product) and sometimes by force (I am taxed or threatened with a lack of basic services).

Lets be honest about things. We live in a nation where we are forced to go to school, you are forced to follow laws that you may not agree with, it is illegal to smoke Marijuana even if you are dying of cancer. If the government is going to force people to do certain things then they must give something back, like an assurance of having your basic needs met. He is not in favor of that and says so.

I don't really care about Romney, I am much more concerned about the sentiment because whether or not he wins, almost half of the voters agree with him. One kid is born to a nice middle class family, the parents are hard working and both lose their jobs because of the recession. The house gets foreclosed on and they end up on the street. The kids schooling suffers and his grades begin going down. What did the kid do to deserve that? That is the reality of what we are seeing right now. He talks about how these people feel entitled, is that the issue?

We love to tell the story about how the homeless black girl got into Harvard on a scholarship. It wasn't enough for her to be very good, she had to be the best. The rules are different if you have money, you don't have to be the best, you hire them. The game is rigged, lets at least admit that some people have advantages that they did not earn and others start the game already being penalized for nothing they did. I hope we can at least agree on that.

A pause. I know I haven't been writing a lot lately, I will try and pick up the pace. I also have a new comment that I have not posted or responded to, it is on a very old post regarding DMT, I will get to it; but, not tonight.

This nation is getting poorer and it is about to get worse. The pie is getting smaller, not larger. The question is how we will distribute what is left. That is truly the question and Romney believes that we should continue to take a higher percentage from the poor and a lower or same percentage from the wealthy. He calls the wealthy the job creators, well if that is what we are paying them for, they are doing a pretty bad job and need to be fired and replaced with people that actually create new jobs for this country. I am not saying Obama is that guy, they are all useless, I want to address the issues, not the people.

Should people who are willing to work go hungry when the "job creators" didn't do their job and create jobs? What is the average IQ, it is 100. Not too many businesses are started by people with a High School education and an IQ of 100, that is not the group we expect to create all the jobs and if it is then we are dumber than that. I suspect most people that are successful at creating companies have IQs over 100 and some training or education and an entrepreneurial attitude. Our nation raised people to be good employees not good entrepreneurs. We get what we teach and have no right to blame them for being raised to be good employees.

What is really going on is the change from an industrial economy that required many workers to a post-industrial economy that needs fewer employees. It is like the game you learned as a kid, musical chairs. We all start with a chair and one by one they are taken away by the teacher until there is one chain and one winner. Not quite right, there are two winners. The last one to get a chair and the teacher who gets all the rest. That is how the powers that be want the economy to be.

If you want a truly fair game then you would not allow the wealthy to hire tutors for their children, you would base the schools they go to based on their intelligence, you would make sure that all hires were blind and made with no regard to who you knew, merit only. This is of course never going to happen. That game is rigged and many of believe that is okay.

Is the game fair? It is not, it is not based on merit alone. If we truly wish a nation based on merit then we would not allow people to inherit money. The argument they use is a lie, the rich do not wish a government and society based on merit alone, they want one where the table is tilted and they get a head start, okay, lets just admit that.

If one does not believe in a redistribution of wealth based on merit, then what do they believe in? I think most of us want people to benefit in this world based on merit; but, that is that is not the system we have in place. We have a system that rewards you for who you know, think it doesn't? How is that fair or based on merit? Take a moment and think about this.

I believe we should reward effort and merit. I think we should reward honesty and not guile or who your mama slept with. That is the real issue we are addressing. It is not about the haves and have not's, it is about who should be rewarded and why. The media will not allow that discussion to occur. How poor shall we allow people to be? How much are we willing to give of what we get? Who are we as a nation?

Will you trade your neighbor starving to death for your guns? I am a Christian, I would trade my freedom so that others could eat. If you call yourself a Christian then I ask, would you? Put your money where your mouth is. What do you want this country to look like when we lose 10% of our wealth? How bout 20%? How will we treat one another, will we treat each other as Christian brothers and sisters?

We are looking to change public pensions, we are going to reward people for retiring young. It is not couched in those terms; but, that is the effect. I am good with that, I ready to go now. Why should we have those who actually care be penalized for sticking around? Why should we limit what public servants get for a pension if they choose to stick around, the one's that actually care and will work even when they could make more by retiring?

Here is how stupid we are. A guy does 30 years for the state and then does 30 years for a county. The state pays him his retirement and the county pays much less even after getting 30 years of contribution from him. LOL. I want to hire people that already have retirements from the government, odds are, they would collect any form the next government they work for. This is now being referred to as double dipping and it is a lie.

It is simple math, actuarials say it is cheaper to hire an older employee because he changes the odds of paying him to retire. He will not live as long. It is just math and common sense. Get it?