We have had a lot of fun recently mocking the "Change" mantra that propelled Barack Obama to the White House. In one respect, it is a joke that President Obama will change the insider culture of Washington. One needs look no further than his cabinet selections to see that clearly. The revolving door of lobbyists in and out of government (Daschle) to the back room deals (Hillary Clinton) to the tax cheats (Daschle and Geithner) put the lie to any notion that the Obama Administration is going to change Washington. Yet, when we look at the first 30 days of the Obama Administration, it is undeniable that he is charging full-speed ahead for his version of change. That is the drive to move this country into socialism.
Where do we start? Do we begin with the so-called Stimulus Bill-almost 800 billion dollars of pork, earmarks, welfare and government spending gone wild? How about the nationalization through bailout of our banking system and our automobile industry? Even more stimulus bills are on the way. More spending, more give-aways, Fannie, Freddie, etc. All those homeowners who couldn't pay the mortgages? Government is going to take care of them. In Obama's speech tonight, I hear him blast certain bankers who made bad loans. He didn't say one word about people like Barney Frank, who forced bankers into making bad loans.
Yes, let the good times roll! After all, the tax-payers are footing the bill. You know, the people who work, pay their bills, pay their taxes and make their mortgage payments. The producers of our society. They got it covered. As we speak, Congress is sending another, slightly less blockbuster spending bill to Obama for his signature. It contains thousands of earmarks-those little things the President assures us are not in the Stimulus Package.
In the wake of all this, Obama holds a White House conference yesterday. The topic?
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!
Did you know Obama is going to send 900 million dollars to Gaza? Not one dime to Hamas, we are assured. Never mind that Hamas runs Gaza. Of course, there will be appropriate safeguards. Right. He is also going to open the floodgates for "refugees" from Gaza to come to the US so they can take over our streets and campuses with their anti-Israel protests. Just what we need. Don't take my word for it; read the executive order.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-2488.htm
What we are witnessing is the transfer of wealth through government spending programs and taxes. It is called socialism in its milder form and Marxism in its more extreme form. At this point, I am not sure where Obama falls in between the two.
Say what you will of Obama. He is moving boldly. His will not be an insignificant presidency.
22 comments:
Gary, every time you use the word "socialism", a puppy dies.
In all seriousness, you only mentioned it one time. I'm impressed. I thought I would get totally plastered playing the Fousesquawk Drinking Game (patent pending), but I only got slightly buzzed. You should have worked Bill Ayers in there somewhere.
Lance,
What do you think is going on if not a strong move toward socialism?
I'm not smart enough to give any sort of meaningful answer, but I've been paying enough attention to conservatives that they often get stuck on little catchphrases that ultimately don't actually mean anything (like "activist judges", for instance) - and I feel like this whole "socialism" thing is just one another of those memes.
Personally, I don't see socialism as being necessarily a bad thing. After all, if we got rid of any trace of it, then we'd have to get rid of public schools, the fire department, the police department, road works, public parks, etcetera.
Hopefully this won't sound too harsh, but I can't help but think of that time that Bill O'Reilly went on Letterman's show and Letterman said, "I have no idea what I’m talking about but I don’t think you do either."
For me, it keeps coming back to the fact that if Obama's policies were so darned socialist, then why isn't the Socialist Party of the USA rallying behind him? As I said before, it fails the most simple test of logic.
Lance,
To me, activist judges has meaning because I saw it in DEA, and I see it when I read the papers. It is real. Socialism is also real. It simply means that government is going to run everything and give everything to the people. But someone has to pay for it.
As for that Letterman-O'Reilly episode. Letterman was a rude jerk.
Give Obama time, the socialists in America will love him.
Obama wants the US to become like Europe. Look at Europe. It has a socialist mentality. It is the Nanny State in every way.
The governments of Europe have told their people to trust them. They will take care of them from the cradle to the grave. In return they pay higher taxes, they have higher crime rates and are losing their young people to immigration to the US.
If European nations were so fantastic, why are the young fleeing them?
Where will our best and brightest go when the US becomes like Europe?
Let me be more specific then, it doesn't mean anything when conservatives whined that "activist judges" weren't "upholding the will of the people." THAT got said over and over again (even on this blog, I believe) which shows a clear ignorance as to what a judge is supposed to be doing.
And did I ever say that socialism wasn't real?
