Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Why Socialism Sucks

Let's take a stroll down Memory Hole Lane. Let's go back to that sunny day in 2008, when Kenya's favorite socialist, Chairman Barack Hussein Obama, said this to a plumber :


"...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." --Barack Hussein Obama to Joe the Plumber


Chairman Obama didn't say anything profound here. This has been the mantra of the villianous Left ever since Woodrow Wilson segregated the Armed Forces. It's a tenet of the Social Justice Gospel that states the rich must pay through the nose since it's pretty "obvious" that they must have "cheated" the system to get what they have.

Another way to put it is this:


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" --Karl Marx


Both quotes call for the redistribution of wealth. Both quotes talk about who needs to give the wealth and who needs to get it. However, neither quote addresses the most important questions: Who gets the wealth ? Why do they deserve it ?

Marx and our Dear Leader never bothered to address the questions of 'who gets it ?' and 'why do they deserve it ?'. However, I use my head for more than a hat rack and unlike Chris "I'll Have Another Drink" Matthews (Hat Tip: The Great One, Mark Levin.), I don't bloviate to hear myself bloviate. I speak the truth. Without further ado, I will now show how socialism sucks.

To prove my point, I'm going to enlist some friends of mine: Subject A, Subject B, Subject C, and Subject D.

Subject A is your typical working stiff. He goes to work every day, despite the fact that he hates his job and his boss. He deals with unreasonable customers, nonsensical demands from the bookkeeper, and works the crappiest hours you could think of. He has bags under his eyes, high blood pressure, and back pain that never seems to go away. He takes it all in stride since this is what he has to do take care of his family. He pays his taxes, (federal, state, and local) obeys the law, and in general, is a good citizen.

Subject B is a burned out teacher. At one point, Subject B was an average (at best) teacher, but no longer. Thanks to tenure, Subject B was all but untouchable, despite getting poor review after review. Thus, Subject B was able to survive 32 years in the public school system without so much as breaking a sweat. Subject B is getting ready to retire, with a guarantee that she'll receive at least 80% of her final salary, which is a rather generous $83,500 per year.

Subject C is a welfare recipient. She is a living, breathing example of a "welfare queen". She has four kids, two with one father, one with another man, and one that she has no idea who the father is. She recieves state aid, along with Food Stamps, Medicaid, and unemployment. Oh--I forgot! She's pregnant again! Who's the father ? I dunno and neither does she.

Subject D is an illegal alien. He pays no taxes, but has access to all kinds of goodies from the Sanctuary City he lives in. He gets free health care, his kids can go to school and get "free" breakfast and lunch. He doesn't speak English, but there's no need to learn. After all, the Big Mommy Regime will print any form he needs in his native tongue and will always provide a translator when he needs to know how many more freebies are out there for him to take advantage of.

So tell me: Why does Subject A have to pay for B, C, or D's crap ? Why does A owe B,C, or D anything ?

Now, your average lib fingersniffer thinks he has an answer: compassion. "That's the price you pay to live in a civilized society. What would you do, let people starve ? How much is enough ? How much do you really need ? Blah, blah, blah, 2+2=5, yadda, yadda yadda." But, if you'll note, there is NEVER, ever, compassion for the Subject A's ,who are, in reality, the majority of Americans.Your below average wallet chain wearing, tattooed, Media Matters believing lib never takes into consideration the fact that to give B, C, and D anything, it must be first taken by FORCE from A. Never mind the fact that Subject A is up to his eyeballs in debt and could really use the money for his own bills, he has to pay for B and C's leisure time. Never mind the fact that Subject A would like a brand new AR-15 or a laptop that doesn't crash all time, A must pay to subsidize to D's criminal lifestyle. Where the hell is the compassion in that ? It's Subject A who earned the money, why are B, C, and D entitled to it ?

There are no answers to any of the questions that socialism brings up. Yes, we must love our neighbor as the Bible commands, but "love thy neighbor" does not mean "support thy neigbor while he sips a margarita on a hammock while you work yourself into an early grave." Ethically, as a society, we have a responsibility to care for those who TRULY can not care for themselves, (wounded veterans, children, the very elderly, children, the infirm, etc.) but we have no responsibility to those who refuse to do so, like Subjects B, C, D. That's why socialism sucks. It can't answer the most basic of questions: Why ?

No comments: