welcome to my blog - who gets whose wealth?

Thanks for viewing my first blog.  I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you a little bit about it's purpose. If you see the title, it says "logic in exile."  That means there are times when logical thought takes a vacation in people's minds and illogic takes over- most of the time, actually.  This blog is devoted to exposing that illogic.  In essence, at times logic goes into exile.  Hence, the title of this blog.

I've noticed this in fifteen or so years of researching religion, philosophy, and politics.  For instance, I wrote an essay years ago exposing the faulty arguments of the pro-abortion movement and detailed them at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/abortwr.htm#N_3_  and I've also detailed faulty evolutionist arguments as well at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/foolsus.htm Last, but not the least, I took on several liberal themes at http://webpages.charter.net/jeffstueber/libralsm.htm.  There are plenty of things to criticize everywhere and the "magic" continues with the current Obama administration.

Take for example Obama's suggestion to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."  (http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-tells-tax-burdened-plumber-the-plan-is-to-spread-the-wealth-around/)
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html

This exchange received much press in conservative venues and without a fair listing of the entire conversation, one might not know why this comment came out.  Obama is concerned with bringing up the lower classes by spreading more of the upper class's wealth to them so that there is upward mobility.  So he had more noble goals in mind than conservatives gave him credit for even though this quote reveals a philosophy that is not reasonable. Let's unpack the parts of his argument to expose the issues that we must factor in to figure out what is being said here.

1.  We are dealing with wealth which is, for the most part, money gained by people for doing useful work.
2.  We are dealing with people who need to gain money to give themselves  upward mobility (that is to say ability to buy more and better things).
3.  We are dealing with the taking, through tax policy, of more money from some segments of the population to give to others through tax policy.

Numerous assumptions reveal themselves here.  First, Obama assumes that the taking of one group's money is morally justified.  Let's shift gears here.  I make somewhere between $10 per hour and $15  per hour and them some additional money through a paper route. Through the years I've saved some money up in investments and, of course, have more money than my oldest son who is starting out just as I did in my first job.  Would it be (a) moral for any government offical or organization to take some of my money to give to him to "spread the wealth around" or (b) stimulating to the economy if he spent that money rather than I did? Now it is doubtful that anybody would consider (a) morally appropriate and neither would they suspect that (b) is true either. So why does Obama suppose that this is true unless he has a dogmatic belief that denies people have a moral right to earn their due and believes that economic activity can be enhanced by taking from one group and giving to another?

Second, Obama presumes that the only way for people in the lower classes to move up the progress ladder is by increasing the taxes of those in the upper-income brackets.  Now that has certainly not been true in the past and not true when I was entering the job market (otherwise I would not be in a position where I am now) and it is questionable whether it would be true in the future as long there is economic opportunity for people to create jobs and obtain them.  I've worked jobs where I've been rewarded for hard work and most likely that is true all around the United States.  Hard work creates upward mobility and the ability to save what one earns.  Taking from one group of people to give to another is only rational if (a) it is moral and (b) the economy can be stimulated by doing so which would suppose that the "rich" do not spend their money on activities that could possibly create jobs and lower income people could spend it better than them.  Both are in doubt.

My suspicions are that Obama is not really concerned about the inequity present in our economy as much as creating a climate in which it is proper to take from others.  Since those in the higher incomes are those others are most jealous of, than they are natural targets for confiscatory taxation.