Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
Politicians of whatever stripe never call something by their true name. To do so in way to many cases would tip one's hand so so speak and the public backlash would turn to a whirlwind. For a politician to in a real sense invoke such honesty ends up being a death nail. Examples to varying degrees would be Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and even a Cynthia McKinney. Now granted the beliefs vary just among those 4 alone and I think everyone here will also in varying degrees disagree and in some cases disagree with certain policies but as a general rule, these folks and others like them now and before have been upfront with their ideas and what did it get them? Backburnered even in many cases by the ruling 2 parties and their lackies in crime, the mainstream media.
Other more mainstream and accepted candidates come along but they hire consults to parse and nuiance ever term and idea is such a way as to hide so to speak, real intent. If you ever wonder why people support a candidate on the belief that they will do this or that but then once in office seem to go in another direction entirely and sometimes in a very different direction, IMO it proves their ability to control words and meaning to the people hearing (what some call spin if you will) is very good and very powerful. Why is it now that many liberal democrats look back at Clinton and feel betrayed say in areas like NAFTA or in regards to unionism? Why do fiscal and limited gov't conservative feel betrayed by Bush who in 2000' spoke well against gov't growth and even the concept of nationbuilding?
Bush used the term "compassionate conservatism" to try and soften but in reality, it was a cover for a very similar "statism" that the current "other side of the isle" is trying to sell and that is a "fiscal liberal" with talk of spending restraint and the need to balance the budget and stop the federal borrowing binge. One might also take the time to investigate the terms "third wave" and third way" to understand these conflicting ideals in name only. Just don't look at the actions of Congress as these illusions will quickly make you reaize these guys are just as much the illusionist as one Criss Angel, the Mindfreak. At least Criss is honest about who and what he is and even will show how he does some of the basic illusions of mind trickery.
As to the last paragraph concerning the perfect storm of statism forming, you are dead on the money. However, the statism and the stamping out of what little liberties as indivduals we have left, especially in the market place are more and more disappearing. I contend that the mainstream left (neo-liberal) and the mainstream right (neo-conservative) are about taking the actions of previous adminstrations and using them not as a ceiling but rather as a floor. Every adminstration (especially in the 20th century), whether democrat or republican has used the power gains of the previous version to build upon for themselves and thus the trend is future adminstrations will do the same. It was the Clinton adminstration by the hand of nefarious think tank power brokers who propelled the idea of regime change in Iraq in 1998' with the Iraq Liberation Act so the construct for the actual removal of Saddam was laid out in the previous adminstration. Bush or more so many of his underlying with other agendas, used this "floor" to propell the agenda and to raise the bar if you will for future generations. Where did the whole idea that Saddam had WMD come from? Look for the floor!
President Carter instituted the Carter Doctrine pertaining to the Persian Gulf region and covert connections made during his watch that again was used as "floor" for the next generation (Reagan) to advance gov't action to a new level. Who first said, "make the world safe for democracy!" Look for the floor. Who first created and insisted on a form of Global Gov't? Look for the floor!
Unchecked debt, massive growth of gov't at all levels, unbefore known powers including the granting of what may amount to a Presidential pardon for an entire private sector industry who along with gov't may and most likely did violate basic principles of constitutional law and limitations. Using the Bush Presidency as a floor, where in the future can it all go?
Retired,
Your post was dead on in many ways, maybe even more ways than the 2 of us even realize. The problem IMHO is we are still too naive to understand and see statism when it really does exist. I've no problem seeing and understanding Obama as a Statist in every way but where I do have a problem is to try and sell me this on Obama only while ignoring McCain. The ironic fact is, who does have more experience with growing and expanding Statism? If I didn't want something and get less of meant choosing someone less qualified and experienced at the task, in a "Outer Limits" kinda way, Obama in some weird twisted universe would be the better qualified candidate and I know that will seem way off the reservation to some, maybe even to yourself.
What is Statism?
from Merriam-Webster's Online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
I also have in my pocession the 1886' and the 1914' editions of Bouvier's Law dictionary which by the way was the standard dictionary used by our Congress for many a year. Statism is not listed because it's use in history has been one mostly of a use as a derogatory term and the term has been used in this fashion by all sides when speaking of their opponent. This use is more of a modern creation by Bouvier's does list the term Statist and I'll leave you with that definition and a thought to consider.
Statist: A politician; one skilled in government.
If one chooses an engineer for a task, does one expect more engineering or less engineering from this person?
If one chooses a doctor for a task, does one expect more doctoring or less doctoring from this person?
If one chooses a thief for a task, does one expect more theft or less theft from this person.
If one elects a politician?
how much the top wage earners pay in total tax revenue. It's paying your fair share that counts....Here's the problem with your argument......being so quick to point out that it's all about the individual and the free market, however when you make an example of your top wage earners and how much tax revenue is generated by them, you make a convenient comparison on a collective level, instead of an individual level of comparison.
