I had this long post written then realized that I can sum it up with a shorter parable:
Imagine you are in High School. You have a huge test coming up…you study really hard, you work harder than anybody in the class. The test comes and you ace it-get 100%. When the class gets their test back the teacher comes to the front of the class and says–all of you that got 95% or better we are going to take 40 percentage points from your scores and give it to the rest of the class so they get better scores.
You are frustrated because you studied harder than they did, you stayed after with the teacher to ask questions, put your skin on the line to ace the test–and now the teacher is going to take your great score and give it portions of it to other students that didn’t put forth the extra effort, didn’t try as hard as you, didn’t put the extra time in–even though you offered to study with them, to help them, even though they had the same book as you, they had the same teacher and the same study groups to go to, even the kids with the learning disabilies were offered help-but they didn’t take it.
This my friends is Obama’s economic plan. You are punished for being successful. The government decides what to do with your money (typically in ineffective programs), and no matter how much help you offer (jobs for employees, health care for employees, personal and business donations to charity) You are punished because you put your skin on the line and you were successful. And YOU don’t get to decide how you can help others.
Now, I don’t make $250,000 a year but I hope to one day. I hope to be an entrepreneur and it scares the hell out of me that even though I’m the one putting it out there–I will get the kick between the legs.
Vote for Obama and say goodbye to the American Dream, say goodbye to jobs and say goodbye to innovation!
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 22, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Troy
McCainism…. Timmy, this post could easily apply to McCain as well. He proposes that the government buy up all the bad debt in America (by buying the home loans that idiots signed when they knew they couldn’t afford them) and renegotiating those loans at the current value of the home. That’s like offering a re-test to all of the students who didn’t study with a cheat-sheet sitting on their desk and the teacher reading the answers. And to all of us who didn’t make poor financial decisions (i.e. the good students) the teacher won’t even count our scores on our final grade.
Both candidates are proposing socialist programs. The country is in financial crisis and many greedy, rich businessmen are to blame. The national deficit is larger than it’s ever been. That money is going to have to come from somewhere and at least Obama is proposing some ideas of where it can come from. McCain is ignoring the fact that the government needs to spend less than it is making. He’s proposing HUGE spending increases while taxing the middle class at a higher rate than Obama would (but taxing the very rich at a lower rate than me). I’m not a fan of either one of them, but at least one of them is recognizing that we can’t spend money we don’t have.
October 22, 2008 at 10:37 pm
snowpunter
Nah, Palin’s got my kind of economics down pat.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4996963.ece
October 23, 2008 at 12:37 am
Sherry
Dude. Wrong.
Because the fact is, there are a LOT of people out there who work their asses off, and they still don’t make enough money to feed their families. And they still don’t have health insurance.
So they rack up bills when they get sick- oh, say, around the tune of $70,000 and are they ever going to be able to pay it back? No. No matter how hard they work, it just isn’t going to happen.
And those folks need some help.
Like you, I hope to be in $250,000+ category one day. The difference is, I will be happy to help people through government programs that work, and most of them do.
October 23, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Troy
Ok…. Sorry, Sherry. To claim that most government programs work may be a fact, but they work inefficiently. I deal with state (both Utah and Nevada) and federal agencies every day and they are HORRIFICALLY inefficient. Both extremes of Marxist socialism and free-market capitalism are dangerous. When the government controls major social programs (health care, banking, etc), we the people end up with less for more. There needs to be some accountability for people, and those who work hard need to be justly rewarded.
I agree that there are those out there who work tirelessly and can not afford to feed their families. However, those people are the exception and not the rule. There are many who claim to work hard, but who rely on others for support because they are lazy. There are others who really do work hard and make enough to get by, but believe they are entitled to nice things and spend more than they make. Those who work hard and have ambition will usually make the sacrifices necessary to get an education, work their way up in the world, and spend less than they make.
Radical capitalism has its share of problems, as well, and can lead to inequitable class systems with no recourse for the less-fortunate. Of course there need to be social programs for those who need help, but complete redistribution of wealth can be a slippery slope.
Market regulations are necessary for any capitalistic society and I like many of Obama’s proposed regulations. However, until a politician has the guts to tell American citizens that there are consequences for poor personal financial decisions, I’m not supporting any of them.
October 23, 2008 at 10:43 pm
James
My concern is not as much of Obama’s taxing strategy as much as what he will do with the tax revenues. I am leery of creation of new social programs or significant expansion of current social programs. It may be justified financially in the short-run with the increased tax revenues (although not really because of our horrific deficit) but in the long run it will create the mindset of entitlement.
If changes in the social programs lead to individuals eventually no longer needing the social programs then I could support that, however, it does not appear to be that way. After all isn’t the success of a program is one that helps people not have to use the program anymore(I realize there will be certain percentage that will always need that program)?
In the end the answer is really personal responsibility. There is a powerful scene in the movie Cinderella Man when the main character returns money that he had taken from a government agency during the great depression. It showed his deep sense of responsibility to his family and his lack of entitlement.
I am less interested in taxes being increased for certain percentage of Americans as I am as what will be done with the money in terms of reducing the trade deficit, shoring up social security and reforming health care (which I think Mr. Obama has some good ideas about but whiffs on the personal responsibility aspect).
October 23, 2008 at 10:46 pm
James
By the way, this comments section needs an edit button. I just saw some of my poor sentences, but you get the idea.
October 24, 2008 at 7:42 am
timthorn1
Good stuff James. Couldn’t agree more. Troy also good stuff.
The reason for this post was to point out this–why is it the responsibility of the “wealthy” to give more to the government? Notice I said government not people. I hope one day to make at least $250,000. When I do I WILL share that will those who are less fortunate than me–in MY way not the government’s way.
That’s just how I feel.
I guess you can call me distrusting of the U.S. Government. But I have yet to see positive results from the majority of things they do. Too much gets wasted, too many hands are in the pot, and their major solution too everything is to just throw money at it. BOTH parties are guilty of it. Even the unpopular bailout, which was supposed to put a band aid on excess, was full of earmarks!
It boils down to this– if I knew that my money wouldn’t be wasted and I was wealthy, I would have no problem paying more in taxes. But it won’t ever be so.