REM It's the End of the World as We Know it (and I Feel Fine) - sorry, no embedding.
So now we have Obama as, arguably, the leader of the free world (or at least he will be in about 50 days when he's sworn in.)
Almost immediately the negativity began. "His plans will never work", "he doesn't know what he's doing", "It's the end of the world as we know it!".
I say, GREAT! The world as it is right now is pretty broken. If this is the end of the world as we know it, then I look forward to the new one.
Please, stop emailing me how Obama's policies are the equivalent of Socialism (which you go on to define as slavery). Stop telling me how the letters in Obama's name are the numerical equivalent of '666' (I've heard the same thing about every President since Reagan).
You know, there is one that's really gotten under my skin. A good, well meaning, friend of mine drew the parallel between Obama's plans and an elderly neighbor who needs her lawn mowed. Basically, Obama is going to take your money and give it to someone to mow her lawn. And if you don't give the money you go to jail. The conclusion is that's that's wrong and you should be allowed to keep your money. Ok, but what about the old lady? The reason we have to find someone to mow her lawn is because no one is going to offer to do it for free. What if it's not her lawn, but what if she needs life saving medicine? Are you going to step up and pay for it for her?
The reason we HAVE to "spread the wealth" (for lack of a better term) is that those who have the wealth have chose to hoard it instead of spend it. The economic policies of the last 8 years were born in the Reagan years. The idea is that you give tax breaks to wealthy corporations (like the oil industry), they take the money they don't spend on taxes and pass it along to their employees, in turn their employees spend it, thereby helping retailers who in turn help their employees and so on. The wealth "trickles down". The problem is, there was no trickling. And now we have basically eliminated the middle class by causing a rift between the rich who kept their tax breaks and the employees who are not making a living wage. There was no "trickle down" for disposable income so the money they do make goes toward food, rent, utilities, and the very basics.
Now I know this is an extreme example, since here in the US poverty is defined by whether you can afford the Premium package for your satellite TV or have to settle for the Basic. But the reality is there are some people out there that are desperately in need. That old lady needs her lawn mowed probably because she has no family, she really is in need of life saving medicine, and her neighbors avoid her.
Hence the government has to intervene on her behalf. Yea, it means higher taxes and more government programs and so on. But guess what? If someone had stepped up and helped take care of her, the government wouldn't have to get involved.
All of this could have been avoided. The Christian life is an example of what would happen if everyone would voluntarily "spread the wealth". Before I get off on this rant, let me be the first to say that I am the biggest hypocrite in this area and in no way am I claiming to be any kind of example. That being said, what would happen if everyone would suddenly stop worrying about how much wealth they have for themselves and start looking out for their neighbor? What if those who could went and bought food for all the lonely widows in the neighborhood and made sure they always had their medicine and their lawns mowed? What if instead of having real estate just because you can, you sell that land and give the money to the homeless guys who dig through your garbage looking for cans?
Bring on the End of the World as we Know it. I feel fine.