A Series of Unfortunate Blogs: Part 1–Socialism, Obama, and Insanity

Did the President really just suggest we should spend another 50 BILLION on infrastructure repair? Yes, yes he did. We already have a deficit of 1.3 Trillion. (oh, and that’s a deficit for the 2010 fiscal year only). We had about 4 trillion already coming into to the Barrack Obama presidency. For instance Bush was racking up about $150 Billion a year in deficits, and keep in mind Bush was far from being a capitalist or conservative…but in one year Barry has already increased the yearly deficit by 10 times…and he wants to spend MORE!!!

What is going through his head? (Beside the repeated thought, I am just the coolest thing since sliced bread and the whole world just needs to kneel down and acknowledge how awesome I am…in fact that’s not a just repeated thought, that may very well be the ONLY thought that goes through the head of the Narcissist-in-cheif).

But assuming that he does have some other synapses firing, lets take a look at his socialist outlook, why it’s wrong, why it must be stopped, and finally how to fix it (that’s why it’s called a series of blogs…if I’m lucky I’ll be able to get them all out before the week is over :-)…they’re unfortunate because by know you would think everyone would understand that capitalism wasn’t to blame for this recession and Obama’s economic plans border on mental instability )

So lets first deal with the fact of where his Socialist head is going? And before you object to the fact that I just called him a socialist, let take a look at whether he is or is not a socialist. (For those of you who just accept that he’s a socialist, please understand I have actually had arguments with intelligent people about whether he’s a socialist or not…they seem to think that calling anyone who isn’t left of Lenin a socialist is wrong…possibly because they don’t understand what it actually means)

The dictionary defines socialism as:

Webster’s Dictionary :

socialism ˈsō sh əˌlizəm

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

or

Oxford English Dictionary. “1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all people 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.”

or

Wikipedia

“Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.”

Now what do all these definitions have in common? The answer is government control of the means of production and the distribution of wealth. We should all be familiar with this as it’s been the standard for government since World War I (yes that’s a One, 1) when we decided to go from a primarily capitalist stand (really we failed at doing capitalism in the correct way long before that, but it was at that point that the government started really getting its greedy, inept hands into the system). Here are some examples of socialism (mixed-economy if you want to be PC) in the US economy before Obama took office:

  • Bush’s Stimulus Spending (one of the many reasons why Bush should never have the word conservative applied to him)
  • Government enforcement of a labor monopoly through the legalization of the quite unethical (if not antithetical to the ideals of the Founding Fathers) allowing closed shops for Unions. Yes that’s right, it’s the the US government that allows labor unions to have closed shops which requires any new employees at a company that has unions to join the union, whether they want to or not, and turn over their money to that union, whether they want to or not, in mild contradiction to this small thing called the right of “pursuit of happiness” (unlike the DNC you may have heard of it). If that’s not controlling the means of production I don’t know what is.
  • The laws that bar any private company from carrying first class mail, thus ensuring the monopoly of the Post Office.
  • Tariffs designed to protect US industry from foreign competitors (steel and cars comes to mind).
  • The Federal Reserve constantly messing with the interest rate (something that makes every capitalist want to strangle Greenspan and Bernanke).
  • Corporate Welfare.
  • Individual Welfare giving people money the never earned.
  • Social Security (especially when you consider it has been giving people more money than they ever put into the system).
  • Graduated Income tax brackets.
  • Medicaid and Medicare.
  • Bank Bailouts.
  • Laws that prevented insurance companies from crossing state lines.
  • Supreme Court rulings that said the government could eminent domain anything for any reason.
  • Just about any law associated with the letters LBJ or FDR.
  • The obscene list of things we subsidize…

So just because you thought we were capitalists, it’s just not true. We have socialist elements, and have

so we hardly had capitalism before Obama, hell we didn’t have it during Reagan, (and I haven’t even begun to cover the responsibilities a government has under Capitalism that our government regularly ignores). But the question is has Obama moved us in a distinctly more socialist direction? And the answer is a simple and clear YES, OH DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN, YES HE’S A SOCIALIST!

