When you prepare new ground for a garden, you have to do a lot of prep work before you can actually plant your seeds, tend the young plants, and finally, reap your harvest. Pres-elect Obama is in the ground prep phase of his upcoming administration.
He’s telling all of us, almost every day, in as non-threatening way as possible, what he intends. Many Americans won’t actually hear him, and even if they do, they will not know what he means. I believe he is telling us exactly what his intent is.
“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe,” Obama said. “Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy — where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.”
Folks, we can’t say later on that we “had no idea” what Obama and his crew want to do. The direction they want to take our country in is a clear break from our past and present path of liberty, free market capitalism, and equal opportunities for all.
I don’t believe for one second that only government can resolve, or even begin the resolution of this economic crisis. As harsh as it sounds, we must allow the free market system to work as it would naturally. If companies, even huge companies upon whom millions of people depend, have been irresponsible, careless, or frivolous with their cash, then we should allow the natural consequences of these actions to happen. I for one can’t quite figure out how just giving billions of dollars to companies that run through money like a hot knife through butter will make any difference in the long run. What will be different now, that will keep them from needing another bailout next year?
I am not an economist. I don’t know a lot about economics and financial matters, but I do know that if I spend more than I bring in, and max out all my avenues of credit, that is my problem. It’s my situation that I get myself into, and it is morally and ethically wrong to go ask my neighbor to pay my credit card bill and make a deposit into my bank account, so that I won’t go bankrupt.
I know these rules, and I go by them. Corporations must do the same. It is basic economic priniciples, and letting those principles work as they should brings short-term pain and hardship, but true recovery and increased prosperity for all in the end.
“Only government?” Codespeak for “we know what’s best, and we’re going to move the country toward socialism like we’ve been trying to do for decades and now finally we have the best shot at it that we’ve ever had.”
Pay attention, people.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=d1c36cba-5723-4aac-9f87-f779232fd454)
{ 7 comments }
Hi pup, I’ve been gone a few days. Excellent post. I need to do some delving into the principles of the New Socialist party that Mr. Obama belonged to up there in Chicago…but I’m betting that we already know what they believe in…and that we are seeing in played out before our eyes. I have done some reading and they were a left branch of the Democratic party, and just like you indicated, they did want to move the country in a socialist direction. They worked to get certain people elected to office “up there in Chicago”. From what I have read about Obama’s past associations, it seems he hung around long enough to use them to step up to the next rung of the ladder, but then would quickly discard them. But he’s hung around one too many socialists to think it didn’t rub off on his ideology.
Hi Kathy, glad you’re back. I completely agree with you. I did a search a while back on “Democratic Socialist countries”, just out of curiosity, and one of the search results was the Democratic Socialist Party based in Chicago. I’ve been intending to go back and read more at that site. I agree with you, though, Obama has been around that for far too long.
Hey pup, I would just like to add that if one listens carefully to the words being used by the new president, one can see how he thinks. I think the term “only government” is very telling. Another word I heard him use in the campaign was “fair”. It was in relation to “spreading the wealth around”. He said that was “fair”. I am starting to hear this bandied about a bit more often these days. I think this is absolutely codespeak for socialism. And when you delve into the background of the people he learned from and the groups he and Michelle were a part of, you understand where the terminology is coming from. I read yesterday that socialism is the stage between capitalism and communism. Dr. Zhivago is on this week…I wonder if the people from that time thought their government was “fair”. Check out a new link I listed under Resources on my blog….www.discoverthenetworks.org It’s definitely enlightening and one can study for days.
Kathy,
Thanks for the great comment. My ears prick up at the words “just”, “social justice”, and “fair”. Like you, I believe this is the language of socialism. People hear the word “socialism” and they think it ONLY means a harsh dictator, concentration camps, and such. They don’t realize that there exist now socialist democracies, and that is what I think the pres-elect and his crew and supporters want.
That link you sent, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org is great! I am a big fan of David Horowitz and I think that’s one of his. I’m going to add it to my list too. Also, Horowitz’ other site http://www.frontpagemag.com, is very good too.
Thanks, great and informative comment. Appreciate it!
The more I think about it, the more I believe that the left does not believe it is “fair” that people can choose to work hard and earn money and create businesses and economic growth while others will not. They see the discrepancy between the earnings and status of the two groups and declare it not fair. They seem to ignore the fact that one group made the decision to improve themselves while the other did not. I am not speaking of those who for some reason or other “can not”. But I think what happens is that the “can nots” and the “will nots” all get lumped together in the mind of liberal thinking and the ideology wants to treat them all the same, which is, they need taking care of. This creates hardship and resentments on the part of those who work to take care of themselves and their families, pay taxes, and pay their bills responsibly. These two groups are not the same. The truth is, it’s not “fair” to force the motivated, hard working, person to support the “will nots”, which I think we see too much of in government programs because they do not make the distinction. But I don’t think they are able to trust the private sector to care for the “can nots” and so, we have government programs, with large beaurocracies, bloated budgets, waste, and corruption. Federal and state governments get too large to effectively manage anything. Then when a government comes in that encourages Dependency On Government, the dependent group can grow much larger, thereby putting an even greater burden on the responsible and independent ones, making them wonder why go on. This truly is not “fair”. (This is all written from the viewpoint of being the oldest and most responsible child in the family. Not that I haven’t also screwed up and been really irresponsible in my younger adult days.)
You are so right. And you know a word I DON’T hear the liberals use very much? Liberty. Individual freedom. They talk so much about “fairness” (their idea of it) but I never hear them talk about liberty. I wonder if they even ever think about that concept?
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one, pup. You’re right, they don’t discuss, liberty or the Constitution and what it means very much. When people move away from absolutes, which is what I consider the Constitution (and the Bible) to be, they start making up their own rules. That’s a very scary place to be.