Why punish the rich to fund failed government???

Here's a question posed to me at work yesterday: Why is it that the rich have to pay for government programs that don't even benefit them? Where in the Constitution does it say that some of us have to take on a greater burden of the government debt?

Or, worded a better way, why is it that the rich have to pay a greater share of wasteful government programs? What did the rich do to be forced to pay for out of control government spending?

All the evidence shows that people in the upper middle class and the rich create 75% of the jobs in this country. They are the same who keep the economy rolling (when it is rolling) by investing in new equipment and expanding their businesses and creating new jobs. Yet we have certain people in Washington who force them to pay for bad debt they did not create.

The rich people who own and mange businesses do what needs to be done to keep their businesses afloat. They move their businesses to areas of lower taxes, such as what happened to many industries in Michigan. Taxes and regulations are so high here that business leaders decided to go across the boarder to Indiana or Ohio.

Likewise, some businesses are sending jobs overseas because the cost of running shop in other countries is less than, say, in Michigan. That's what Rick Snyder did to keep his business alive. Democrats criticize him for sending jobs overseas. Yet others hail him for doing what was necessary to keep his business open.

There's this old saying that government does not create wealth, all it does is destroy it. And by taxing the rich and creating programs that make more people dependent on the government is a perfect example of destroying wealth.

If you tax the rich, or threaten to tax them more (which is what is happening with the Bush tax cuts) all this results in is ticking off the job creators. And that is exactly why this recession we are in is not going to go away until those running Washington get with the program and realize what I'm writing about in this post.

Those in Washington should not be discussing who should get tax cuts and who should not (and usually it's the rich they say should not). The Constitution does not say we can take away the freedoms of some and not others. And when we take money from the people and decide how that money is going to be spent instead of the person who earned it, this is taking away freedom.

And it used to be that we would die before we gave up our freedom, or the freedom of others. Now we intentionally take it. That's what it's come down to now here in the U.S.

Where is the economic theory that proclaims that the best way to improve an economy is to punish those who achieve and who create jobs and create opportunities for wages to increase? Where is that theory? Is it Keynesian economics? Is that the theory?

Well, progressives like Obama and FDR follow Keynesian economics. So it's progressives who have created their own theory to improve the economy, yet it doesn't improve the economy: it destroys the economy.

And why would they do that? Why would a President of the U.S. intentionally destroy the economy and lie to us and say he is trying to fix it? Hmmmm. Perhaps he wants to destroy it so he can come to us and say: I have the solution, and it's called a New World Order.