I am currently looking for the rabbit hole that I just fell through. I just read a story, Brown snubbed over tax, which said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not want to back Brittan’s spending stimulus plan. Spain agrees with the Chancellor while French Prime Minster Sarkozy backs Brittan.
So, France and Brittan is all for Socialism. They want to increase government spending past what they can afford and attempt to stimulate Europe’s economy. The same plan Obama used that failed. The same plan FDR used in the 1930’s that failed.
Germany and Spain have said no. They don’t back this plan. Merckel believes the market can stabilize itself. That sounds like free market principles to me?
Now, this is some historic irony. In the 1940s, Hitler ruled Germany, and Franco ruled Spain. They were fascists and had Socialist economies. Now, it is 2009 and Germany and Spain support free market principles by saying no to a huge global Socialist movement in Europe and the United States.
All we need now is for China and Russia to warn that this Socialist road that the U.S., Brittan, and France want to try is a bad idea to complete this paradox.
Oh that’s right, they already did!
Again, I am looking for that lost girl in a blue dress and tardy rabbit to lead me back to reality.
Here is the story from Times Online:
GORDON BROWN’S carefully laid plans for a G20 deal on worldwide tax cuts have been scuppered by an eve-of-summit ambush by European leaders.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, last night led the assault on the prime minister’s “global new deal” for a $2 trillion-plus fiscal stimulus to end the recession.
“I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money,” she said.
The Spanish finance minister, Pedro Solbes, also dismissed new cash being pledged at Thursday’s London summit.
“In these conditions I and the rest of my colleagues from the eurozone believe there is no room for new fiscal stimulus plans,” he said.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, has insisted that “radical reform” of capitalism is more important than tax cutting.
The attacks on Brown’s ambitions for the G20 to inject more money into the world economy come at the end of a week where the prime minister has travelled to three continents to build support for his proposals.
The likely deadlock at this week’s meeting will kill any remaining hope that Alistair Darling’s April 22 budget will offer significant tax cuts.
The assault by European Union leaders also represents a defeat for President Barack Obama, who is desperate for other big economies to copy his $800 billion stimulus plan.
“There will be a very long communiqué, but there won’t be much in it,” said a Washington economist.
Adding to the disarray, a draft of the agreement Brown hopes to secure was leaked to a German news magazine, prompting suggestions of “dirty tricks” by Berlin.
The draft stated that Britain wanted a “$2 trillion” global fiscal stimulus. However, the figure appeared only in brackets, indicating agreement on the package had yet to be reached.
The stimulus would boost world growth by 2% and employment by 19m, the draft said. The rest of the document was mainly general pledges.
“We believe that an open world economy, based on the principles of the market, effective regulation and strong global institutions, can ensure sustainable globalisation with rising well-being for all,” it said.
A No 10 source expressed “disappointment” at the leak and insisted the $2 trillion figure was not new money but an expression of the total tax and spending packages already pledged by G20 members.
Privately, government officials admit that no further fiscal stimulus will be announced this week, although there will be a $250 billion package for the International Monetary Fund to help rescue struggling poor nations.
Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, said he sympathised with the concerns of demonstrators planning to disrupt the London summit. “There is understandable frustration and some anger. The global economic systems has stalled and what we have got to do is get it started.”
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, yesterday warned Brown against further tax cuts in the budget. “When it comes to your plans for a second fiscal stimulus, I say this Gordon Brown: enough is enough,” he said in a speech. “We will not let you play roulette with the public finances yet again.”
UK officials have not given up on the idea there could be agreement on a fresh boost for the world economy later in the year. “It is likely that there will be another heads of government meeting probably in Asia in the autumn,” said an official.
“This will be the forum where the next round of stimulus will be discussed.”
Brown still hopes to establish the IMF as an informal referee for international tax cuts. The plan is that the Washington-based body could advise on the timing of any future cuts.
