Santelli: “How can we redistribute wealth if there is no wealth?”

posted at 7:21 pm on January 16, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The headline at RCP jumped out at me, not merely because of the refreshing general truth of it, but because I highlighted the very quote that CNBC’s Santelli is paraphrasing in my post last night about Socialist French President Francois Hollande’s long-overdue semi-acknowledgement that he needs to hit reverse on some of his fiscal- and business-related policies if France is going to have any chance of shaking off its stubbornly lingering economic lethargy. As Santelli notes, much of Europe has been struggling through “recoveries” even slower than ours has been, with much bigger unemployment rates and much smaller economic growth rates — and one does wonder why the Obama administration is so blindly insistent upon neglecting these European countries’ apt examples and instead following them into the economic abyss of ever-expanding government spending and intervention.

First of all, we understand it’s not only in America. There are a lot of hardworking people around the globe who would like to work who are having problems finding work. It seems to be a skill mismatch but maybe that’s oversimplified. But no matter how you slice it, the main issue is, after five years, it’s pretty hard to call these programs ‘emergency spending programs’ and if we’re going to extend the amount of benefit you get with regard to unemployment insurance to be a new entitlement, we need to be more honest about it. I understand. But it really isn’t and shouldn’t be a stopgap measure, maybe it’s something we need to put in the budget as whole and change everything. Why? Because if what the president said is true, if just throwing money at this is good for the economy, then I challenge him to look at the extreme viewpoint in this regard from François Hollande, the president of France, a Socialist, who has tried everything the president is talking about and now is throwing up the red flag. The Journal story today, here’s what President François Hollande said: How can we run the country if entrepreneurs don’t hire? And how can we redistribute wealth if there is no wealth?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Take the Lootery from the destitute, and Trickle it Up,
to the Poor, and then……(sarc)

canopfor on January 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM

All of that assumes that Obama wants America to be wealthy and prosperous.
There is zero evidence to support that and mucho evidence to prove the opposite.
Obama is here to manage our decline.
He thinks we have been on top too long and it is time for other nations to rise.
Super power to a second power.

NeoKong on January 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Answer: You prime the pump with Fed Monopoly money, bubble the stock market and increase wealth for those able to afford investing, then tax the ever-lovin’ crap out of them to help pay for the rapidly increasing low-incomers. At least until the point when the bubble breaks. Then, repeat.

BKeyser on January 16, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Just tell Janet to keep that ole Fed Money machine running on high. That’ll fix it for sure.

JimK on January 16, 2014 at 7:32 PM

But the Europeans don’t have Hopium. We do.

Cicero43 on January 16, 2014 at 7:32 PM

It’s not really spread the wealth, it is spread the misery. Lower everybody’s standard of living. And he’s doing a bang-up job.

tru2tx on January 16, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Hmm. If we’re going for literary references, Obama always seemed more like Rufus T. Firefly than Ozymandias.

As in, “If you think this country’s bad off now, just wait til I get through with it.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 16, 2014 at 7:36 PM

When the Iron Curtain fell and the USSR dissolved some die hard apologists for that system defended it in part by saying “well at least we were all poor together.”

These marxists won’t be happy until we are all poor (excepting themselves, of course.)

rbj on January 16, 2014 at 7:43 PM

“How can we redistribute steal wealth if there is no wealth?”

Call it what it is: THEFT!

ShainS on January 16, 2014 at 7:48 PM

He can spread poverty like Pol Pot.

Murphy9 on January 16, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Any program of gubmint to be deemed successful must by definition self terminate. It will have cured the ill it was designed to fix.

But they never end. They always fail. Then socialism creeps in throwing more money at it.

Until there isn’t any more money. Just a morass of bankrupt social programs.

They don’t grow the pie. They bake it at 450° for 50 years. Until it’s a lump of charcoal.

wolly4321 on January 16, 2014 at 7:54 PM

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.~Margaret Thatcher

davidk on January 16, 2014 at 7:58 PM

I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.~Margaret Thatcher

davidk on January 16, 2014 at 8:03 PM

If we would only hang all the traitors, we would simultaneously solve the unemployment problem and stimulate the heck out of a domestic hemp industry.

Adjoran on January 16, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Take the Lootery from the destitute

canopfor on January 16, 2014 at 7:26 PM

That reminds me – I need to buy some lootery tickets…

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Thank you, 52% or whatever it was.

And about redistribution, whatever problem you fix by distributing (someone else’s wealth to it) you will ensure more of that problem. In this case demand for free money goes to where the supply is.

freedomfirst on January 16, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Or, to quote one of the last great world leaders: Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

But then, I suppose she never met Bernacke.

worldtvlr on January 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

davidk on January 16, 2014 at 8:03 PM

To add to that Margaret Thatcher citation, I note that socialist-oriented nations (and communist ones, for sure) do not respect an individual’s right to property. The self-appointed “fixers” assume that their role is to reallocate what belongs to the individual into one stew pot and divide it as they see fit.

There is no respect for the individual (“You didn’t build that!”) and thus nor respect for the individual’s rights or property.

onlineanalyst on January 16, 2014 at 9:47 PM

And the lottery is a tax on the stupid.

onlineanalyst on January 16, 2014 at 9:48 PM

How about rather than “redistributing wealth” we generate some? Or are only Obysmal cronies the favored class?

onlineanalyst on January 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Bring back the little Red Book. It may be time to start hoarding toilet paper.

Viator on January 17, 2014 at 5:55 AM

Is Obama deliberately screwing up our country or is he a supremely incompetent president? It is an old question, but have not settled on an answer.

steveracer on January 17, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Is Obama deliberately screwing up our country or is he a supremely incompetent president? It is an old question, but have not settled on an answer.

steveracer on January 17, 2014 at 6:43 AM

Obama and many of his philosophical peers believe that, compared to the rest of the world, America is too wealthy, too secure, too influential.

Is it a coincidence that America is now less wealthy, less secure and less influential? That is a good question.

shinty on January 17, 2014 at 6:52 AM