The Horrors of Obama's Proposed Redistribution of Wealth, Illustrated

As Barack Obama blithely tells an American plumber that Obama plans to take away more of the man's earnings to "spread the wealth" to others, we need look no farther than Zimbabwe to see the horrors that result from forced redistribution of wealth.

How noble it was for Robert Mugabe to take farms away from white farmers and give them to black farmers who had been missing out!  How visionary!  How admirable!  How fair!  What could possibly go wrong?

Everything.  Everything went wrong.  We'll skip lightly over the deep moral wrong done to the white farmers themselves.  Let's look to the results of the noble experiment in affirmative action.  Before long there was this -- shortages, skyrocketing inflation, and shelves cleared of bread:

Now, skipping forward many weary and panic-stricken months, there is this:

Death is stalking Zimbabwe’s children, as a potentially catastrophic famine gathers momentum. Aid agencies say that half the population, about five million people, face starvation, two-thirds of children are out of school and water shortages have led to deadly cholera outbreaks.

The Times went on a 600-mile (965km)journey through the eastern province of Manicaland and discovered a country whose reserves of food are exhausted and where the diseases of hunger — kwashiorkor, marasmus and pellagra — are appearing to a degree never seen in the country before.

Emaciated children are dying in hospitals, many more are being turned away to die at home.

But Obama won't be redistributing farms, you say.

No.  Obama will just take "more" from every high producer in America to give "more" to non-producers and under-producers.  And, with the help of a Democrat-controlled Congress, he proposes to do this again and again, in myriad ways.  The federal income tax system is just the beginning.

Zimbabwe used to be known as the "breadbasket of Africa." 

America may seem strong, but is not immune to the laws of economics.  It has prospered only because it has, more than most other nations, respected those laws. 

The destructive effects of forced redistribution of wealth are but one application of a universal law.  Confiscate more from the "rich" to give to the "poor," and in a matter of years everyone will be very poor indeed, as incentives to produce are destroyed and disincentives to sloth are reduced or eliminated.

Wealth is not a static "pie" (hello, Obama) to be divided up evenly among the hordes.  Wealth is the result of millions and billions of individual transactions by which both the willing buyer and willing seller of goods and services end up better off, again and again, day after day.

Obama has the illusion that he can manipulate the action just enough to even things up.  He doesn't understand that you cannot take from the rich without also taking from the poor.  He's beset by a poverty mentality.

That poverty mentality is one of the reasons it rubbed Americans the wrong way to hear Jimmy Carter telling us to cope with an energy crisis in the late 1970s by wearing sweaters, or to hear Barack Obama lecturing us today on the wonders of the tire guage.

They think that there is only so much wealth in the world, and that when it's gone, it's gone.  They don't understand that our freedom IS our wealth. 

They want to slow down the engine of prosperity just enough to redistribute the wealth evenly.  The problem is that the engine doesn't work that way.  Start giving everyone the same results regardless of their efforts, and soon the efforts begin to weaken, and fade, and cease.

Oh, America, how can you even consider handing your future to such economic illiterates as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?  Have you fallen for the lie, too?  Are you standing there waiting for Barack Obama to hand you a farm, or a home loan, or a free college education, or free medical care?  Then here is what lies ahead:

Step 1:  Take from the rich and give to the poor.

Step 2:  Watch everyone become very, very poor.

Comments

[KeithH]

One challenege we face is that many of the young voters, those on college campuses where Obama appears to have established a solid base of naive voters, only see the "positive" of wealth redistribution being "fair" without understanding the overall negative impact of what is essentially socialism.

Take Obama's plan and substitute grades for money and the "fairness" might be better understood. Imagine telling a straight A student she needs to accept C's because her roomate is flunking out and we must be willing to share, so we are giving both she and her roomate C's... it may seem unfair to her now, but it is for the greater good so that all can continue in college, and she didn't really need those A's anyway.

[Natasha]

I have how I feel on this issue at http://issuesoncall.blogspot.com. Great article! I wish people would open their eyes!