Merkel’s criticism drew an angry response from Labour MPs. Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister, said: “Who does Mrs Merkel think is going to buy Mercedes and BMWs if she . . . says putting demand into the economy is a bad thing?” Another Labour MP said: “One has to ask who had something to gain from the leak of the communiqué. This feels like a dirty trick.”
There are growing fears that protests at the summit venue, the ExCeL centre in London’s Docklands could be marred by violence. Scotland Yard will be deploying specialist officers trained to use 50,000-volt Taser stun guns.
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Betrayal of America's Left
There was a great post on TownHall.com, “The "Judas syndrome"...why liberals love to betray America” that gives a great history of Liberals and their betrayals of America.
This shows that today’s type of Liberalism has been a thorn in America’s side since 1930s. Keep in mind that Woodrow Wilson during the 1910s was much worse with bringing on the Income Tax, revolutionizing our academia, and beginning the idea for what would be the United Nations, naming only a few things. I could write an entire post on Wilson and how he was beginning of the Socialist Liberal in America, but I digress.
This type of Liberal not only brought on everything that is mentioned in the TownHall.com piece but also assaulted us domestically. FDR revered Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin before WWII because of their incredible economies, well-run industries (socialized), and apparently efficient societies. There was a monument in NYC to idolize Mussolini, well, until WWII. The Left, including FDR, was part of this admiration until it was discovered what all them were doing to their people, such as the Holocaust and gulags in Siberia.
There can be a case made that all of FDR’s social programs began the idea that the government could do all these things for the People and the assault of personal responsibility began. The assault of the wealthy class that we see today began under FDR, as well, and he used this along with his social programs to try to create a new country (sound familiar). FDR did not waste his crisis and reengineered America He socialized part of it.
Not only was FDR a Socialist nightmare, but then LBJ came along and put FDR’s programs on steroids. His “Great Society” programs attempted to fight poverty and reengineer America. LBJ gave us programs like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, Head Start, National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, Public Radio and Television, uraban mass transit, and so much more.
All it did was create an entire class of people dependent on the government, which won’t, could, but won’t try to better themselves, because the government will tend to their needs. Personal responsibility took a huge hit with these programs and Liberalism changed America again during another social crisis, the civil rights movement and riots.
I could go on but the point is made. When America faced crises, Liberals took the moment to attempt to save America but at the same time change it. Socialize it. Take some freedom and liberty away. Betray its principle and values. Reagan, a Conservative, did the opposite. He saved America during a crisis and gave it back some of its freedom, liberty, and principles.
So, now we have Obama and today’s crises. Again, the Liberals are trying to save America and try to change it. They are trying to socialize it. They are trying to take liberties and freedoms away. Amazing, how we repeat history when we don’t learn it. The TownHall.com piece shows all the foreign policy blunders while this shows many of the domestic ones. All in all, Liberalism betrays American principles and values and has been doing it for a long time.
The following are snippets of examples from the TownHall.com post of how so many of Liberals’ actions have affected the course of American history and betrayed America and her interests:
”Neville Chamberlain was your classic liberal appeaser. He had served as British Minister of Health from 1924 to 1929. After he become Prime Minister in1937, he too surmised Hitler as invincible, and called for an appeasement foreign policy, culminating in the signing of the infamous Munich Pact in 1938, selling out Czechoslovakia to Germany, and along with that --the Skoda Works.
The Munich pact enabled Hitler to realize his most coveted European objective-- Czechoslovakia's famed Skoda Works. It was the worlds largest armaments factory; it produced heavy guns for the Nazi navy; heavy mortars and the fearsome M-42 machine guns for the Wermacht (German army), as well as locomotives, aircraft, ships, machine tools, steam turbines, and equipment for Germany's power utilities.
In October of 1977, Turner decided to curb many of the clandestine practices that had brought the CIA much of its criticism from the liberal members in Congress, which were led by Idaho Senator Frank Church. In the" Halloween Massacre" of '77, Turner circulated an Oct 31st photocopied memo informing 800 CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread quickly around the spy community that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to non-human means, such as satellite observations and listening posts.
