Barack Obama wants to play the role of Socialist Robin hood, by stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor. He wants to levy new taxes on oil companies for making too much money. He wants to raise income taxes on those earning more than $250,000. He wants to raise the capital-gains and dividends taxes on the wealthiest Americans. He also wants to raise corporate taxes. Why does Obama want tax hikes on job-creating businesses? Because he has no understanding of economics.
Has anyone noticed that Obama wants to involve himself in a massive wealth redistribution scheme? Redistribution of wealth is a Socialist idea. In the Socialist mind, the rich are evil and greedy, and because so much wealth is in their possession, it cannot be in the possession of the poor. Therefore, a brave and heroic person must step forward and become the voice of the poor and oppressed, and must shout to the rich bullies, "Stop being so greedy! Share your wealth! Give it away, or I it shall be taken from you!"
Very few people seem to understand that Robin Hood was not a hero. He was a thief, a robber, a crook. His main characteristic was not an overwhelming sense of altruism, but an overwhelming sense of vanity. For had he truly been altruistic, he would have given to the poor all that he owned. Yet, Robin Hood did no such thing; he gave to the poor all that other people owned. There is nothing heroic or admirable about that. He was a criminal in really gay clothing.
So what does this have to do with Obama? Obama is a Democrat, and Democrats have a socialist mindset. They believe in the fairy tale called Marxism. They believe in the mythology of Socialism. They believe that the rich are evil, and only good for giving money to the Democratic Party. No one should have more than anyone else, for that would be unfair. Of course, the Democrats are just like Robin Hood; they are more than willing to hand out other people's money.
So what will the Democrats do with all the money they will steal from the People through taxation? They intend to "help the People" by giving it back to them--in the form of social programs that encourage laziness, discourage entrepreneurship and promote dependence on the State for all necessities (Nanny State economics). The Democrats want to punish people for being successful, for working hard, for being entrepreneurial, and for believing in free market ideas and individualism that discourage dependence on the Nanny State.
The Democrats have no real knowledge of economics. Believing in Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Keynesian economics makes one economically stupid.
So what will be the result of an Obama presidency? By taxing job-creating businesses, many businesses will stay alive by shedding their dead weight--unskilled workers and non-productive workers who are already being paid more than they are worth because of the socialist minimum wage law. Either businesses will shut down due to unnecessary expenditures forced upon them by government--resulting in lost jobs and unemployment, or these businesses will fire people just to stay afloat--resulting in lost jobs and unemployment, or they will outsource their job openings overseas, where a wage far below the American minimum-by-law is higher than what a foreigner would make in his own country. This, of course, would result in lost jobs and unemployment. Do you see a pattern here?
Either way, Obama will "help" average working Americans by getting them fired. Way to go, Mr. O! And don't think Hillary would have done anything different. She's also a Democrat who harbors the same socialist ideology.
But don't they know any better, one may ask? Not really. Aren't Americans aware of all this? Unfortunately, most Americans are economically stupid as well, and those who know better can't seem to get into power (e.g. Ron Paul). So, why do Democrats insist on sticking to their failed ideology? Easy, because their ideology requires a government with more power, and they like power. But won't it ruin the economy, and make it worse than it already is?
To twist a famous phrase: It's a Democrat thing. You wouldn't understand.