Don’t be enamored to quickly by “change.” Barak represents those in a long line of liberal socialists. His call for “change” is nothing of the sort. It may be a change from our current system, but what I mean is that it is nothing “new.”
From an economic standpoint, he is calling for an internal redistribution of Americas wealth. If redistribution is the way America wants to go, that is fine…it is the beauty of a democracy. But people must realize what this means. It is not simply a matter of fixing our current crisis, but placing ourselves under an entirely different type of government sanctioned economic situation which causes “opportunity” to function under the umbrella of a new paradigm. Obama wants to decide who is rich and who is poor. If you are too successful, then you will be punished.
This may sound attractive to the poor. Why wouldn’t it? If you cannot afford health-care, if you cannot pay your mortgage, if you cannot find a job, then the government will take from those who can to provide for you. The government ends up being the hero! Right? Well there are a more than a few major problems with this direction. Let me describe a couple
1. The motive of the labor force will be quit limited. People are motivated by success. There is nothing wrong with this, biblically or otherwise. This does not amount to greed. Even in the Scriptures, we are told to seek treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:20). But when wealth is redistributed the old idea that “hard work pays” will no longer be true. The entrepreneur mentality that has made America great will be drowned as people recognize that, if successful, they will be giving a major portion of their success to the government. Very few people will succeed in this type of socialism because they will have no motive to do so. We will eventually have to reinvent our popular description of America from “The Land of Opportunity” to “The Land of government sanctioned equality.”
2. Less productivity will eventually create an economic collapse, relatively speaking. America is the strongest nation in the world for many reasons, but, economically speaking, it all starts with the labor force and their motives for success. With the motives gone, their will be much less productivity and, hence, less revenue to redistribute.
I am not a rich person (relatively speaking), so I have nothing to lose by ascribing to a plan of wealth redistribution. In fact, I will gain, financially speaking, for a time. Rich people will be suffering on my account. They will have to pay more so that I can pay less. There would be less risk involved in my life. I could rest in the comforts that the government will take care of me and my family if I encounter a personal economic crisis. If I lose my health-care, I can be sure that my children will be taken care of.
But the pragmatic gains of such a system do not give me any comfort, hope, or motivation. Why? Because my financial success or failure is none of the governments business. It is not the government’s job to take from others to give to me. I am not in partnership with the government.
Motivation must be kept in tact if we are to prosper as a nation. There is no way around it. The work force must have a reason to use their gifts in a way that provides hope for success. The government is not our economic savior. . . the solution is and continues to be a motivated work-force.
When you go to the polls, you are not just deciding on a change in the type of government, but a change in a type of country. Is this the “change” you really want?