It has been noted by many historians that..."Stansfield Turner has been the single worst senior appointment in US history... and..."In eliminating virtually all human intelligence on the ground, he put the U.S. at a strong disadvantage, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan."
Whatever his intentions, what Carter (and Turner) accomplished amounted to aiding and abetting the enemy, which resulted in our humiliation in Iran in the 1979 hostage crisis, the Russian war in Afghanistan in 1980, and the bombing of our marines’ barracks in Lebanon in 1982
And thanks to the liberal insanity of Jimmy Carter's dismantling of the CIA, we’ve lost control of our destiny in the Middle East-- giving impetus to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism-- which ultimately gave rise upon the world's stage to all of Islam's most infamous stars...Khomeini, Arafat, bin-Laden, Akmadinejad, and untold others -- including the 20 airliner hijackers who were responsible for 9-11.”
This shows that today’s type of Liberalism has been a thorn in America’s side since 1930s. Keep in mind that Woodrow Wilson during the 1910s was much worse with bringing on the Income Tax, revolutionizing our academia, and beginning the idea for what would be the United Nations, naming only a few things. I could write an entire post on Wilson and how he was beginning of the Socialist Liberal in America, but I digress.
This type of Liberal not only brought on everything that is mentioned in the TownHall.com piece but also assaulted us domestically. FDR revered Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin before WWII because of their incredible economies, well-run industries (socialized), and apparently efficient societies. There was a monument in NYC to idolize Mussolini, well, until WWII. The Left, including FDR, was part of this admiration until it was discovered what all them were doing to their people, such as the Holocaust and gulags in Siberia.
There can be a case made that all of FDR’s social programs began the idea that the government could do all these things for the People and the assault of personal responsibility began. The assault of the wealthy class that we see today began under FDR, as well, and he used this along with his social programs to try to create a new country (sound familiar). FDR did not waste his crisis and reengineered America He socialized part of it.
Not only was FDR a Socialist nightmare, but then LBJ came along and put FDR’s programs on steroids. His “Great Society” programs attempted to fight poverty and reengineer America. LBJ gave us programs like Medicare, Medicaid, federal education funding, Head Start, National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, Public Radio and Television, uraban mass transit, and so much more.
All it did was create an entire class of people dependent on the government, which won’t, could, but won’t try to better themselves, because the government will tend to their needs. Personal responsibility took a huge hit with these programs and Liberalism changed America again during another social crisis, the civil rights movement and riots.
I could go on but the point is made. When America faced crises, Liberals took the moment to attempt to save America but at the same time change it. Socialize it. Take some freedom and liberty away. Betray its principle and values. Reagan, a Conservative, did the opposite. He saved America during a crisis and gave it back some of its freedom, liberty, and principles.
So, now we have Obama and today’s crises. Again, the Liberals are trying to save America and try to change it. They are trying to socialize it. They are trying to take liberties and freedoms away. Amazing, how we repeat history when we don’t learn it. The TownHall.com piece shows all the foreign policy blunders while this shows many of the domestic ones. All in all, Liberalism betrays American principles and values and has been doing it for a long time.
The following are snippets of examples from the TownHall.com post of how so many of Liberals’ actions have affected the course of American history and betrayed America and her interests:
”Neville Chamberlain was your classic liberal appeaser. He had served as British Minister of Health from 1924 to 1929. After he become Prime Minister in1937, he too surmised Hitler as invincible, and called for an appeasement foreign policy, culminating in the signing of the infamous Munich Pact in 1938, selling out Czechoslovakia to Germany, and along with that --the Skoda Works.
The Munich pact enabled Hitler to realize his most coveted European objective-- Czechoslovakia's famed Skoda Works. It was the worlds largest armaments factory; it produced heavy guns for the Nazi navy; heavy mortars and the fearsome M-42 machine guns for the Wermacht (German army), as well as locomotives, aircraft, ships, machine tools, steam turbines, and equipment for Germany's power utilities.
