Friday, January 6, 2012

Fair Share…What’s Fair About It???

Fair Share…What’s Fair About It???
Louis Lazarus

We’ve all heard the term “pay your fair share” so many times since Obama took office that we’re sick to death of hearing him say this. A day doesn’t go by where this fake president doesn’t insinuate that millionaires and billionaires aren’t “paying their fair share”. We hear it and yet we don’t bother to challenge the idea. We allow a man who hasn’t a clue what the meaning of “fair” really is dictate to us what his lame ideas are. We know deep down inside there is something drastically wrong with his thinking but we can’t put our finger on it. Maybe it is time we try. Let’s use our brains and think a bit out of the box. “Pay your fair share. Pay your fair share.” Doesn't it really depend on what the true meaning of "fair share" really is? Obama defines it people paying more (a larger percentage) of what they earn than poor people. It is his contention that a person who works very hard and is successful be penalized for that success. He says that is fair. He claims that because someone else wasn’t quite so successful or lucky, it just isn’t fair. This comes from his crazy notion that the government should really get all your money and only allow you to keep what they feel is “fair”. The country was founded on the principle ideas of life, liberty and property and somehow, liberals have mucked it all up to the point where property (wealth) is not something you really are entitled to. They are also busily working on depriving you of the other two.

You have been lucky and the guy next to you hasn’t. It really doesn’t matter to people like Obama if you get up at the crack of dawn and work 16-hour days, 7 days a week while the other guy sleeps until 11 a.m. and doesn’t work at all. It should be “share and share alike”. Seems fair...or does it? Wouldn't it really be fairer if everyone paid exactly...EXACTLY the same amount based on the premise that one man equals one vote? Why should someone who pays zero taxes get the same amount of votes as someone who works very hard and pays a lot of money to fund the lazy man's life? Is that "fair"? Who says so? Fair would be more like someone who pays a lot of taxes gets more votes than someone who pays nothing. Wouldn't that be fairer? Truly, it would. In fact, if we really delve into the conception of this ambiguous word…fair…might we come away with a whole new appreciation for what it really means? From the standpoint of a single person working hard and creating a company, which hires tens, hundreds or even thousands of people as a result of this one man’s effort, wouldn’t the fair thing to do be to reward this person for what he has done? Through his hard work, risk taking and good decision making he has provided jobs for thousands of people… all of whom pay taxes to the federal, state, local and other entities thus enriching all our lives. Instead of thanking this person or rewarding him for his exceptional efforts, Obama and those who think like him want to punish him for his success. Is that really fair? The taxes he directly helped to create, which theoretically provide governmental goods and services for all of us would not be there had this person not achieved extraordinary success through extraordinary effort. Punish him by making him pay more? I think not. That is totally unfair any way you define the word.

The entire reason for our financial collapse is because Democrats defined the word “fair” and we allowed them to do this. We didn’t speak up because we didn’t want to be perceived as mean. Here’s what they did in a nutshell and it was all because they wanted to be “fair”. You’ve heard of the Community Reinvestment Act by now? President Carter signed it into law. It encouraged loans be made available in a safe and sound manner to those people who previously were unfairly eliminated from the housing market. Under Bill Clinton, the law was changed in such a way that it mandated banks to make loans that they would otherwise not make. This created the “housing bubble” as the banks knew these loans would not be paid off so they bundled them together and sold them off as fast as they could so they wouldn’t be left “holding the bag”. Through unscrupulous lending practices, one thing lead to another and this is why we are in such a pickle today. To the liberal mind, everyone is ENTITLED to own a home. It’s the only fair thing to do. It used to be that buying a home was a bit of a challenge unless you had enough money to buy the home outright. If you didn’t, you needed to get a loan from a lending institution. This was called a “mortgage”. The banks made a certain percentage on the money they loaned you and you were thus able to afford to buy a house and pay it off month by month. That payment went on for 30 years and as a rule, you paid off a large percentage of the interest in the first half of the loan and then a larger percent of the principle in the second half of the loan. The banks got most of their money, with profits included, back long before you owned your home. That is fair. They took a risk by loaning you money. They retained the deed to the property and once you fulfilled your obligation and paid off the loan, you were then given the deed and became the owner of the property. This fair concept worked well for years and years and years. Then along came Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Bill Clinton. In an effort to make themselves and their party popular, they devised what was known as The Community Reinvestment Act. In essence, this federal law forced banks to make loans to people who otherwise couldn’t afford to make the payments. After all, everyone should own a home if they wanted to. Right? They are entitled to at least that!! The banks had no choice in the matter. They knew this was a bad thing and in order to protect themselves, they bundled bunches of these “toxic loans” together and sold them to other institutions. The banks knew these loans were destined to fail and they did what any of us would do…they protected their own interest. The original bank was out from under the toxic loan and the new lender simply assumed the loan and all that went with it. Can you see a problem here? Remember, we’re not just talking about one or two houses. We are talking about millions of houses and millions of transactions, which are all doomed to fail because the government forced the lenders to do what they knew they should not ever do. The government forced them to make BAD loans. This created what is known as a “bubble”. What do bubbles eventually do? Yep…they break. Millions and millions of these transactions finally had nowhere to go. Time ran out and the bubble burst. Imagine playing musical chairs on the Titanic. This is what happened. And all of our woes since have been because we didn’t challenge the term “fair”. We accepted it as defined by the liberals. Bad move on our part. Do you think we’ve learned anything?

We have just simply discussed one little problem Democrats are responsible for. We haven’t mentioned all the others. Their ideas don’t work. They’ve never worked. They never will work and yet we allow them to set the agenda. We shouldn’t do that. Doing that is unfair to all of us.

When you accept liberal arguments and let liberals define the terms, you get sucked into their way of thinking which is polluted and toxic. I'd like to see one of our candidates challenge Obama on his ideas.... all of his ideas…instead of accepting his terms and definitions. Maybe it is time we actually used our brains, logic and common sense and took these people to the mat? If we ever did that, it wouldn't be a fair fight at all...would it?


barb p said...

I fully believe you need to earn what you get...and if you don't earn it, it is not yours, plain and simple. No one

should have to pay my way or vice versa!!

David W said...

I'm curious, with Mitt's tax returns being released today, if the left will consider his charitable contributions? The left claims they want "the rich" to contribute more to the "less fortunate" of our society, lets see if they only count these contributions when it passes through the government in the form of taxes. If they don't count his charitable contributions, I think it reduces their argument that the rich should pay more to simply, the government should take more.