- Israel hits symbols of Hamas rule; scores killed
- Mississippi abortion law can’t be enforced
- Teacher who survived Sandy Hook has book deal
- Jury awards Jesse Ventura $1.8M in case vs. ‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle
- Middle Eastern firm’s deal to manage U.S. cargo port raises security concerns
- Bob McDonnell’s defense: Lonely wife developed ‘crush’ on CEO
- Chinese hackers stole ‘huge quantities’ of sensitive data on Israel’s Iron Dome
- House Republicans unveil bill to speed deportations of border children
- Californians protest middle school for hiring white man to teach cultural studies
- Killer’s sentencing overturned because mother couldn’t find seat in courtroom
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Fewer wealthy wouldn’t mean less poverty
Question of the Day
For more than five years, our president has failed to ignite economic growth with his spending, regulating and taxing policies. Initially, he and his lemmings were able to blame President George W. Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, all the while the current administration has been turning down the drivers of economic growth with excessive financial and environmental regulations, and the passage of Obamacare. The result has been a stagnant economy, chronic unemployment, the lowest labor-force participation rate in 40 years and a country drowning in debt.
Not to worry, though. Democrats and the big-government crowd have a new mantra. Having failed to convince the public that social justice and universal health care were the policies to save America, they will attempt to distract and deceive us into believing that income and wealth inequality are at the root of all of America’s problems.
I can hardly wait for President Obama to tell us how unfair it is that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people. What he won’t tell us is that there is no relationship between the two groups.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game; if the top 85 lost their wealth, the 3.5 billion would very likely remain poor. Wealth is created, which means that large numbers of the 3.5 billion could exit poverty without the top 85 becoming less wealthy.
Nor will Mr. Obama tell us that most (if not all) of these 85 created their wealth via free enterprise while simultaneously creating millions of jobs and income for millions of people. Can anyone say that Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or others in the top 85 have stymied economic growth? No.
Unfortunately, our president will not seek the creation of wealth by unburdening the free-enterprise system. Instead, he will ask for confiscation of wealth for redistribution through Obamacare and public-assistance programs.
Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.
About the Author
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Reject any legislation dubbed 'comprehensive'
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Media are complicit in Hamas' tactics
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Gazans should help defeat Hamas
- EDITORIAL: The impeachment trap
- EDITORIAL: Illegal aliens in the shadows? What shadows?
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- McCLAUGHRY: Finish off the "Islamic State" quickly and cheaply
- Obama's brother wears Hamas scarf bearing anti-Israel slogans in photo
- Boehner rules out impeachment: 'Scam started by Democrats'
- Obama: 'Not a new Cold War,' but new Russia sanctions announced
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- HUSAIN: Fleeing Iraqi Christians find safe haven at the Shrine of Imam Ali
- White House says Russia 'losing' war in Ukraine