In October of 1977, Turner decided to curb many of the clandestine practices that had brought the CIA much of its criticism from the liberal members in Congress, which were led by Idaho Senator Frank Church. In the" Halloween Massacre" of '77, Turner circulated an Oct 31st photocopied memo informing 800 CIA staffers (mostly Republicans) of their dismissal. To the joy and disbelief of our enemies, word spread quickly around the spy community that the U.S. had decided to delegate its intelligence priorities to non-human means, such as satellite observations and listening posts.
It has been noted by many historians that..."Stansfield Turner has been the single worst senior appointment in US history... and..."In eliminating virtually all human intelligence on the ground, he put the U.S. at a strong disadvantage, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan."
Whatever his intentions, what Carter (and Turner) accomplished amounted to aiding and abetting the enemy, which resulted in our humiliation in Iran in the 1979 hostage crisis, the Russian war in Afghanistan in 1980, and the bombing of our marines’ barracks in Lebanon in 1982
And thanks to the liberal insanity of Jimmy Carter's dismantling of the CIA, we’ve lost control of our destiny in the Middle East-- giving impetus to the revival of Islamic fundamentalism-- which ultimately gave rise upon the world's stage to all of Islam's most infamous stars...Khomeini, Arafat, bin-Laden, Akmadinejad, and untold others -- including the 20 airliner hijackers who were responsible for 9-11.”
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Capitalism still works. It works everyday
In the column, “Economic Miracle,” Walt Williams eloquently illustrates how Capitalism works in our daily lives in very simple way through a grocery store. With Obama trying to force Keynesian economics morphed with full-blown Socialism, so many are saying Capitalism is outdated and is the problem. Obama, actually, said, “Capitalism is cruel and chaotic.” Then, he continued that the government needed to intervene to improve the system and stop this injustice. This is absolutely wrong in so many ways.
Williams explains very well that not one person or government, not even the Almighty Obama or Ingenious Geithner, can control the millions of variables in an economy the size of America. The reason the U.S.S.R. and so many other Socialist economies collapse is that the central planning government can not control every outcome in their economy and eventually can not meet the needs of all the people. Therefore, they could not generate enough capital, resources, goods, and wealth for it to sustain their people. This is why Communist China instituted key Capitalist principles to generate enough wealth, resources, and goods to try to sustain their people. That is why the U.S.S.R had waiting lines for toilet paper and bread and still did not have enough, although they had more than enough land and timber to make both.
The issue that Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and the like have with Capitalism is that, first, they do not, cannot, and shall not have control of everything or anything in the economy. The People do. The people that are active in the economy do the controlling, not the government. Second, the system makes people work, succeed, fail, and there is a definite result based upon the people’s actions. It works. It works without government. The people make it work. It works with freedom and liberty. All of this is the antithesis of what Liberals and Progressives believe.
Now, who would want to institute an economic system that does promote freedom, liberty, wealth, success, and definite results? Liberals and Progressives. Who wants to be a part of this type of system? Obviously, not Americans. That is why they are marching in the streets.
Capitalism is organized and just, not chaotic and unjust. In the column, Williams quotes Adam Smith, as follows:
“Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
The debate will always be how much intervening the government shall or can meddle into a capitalist economy; however, the People will always want a free Capitalistic system as a base, not an oppressive Socialistic one. The People will always choose freedom over oppression. The problem today is the People do not understand enough about economics to understand how bad Socialism is and how great Capitalism is, especially when times are hard like now. The People don’t understand the oppression of Socialism and the freedoms of Capitalism. Our educational system has failed our country, our principles, and our forefathers. That is for another discussion for another day.
We must spread the word of the greatness of country and our freedom, liberties, and wealth to anyone who will listen. We need to educate them how and why our great economy works and why Socialism is so wrong. We need to take a lesson from Walt Williams and break economics down to something as simple as a can of tuna.