Regarding Letterman and O'Reilly, it dumbfounds me that you could have seen that interview and came away with Letterman being the rude jerk. He was simply responding to the rude jerk who was on his show - and he was right, O'Reilly was making stuff up. (His "War on Christmas" example turned out to be a fabrication.)
Lastly, apologies to my wife for not signing out of her screen name before making that last post.
Gary, define socialism for me, please.
Bryan,
Socialism is when the government takes over aspects of life and society that they should not be involved in. nationalizing businesses, for example. Govt running health care, for example. It is the idea that govt should provide services to its citizens like free college education, free health care, etc. It is the subjugation of the free market and capitalism to govt control. Of course, someone has to pay for it and that is us, the tax-payer. Under socialism, the will to work harder than the next guy, initiative etc all declines.
If you follow tennis, you know that Swedish tennis players have excelled at least a couple of decades ago, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, and so on. Guess what. They all left Sweden and established residence in Monte Carlo to avoid the exhorbitent confiscatory taxes. I don't blame them.
Gary,
Socialism is when the government takes over aspects of life and society that they should not be involved in.
You're couching that in subjective language though, Gary. Who is to decide what they should and should not be involved in? You're acting like it's simply common sense as to where they should and should not be involved. Why not health care? I hate to break it to you, but our system is obviously not working. While I don't believe those who act like everything's perfect in Europe, that doesn't mean that we can't learn a thing or two from them.
If you follow tennis, you know that Swedish tennis players have excelled at least a couple of decades ago, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, and so on. Guess what. They all left Sweden and established residence in Monte Carlo to avoid the exhorbitent confiscatory taxes. I don't blame them.
Is there any wonder why conservatism is often thought of as the philosophy of greed? Oh no! Rich people are getting their money taken away! What about the average person, Gary? What about things like life expectancy, crime rates, individual liberties? Do I think that Sweden is better than us? No. But they might have some advantages over us in certain areas. (And again, you have to wonder about Denmark, where a study found them to be the happiest people in the world. They must be doing SOMETHING right!)
"Socialism is when the government takes over aspects of life and society that they should not be involved in."
That's not the definition of socialism, but I'll get to that later. Firstly, how is it determined which aspects of life and society government should and shouldn't be involved in? It seems like you're measuring this very arbitrarily.
"nationalizing businesses, for example. Govt running health care, for example. It is the idea that govt should provide services to its citizens like free college education, free health care, etc."
And what about the fire department? Or public K-12 schools? Or public roads? Why are those things okay but the others not? Aren't those things just as "socialist?"
It is the subjugation of the free market and capitalism to govt control.
Last time I checked capitalism was still in place. Last time I checked President Obama and all other Democrats are heavily funded by capitalists. Boy, they must really be self-hating to fund politicians that will (supposedly) try to dismantle their system. The fact of the matter is, our country has pretty much always had a mixed economic system. It hasn't ever really been 100% capitalist. Can you name a single time in the last 100 years that we have had pure 100% unbridled capitalism? You can't. And that's under Republican rule, too.
"Of course, someone has to pay for it and that is us, the tax-payer. "
Yes, that is true. Which is why I am all for raising taxes on the super rich. If you make more, you can afford to pay more in taxes. We already have a sliding scale like that, but it's still very broken and needs to be adjusted.
"Under socialism, the will to work harder than the next guy, initiative etc all declines."
Where are you getting this from? Can you back up this claim at all?
"If you follow tennis, you know that Swedish tennis players have excelled at least a couple of decades ago, Borg, Wilander, Edberg, and so on. Guess what. They all left Sweden and established residence in Monte Carlo to avoid the exhorbitent confiscatory taxes. I don't blame them."
Okay so you're using the term "socialism" in the Western Europe, Swedish type of sense? Well that's not really socialism at all, it's called social democracy. I'm pretty sure Sweden is doing quite well for itself. Ever heard of a little furniture company called Ikea? Swedish.
Anyways, this whole silliness comes from a persistent misunderstanding of what socialism actually means. It's currently being used as a scare-word by right-wing pundits and then regurgitated by the blogosphere.
I'll give you extra time to respond, so that you can call up Sean Hannity and ask him what to say.
Bryan,
Sean's phone number was busy. I hate to break it to you Bryan, but this demonization of the super-rich is not helping anybody. Who do you think provides jobs? Those evil rich guys and corporations, that's who. Taking away their wealth which they in most cases earned honestly is not going to rise anyone else up.
