There is an old and humorous analogy that deals with the politically based economics that are defines a country’s political philosophy. The analogy goes something like this: “In a free capitalist society, you can buy a cow, and unless you sell it is yours. In a socialist society the government owns at least half the cow and “allows” you to own what is left, and in a communist society the government owns the cow, but convinces you own it.” In other words, in a capitalist society an individual may buy and sell property for the purpose of profit, while risking lost. In a socialist society, an individual may own property but need to obtain permission needs to make a profit of his/her property, and depending on how much of the property the individual owns, that person’s profit or loss may be equal or less than that of the government’s. If the government owns more of the property, they gain more profit, and if they lose money, they just make up for that loss by taxing private property, Causing the private individual to lose even more, while the government either breaks even or profits on that loss. In a communist society, the government owns everything, and taxes people who have nothing.
I bring up and explain this analogy, because in January, President Obama and the Democratic controlled congress took an oath to uphold the principles of the United States of America. The principles of “our great country” are based on a capitalist system of free enterprise. Yet, this man and his cronies appear to be taking this country in a socialist direction, as shown by the Government’s recent purchase of 60% ownership of General Motors.
However, the truth is that during the election, and then Senator Obama outlined their socialist agenda overtly by brainwashing the American people into believing he wanted to help them. He did this by promising free healthcare to all Americans, and a system in which every American would prosper. President Obama’s and the “Liberals’” method of alleged socialistic activism is unique in that “to my knowledge” socialism has historically been accomplished by brainwashing the poor and uneducated. Examples of this are China and the former Soviet Union (U.S.S.R, which eventually became communist countries. In contrast, President Obama and the Liberals also successfully achieved their goals by brainwashing the middle class and educated classes. Now, I am not suggesting that we are at risk of becoming a communist country. This country has too many educated people for that to happen, in my opinion.
Also, in all fairness to some of the people who helped put President Obama and the liberals in office, not everyone who voted for President Obama entirely at fault. Like all good con-artist Obama and the liberals used timing and fear to get into power. Specifically they played upon the fear of people adversely affected by an economic crisis which admittedly, began under the watch of President George W. Bush. They used this opportunity to make guarantees of free health care to everyone, while concurrently lowering their taxes. Under normal circumstances many of these same voters would have been able to figure out that a country whose social security system has been bankrupt for over 30 years, cannot possibly offer free healthcare to every person in this country, without either raising taxes, taking over private companies, or both.
As a result, “GM no longer stands for “General Motors,” but “Government Motors.” The fact is If GM prospers; the liberals now in power will get 60% of the profits contributed to their expense accounts and pork projects. If the government loses money on the GM buy out, there is a very real possibility that the private shareholders that own 40% of GM and the rest of us will be taxed at a higher tax rate. Either way, the American public is likely to end up funding the pork projects and the pockets of the liberals’ political and business cronies. Ultimately the Obama Administration has created an economic win-win situation for the tax and spend liberals now in power, and a lose-lose situation for the American taxpayer.
I will close my remarks unapologetically, by stating that because I do not wish to live in a country run on a socialist form of economics, I sincerely hope I am wrong. However, I plan to keep a very close watch on our national leadership to make sure socialist policies are not put in place, and I hope you do likewise.
Remember, the definition of a socialist economic system as part of a country’s political policy, is that the government owns part of the private property, company, or industry, therefore limiting the ability for private individuals to prosper.