The names are flying; Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Marxist and the effect is equal to a punch thrown with a paper fist. Why, because those being called names don't know what these terms mean in the true sense. They view the names as tactics and not what's behind them.
We'll start with the most common name being thrown out today, "Socialist". Obama in his own words said he would like to redistribute the wealth; a very common approach in Socialism. Socialism and Communism have similarities but it is said that Communism is arrived at by force while Socialism is something the people unknowingly usher in at their own demise.
The most common theme for both is that everything is owned by the state. All production is owned and controlled by those in leadership. In America today we are seeing government grow by leaps and bounds while legislating a stake in industry all in the name of economic recovery. The bailouts and the government's ownership in these businesses are a scary example of this trend, but lets put our focus for now on Socialism.
The promise is to right the class system as long as the masses trust them. In Socialism, property and wealth are owned by the state and then distributed accordingly. In our own government, we can see this system at work in the bailouts. Only the opposite occurred. The richest got the bailouts while the poor paid for them in inflation and higher prices for everything. And so go the promises of Socialism. The wealth is never distributed from the top down. Logically, why would these people in leadership choose us over money? Agenda is the only thing that needs to be looked at. If politicians do the bidding of the rich they get more money, the cycle of corruption is created. And we the free people think we are getting a government we elect and control.
When the bail out bill was presented, so many Americans called their elected officials to say no that not only did the phone switchboards crash but the government websites did as well. It was as as if the people were silent; big business and industry got trillions of dollars of our hard earned money and our elected officials didn't hear a word we said. Our elected officials proved with 100% clarity they are 100% corrupt. And we want to allow them to distribute the wealth of our country? I'm not a betting person but I'll bet we the lonely slaves never see a dime of it.
The richest resources are confiscated and owned by elected leaders and the people are left to share the leftovers. Socialism could work in an environment absent of corruption and greed but because of this, it's more of a fantasy than a reality.
Socialism becomes very attractive to the poor because they see it as a way out of their struggle. They see the unfairness of others having wealth where they do not. And this is the draw to grow the numbers to vote for Socialism. We all saw in the recent election where people were coming on the news and saying I can't wait for Obama to take office so I don't have to pay my mortgage any longer.
This is very telling of the propaganda people are being pulled in with. But the whole element of toil for that wealth is a concept they don't understand. Why should they if they are going to be given something for nothing. They see it more as a lucky game of cards rather than achievement from hard work. They see themselves getting an equal share of the wealth although they did nothing to achieve it. It becomes a disconnect for the concept of working hard to be successful. Truly this concept can only be learned by doing. And people have been made poor by the monetary policies in America. The Federal Reserve has been robbing the American people since 1913. The more money they print, the less the dollars in our pocket are worth until we are forced to go on government assistance. These voters were created out of dependency on their government, not freedom liberty or an ideology.
Socialist have an agenda when elected, to promise the people a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor only these leaders are backed by the rich. The only transfer that ever occurs is from the poor to the wealthy. Those in charge of equalizing are put in a position to be bought by the highest bidder for their ability to make things equal. But equal is relative to who is paying you the most money.
The election of Obama was at a tipping point. He's a Socialist, his change although never stated out right, is to bring in Socialism. The "powers that be" wagered that enough people in America were getting government handouts to support more welfare that the election would be a cinch. They gambled correctly. Everything he has said is the opposite of everything he has done. He's given more corporate welfare than any president in the history of America. And the sad part is his followers keep thinking he's going to also bail them out since he's bailing folks out only that bailout will never come.
Socialism isn't about making people equal, it's about power. Socialism has one function; to use the concept of equality to get into power. Once the people have given you permission to divvy things up you give everything to the people who paid for your campaign. Everything goes to the richest because they ran your ads, and they paid for your t-shirts and your logos and wrote your speeches about change. Once elected it's too late for citizens to do anything. He is their leader, they are stuck with the damage he does. And most will defend the insanity rather than realizing and admitting they were duped. Some never even realize it because they like their ignorant bliss. They don't want to believe their government would harm them or doesn't work for them.
Just one example of who Obama's in bed with and it ain't us.
Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)
Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?
In return, Big Pharma isn't just supporting universal health care. It's also spending a lots of money on TV and radio advertising in support. Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign), after having already spent a bundle through advocacy groups like Healthy Economies Now and Families USA.
Folks you are getting screwed and not even so much as a kiss.