Regardless of your politics, you really should be uncomfortable with President Obama’s tendency to demarcate the wealthy and the poor in America. Demonizing or otherwise creating an ‘us vs. them‘ mentality really isn’t good for the country or the political atmosphere overall. It can lead to some of the less self-disciplined among us to act on those feelings of envy and jealousy.
Granted, this is an isolated incident. However, if you repeatedly drill into people that their lot in life isn’t what it should be due to someone else’s success, you will inevitably see revenge and envy crimes increase.
(NBC Connecticut) — A teenager crashed a stolen car in Middletown on Friday after joyriding and nearly hitting pedestrians as he led an officer in a pursuit, police said.
When asked why he took the car, Kenneth Hofler, 18, of Middletown, told police that “the owner of the car was rich” and that “anyone with more money than him was rich,” police said in a news release.
Sifting Reality 
It all goes back to the violation of the commandment to not covet.
Funny how that is
People were stealing staplers and printer paper from work (“because corporations are rich and can afford it”) long before President Obama took office. There have always been people who think that rich people can afford to ahve things taken away from them- and this isn’t going to change under a Mitt Romney Presidency.
You are grasping at straws here John. Any President who cares about America is going to have to talk about the problem of wealth inequity. Period.
George. I see the point you’re trying to make. However there is an ideological difference between what motivates someone to take a stapler or ream of paper home because the company they work for makes a lot of money, and a someone who says ‘I’m gojng to steal from THAT guy because he makes more money than I do”.
This president isn’t addressing ‘income inequality’, he is intentionally pitting classes of people against one another for political gain.
I really get amused over this liberal “income inequality” claim. IT is nothing but an “‘argument without argument.” Just what is “income equality”? That everyone should have the same income? That we should prevent people from having more than a certain amount of money? That we should force employers to raise their wages to some arbitrary amount?
There never has been, nor will there ever be, “income equality.” It is a fact of life that not everyone has “skill equality” or “experience equality” or “ability equality” or even a “zeal for earning money equality.” That’s the problem with the left – they want everyone to be equal in everything even though it is a complete impossibility. And if someone is better off financially that someone else, well that’s just “income inequality.”
Another reason I can’t stand liberals. They have no common sense.
The easiest way to describe it is liberals want equal outcome regardless of abilities or circumstances, while conservatives want equal opportunity. Everyone has the same opportunities. However there’s a difference between equal opportunity and ease of success.
“Any President who cares about America is going to have to talk about the problem of wealth inequity. Period.”
Indeed, any American President who cares about individual freedom should remind the malcontents in this country that they are not entitled to other people’s property, and that if “wealth inequity” is a problem, it’s a problem where the cure is far worse than the disease. The only possible solution is the confiscation and redistribution of private property, and that solution both entails a far greater concentration of power than anything seen in the free market AND results in economic disaster where the incentives to thrift and productivity are crippled if not completely destroyed.
Churchill was right: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
The free market’s vice is far better than the virtues of any alternative.