  • More Bailouts.
  • Proposal of even more Keynesian priming the pump as suggested by this latest $50 Billion proposal.
  • Obamacare which puts a major sector of industry under further government regulation and control, if not all but nationalizes it.
  • Ownership of a major corporation (GM) and firing the CEO of said corporation.
  • Rolling back tax cuts which is further graduation of income taxes.
  • Expansion of all welfare and wealth redistribution programs.
  • The further attempt to control industry through Cap and Trade.
  • And really those are just the tip of the Iceberg, from increased prosecutions of pornographers for violating arcane public obscenity laws (over the internet) to suing states for laws that agree with federal law to a slew of new offices, executive orders, and czars the Obama administration is finding ways to expand government power. Small ways, little ways, tiny increments. (anyone feel like a frog in a pot of hot water?).

Or try some of these great statements:

“Organizers didn’t make any money; their poverty was proof of their integrity.” from Dreams of my Father …now in my capitalistic world view, poverty is nothing to be ashamed of, it is a temporary condition. But someone who stays in poverty does so by choice, and make no mistake it is a choice for the most part, (I’ll admit more so in good economic times). And even when it is through no fault of your own that they enter poverty, it is not a sign of integrity. It might be a sign of bad luck or unforeseen circumstances, but it is not sign of integrity or lack thereof. But for anyone who is in poverty and stays in poverty it is a sign of lack of the will to get education and the will to work hard, certainly not integrity. But only the someone with a socialistic view could see integrity in poverty, and by extension the lack of integrity in wealth. (Although to a capitalist wealth is not a sign of integrity either…we tend to have this wacky idea of looking at the person and their actions rather than just summing them up by the balance in their bank account…I know it’s kind of crazy, but it’s how we do things). But while wealth may not be an indicator of integrity, admiration of people based purely on their lack of capital is certainly a sure sign of a mental handicap.

Or try this little gem:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” –Obama, Oct 13 2008

Actually an economy’s good when it just has laws that work for everyone, thus allowing the people on the bottom and top ends to rise through their ingenuity or fail to their lack of character. “Spread the wealth around”…exactly how is that not a socialistic sentiment? Does he have any proof of this, because as far as I know there is no proof such an asinine and insane idea of wealth distribution has ever worked.

I could go on but the simple and clear fact is that Obama wants to and has drastically expanded the scope, power, and size of government in less than 2 years in office. He has never shown hesitancy, doubt, or regret over these policies (as say a capitalist like Reagan might show hesitancy over the pragmatic need to nationalize Air Traffic Controllers). The country is screaming at him and all of Washington to reduce the insanely out of control deficit and spending and his answer is to spend another 50 Billion dollars. Where are we going to get this money? The largest state in the union is on the verge of bankruptcy and he still wants to talk about Cap and Trade. No one wanted his health care reform, but he trudged ahead. It’s not that he’s just a socialist because he thinks the system works better on a pragmatic scale–he’s a true believer, and he will follow this even it means bankrupting this nation.

Now for those of you who claim he’s still not a socialist because he hasn’t nationalized all the industries and isn’t taxing every penny over $100,000 at 90%…all I can say is, give him time.

Now that only leaves two thing left for me to show. 1) that our current economic problems weren’t caused by capitalism they were caused by the elements of socialism and stupidity in our economy which President Socialist wants more of and 2) how to eventually crawl out of our economic problems (and sadly there is not quick fix here)…but this particular blog is long enough as it is…

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Obama

2 responses to “A Series of Unfortunate Blogs: Part 1–Socialism, Obama, and Insanity

  1. Cris, you may want to explore the fact that socialism is an authoritarian form of gov't and not a democratic one. I think this may be the piece some of your readers must acknowledge before they can understand exactly how damaging the progression (apt term here) toward socialism really is.

  2. Tony, excellent point. The worst part is that authoritarian system that is being embraced and voted in by at least a portion of the public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s