[Richard Popovich]

Understanding America's "Secret Weapon"
The Founding Fathers gave us the solution to our problems. If the people would read it, understand it and then choose our representatives who would follow the blueprint for our republic, most of our problems would disappear. America's problem is that the electorate is constitutionally illiterate. There would be no Obama's, no Barney Frank's, Ted Kennedy's, Harry Reid's, or Nancy Pelosi's. We would have a currency backed by gold and silver. We wouldn't have a graduated income tax. America would not be pouring our wealth into the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Our foreign policy would treat all nations as friends without foreign entanglements. United Nations inspired treaties wouldn't exist and the Senate would function as the filter to prevent bad legislation that is sent to it by the House. The President wouldn't have the power of executive orders and our system of checks and balances would keep the President and Supreme Court from legislating outside of their Constitutional limitations.
The country would still have problems, but many could be solved on the State and local levels without interference from the federal level.
Our educational system from kindergarten though the twelfth would be free of federal money and accompanying mandates. Local school districts would be allowed to make independent decisions that meet the needs of their own and more could be accomplished with less money.
There is a lot more items that can be delineated if we would just follow the powers reserved for the States. Unfortunately the people, the electorate, have forgotten that America became the country that it is because of our "Secret Weapon," the Constitution. It needs to be revisited by the people.

[Warren BeMiller]

I am kinda tired of running my small business. If Obama gets it his way I will just quit and he will give me some from someone else that is still working hard, until they realize they should quit also. And on and on. until we have no-body willing to work just to give it away.

[bluedog_in_redstate]

You know what kills me about this whole "redistribution of wealth" strawman? The hypocrisy. We have a bunch of neo-conservative fiscal fascists claiming to be the bastion of Christian right while touting the glories of unchecked capitalism. What did the Bible say about "redistribution of wealth"?

For example:

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Prov. 22:9 He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.
Jer. 22:16 "Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD.

Deut. 15:10. You shall give generously to [your poor brother], and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings.

Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.

...and my favorite...

Mt. 6:24. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money."

So...where in there exactly does is say "redistribution of wealth is bad"? Or is Jesus, in fact, a Socialist?
[Gratuitous insult deleted]

[Gina Cobb responds: Thank you. Those are great verses about the duty of each of us, as individuals, to help our needy neighbors. Now where are the Bible verses that say that, if you see a poor person, you should tax your neighbor and then give your neighbor's things to the poor?

Second: Christians and Republicans generally give far more of their own money to charity than leftists, even controlling for income. Why is that? Is there more than a touch of hypocrisy on the left?

Third: Forced redistribution of wealth never works. It destroys incentives of those who are working to produce and earn, and it also destroys incentives to work by those on the receiving end. That's why communism is doomed to fail. No society can long survive once incentives to work and produce are undermined. Redistribution of wealth is a guaranteed way to cripple the economy and destroy the best medical care the earth has ever known and the most prosperity the world has ever known. Our prosperity is the result of our free markets and our decision NOT to redistribute wealth.

By the way, the Bible also says that those who don't work should not eat. All across America, private citizens, churches, and charities give to those who are truly needy through no fault of their own (for me, that especially include those beset by life-threatening illnesses, like childhood cancer). But the Bible does not mandate redistribution of wealth from workers to slackers.

Asians coming to America (among many other groups of immigrants) have proven again and again that, in America, neither language nor race is a barrier to a rapid rise to the middle class. All it takes to succeed in America is a willingness to work hard. - Gina Cobb]

[Soya]

The fact that this page invokes Zimbabwe as an example shows either a profound lack of understanding of politics or a deliberate attempt to invoke irrational fear.

[Gina Cobb responds: Perhaps you don't realize how you come across, or you are focused on trying to argue a point of view, but your opening remark is rude, condescending, and inaccurate. Zimbabwe's policies are simply a more advanced and dramatic version of the redistribution of wealth that Obama is proposing. Given enough time and inadequate opposition, there is no reason why Obama cannot achieve the same results for America's economy that Zimbabwe has. The difference is one of degree, not kind. Obama's immediate plans to seize control of America's wealth through higher taxes and heavy-handed regulation are like cancer cells. Given enough time, they will metastasize into destruction of all strong incentives to work and save. Why work hard when half or two thirds of what you earn is taxed away? Why work at all, when the government will support you if you don't work? When most people stop working hard, what do you suppose will happen to our economy? What will happen to the lead we enjoy in prosperity and technological and medical innovation?]

