It is not surprising that those who have worked hard, made sacrifices, saved money, started businesses and made payrolls would frown on the idea of a presidential candidate actually boasting that he plans to raise their taxes, if elected, in order to give tax breaks to those who make less money. But it is a little frightening to think that there are so many people on the other side who covet their neighbor's bank account.
The writer thinks it's frightening that so many people have their hands out. But what can we expect from society, when leftists have so deeply permeated our educational system and planted socialist theory into the masses' heads, for so long? Would we expect anything else, when those very same educators have romanticized the tale of Robin Hood and elevated it to one of the more prominent places in the world of illustrative metaphors. It now ranks with FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, as required lesson material.
The scarier part of this is, the inability of the Robin wannabes to have the moral courage to define rich:
And what's the cut-off for the tax cuts? No one knows, because Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, can't settle on a figure. First, it was said that only wage-earners who earned more than $250,000 annually would have their taxes raised. Then Obama, in an interview, lowered the figure to $200,000. Then Biden, in a speech, lowered it to $150,000. Luckily, this campaign is ending. Or we might be headed for a situation where anyone earning more than poverty level gets a tax increase.
Think this is worrisome and confusing? Let's take a look at this.
For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.
The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.
Don't believe it? Here it is:
So much confusion. So little consensus on definition of terms. How can anyone trust these people, when they do not display any consistency in such an important matter?
But beyond the absurdity of this "so-called" noble notion of taking from the rich to give to the poor, lies the underlying message of Robin Hood and how it has been used as a Marxist teaching tool, erroneously. Even fiscal conservatives sometimes do not fully understand the message. The truth is, they use a skewed analogy to promote or oppose wealth redistribution.
Robin Hood's chief target was the money belonging to Prince John , who was the mythical, economically-despotic monarch, better known as the government. He had asserted his power through a coup and wanted to tax the hell out of his new royal subjects, regardless of their wealth. But instead, he kept the money.
Instead of targeting hard working entrepreneurs that worked and risked to make their money, Robin concentrated his efforts against those that benefited from that excessive taxation. Any revenues destined for the royal till, was fair game.
If anything, there is an analogy to be had here. But it's not the one the leftist school teaching community has been successful in sowing, among the fertile fields known as our children's minds. It's the coup, the excessive taxation for government expenditures, and the blatant arrogance in doing it. And it is my firm belief, the real Robin Hood would have targeted an Obama administration as well.
I cannot deny to myself in any way, a vote for Obama is a vote for Prince John. The next problem that will need to be solved is, who will be the Robin Hood? Honestly, I don't know why I should even have to worry about this, because it would stand to reason that most Americans do not want this kind of life.