Williams explains very well that not one person or government, not even the Almighty Obama or Ingenious Geithner, can control the millions of variables in an economy the size of America. The reason the U.S.S.R. and so many other Socialist economies collapse is that the central planning government can not control every outcome in their economy and eventually can not meet the needs of all the people. Therefore, they could not generate enough capital, resources, goods, and wealth for it to sustain their people. This is why Communist China instituted key Capitalist principles to generate enough wealth, resources, and goods to try to sustain their people. That is why the U.S.S.R had waiting lines for toilet paper and bread and still did not have enough, although they had more than enough land and timber to make both.
The issue that Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, and the like have with Capitalism is that, first, they do not, cannot, and shall not have control of everything or anything in the economy. The People do. The people that are active in the economy do the controlling, not the government. Second, the system makes people work, succeed, fail, and there is a definite result based upon the people’s actions. It works. It works without government. The people make it work. It works with freedom and liberty. All of this is the antithesis of what Liberals and Progressives believe.
Now, who would want to institute an economic system that does promote freedom, liberty, wealth, success, and definite results? Liberals and Progressives. Who wants to be a part of this type of system? Obviously, not Americans. That is why they are marching in the streets.
Capitalism is organized and just, not chaotic and unjust. In the column, Williams quotes Adam Smith, as follows:
“Adam Smith, the father of economics, captured the essence of this wonderful human cooperation when he said, "He (the businessman) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. ... He intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain." Adam Smith continues, "He is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ... By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." And later he adds, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
The debate will always be how much intervening the government shall or can meddle into a capitalist economy; however, the People will always want a free Capitalistic system as a base, not an oppressive Socialistic one. The People will always choose freedom over oppression. The problem today is the People do not understand enough about economics to understand how bad Socialism is and how great Capitalism is, especially when times are hard like now. The People don’t understand the oppression of Socialism and the freedoms of Capitalism. Our educational system has failed our country, our principles, and our forefathers. That is for another discussion for another day.
We must spread the word of the greatness of country and our freedom, liberties, and wealth to anyone who will listen. We need to educate them how and why our great economy works and why Socialism is so wrong. We need to take a lesson from Walt Williams and break economics down to something as simple as a can of tuna.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama's Great Welfare State
Obama and the Congressional Democrats have just passed their “Spendulous” Bill. The bill drastically “transforms” (Pelosi’s term, not mine) America. It spends over $12.4 billion of PORK! (See Right Voices and my blog Obama is Worried about Deficits NOW?) Many have opined what the ramifications of the socialized medicine, undermining parental authority, and massive debt that’s in the bill.
Well… there is the regressive welfare in the bill, also. On Flopping Aces, they explain what has changed in more detail. Briefly, the bill eliminated the reforms that the Gingrich Congress did the 90s. The reforms the American people demanded and the Conservatives promised and delivered are GONE.
So, states now get incentives for everyone they add to the welfare rolls. Also, the incentive for having more children has returned along with other regression of the welfare reforms. It is an abomination to the American dream that the government offers incentives to receive entitlements from the government. It creates a class of non-producers that doesn’t generate wealth for the society or themselves. It makes an entire class slaves to the State.
It is exactly what the Liberals and Obama want to do. First, they want to make it impossible for anyone to cut taxes and limit the government in the future. By creating QUADTRILLIONS in debt, no one can cut taxes and be fiscal responsible; therefore limiting governmental entitlements and programs will be impossible. The government’s power will be entrenched in our lives.
Then, by expanding the entitlements and benefits from the government, the Democrats can buy the votes of an entire class of people. The enslavement of these people guarantees and cements their power for a generation, as FDR’s programs did in the 1930s. It is irrelevant if the plan betters America. It is all about their power and keeping it at all costs—even at the cost of freedom, liberty, and America’s future.
The problem is that they don’t think enslaving the lower class and doling out taxpayers dollars to the less fortunate is bad for them or America. They call it compassion and charity. Conservatives and Libertarians and the Founders would call it theft and Socialism. They don’t understand that eventually the wealth runs out. The wealthy will eventually become poor or they simply leave. Look at Hungry, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, West Germany, U.S.S.R and countless others of the past, Read Atlas Shrugged.
