I heard the term “immoral profits” today from Nancy Pelosi in reference to the insurance companies’ financials and it floored me. I have never heard two words put side by side that don’t deserve it more in my life. In fact, I’m not even sure I know exactly what that means when you look at the words individually. I do; however, know what she is attempting to convey and it is something that is at the crux of the liberal mindset.
We’ve heard this type of talk for months now – it’s always been around, but Obama has made it mainstream. In terms like “spread the wealth” and new taxes for only those that make over $200k. The message is that people (and organizations) that make a lot of money should feel guilty because there are a ton of people that don’t and the rich should give all of their money away to help elevate the financial status of the poor and we should all have basically the same.
Any capitalists out there? Hello! You should be IRATE at this because you know that the reason people (and most organizations) amass wealth is because somewhere, somebody found the goods/services they offered to be valuable and are willing to part with some of their hard-earned money to acquire it. In a capitalistic society – innovation (doing it better, cheaper, faster than your competition) drives profits and if left alone, you either challenge the big dog in your market or you go out of business. Since the beginning, more chose to challenge than go home and the result of this effort is the greatest nation on the planet. Competition, not government intervention is the key to making sure the markets stay (and remain) reasonable.
Take Apple for example. Did they create the first portable music player – no, but the iPod has blown all others away and is now synonymous with portable music. How did that happen? Innovation. Apple developed better hardware (sleek, sexy) and a better interface (simple, functional) and then made it affordable. That’s innovation and it has made Apple a literal TON OF CASH. Are their profits immoral? Of course not.
So what makes insurance companies profits immoral? Nancy would say it’s because they deny claims to sick people to protect those profits. Profiting while people suffer when something can be done about it. I guess that is the immoral part of the term.
The problem with demonizing profits in this way is that there isn’t a clear-cut delineation of where profits could be considered moral. Would any profit be OK? Who gets to decide? Turn on the TV and you’ll find the answer. Obama, Pelosi, Reid – they get to decide, or they are trying. They want to use these terms to make you think that the redistribution of wealth from those that have it to those that don’t is the moral high ground and anyone that doesn’t agree needs to be shut down or taken over.
Just watch out for the references – “big oil”, “big banks”, “big medical”, “big insurance”, etc. Most of us don’t make enough money to be personally affected, but our employers do. Most of us don’t need to be concerned about being in the top tax bracket and having our wealth stolen to support more and more programs that don’t work. But I think we all want to know that the possibility for financial independence is obtainable. Allow the liberal politicians to have their way and you can kiss that dream goodbye.
Your voice and your vote are the only tools you have to affect change in this country. Write, talk, send smoke signals – whatever it takes to send a clear message to Washington that you want profits to be encouraged, not demonized; less, not more taxes; less, not more government intervention; and to SLOW DOWN the amount of change being introduced. How can they tell what works when they are changing hundreds of variables at the same time? They can’t,so perhaps…just perhaps, they aren’t interested in actually fixing anything…chew on that one for a bit…