Obamatipping Your Waiter: Contrairimairi's Brother's Reply

Contrairimairi (also h/t Dan Friedman) just forwarded a post from the legendary blogger Doug Ross, based on an Eagle Tribune letter, about what I will call an "Obama-tip", that is, giving your waiter's tip to a homeless person because "it's good to spread the wealth around."

The following is from the Doug Ross post:

>Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

May have to try this next time I'm out on the town. And be packing I might add.

DH

Contrairimairi's Brother Replies:

>The guy did right (by Obama's measure) not to give the tip to the server, but he shouldn't have given $10 to the homeless guy outside. No, no, no! He *should* have sent it to his senator or congress critter so that they could take $8 of it first for "overhead" and "campaign modernization". The resulting $2 should have been sent to a local socialist group, who could send out their own damn street walkers to find the homeless folks, keeping $1 for each walker, and giving the homeless guy $1. Maybe.

The advantage of this approach is that (besides being much more realistic), it keeps the bulk of the money in the hands of the needy fat cats who can really use it, say, to get elected, and for the socialist street walkers who are burning up valuable shoe rubber. The homeless guy doesn't need as much and so shouldn't get as much. He also wasn't burning up shoe leather. Let him go find an old pair of Florsheims in the nearest dumpster. With $1, he can even get a "meal" at McDonalds - or at least a drink to wash down whatever he gets out of the dumpster along with the old shoes.