Diet Socialism
A concealed flavor and all the calories ...
Barack Obama has informed the Republicans about his victory, telling them, "I won". I'm not sure how much relevance that has if he was down by 10 points in the polls before the subprime mortgage industry tanked.
The Associalist Press has carried on their verbal love affair with the president, saying that he has avoided making any divisive moves except for allowing government revenues to pay for overseas abortions. As much as the press trys to portray this as a normal Democratic gesture, it is slimy, and millions of babies are being aborted overseas.
Which brings us to the statement Barack made last week, about how abortion is a private family matter. If it is a private family matter, why are public funds being contributed toward it? I don't want my money paying for a stranger's wedding or superbowl party, much less the institutionalized murdering of babies.
I have no regard for this administration, and I have no regret about the money I put toward the losing campaign. Barack, I hope you are swiftly replaced by a leader who takes up the cause of the silent and defenseless.
The deceit of it all is that he claims to be so bipartisan. Today he told Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. See Rush's response here. To me it sounds like he's saying, 'Stop listening to the conservative and start listening to the liberal.' How is that not partisan? How is that not divisive? Are we supposed to think it is only partisan when people listen to Republicans and not Democrats?
Dick Morris has published an excellent Hill piece on the slippery socialist slope Obama has American on track to slide down. He walks a detailed path through his agenda to show how Obama's vision for American ends with America in the socialist chains of Europe. Definitely worth a read.
Barack Obama has informed the Republicans about his victory, telling them, "I won". I'm not sure how much relevance that has if he was down by 10 points in the polls before the subprime mortgage industry tanked.
The Associalist Press has carried on their verbal love affair with the president, saying that he has avoided making any divisive moves except for allowing government revenues to pay for overseas abortions. As much as the press trys to portray this as a normal Democratic gesture, it is slimy, and millions of babies are being aborted overseas.
Which brings us to the statement Barack made last week, about how abortion is a private family matter. If it is a private family matter, why are public funds being contributed toward it? I don't want my money paying for a stranger's wedding or superbowl party, much less the institutionalized murdering of babies.
I have no regard for this administration, and I have no regret about the money I put toward the losing campaign. Barack, I hope you are swiftly replaced by a leader who takes up the cause of the silent and defenseless.
The deceit of it all is that he claims to be so bipartisan. Today he told Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. See Rush's response here. To me it sounds like he's saying, 'Stop listening to the conservative and start listening to the liberal.' How is that not partisan? How is that not divisive? Are we supposed to think it is only partisan when people listen to Republicans and not Democrats?
Dick Morris has published an excellent Hill piece on the slippery socialist slope Obama has American on track to slide down. He walks a detailed path through his agenda to show how Obama's vision for American ends with America in the socialist chains of Europe. Definitely worth a read.
posted by Matthew Canonicus at
12:43 AM
13 Comments:
Americans like him now but just wait until the government is in all parts of their lives. We like our freedoms and once they see his true colors I am praying the true American values will bring him down.
You couldn't have chosen a better picture. Socialists love to make icons of their leaders simply because socialism does not look to God to meet human need but to man. Obama is America's first iconic president.
Democratic leaders are not liberals, they are socialists. Most Replublican leaders are not conservative, they are liberals. Most Americans are without representation. I can't forget that it was President Bush and Paulson's Tarp that has already paved the way for Obama to buy into our system further.
It is up to the people to bring our government back in line with American values and principles. We have to do our best to hold them accountable. At the very least, we can make them miserable by continually letting them know what our will is. We could start tomorrow by letting our representatives know how unhappy we will be if they confirm a tax evader as Secretary of the Treasury.
We have to speak up for as long as we can. I will not be surprised if Rush Limbaugh is shut down soon via the Fairness Doctrine.
Good post. And now it is unpatriotic to be a critic of President Obama even if he is advocating Socialism. Get ready for re-education camps, er I mean "sensitivity training seminars".
