Obama is for “spreading around opportunity.”
That’s his interpretation of spreading around the wealth.
But let’s look at this “opportunity” based on spreading around the wealth. Consider two questions: what’s the opportunity for? and how does one get this opportunity?
Obama says that by spreading around the wealth, a waitress can “can put a roof over her head.” Well, I suppose that’s a possibility. But aren’t there other possibilities as well? Obama hasn’t specified that. At least he hasn’t done so yet. But I suppose the law could require “tax refunds” to be spent on government housing. On the other hand, maybe the waitress will spend the money on cigarettes. Then we would have the “opportunity” to spend more on her healthcare. This, no doubt, could provide her more “opportunities.”
And how does one get Obama’s “opportunity”? Well, it appears to require merely a vote for Obama and his fellow travelers. On the other hand, there are other ways to get “opportunity.” Just ask around. Some might say work. Others might say beg. Some might even say steal. Those ways might get you a roof, or a cigarette or two, or a new HD television or GPS system, or even a set of wheels.
An old-fashioned scrupulous fellow who clings to God might insist on discriminating. He might insist that the American way has something to do what’s right and “opportunities” by theft are no “opportunities” at all. He might say that theft by government is wrong too.
But can we say that anything the government does is wrong? If it’s legal isn’t it right? Well, some might say it’s right or wrong, or even patriotic, depending on whether Bush or Clinton or Obama is responsible for it…..
If we do insist on a standard of right and wrong above formalities, we might need to re-examine this “opportunity.”
We seem to have forgotten that “opportunities,” (or, in that old-fashioned language, liberty) means not being forced to do wrong and not being prevented from doing what’s right. So I’m reminded of the “opportunity” of the widow. She didn’t receive her mite from the government but she was more charitable than everyone else.
What we need for opportunities to succeed is not someone else’s money, but faith that right makes might. And what’s right is to work to be able to give as God shows us those who truly need help.
I’d prefer to help my church help more those in need (like the orphans in Zambia), rather than see more tax money go to CEOs of Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN. :sigh:
The funny thing is under Obama you’ll have more money to give to the orphans in Zambia. But believe what you will.Maybe if youwere Joe the Doctor or Joe the Lawyer you wouldn’t, but those guys earn too much for my money anyway.
Okay Denis, let’s consider the Obama menu. Now is that with or without the Carter-sized unemployment, inflation and interest rates?
And as far as money goes, I’d have even more money to give the orphans if I robbed a bank….
And speaking of theft, why can’t the politicians just keep their hands out my pants? My pocket gets picked so fast it doesn’t collect lint.
Why be grateful to politicians for a “tax refund” after they pick your pocket?
And, remember Denis, he who has the power to give, also has the power to take, and take, and take, and take…..
It’s past time to just say NO!