And, they call themselves progressives. Quite regressive, isn’t it?
So, Obama’s grand plan with the “Spendulous” bill is to create such great debt that no one can cut taxes and reduce the government’s power again. Then, fund his programs. Finally, he will grow government programs to offer entitlements to so many people that the Democrats will have a voting class for years, entrenching their power. After that, they will be able to do anything they want politically and still get votes, because no one would vote against the Democrats who would have gave them everything they have and could take it away.
Hello, Nanny State. Hello, tyranny. Good-bye freedom, liberty, and America.
Hey Obama voters, is this the “change” you voted for?
Well… there is the regressive welfare in the bill, also. On Flopping Aces, they explain what has changed in more detail. Briefly, the bill eliminated the reforms that the Gingrich Congress did the 90s. The reforms the American people demanded and the Conservatives promised and delivered are GONE.
So, states now get incentives for everyone they add to the welfare rolls. Also, the incentive for having more children has returned along with other regression of the welfare reforms. It is an abomination to the American dream that the government offers incentives to receive entitlements from the government. It creates a class of non-producers that doesn’t generate wealth for the society or themselves. It makes an entire class slaves to the State.
It is exactly what the Liberals and Obama want to do. First, they want to make it impossible for anyone to cut taxes and limit the government in the future. By creating QUADTRILLIONS in debt, no one can cut taxes and be fiscal responsible; therefore limiting governmental entitlements and programs will be impossible. The government’s power will be entrenched in our lives.
Then, by expanding the entitlements and benefits from the government, the Democrats can buy the votes of an entire class of people. The enslavement of these people guarantees and cements their power for a generation, as FDR’s programs did in the 1930s. It is irrelevant if the plan betters America. It is all about their power and keeping it at all costs—even at the cost of freedom, liberty, and America’s future.
The problem is that they don’t think enslaving the lower class and doling out taxpayers dollars to the less fortunate is bad for them or America. They call it compassion and charity. Conservatives and Libertarians and the Founders would call it theft and Socialism. They don’t understand that eventually the wealth runs out. The wealthy will eventually become poor or they simply leave. Look at Hungry, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, West Germany, U.S.S.R and countless others of the past, Read Atlas Shrugged.
And, they call themselves progressives. Quite regressive, isn’t it?
So, Obama’s grand plan with the “Spendulous” bill is to create such great debt that no one can cut taxes and reduce the government’s power again. Then, fund his programs. Finally, he will grow government programs to offer entitlements to so many people that the Democrats will have a voting class for years, entrenching their power. After that, they will be able to do anything they want politically and still get votes, because no one would vote against the Democrats who would have gave them everything they have and could take it away.
Hello, Nanny State. Hello, tyranny. Good-bye freedom, liberty, and America.
Hey Obama voters, is this the “change” you voted for?
Why Socialism is so Dangerous
So many people today throw the word Socialism around without really considering what it really means. Socialism is the opposite of what America stands for. It is the antithesis of what the Founders planned for this nation. It is in essence why we fled from Europe in the 1500s and 1600s and why we fought the Revolutionary War. The essence of Socialism is why immigrants flooded Ellis Island fleeing Europe and illegal immigrants risks their lives today crossing the U.S.-Mexican border. Socialism is the lack of freedom and liberty. Socialism limits both to control its people and its economy while we are for freedom for both.
When this country was founded, the Framers had a choice between the ideas Adam Smith, David Hume, and John Locke--free market ideas (capitalism)-- or the Old World ideas of mercantilism The Framers chose capitalism because is exemplified the founding principles of America—freedom, liberty, and ownership of private property. Capitalism placed the power with the people and not the government, which mercantilism did and socialism does today. This choice of freedom allowed this nation to grow and prosper and become a beacon to the world—“a shining city on a hill.” It exemplified what is “good”. It exemplified true freedom. It still does.
