Yesterday Barbara Boxer, the Senator from California unintentionally articulated the core principal of liberalism in America, when she accused some oil company executive of only caring about his profits – of not caring about others. There it is – the caring – which is what separates the liberals from the conservatives. It isn’t that conservatives don’t care about others but in general conservatives think people are responsible for themselves. Conservatives are focused on individuals while liberals are focused on groups. The oil company executive believes he has investors who are entitled to a fair return on their investment and he is their steward responsible for faithfully managing their investment. Senator Boxer, on the other hand, has no regard for the investors but feels it is the responsibility of their steward to keep prices low in order to help the poor. Why it is the responsibility of this executive and his company to help the poor is never explained. Apparently Senator Boxer and other liberals see those with power and wealth as obligated to share the fruits of their labor with those who are – in their view – less fortunate. The implication is that through no fault of their own these people are poor while those with the wealth and power some how got lucky. The liberal never chooses to make any connection between hard work, education, and self-discipline and wealth or sloth, indifference, and ignorance to poverty. For the liberal the solution is to take from the rich and give to the poor – this is called wealth redistribution, which is actually Marxism under the false flag of “fairness”.
Shortly after the very illuminating interview with Senator Boxer, a Congresswoman from Texas was interviewed regarding the bankruptcy laws. Naturally, she was opposed to this because it would hurt the poor and favor the rich. According to the new rules those people who incurred the debt (the poor) will be unable to walk away from their debt but instead would be forced into a repayment program. By forcing the debtor to accept their responsibility the liberals feel (there’s that word again) this would force the poor into a permanent state of poverty because they would not be motivated to find employment if they would have to repay their debts. Instead they would simply stay unemployed and living on welfare. If they actually elected to become re-employed then the rich creditor would benefit because he would be able to recoup his investment. Presumably they are not entitled to be repaid because their debtor is poor. The idea that the individual might have some personal responsibility for their debts is not even considered – these are poor people while those to whom they owe money are rich. Thus the rich are obligated to forgive the debt because they can afford the loss. This is the mantra of the liberals – the rich don’t deserve their wealth while the poor deserve to share it. How the rich got rich and how the poor got to be poor is never a subject of discussion.
As a member of the undeserving rich, I feel I am constantly under attack by liberal politicians who continue to find ways to take my earnings so they can spend it on the poor, foreign dictators, disaster relief, and a host of other activities that they feel we are morally obligated to support. Personally I am feeling more and more like a rape victim. I find that those people who are poor usually fall into one of two categories – the lazy or the crazy. The crazy should be locked up for their own protection and the lazy should be left to enjoy the fruits of their labor – work to eat – just as I do.
I am totally against foreign aid because I have never seen that it has purchased anything worthwhile. Most of it is stolen by tin pot dictators and whatever trickles down to the people who it was intended to help resent us because it wasn’t more. They show their appreciation by burning our flag, demanding more money, and generally acting against us at every opportunity. The UN is a perfect example of the failure of foreign aid. Not only is the UN totally corrupt it is totally ineffective and has declined into nothing more than an organized anti-American propaganda machine.
Then we have disaster relief. This actually falls into two categories – the foreign variety where the US rushes to help those who have never lifted a finger to help America and the domestic variety. I fail to understand why it is the responsibility of the government to help idiots rebuild their homes that were just flattened by a hurricane, an earthquake, or a flood. If you choose to live on the Florida Coast then you must assume the risk and not expect the rest of us to pay for your poor judgment. If you elect to live in California then you must assume the risk of having your house destroyed by an earthquake and not expect everyone else to help you rebuild time after time. The same is true of rivers and flood victims. Rivers flood – it is part of nature and if you wish to live on the banks of a river then you should expect to experience flood damage. I am slightly more tolerant of tornado victims because these can occur any where and individuals cannot avoid being struck by a tornado.
However, my real irritation is with foreign relief efforts. How many times have France or Germany come to our aid when a disaster has struck in the US. How about all of those countries in the Asia – have they ever attempted to help us? Foreign aid is purely a one way street and our liberal friends continue to believe they can buy friends. If we give money surely they will like us. Personally, I don’t care if they like us or not and I would rather keep my money in my own bank. I feel that’s best for me.