President Mugabe is a brutal dictator who engaged in a forced land redistribution, destruction of homes and outright violence against his opposition, BOTH RICH AND POOR. According to the CIA, "his urban rationalization program resulted in the destruction of the homes or businesses of 700,000 mostly poor supporters of the opposition." Using him as an example of the dangers of redistribution is like using the Hitler Youth as an example of the dangers of the "Boy Scouts".
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html

[Gina Cobb: It doesn't matter that Mugabe took from both rich and poor. Obama will too, if he and the Democratic-controlled Congress are given their way. "Joe the plumber" will be taxed every bit as much as Bill Gates -- probably more, because there aren't enough Bill Gates' to make it worth Obama's while. He NEEDS to soak just about every taxpayer in order to fund his expensive proposals. The difference between what Mugabe did and what Obama plans to do is a matter of degree, not kind. Obama will end up in the same place if he is unopposed.]

When Obama spoke of "redistribution" it was in the context of rolling back tax cuts -- to those with higher incomes -- that Bush had instituted, and giving increased tax cuts to the middle class. This would largely mean a roll-back to the Clinton era, not a change to an African dictatorship. There are many European countries that have more socialistic programs than anything Obama has spoken of (and some have higher standards of living than the US). But, I suppose invoking them wouldn't have spread the requisite irrational fear that was desired.

[Gina Cobb: Do not engage in personal insults of this kind if you want your comments to remain published. I am allowing latitude this one time. Frankly, I depublished your comment and then decided to republish it with my comments to give you a chance. Further, European socialism is a failure. America's economy is far more robust that those produced by European socialism. And rolling back Bush's tax cuts (which Obama doesn't even admit he is doing -- he falsely claims to be cutting taxes for most) is just the BEGINNING of Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth. He wants the middle class and above to pay for EVERY major thing the lower middle class and below might need -- from housing to free health care to higher education. By the time Obama is done, we will be bankrupt -- and it won't take long if he enacts even half of his redistributive agenda.]

Other examples of this kind of misleading rhetoric can be found throughout this site.

[Gina Cobb: This is a rude and inaccurate ad hominem attack. Has it occurred to you that some of the beliefs you hold to might be "misleading rhetoric"?]

For example this site posts a video that claims "It's Obama in a how-to discussion about methods to force wealth redistribution onto Americans!." Yet, if you watch the video, it actually shows Obama arguing why the courts should NOT be involved in the redistribution of wealth.

[Gina Cobb: I have watched the video, and your spin is wrong. Obama clearly wants redistribution of wealth. He says it might be easier to achieve it through the legislature rather than the courts. That is still outrageous. It is our economic freedom that is the engine of our prosperity. Obama wants to destroy that to give handouts to those who don't have "enough" in his opinion -- by taking from those who have more than Obama thinks is enough.]

Obama goes on to say that "because the Civil Rights movement became TOO COURT FOCUSED" disadvantaged people negelected involvment in organizing in politics and community groups. In other words, he wants people to organize for themselves to get ahead, rather than running to the courts and invoking the constitution. Yet, after he say this, the film inserts a text commentary that says, "Yes he just said it's a tragedy that the Constitution wasn't interpreted radically enough to force redistribution of wealth to African-Americans." This is the exact opposite of Obama actually said. Clearly, the people who made this video, as well as those who posted it, either never really paid attention to what Obama actually said, didn't understand it, or are deliberately being misleading readers.
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/10/so-biden-claims-obama-is-not-a-marxist.html

[Gina Cobb: I disagree with your spin and I doubt even you believe it fully. If you do, listen to the video again.]

This film goes on in the same way, with the same types of text additions. I won't go through each point - I urge you to watch the video and see what Obama REALLY said (and the ridiculous spin that his opposition resorting to misrepresent him).

As someone who has actually experienced a communist dictatorship first-hand, I can tell you that this kind of twisted rhetoric is what you should be afraid be afraid of. This kind of irrational fear mongering is what dictators use to gain and maintain power, not a roll back in tax cuts.