Our free markets and our people’s freedom are one in the same. One cannot be without the other. When the government interferes with either it affects the other. For example, when the government taxes the people or business excessively, it drastically affects the freedom of what they can or will do. Socialism limits both its people and the economy; therefore, it impedes their ability and desire to create anything.
Not only did our Founders have the wisdom that we should have free markets and a free people, but they also saw the enormous benefit of the people having private property rights. This allowed the people to generate great infinite wealth. Wealth that we still create today. Socialism is the opposite. The State eventually owns the property. All the property. Eventually, the State controls everything—without personal freedom or liberty for the people.
We, as a country, are losing the sense of our roots. We are forgetting what we stand for. We are losing our freedoms. First and foremost, the U.S. government must promote liberty and private property rights—not limit or control them. Private property is not just physical property, such as land, but ALL property, such as businesses, money (income and profits), intellectual, and so on. In accordance, the government must advance capitalist (free market) principles. Capitalism creates endless wealth for all indiscriminately. Capitalism sustains the freedom and liberty of the Republic.
In the last few months we have, not just slipped, but raced toward Socialism. Any form of socialism retards economic, social, and personal growth throughout our society. Just look at Norway, Russia, France, Cuba, and list goes on. Socialism in any form limits freedom in countless areas. This impediment of freedom and liberty limits creativity, creation of any wealth, and free will. Socialism is not just economic but infests all parts of a society.
Socialism seems in the short term a great idea. It soothes whatever economic ailments are immediately felt--job losses, bankruptcies, limited funds, etc. However, in the long run, without the freedom of personal creativity, creation of any wealth, and free will resources begin to crumble and waste away. There is not any incentive to create anything since it does not benefit anyone but the State. Eventually, there is nothing left. Again, look at Russia, Cuba, China and others.
Now, if Socialism is so horrible, why are we racing toward it? Throughout history when events of turmoil and tumult arise, such as an economic collapse, governmental turmoil, or social unrest, Socialism seems to be the best support during the trying times. It soothes the immediate ailments of the time. Such examples are Russia of 1910s, Germany of the 1930s, Italy of the 1930s, and U.S. of today.
The problem is that, although the immediate ailments may seem soothed, in the long term the people eventually end up in much worse circumstances. Take the prior examples of Russia, Germany, and Italy. All of them went from a national socialism, the government owing major industries, to a dictatorship (tyranny), which is the natural progression. All them ultimately went to war and in time collapsed in absolute ruin. By looking at Socialism in this manner, it seems not only immoral but also definitely anti-American.
The fact is that Capitalism naturally has it up and downs—its cycles. This is how it naturally cleanses itself of weaker participants of the system, such as our car companies or the financial companies. It is not only natural, but it is painful. But, it is humane. It is better for the economy and the people as a whole to have failure. It is better to have tried and failed than to be falsely supported by the government with a faulty product or industry. It is better to try, fail, and then find something better than to keep doing more of something that does not work. This is what one with common sense would call waste—something the government is very good at.
So, as the U.S. government buys into its industries, it is practicing Socialism. It is propping up industries that need to learn from failure. It would be the best for the economy as a whole, if they failed. By flirting with Socialism, the U.S. is undermining its core principles and marching toward the economic and social models it abhors and has called evil in the past. Tyranny.
As more Socialist principles are incorporate into the U.S. economy and government, the people will lose more and more of their freedom, liberty, and happiness. If we do not stop this now, the U.S. could become the next Russia, Germany, or Italy on the dust heap of history. All of this would be because we left our core principles of freedom, liberty, and ownership of private property. All of this would be because we would not take a little pain of a recession. All of this because the people listened to a few people in the government who want more power and control for themselves and less freedom for the people.