I really don't understand why you all seem to want Obama to fail miserably (the one exception being that post on inauguration day), when a president failing means further social pain for all Americans and many others around the world.
@Timothy,
Because a successful Obama Administration means the advancement of Socialism. Even the Liberal media are justifying the need for Socialist policies.
Yes but if Obama is successful, that means the socialist policies worked, and hence the right thing to do. (I'm making the assumption that Obama is a socialist, which I know is false)
Timothy,
It isn't like he's trying anything new and I'm old enough to know that his approach won't help when it comes to the economy. I do think that he's in a position to do more of the wrong thing than has been done in the past simply because so many people know nothing about economics. In American especially, it is the people who will pull us out of the slump not the governement. The governement is killing what chance we do have for recovery through the huge tax burden that will be the result of their spending binge.
On social issues, I stand completely oposite to most all of his stances.
So...how could I wish for him to succeed?
Hi Tim,
Why is it not okay for socialism to succeed? That does sound suspicious.
I look at it from an ethical standpoint. The worker who does more for others is entitled to receive more. That is simple equatability. You reap what you sow ... this is the basis of all ethics.
Socialism substitutes ethics for an formula (to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability). Even if it succeeds, it is still thievery.
But socialism has never succeeded.
Hi Matt,
It's amazing how two people can view the world so differently. In my opinion, the economical reality in the world is that you fundamentally do not reap what you sow. Alot of people around the world, i.e. subsistence farmers, are working very hard to scrape together a living. Alot of poor people in America itself have to hold 3 jobs just to maintain their house and family. The more prestigious careers yield far more reaping with the same amount of sowing.
The difference between the two groups are education, since it is that which will give the opportunity to get the best jobs. But the fact is there is not an equality of opportunity in mostly all of the world, as children born to rich parents go to prestigious schools, and poor children go to poor public schools that are inadequate to serve their need for learning. There's also the fact that alot of countries simply do not have the jobs which provide alot of money.
It's unfair. And when so much of the world is in poverty, I form the ethical opinion that a heavy redistribution of wealth is necessary just to make society fair. Not a complete redistrubtion, which is communism, but a progressive tax system that is higher than what is currently in western democratic countries. With alot of that money going to health and education, the two public institutions which are able to provide an equality of opportunity to the citizens.
If free market capitalism succeeds, the rich get richer and the poor remain where they are. If socialism succeeds, the rich stay where they are or moderately worse off and the middle-class and poor benefit. Sounds good to me.
Timothy,
I'm glad you mentioned the public schools which in America are one of our best examples of the failure of Socialism. Teachers are paid according to tenure not ability and it is almost impossible to get rid of bad teachers. American public schools aren't poor as far as material wealth, they are poor in incentive and the fruit they produce is the proof of what they are made of.
American schools were great when the one room school house was the norm. When the government got involved, it has been down hill ever since.
Capitalism is the system by which this country has created enough wealth to spread across the entire world. Capitalism is based upon the belief that wealth can be created while socialism views the world as containing only so much wealth to be divided, 'fairly'. You know, I expect someone who is better educated than I to hold a more important position and be paid accordingly. I don't consider it fair that I be paid the same or someone with less skill than I be paid as much as I am. The great thing about capitalism is that it grants anyone with the creativity and ambition necessary to improve their lot in life and even create new wealth that creates jobs for those not quite so creative and ambitious. Under socialism, if you are born as a have not, your only hope is in the government taking from the haves and giving you some. That's what has happened on the Reservations near my home and that socialized system has stolen the dignity of many Native Americans by making them dependent upon the government and stealing their ambition to do better for themselves than the meager pitance that the government doles out to them.
