The political events surrounding the Democratic Party and its presumptive nominee has all the makings of an HBO Special. The protagonist (Obama) is initially discounted by the rank and file of politicians, pundits, and harbingers of such eventualities as an interesting contender; nevertheless, one whose time has NOT come. Undaunted the hero challenges the deadly dragon of the all powerful and by utilizing his gift of promising rhetoric and charming good looks suppresses the dragon’s fire to a spark; eventually, compelling the dragon into eating its own tail. A grand story of mythical proportions; but surely, such a story is fictional.
Well, the mouse did eat the elephant. Obama is the on-the-cusp-nominee of the Democratic Party for the highest office in the land. The story unlike an HBO special has actually come true. I am NOT an Obama supporter; to be perfectly clear, I could NOT support any candidate that Peloski, Reid, or Dean sponsored, nevertheless, I am amazed, bewildered, befuddled, and confused by the complete lay down by the Democratic Party of the heretofore logical simpllicity of policy criteria and their sensibilities.
I have questions: Does the Democratic Party actually believe that the government should supersede the interest of private enterprise for the interest of governmental largeness and their inherent bureaucracies? Surely, these democrats went to school; they have studied history, they must understand that we all live in a global economy. Opportunities are global. Government produces nothing, it is not in its self a creator of capital nor a taker of risk; government exists because of the tax revenue gathered from those who make a profit. Obviously, the larger the government interferers in the transactions of private enterprise the more it will tax, regulate, entangle in lawsuits, and eventually chase these profitable companies to other domiciles. Talent and capital will go to where they can make money with the least amount of governmental intervention and taxation. Is that so hard to understand?
Exxon Mobil made a huge profit last quarter; they paid out a huge dividend to its shareholders, and a huge tax (30 billion) to the government for the privilege of making a huge profit. Is this now a mortal sin? The Democrats and their candidate wishes to penalize Exxon and all of their shareholders for the sin of excessive profits. Naturally, not one democrat can define excessive profits but let’s not get boggled down with facts and details, so say the Obama camp.
Redistribution of wealth is the taking of personal property (cash) form those who have and distributing such to those who have less; a Marxian principle guised by Senator Obama under the concept of fairness. The Obama concept is founded on the presumption that private enterprise and citizens withstanding the increased margin of tax liability would produce the same or higher revenue hence the proportional profit; therefore, the tax payout to the government would be higher. Now let’s all think this though; I am an entrepreneur, a risk taker, a calculator of investment strategy and technique; I seek opportunity that is coupled with the least amount of risk exposure and the highest degree of profitability; why in the world of all that is considered sensible, would I invest in the Obama concept of governmental controls and tax policy? Please give me one sensible reason.
Taxable income to the Obama government of concept would fall not rise and all Obama could do is print money so to employ the masses in public works projects.
From my position it is blatantly obvious that Obama is a naive inexperienced want-a-be who never was; a man of driving ambition convinced that private enterprise is very close to evil and the only respite for those who have less is to legalize the stealing from those who have more. It is not that I think Obama is not fit for something prestigious and revering: I do think that Obama would make a fine far-left college professor.
William Robert Barber
- Web |
- More Posts(15)