John Hood explains quite well for the Corner at National Review Online what it is about charity vs. government action Barack Obama, and Social Democrats like him, do not seem to get.
First, during a rally Obama criticized John McCain for calling his tax plans “redistributionist.” “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten,” Obama said.
As Hood explains in his post, this response from Obama once again indicates that he is simply incapable of understanding the difference between choosing to share something, and having the government make that choice for you, taking away the ‘voluntary aspect’ of it all.
“There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither,” Hood writes.
But Obama’s “spreading the wealth around” tax plans are not about sharing. “Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner.”
It is important to point this distinction out time and again: Obama and other Social Democrats are not for ’sharing,’ they are for taking away something from someone else, and giving it to a third person. Whether the other person wants to give it away or not.
That is not compassion, that is theft.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“what it is about charity vs. government action Barack Obama, and Social Democrats like him, do not seem to get”
A lot of left-leaning people DO get it. They just don’t care, thinking the ends justifies the means.
When arguing the point last year one such person told me he’d rather gouge his eyes out than go back to the time when charity was controlled by individuals and the churches.
Presumedly he was exaggerating. But I’m not sure.
right marc, B.A.M.N.
“How does Obama take the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” when he thinks it impedes his socialist agenda?”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/smoking-audio/
To me, he is a domestic enemy of the United States.