Bill Richardson is the governor of my state (you may have heard of him as he was named to a cabinet position but a 'pay-to-play'scandel knocked him out of the game. However, he is a good Obama Democrat and in that fashion, he has single handedly killed the thriving economy in our area. Like the Middle East, our livelyhood depends upon oil and natural gas. Last year, as the rest of the economy suffered, our unemployment rate was 3.9%. I guess Richadson thought we were getting too rich as he pushed and then signed a bill that has ended all oil shale exploration in our state. I am left wondering how this can make us energy independent and also wondering how he expects to fund all of his special programs. I listened to Obama yesterday as he explained how he expects to make us energy independent and I hear the same tactics that Richardson has put into action here. I believe that under these guys all hope for a healty economy will be strangled by the implementation of bookish and impractical ideas. Neither of these guys has ever had a real job and they've no clue how things work in the real world. Add a socialistic ideology to that mix and America is doomed mediocracy.
Hi Tim,
Thanks for filling me in. You are right that it is remarkable how people can hold such different views. That is the paradox of subjectivity. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say.
Your observation about people who sow and do not reap reminds me of the observation at the beginning of Fear and Trembling.
Your statement about the rich getting richer is often true, but this is only the surface of it. Often times the people who are rich are the achievers -the ones who figure out what the market wants and do the most effecient job of providing it.
As for education, you are generally right that academics leads to higher salaries (where the market supports it), but the super rich never become that way as a result of education. Bill Gates was a college dropout. Steve Jobs (unless I'm mistaken) had very little in the way of education. Walt Disney wasn't a college student. Yet these are people who understood quality in a way that no government-sponsored committee ever did or ever will (and it should be noted that Kruschev was very angry he didn't get to visit Disneyland when he was in Los Angeles). Also, many of the richest farmers in the world are/were farmers (I should know because my dad was a farmer and I worked on his farm).
The rich often get richer because we both live (in many ways) in meritocracies not aristocracies. The people with little motivation or entreprenuerial activity are the ones who don't succeed financially. The poor people who farm provide a service that people already get cheaply. Shouldn't they do things that people want more?
What's your opinion about having a meritocracy? Would you call it a sham or would you say it is misunderstood?
Thanks for the discussion. Having someone with a different perspective makes the reading here a lot more flavorful for everyone.
Hi Lav,
I also expect more educated and productive to reap more material rewards, i'm not a communist. However, I think if a market is left to its own devices it will ignore the public and social goods and overproduce/underproduce/exploit/speculate to the point of social disorder and eventual collapse. Hence the need for Government intervention. The reality is the world has limited resources, and the way that rich nations have developed and become rich is a combination of lucky geography, a strong legal framework, and lastly exploiting and unfairly trading poorer nations. America would not be the economical powerhouse it is today if they didn't slaughter the indians en masse.
Also, I believe it's important to remember that there is a strong difference between socialism and communism. From my understanding, socialists don't want to remove wealth inequality all-together, just restrain it from becoming extremely large (which it is in many countries).
I can't really argue about Bill Richardson because i'm not familir with what is going on, so i'll reserve comment. Interesting to hear your perspective though.
Hi Matt,
You raised an interesting point. While there are a number of examples of super-rich never getting through college, I believe it was always a small minority of cases and as we move forward in history becoming increasingly less and less likely.
I think a meritocracy is an illusion. As the financial collapse has so aptly demonstrated, the people earning the highest salaries are sometimes the most useless workers in the economy. It's fine if people want to work harder for some extra money, but if it is getting to a point where a class of elite are depriving another group of people from basic goods like shelter or food or health care, then I believe the Government must intervene to smooth out such an injustice. The recent calls to cap a CEO's salary and company bonuses are like music to my ear. They'll still be earning alot more than a regular worker, just not to such an absurd degree. That's how I feel anyway. People can talk all they like about that guy earning and deserving his millions of dollars, but when so much of the world is mal-nourished and on the brink of starvation, it's just all immoral excuses to me.
Besides, the love of money is the root of all evil. Who really wants 2 million dollars when they already have 1 million?
Thankyou also for the discussion. What's the point of going to a where everyone agrees with me? ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home