When this country was founded, the Framers had a choice between the ideas Adam Smith, David Hume, and John Locke--free market ideas (capitalism)-- or the Old World ideas of mercantilism The Framers chose capitalism because is exemplified the founding principles of America—freedom, liberty, and ownership of private property. Capitalism placed the power with the people and not the government, which mercantilism did and socialism does today. This choice of freedom allowed this nation to grow and prosper and become a beacon to the world—“a shining city on a hill.” It exemplified what is “good”. It exemplified true freedom. It still does.
Our free markets and our people’s freedom are one in the same. One cannot be without the other. When the government interferes with either it affects the other. For example, when the government taxes the people or business excessively, it drastically affects the freedom of what they can or will do. Socialism limits both its people and the economy; therefore, it impedes their ability and desire to create anything.
Not only did our Founders have the wisdom that we should have free markets and a free people, but they also saw the enormous benefit of the people having private property rights. This allowed the people to generate great infinite wealth. Wealth that we still create today. Socialism is the opposite. The State eventually owns the property. All the property. Eventually, the State controls everything—without personal freedom or liberty for the people.
We, as a country, are losing the sense of our roots. We are forgetting what we stand for. We are losing our freedoms. First and foremost, the U.S. government must promote liberty and private property rights—not limit or control them. Private property is not just physical property, such as land, but ALL property, such as businesses, money (income and profits), intellectual, and so on. In accordance, the government must advance capitalist (free market) principles. Capitalism creates endless wealth for all indiscriminately. Capitalism sustains the freedom and liberty of the Republic.
In the last few months we have, not just slipped, but raced toward Socialism. Any form of socialism retards economic, social, and personal growth throughout our society. Just look at Norway, Russia, France, Cuba, and list goes on. Socialism in any form limits freedom in countless areas. This impediment of freedom and liberty limits creativity, creation of any wealth, and free will. Socialism is not just economic but infests all parts of a society.
Socialism seems in the short term a great idea. It soothes whatever economic ailments are immediately felt--job losses, bankruptcies, limited funds, etc. However, in the long run, without the freedom of personal creativity, creation of any wealth, and free will resources begin to crumble and waste away. There is not any incentive to create anything since it does not benefit anyone but the State. Eventually, there is nothing left. Again, look at Russia, Cuba, China and others.
Now, if Socialism is so horrible, why are we racing toward it? Throughout history when events of turmoil and tumult arise, such as an economic collapse, governmental turmoil, or social unrest, Socialism seems to be the best support during the trying times. It soothes the immediate ailments of the time. Such examples are Russia of 1910s, Germany of the 1930s, Italy of the 1930s, and U.S. of today.
The problem is that, although the immediate ailments may seem soothed, in the long term the people eventually end up in much worse circumstances. Take the prior examples of Russia, Germany, and Italy. All of them went from a national socialism, the government owing major industries, to a dictatorship (tyranny), which is the natural progression. All them ultimately went to war and in time collapsed in absolute ruin. By looking at Socialism in this manner, it seems not only immoral but also definitely anti-American.
The fact is that Capitalism naturally has it up and downs—its cycles. This is how it naturally cleanses itself of weaker participants of the system, such as our car companies or the financial companies. It is not only natural, but it is painful. But, it is humane. It is better for the economy and the people as a whole to have failure. It is better to have tried and failed than to be falsely supported by the government with a faulty product or industry. It is better to try, fail, and then find something better than to keep doing more of something that does not work. This is what one with common sense would call waste—something the government is very good at.
So, as the U.S. government buys into its industries, it is practicing Socialism. It is propping up industries that need to learn from failure. It would be the best for the economy as a whole, if they failed. By flirting with Socialism, the U.S. is undermining its core principles and marching toward the economic and social models it abhors and has called evil in the past. Tyranny.
As more Socialist principles are incorporate into the U.S. economy and government, the people will lose more and more of their freedom, liberty, and happiness. If we do not stop this now, the U.S. could become the next Russia, Germany, or Italy on the dust heap of history. All of this would be because we left our core principles of freedom, liberty, and ownership of private property. All of this would be because we would not take a little pain of a recession. All of this because the people listened to a few people in the government who want more power and control for themselves and less freedom for the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)