This glaringly Republican blog entry on the RedState discusses Obama's proposed taxation of people with incomes over $250,000. He's writing mainly to Republican readers on this topic, and appeals to his readers that are making more that $250,000 a year. And for all his passion on the topic, he words things poorly, and has a few punctuation/spelling errors. But he has some good things to say.
His argument is basically that the proposed taxation on incomes of over $250,000 a year is unfair. The author says that he makes just over $250 a week in his job, and this would put him just over minimum wage, so it is obviously not a biased view. His reasoning is that $250,000 is not enough to own a "penthouse in Manhattan" or "roll around in a drop top Caddy", in essence, it's not enough to be living the good life that most people associate with the richest people in the world. Making this much every year doesn't make you wealthy enough to tax, because there isn't as much excess as one might think. While the author is very much for supporting the homeless and poor, he does not think it should be at the cost of a forced taxation of the more wealthy of society. He does not believe that the government's role is to enforce social and economic justice.
His arguments are pretty sound, and when you boil it down, have mainly to do with the purpose of government. Is it the government's job to support the less fortunate? Especially at the cost of it's citizens who are taxed because they make more than the average American? The author believes that social and economic justice should be achieved by community service and organizations, not by the government, and I partially agree. A point that the author partially makes, and that I would make my main point in any discussion on this issue, is that our government was founded on the ideals of free capitalism and government by the people. I believe that the main thing that has made our government and nation so strong is that we were and are very much an industrial nation, built on the principles of free market. When you take the wealth that individuals and corporations have made because of this system and distribute it to those who don't have as much, for the purpose not of bettering the state of society but of equalizing the playing field, I would say that you are destroying one of the main things that has made our nation strong. His closing statement is this, and I think it's a good way to end his rant, and I think it exemplifies his post pretty well (spelling errors and good ideas):
Let’s get smart about how we go about the dialogue to help the less fortunate. I’m a Republican second and an activist first and foremost. I will always fight for the voiceless and ensure their freedom to prosper not be compromised by a all to often deceitful government that wishes to control their lives.
