Barack's Plans Equal Communism-Lite

CelticKing · Oct 30, 2008

Barack's Plans Equal Communism-Lite

I felt there is no better time than now to bring up some very important things about Sen. Barack Obama that are going under the radar. It extends beyond liberal or conservative, black or white. It deals with the future well being of America, so read this with an open mind and not a politically biased mindset and it might actually make some sense.

All throughout his campaign, Mr. Obama has been advocating policies that require heavy government involvement in our personal lives. Need help with money? Barack says he'll help you. Need help with healthcare? Barack says he'll help you.

There is a word for this: socialism (which is one small step down from communism, which is when the government tries to meet all your needs.) Unfortunately, not enough Americans - mainly in the 18-35 age group - are familiar enough with socialism to recognize its tendencies or catch phrases.

I'm young, too, but my interest in the histories of communist/socialist countries has helped me realize that a lot of communist dictators started off by appearing to reach out to the needy. Think about it - prior to being elected, they didn't win over support by being mean and ruthless. Communist dictators such as Vladmir Lenin in Russia, Fidel Castro in Cuba and Mao Zedong in China rose to power because they represented a young, fresh-faced savior who would take it upon himself to bring about "change."

Mao, in particular, got massive support from China's youth, similar to how Mr. Obama appeals to America's youngest voters. Only after these men were in power for a couple years did the citizens recognize their mistakes and the horrible fates of their freedoms and ways of living. But by then, their character had been so decimated and freedoms so oppressed that it was too late to go back.

Mr. Obama has this same effect on so many people in their teens, 20s and 30s, especially the college-educated crowd - many of whom go around acting like they can solve the world's problems because they got a degree. But if more of these haughty dim-bulbs had researched the socialist trends throughout recent world history, they maybe would have caught on to some of Mr. Obama's socialist tendencies.

What are some of these socialist tendencies? Here are a few, and they are expressions you've been hearing for quite some time now on the campaign trail.

Redistribution Of Wealth
That's a fancy way of saying Mr. Obama will balance the income levels of the American population. A key characteristic of socialism is financial balance. To achieve this, money needs to be taken from the wealthy and given to the poor (it doesn't just appear out of thin air).

When this happens, the wealthy lose incentive to keep working hard. Those trying to move up in society give up on their dreams because they can make a similar amount of money by kicking back and living off the government. When this happens, a society's morale suffers, because laziness and selfishness rise.

Small businesses fold up, because they can't afford to pay employees and big businesses suffer because they stop seeing the point in making loads of money when in the end, it will be forcibly "redistributed" to someone at the bottom.

In a capitalist society, there isn't this income balance, which gives many people the impression that our country's system of capitalism is somehow "messed up." However, wanting to make more money strengthens each person who desires this rise up the totem pole.
They're work ethic is strengthened, they're mind is strengthened while they are mastering the skills needed for their craft, and, in due time, their pockets are thickened.

In Obama's America, those very fat pockets are the enemy. Those same fattened pockets that provide countless people with jobs and this country with major moneymaking corporations. Those people would be the targets and needed to be brought down to size in an Obama administration.

Why? There is nothing wrong with being rich, considering the bulk of rich people worked their way up to achieve their dreams. A line from the sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond" comes to mind, when hearing Obama talk about his plans: "He is a dream-squasher."

Do you have dreams and desires to move up in the world? Did you bust your tail in high school and college to help achieve these dreams? Well, tell me how you are going to achieve those dreams when the government constantly has their hands in your wallet, by taxing you more and setting aside funds for programs THEY, not you, may want?

"I WILL RAISE TAXES ONLY ON THOSE FAMILIES MAKING $250,000 OR MORE": This is deceiving on several fronts. The $250,000 in a year is the combined income of families, not per person. Assuming both the husband and wife work, an average of $125,000 per person is definitely a comfortable amount, but not full-blown rich (as Mr. Obama claims) when you have kids, bills, a mortgage, etc.

In general, the rich already pay higher income taxes, because taxes are a percentage. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? And what's the sense in raising them more?

Though Mr. Obama is keeping it out of his speeches, taxes will have to be hiked on the lower and middle classes too, in order to raise enough money to pay for his FREE HEALTH CARE. Anybody who thinks universal healthcare will truly be "free" is kidding themselves. After all, the money has to come from somewhere, and that is through more taxes. The quality of healthcare will go down, but we will all still have to pay for it - even those who can afford decent healthcare.

I Am Here To Bring You The Change We Need
Many people (and politicians) need a little reminder that the role of the federal government in a capitalist society is to stay out of people's personal business as much as possible. In this case, we have a politician that is attempting to diminish capitalism and bring in a new form of (bigger) government. Our country's Declaration of Independence stresses that government as a whole should not be overly involved. And if involvement is absolutely necessary, the city government deals with the brunt of the problem first, and if more help is needed, the state government steps in.

The Founding Fathers did not want the Feds to have such a heavy influence over the entire nation because it too closely resembled tyranny. Let people figure out their own issues and generally, problems get solved quicker and more efficiently.

Mr. Obama wants the federal government to have more influence on us than any of us have ever experienced in our lives, which makes him look an awful lot like a tyrant.

And if Democrat mayors with big-government policies can't bring people out of poverty (which they always promise to do) or solve problems on the local level in cities such as Philly, Detroit or New Orleans, how will the Democrats properly handle the burden of an entire nation? "Change" may sound appealing, but is it worth having the Feds breathing down your back as a result?

When Election Day rolls around, put aside your political affiliation and attempt to see down the line. Is it worth uprooting what has made America great throughout its history, simply because times may be tough now, or because you have a few beefs with our current president? If you think your current situation is so bad that you need to be held by the hand by the federal government and be taken care of, then push the lever for Barack Hussein Obama. But remember, what seems like positive change at first isn't always a good thing in the long haul. Just ask an elderly person who was born in Cuba or China.
Click to expand...

Pontius · Oct 30, 2008

Was this some kid's college term paper? It wreaks of logic and sophistication.

Log in or Sign up

Barack's Plans Equal Communism-Lite

CelticKing The Green Monster

Pontius Pitched tents are grody!

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Barack's Plans Equal Communism-Lite

Moderators

CelticKing The Green Monster

Pontius Pitched tents are grody!

Share This Page

Useful Searches