It’s official: Obama Embraces Socialism, Misrepresents The American Dream, Can’t Distinguish Between Charity and Government Mandate

That’s it – I’ve tried to be nice about this – but this is just flat-out absurd:

On the stump this week, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has pushed back against Sen. John McCain’s description of his tax policies.

“The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich,” Obama said in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. “I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.”

Whoops … WRONG! The American Dream is to live in peace and liberty, free to pursue our own dreams (Free from government thugs melding and interference, beyond upholding rule of law and basic protections). It has nothing, again – absolutely nothing to do with material wealth whatsoever. Since when did the Persuit of Happiness = cars, houses, and all that crap. And this phony-bologna Orwellian concept of “economic justice”…is simply victimization, coupled with jealousy – with a more acceptable name. (Also called – Marxism.)

“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise.

Wow – that sounds really nice and utopian… Like I said – Marxism. It’s the simple question Joe Biden couldn’t answer:

“From each according to his abilities – to each according to his need” -Karl Marx

By what right do you decide when someone else has too much, Senator? How exactly does that promote Liberty?

Barrack continues:

“That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

[Source]

What a load of Horsesh*t! It’s not selfish to feel entitled to the wages you earn. It’s selfish to covet what other people have, and set up tyrannical governments with the power to steal from them for yourself. Neither is it “selfish” to believe that I may be a better judge of who I give charity to, than the State. Virtue is earning an honest wage for hard work. Virtue is giving out of compassion – not compulsion! And this isn’t some isolated speech. Here’s Obama in 2001 on what he dresses up in fluffy bunny terms as “redistributive change”:

Seriously – those of you out there waiting for the government handout – how much is your Liberty worth? $3,000-$5,000? You want to grant the State the authority to decree how much is wealthy – and then take it from those that have it by force…? I hope you enjoy your new overlords. 

For crying out load – this is exactly how tyranny triumphs…slowly, masked as nice sounding ideas. You victimize a major group of society, a the same time demonizing another group (This is exactly what the Obama camp has done the entire election, and I am sick and tired of beating around the bush. Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Anything, blah blah blah – they are all evil – you should hate their wealth – they stole it from you…), then promise the “victims” riches, in exchange for power. For goodness sake, take a look at history.

And If Obama doesn’t understand the difference between “sharing toys” or “peanut butter sandwiches” by your own free will, and government mandated “sharing” – then, I’m sorry but he just isn’t all that bright.  

Steyn Expands:

In a free society, the citizen chooses whether to share his Lego, trade it for some Thomas the Tank Engine train tracks, or keep it to himself. From that freedom of action grow mighty Playmobile cities. Communism is compulsion. It’s the government confiscating your Elmo to “share” it with someone of its choice. Joe the Plumber is free to spread his own wealth around — hiring employees, buying supplies from local businesses, enjoying surf’n’turf night at his favorite eatery. But, in Obama’s world view, that’s not good enough: the state is the best judge of how to spread Joe the Plumber’s wealth around.

Governments. do. not. give. up. power. That was the point of the American Revolution and Constitution – to limit the powers of government and throw off the chains of tyranny. 

And look, I’m sure Obama is a swell guy – and electing him obviously isn’t going to instantly transform America into a tyrannical socialist slave nation. But make an effort to understand his underlying philosophy on economics, private property, the role of supreme court justices, etc before you vote for his kind of “change”. His views are far left of center and anything but “moderate.”

The Spoiled Children of Capitalism

Jonah Goldberg wrote a great piece this last week about Capitalism and why people tend to dislike it – though most of their entire livelihood is a direct result of living in a capitalist system. I think it it a very important opinion to add into the ring. Read it here, or below (emphasis mine):

It’s an old story. Loving parents provide a generous environment for their offspring. Kids are given not only ample food, clothing and shelter, but the emotional necessities as well: encouragement, discipline, self-reliance, the ability to work with others and on their own. And yet, in due course, the kids rebel. Some even say their parents never loved them, that they were unfair, indifferent, cruel. Often, such protests are sparked by parents’ refusal to be even more generous. I want a car, demands the child. Work for it, insist the parents. Why do you hate me? asks the ingrate. 

Of course, being an old story doesn’t make it a universal one. But the dynamic is universally understood.

We’ve all witnessed the tendency to take a boon for granted. Being accustomed to a provision naturally leads the human heart to consider that provision an entitlement. Hence the not-infrequent lawsuits from prison inmates cruelly denied their rights to cable TV or apple brown betty for desert. 

And so it goes, I think, with capitalism generally.

Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude.

People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions. Likewise, in his civilizational infancy man was poor, in every sense. He lived in ignorance, filth, hunger, and pain, and he died very young, either by violence or disease. 

The interesting question isn’t “Why is there poverty?” It’s “Why is there wealth?” Or: “Why is there prosperity here but not there?”

At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own. 

For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.

A recent World Bank study found that a nation’s wealth resides in its “intangible capital” — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. “Natural capital” (minerals, croplands, etc.) and “produced capital” (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet’s wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth. 

Any number of countries in Africa are vastly richer in baubles and soil than Switzerland. But they are poor because they are impoverished in what they value. 

In large measure our wealth isn’t the product of capitalism, it is capitalism. 

And yet we hate it. Leaving religion out of it, no idea has given more to humanity. The average working-class person today is richer, in real terms, than the average prince or potentate of 300 years ago. His food is better, his life longer, his health better, his menu of entertainments vastly more diverse, histoilette infinitely more civilized. And yet we constantly hear how cruel capitalism is while this collectivism or that is more loving because, unlike capitalism, collectivism is about the group, not the individual. 

These complaints grow loudest at times like this: when the loom of capitalism momentarily stutters in spinning its gold. Suddenly, the people ask: What have you done for me lately? Politicians croon about how we need to give in to Causes Larger than Ourselves and peck about like hungry chickens for a New Way to replace dying capitalism. 

This is the patient leaping to embrace the disease and reject the cure. Recessions are fewer and weaker thanks in part to trade, yet whenever recessions appear on the horizon, politicians dive into their protectionist bunkers. Not surprising that this week we saw the demise of the Doha round of trade negotiations, and this campaign season we’ve heard the thunder of anti-trade rhetoric move ever closer.

This is the irony of capitalism. It is not zero-sum, but it feels like it is. Capitalism coordinates humanity toward peaceful, productive cooperation, but it feels alienating. Collectivism does the opposite, at least when dreamed up on paper. The communes and collectives imploded in inefficiency, drowned in blood. The kibbutz lives on only as a tourist attraction, a baseball fantasy camp for nostalgic socialists. Meanwhile, billions have ridden capitalism out of poverty. 

And yet the children of capitalism still whine.

Here are a couple more closing thoughts.