Robin Hood, or Just Thief?

I'm angry as my thoughts swirl around concerning the future of health care in this country. Some may think this is not the forum to discuss this type of issue, and for those of you, I suggest you just not read any further.

The idea of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a concept that has been ingrained in our minds to support since we were younger. We have been taught to identify with the Robin Hood character and support his choices, after all, he is the hero in the story. What happens though, when the "Robin Hood" in the story defines rich differently than you or I would-- does he then become the villain?

President Obama has stated publicly that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth-- which is a euphemism for theft. He plans to steal, by levying higher- not new- taxes on individual households, not just big business.

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Free health care sounds great! However, nothing's ever free-- someone is paying for it. In this case, it's the taxpayers... and I don't just mean the super rich... I mean everyone! Currently, Matt and I receive our health care coverage from his company. Right now we have great coverage. It's a benefit, however, next year we will be taxed as though we are receiving extra income. Under Obamacare, individuals who receive health care benefits from their employer (full or partial) will be taxed as though they are actually receiving that money. So without any gains in income, we will be taxed more next year... AND if Matt's company doesn't continue to pay for our health care coverage, they will face penalties under the new law. Here's the kicker.... Matt and I won't be eligible for government health care (where our money is going) for at least 4 years-- if ever!

This country was founded on capistalist views, not Marxist/Socialist/Comunist views. Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."

In vetoing a bill in 1887 that would have appropriated $10,000 in aid for Texas farmers struggling through a drought, Grover Cleveland wrote:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people."

Cleveland went on to point out, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune." Americans proved him right. Those Texas farmers eventually received in private aid more than 10 times what the vetoed bill would have provided. [copied]

“Families in Georgia deserve to have their constitutional rights protected against a federal government that is imposing its will through new mandates. No Georgian should be required to purchase a product defined by the government in exchange for the privilege of citizenship,” said Congressman Tom Price.

I feel powerless to defend my family's hard earned money.

Thou shalt not steal.