There’s no question that the Democratic Party has changed over the years, especially considering that it was a mere five decades ago that President John F. Kennedy gave a speech that included the famous phrase,
“My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
When was the last time that you heard a high-ranking Democratic Party politician urging that people become self-reliant or encouraging that people, who need it, use welfare as a hand up rather than a hand out?
The answer is that it has been a long time because the Democrats have fundamentally transformed from JFK to Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton.
In fact, Barack Obama let the American people know that he thought the redistribution of wealth was a good thing back on his first campaign trail for the White House.
When Democrats talk about the redistribution of wealth, it’s important to understand that the wealth they are referring to is not their own, but the wealth that belongs to others.
If Barack Obama was truly concerned with taking care of others, he would not have purchased a more than $8 million dollar house in DC and instead used that wealth to “redistribute” among those who are less fortunate. How many hungry mouths could an $8 million check feed?
If Bernie Sanders were truly concerned about how much the rich have, he might open up one of his several homes to take care of those who are “behind him.” How many homeless vets could his $600,000 lake-front Summer home house? How much free education would the sale of that home provide to the students of America who he is constantly championing should have free tuition?
If Hillary Clinton were actually bothered by the “two Americas,” she might sell one of her several homes, each with an estimated worth of over $1 million. Maybe she could get a good price for any one of her $10,000 jackets. How many loaves of bread would that provide for America’s poor?
The truth is that Democrats are only interested in the redistribution of wealth when it is other people’s wealth that they are redistributing.
For those who have been educated in the public school system, the redistribution of wealth is also a major tenant of Socialism.
Towards the end of the 19th century, Karl Marx made famous the phrase,
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
What this translates to, for practical purposes, is that the wealth is accumulated in one or more centralized governments. In the minds of the Democrats pushing for this new system of government, they would be in charge of how that wealth is redistributed. Picture somebody like Hillary Clinton, with the reputation of dishonesty, corruption, and elitism that she has earned over the years, with her hand in your wallet or purse. How comfortable are you sleeping knowing that she would have a say in how your money is going to be spent?
In the “spread the wealth” system, otherwise known as Socialism, each member of the “collective” works as hard as they are able. It doesn’t matter if you are working in the medical field, digging ditches, or flipping burgers, you work as hard as your ability allows you to. Your compensation is based on your need. So if you work an extra 25 hours this week, in addition to the 40-50 hours that you are already working, your pay does not increase. Everybody is equal, so everybody gets paid the same.
This is the fundamental flaw with Socialism.
When you take from Peter to pay for Paul, Peter is eventually going to be upset about the unfairness of the situation and will either stop producing or will move away.
The second problem with Socialism is the lack of freedom that it breeds. We’re all likely familiar with the situation in which a father or mother says to their child, “When you’re living under my roof, you’re going to follow my rules!”
This same principle applies to Socialism. When the government is paying for your food, your housing, your clothing, your transportation, and gives you a stipend for entertainment, how far fetched is it for the government to start limiting what you can do with your life?
Think of it this way:
In Florida, politicians were pushing for a bill that would enact a candy and soda ban for food stamp recipients. The argument being that some of those on welfare are blowing their food stamp budgets on sugary and fattening products, becoming obese, and adding additional costs to the government provided health care system that they also have. The politicians determined that this should be regulated.
Socialists always argue for the greater good to get their agenda through, but they have to first control the means of production. Once the wealth is in their hands, they can decide how it is going to be spent, keeping a large portion for themselves, based on “what is good for the collective.”
When the government is providing for your way of life, the government gets to make the rules.
Source: The Federalist Papers