[Gina Cobb: I am genuinely interested in hearning about your experience with communism. Please tell us more about the communist dictatorship you "experienced." Did you live under communism for any length of time or just visit for a little while? You don't sound like someone who really got to fully "enjoy" communism dictatorship for very long, because you don't seem adequately outraged by it. Did you experience censorship? One-sided party-controlled newspapers and radio? Poverty everywhere, except among favored top party members? Imprisonment, job loss, or worse for those who dared to disagree with the state? Those are just some of the typical joys of living under communism -- the form of government on earth best known for seizing massive power in the name of redistributing the wealth. - Gina Cobb]

[Matt]

"You are a newcomer, but these rules have been enforced on GINA COBB for years"
"The burden of providing easily searched sources rest on the writer. Of course, this particularly applies to comment on websites."

With all due respect, while I appreciate your stated desire to maintain proper academic writing standards on this site -- and I will do my utmost to comply if I ever wish to post here in the future -- I have read over many of the articles on this site, checked your citations and I would submit to you that following citation formats in the way that it's done throughout this site only gets you as far as the surface, not the foundations, of proper academic research/ writing. Furthermore, anyone looking over this site will find that you patronize, scold and censor [1] people who don't agree with you when they do not follow proper writing and citation standards [as well as for other "violations"], yet those who agree with your political view spew uncited rhetoric and hyperbole without censure.[2] This goes against one of the most important aspects of academic writing process -- the concept of a fair peer review process.

1. [I'm sorry to put it so harshly but, as you say, the tone of a writer comes through in their posting, and yours is clearly patronizing and scolding.]
2. [ie "Obama has living family in Kenya, strong ties to Bill Ayers (of which he denies, stating he is a guy from his neighborhood he sat on a board with) and a member of a church that gives awards to the likes of Louis Farakhan? Come on people, he has a Che Guevara flag hanging in his Houston campaign office?"]

The foundation of academic writing is logic and an appeal to verifiable data. Sources that are acceptable in academic research are ones that demonstrate primary research, or at least substantiate their claims by reference to primary sources. They are also ones that have a credible claim to being unbiased. As you point out above, it is the responsibility of a writer to ensure that their sources meet these criteria.

While you make a claim that you "trace back to primary sources," almost all of the citations in the articles that I have reviewed here lead the reader to openly politically-biased sources, ones that don't make any credible claim about how they came by the information that they are presenting, and that have not provided their "evidence" to ANY third party for verification. Much of it is simply rhetoric without citation. This does not represent academic substance. It would be the equivalant of making the case for alien abductions by citing accounts from UFO watchers' websites as primary sources.

Proper presentation and rhetorical argument without foundation does not further our undertstanding. It may be helpful for those who wish to go into law,* run campaigns, or pursue other careers where the goal is to advertise or convince, but it is not academic/ research writing.

*[After all, Berg used wikipedia in his lawsuit against Obama]
http://www.obamacrimes.com/

I have not included any citations for most of what I have written here because I believe all of the facts I cite here should be common knowledge to anyone with a background in research, or are self-evident to any reasonable person who looks over this website. If, however, you would like me to find citations for you, I will crack open my old textbooks and find you some.

This is your site, and you have the right to post anything you want. But, please, be honest about it. This is a politically biased site. Don't hide behind patronizing claims to "proper research styles" and proper writing/ research styles when you're spreading rhetoric and hyperbole, and violating academic standards throughout -- allowing anyone who agrees with you to do the same.

As I have said above, if I choose to post here in the future, I will strive to follow your rules on writing style. I hope you will consider following acceptable standards for verifiable academic substance.

[Soya]

Yes, Matt... I posted earlier to with concerns saying that comparing Obama to Mugabe was going too far. I provided citations and was clear.. I came back to look for their response, but my post is gone.

In my post I expressed concern that fear campaigns (like on this site) are the tools used by Communists and dictators, not tax policy (I know, I've lived under these regimes). I now remember another tool...

CENSORSHIP

[Gina Cobb responds: Soya -- Apparently at the time you left this comment, you are unaware that I have added my comments and republished your post about 15 minutes ago. Please refresh your page and see if it has been republished with my comments. I will also check to see if it needs any further republication on my end.

By the way, I did take issue with some of your comments, as you will see, and initially just depublished the comment because my time to parse it was limited, but I then decided to take the time since you are a new visitor.

