+ A vision for wealth
In response to Rita Ferrandino’s “My View” last week on two visions for America:
Obama supporters understandably want to talk about “vision” when they have no achievements to trumpet after almost four years. But the heroic efforts of the Democratic Party to interpret Obama’s vision are unnecessary when we have his own words and deeds to inform us.
When Obama told Joe the Plumber of his plan to “spread the wealth around,” he likely revealed more than intended about his vision. True to his word, however, that’s what we have witnessed. There has been much spreading of wealth, but no creation of it.
Obama’s vision is to do more of the same. The auto bailout, including direct payments and a government gift of accumulated tax benefits, will cost taxpayers $20 billion to $30 billion. What he did for the auto industry’s unions, he recently promised to do “with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.” More a nightmare than a vision, Obama’s plan is clear.
By definition, spreading wealth distributes but does not create it. It is private industry that creates wealth and is the engine of economic growth.
Successful businesses employ workers at their own cost and earn well-deserved profits for themselves and shareholders (i.e. pension funds, charities, universities and even unions). Entrepreneurs don’t succeed because they “do things together” or share the same teachers or travel on the same roads. They succeed because of personal responsibility and initiative.
Americans intuitively know that economic growth and job creation are the legacy of private enterprise. That is why the rejoinder, “Yes, I did build it,” has resonated so profoundly across the country.
Business has its own vision. It is to be free of burdensome government regulation and interference in the creation of jobs. Obama’s vision sadly is one that demeans wealth and profit from private enterprise; ridicules personal responsibility and achievement; and relies on government to “spread the wealth.”
Which vision for America? Remember what Obama promised and delivered, and what we will get yet again.
+ Don’t know Marxism
The issue about your “anti-American” editorial is not about the right of free speech but about the right of stupid speech.
To call our president anti-American and Marxist is not only debasing the presidency, but also reveals an utter ignorance of what Marxist communism really is in theory or practice.
You may dislike or hate President Obama all you want, but I guarantee that in a communist country under a Marxist president your paper would not operate long.
My family lived under Marxist communist rule for years, and if you believe that our president is a Marxist, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
+ They hear what they want
Thank you for the editorial.
Every thinking person who understands a little economics, history and government cannot vote Obama another term. He opposes Democrats and Republicans alike.
Those who found the need to object to you read and hear daily the side they want to hear but have the audacity to reject your opinion.