Poster Child For Obama's Injustice

In order to make his political points, Obama has trotted out one sob story after another, many of which turned out to be untrue.  He talks about redistribution and more justice in the tax code but I have a poster child of my own to display.  This is a person who represents everything that this country is supposed to be about and I ask you to make your own determination of whether Obama's policies are fair to her.

Let's call her Jane.

Jane is 29 years old and has worked hard her entire life.  She recently completed 2 different masters degrees at 2 different colleges in 2 different states simultaneously.  She did all this while holding down a job AND serving in the National Guard.  Nobody handed her the education, she worked her butt off for it for years after making the decision to improve her life.  Compare her to John who partied all the way through high school, has no ambition beyond his minimum wage job at which he does just enough to get by.  Instead of working to improve his situation he spends his free time out partying with friends or playing Nintendo.

Each of these two made their own decisions about what their life would be as each was free to do.  Now I ask you this, is it fair for Jane to have to pay taxes while John does not?  Is it fair that Jane now has to subsidize John's medical insurance?  Is it fair that Jane has to subsideze John's grocery bill through food stamps?  Is it fair that Jane's hard work will now fund John's apathy?

Is this really what we call justice in this country?

And yes, Jane actually exists.

Obamanomics Applied to Real Life

I've listened to Obama discuss his idea of ecnomics and fairness over and over again.  I think I understand but you tell me.  The easiest way for me to explain it is with ananologies.

There are 3 neighbors; Person A, Person B and Person C.  They all started out the year with the same job and the same salary. 

Person A plods along doing what they need to do but not striving to excel.  They live paycheck to paycheck and spend everything they make, saving nothing.

Person B works really hard, does as much overtime as possible, makes wise investments and spends only what's needed as they save for their dream vacation to Europe.

Person C plods along like person A, but also decides to spend all of their money on lottery tickets and lives off their credit cards.  They fall behind in their credit card payments and their mortgage.

Under Obamanomics Person B should pay Person C's credit cards and mortgage.  After all, if they can afford a trip to Europe they can afford Person C's mortgage.  If the three go out to dinner, Person B should pay for the meal for all of them.  Again, if they can afford a trip to Europe then they can afford the meal.  If they go to dinner separately, Person A should pay a low tax on their meal, Person C should pay no tax on their meal and Person C should pay a high tax on their meal.  They can afford it so why shouldn't they pay?

In the end, Persons A and C still plod along and save nothing while Person B has to cancel their trip to Europe due to a serious lack of funds.  The rule of Obamanomics, Person B is buggered.

Please let me know if I got this wrong.