Since you have come up with such a great definition of socialism, perhaps you can define an alcoholic for me.
Lance,
The Swedish payers were leaving not because of greed, but ridiculous taxation. Well over 50%.
And by the way, crime in Europe is rising. Know why? Just watch the You tube videos and see who is rioting. Check out what is happening in Holland, paris, Malmo and many other places.
Gary, I wasn't saying that THEY were greedy. I'm just pointing out that when you "conservatives" want to write about how bad "socialism" is, there are always stories like that where it's clear that what your most afraid of is parting with money. What I find hilarious is that so many Christians side with this movement, which comes across as so antithetical to their God's teachings. You know - render unto Caesar etctera etcetera.
Crime may be on the rise in Europe, but is it as close as ours? And does their socialism have anything to do with it?
I think that this is just another case of conservatives oversimplifying everything. Man, but there's just no nuance, no shades of grey anywhere with you guys.
And Bryan asked a lot of good questions that you left unanswered. Instead, you just gave a flip response.
As I stated before, I don't really know what I'm talking about when it comes to socialism, and between you and Bryan, he's the one who comes across as much more informed. (You know, using facts and not just bold assertions.) You're just feeding the conservative echo chamber.
You are correct, Lance. I don't want to part with my money. I paid for my own education. Why do I have to pay for everybody elses? I don't want my money going for services to people who aren't even in the country legally. I don't want it going to the Octomom to take care of her 14 kids. I don't want my money going to pay for Nancy Pelosi's salt marsh mice in the Bay Area or to build a beltway around Bakersfield or to hand out to ACORN or to build a bridge in Bullsnuts, Louisiana. I don't want to give up my money so we can send millions of condoms to Africa. Take a look at the 8500 earmarks in this latest bill that the president is about to sign (not the Stimulus Package)and ask yourself if you want to pay for them.
If that makes me greedy, then I'm greedy.
As for socialism, maybe Bryan does know more about it than me. He is a socialist. But I have seen socialism and the leftover effects of it in E Europe and ex ussr. It doesn't work. The Europeans don't see it, but Europe is in decline (I have lived 8 years in Europe). France and Italy have become nations of vacationers. Even Germans tell me that the old image of the "efficient German" is becoming a thing of the past.
To me, it's like a stray cat that depends on a friendly human to put out food for it. Then what happens when the friendly neighbor moves away.
I may be simplistic, but sometimes the old simplistic truths are valid. One can get lost in nuances, you know-the forest for the trees analogy.
Gary, you act as though I'm trying to say that socialism is some sort of perfect system. I don't like the idea of paying for most of those things either. (Although I think that education should be free, as I think that an educated society ultimately benefits me. It's scary enough that we almost had somebody as ignorant as Sarah Palin as our VP.)
Europe is in decline, eh? And we're not?
Yeah, let's just keep doing what the conservatives want. That always works.
Lance,
You bet we are in decline.
Keep doing what the Republicans want? Fat chance. They are irrelevent for at least the next two years.
PS: Remember, I am not a Republican.
Gary, the first step towards getting help is to admit that you have a problem. If it walks and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
Lance,
OK, I admit it. I don't want half of my income going to the govt to give away to somebody else. I need help!!
Seriously though. It's not a duck-it's a penguin.
You know, Gary, one of the running gags on Colbert's show is how he insists that he's not a Republican.
There's that satire/reality line again - blurring.
Lance,
Why should I join the Republican Party when they have joined hands with Dems in all this crazy spending the last 8 years? I know I slam the Dems more, but surely I have written critically about the Republicans abandoning their conservative principles on many occasions..
Who says everybody has to belong to a party? I would rather be free to criticize when criticism is due.
You shouldn't have to belong to a party, and even though you've criticized a few Republicans, you still vote for them an awful lot. File that under "walking like a duck".
You are correct, Lance. I have always voted Republican. Look at the Dem choices I have had:
McGovern
Carter
Mondale
Dukakis
Clinton
Gore
Kerry
Obama
Calif
Grey Davis
Phil Angelides
Actually, I did vote for Obama in the primary because as an Independent, I couldn't vote for a Rep but I could vote for a Dem-so I cast my against Hillary Clinton.
Pretty smart duck, if I do say so myself.
Post a Comment