From: Right Wing News
Pay attention to this, because as Monday’s Iowa caucus on the Democrat side shows there are an awful lot of people whose brains are poisoned with Marxist thinking – and American culture and education are rapidly descending into a socialist point of view from which only disaster can result. When Bernie Sanders gets 70 percent of the youth vote in the Democrat Iowa caucus, it’s a problem.
Here’s the meme…
This issue is not a new one. Here was Margaret Thatcher, taking questions in the British Parliament on this precise topic some 26 years ago. At the end of her time as prime minister, she caught a question from a socialist MP from the Labor Party about the increasing gap between rich and poor. And knocked it straight out of the park…
Another way to describe this phenomenon is as follows – the rich, generally speaking, will always make money. They’re rich, in large measure, because they have the skill of moneymaking – either they know how to invest money wisely, they ply a lucrative trade, they own assets which turn out large amounts of revenue, or what have you.
And no matter how awful the economy might be, they will continue to do well. If society collapses and we descend into something out of the Mad Max movies, there will be some enterprising opportunist who will find a water well or an oil derrick somewhere, defend it with guns and make a comfortable living selling his water or oil to those passing by.
For the rest of us, who don’t have great skill in accumulating wealth, it is necessary for a vibrant, growing economy to exist so that we might get ahead. Some of us might become rich off the bountiful opportunities that economy provides, while more of us might become middle and upper-middle class. Others may never acquire the skills or resources to achieve social mobility and better themselves – but that is even more true in a moribund socialistic economy than it is in a vibrant, growing capitalist one.
And history shows that the vibrant, growing capitalist economy is the one in which people volunteer their time and money toward helping those less fortunate. The generation of surplus – whether in goods, services or money – is the key to advancing the cause of the poor. And in a comfortable society the voluntary sharing of that surplus, combined with the conditions of incentive making the sharing of that surplus a good investment – meaning that those helping the less fortunate aren’t just giving a man a fish but insisting on teaching him to fish – is what makes for fewer poor and less of them.
That is a just and honorable society, and not one based in envy.
So the real question is, do you favor the forced redistribution of wealth from those who have the skills and resources to improve their lot to those who lack those skills or their application, or don’t you? If you do, you’re a socialist and you’re part of the problem.