Respectful and logical disagreement is welcome here. While we all occasionally trangress, we do a pretty good job of allowing comments from the left and right here -- more balance than you will find at just about any other website. We do, however, fact check comments and actively depublish insults, illogic, undue repitition, profanity, etc. This is based on my experience with seeing perfectly good websites ruined by commenters who won't listen to reason, such as Palestinians who insisted that Mohammed Atta and other Islamists had nothing to do with 9/11. I won't allow this website to be ruined by that sort of thing. If you want to disagree, you can take a position, state it politely, and back it up with legitimate evidence. Then it will probably stand, though I and other authors here reserve the right to add our 2 cents worth. Take care]

[Matt]

Soya -

I read your posting -- it was quite good.

[soya]

"You don't sound like someone who really got to fully "enjoy" communism dictatorship for very long, because you don't seem adequately outraged by it."

Apparently you have not experienced it, at all... if you are willing throw around comparisons with Communism and what Obama proposes. It's insulting to those who have. Your comment is also illogical... you say I am not enough "outraged" by Communism ... It would only be logical for me to be outraged if I believed that Obama would bring Communism... And you know that I do not... My posting say that he WOULD NOT bring Communism, so why would I be outraged by him?

[Gina Cobb responds: I asked you to tell me about your experience with communism. Please tell me about it. You said you don't like communism. How long did you live under it? A week? A month? A year? Almost your whole life? At what ages? In what country?

If you have lived under communism for any length of time, I'm surprised that you don't have a visceral revulsion to letting government take progressively more and more of your earnings to give them to someone else who may not be working at all, or to spread around within the bureaucracy itself. I'm surprised that you feel comfortable with "redistributive justice" -- a phrase Obama throws around freely as his goal for America, whether to be achieved through the courts, Congress, or some other means.

Please tell me about your experience with communism -- whether it was brief or long-term -- and perhaps we can begin to find common ground - Gina Cobb]

[Brad]

Hello Ms. Cobb,
I am a high school student writing an essay about the disadvantages of redistribution of wealth and have found your blog to be extremely helpful. I am wanting to cite you in my essay, but I am just wondering..who exactly are you? haha..do you have some college degree that I could mention about you, or anything would be very helpful!
If you could please e-mail me whatever you would like me to include, it would be much appreciated. Please send e-mails to shssnare001@aol.com or if you would like to simply respond on here, that would be okay as well.
Thanks!

[Gina Cobb]

Brad, I am an American lawyer with an educational background in economics. (I studied macroeconomics and microeconomics at the university level and a little bit more in law school).

If you want to include one or two sources with more impressive credentials in economics, such as degrees in economics (and I recommend it if you are citing sources for this paper), you might want to include something by Dr. Walter Williams, a professor of economics who often writes on topics like these. Here's a link to one of his articles, "An Explanation for Third World Poverty": http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3770 (Dr. Williams predicted in 2004 what is happening in Zimbabwe today -- he foresaw that redistributing the farms to black famers would not solve the problems of Zimbabwe.)

Dr. Thomas Sowell is another extremely well-credentialed professor of economics who would be a terrific source for you. Just using Google right now, I couldn't find a recent article in which he discussed land redistribution in Zimbabwe and how it contributed to the country's current famine, but there may well be something out there that I didn't find in 5 or 10 minutes. Of course, if your paper is due tomorrow or really soon, just skip Dr. Sowell and perhaps cite to something Dr. Walter Williams has written, and be sure to mention that he's a professor of economics.

Coincidentally, both Dr. Williams and Dr. Sowell are African-American. There are many other great economists and political scientists out there who have also written extensively on these topics.

Good luck to you. Keep in mind that your teacher's political beliefs may affect the grade he or she gives you. That's always true for assignments that are graded at least partly subjectively (based on opinion). Whether you let it affect your choice of what to write is up to you.

Whatever you write, it's always helpful to sprinkle a few things you know your teacher will like into your essay, if you can fit in something that goes with your topic. Think about things he or she has taught you so far this year and try to work one or two of them into your essay if they fit.

Best wishes - Gina Cobb

[Brad]

Thank you so much! I will do some more research on the guys you mentioned!
Thanks!