I’ve been doing a lot of reading, listening, and observing about what’s going on these days nationally in the news, and in particular, all of the political posturing with regards to the upcoming elections. I think we need some clarity because where the country is actually moving towards is being masked under words and catch phrases like “social justice”, and “taxing the rich.” I’ve never been more concerned about our future in my life.
…please read it all the way to the end before you lump me in to a group of thinkers and then comment. I’m very much an independent thinker.
Liberalist/socialist-based economic systems have never been successful ONCE in history. Not ONCE. Every single one collapsed on itself because it couldn’t sustain itself. Democracy/Republic-based capitalism works because it offers the freedom to both the work force and entrepreneurs to achieve scientific and industrial discovery and ingenuity as well as technological advances, leading to a prosperity that fosters economic growth through competition. Both economic systems require regulation/legislation with Socialist economics needing more to maintain it than Capitalism does (again, history proves that) but at the same time I do understand that we need rules (I'm not an anarchist here either).
The primary difference between the two is that capitalism is intended to raise everybody from the bottom-up to success, while Socialist-based economics regulate a level playing field by bringing everybody from the top down to a society-defined “capped” level of prosperity, usually through taxing (thus penalizing) or legislating the hell out of those at the top. That's the difference between Socialist and Capitalist economic theory. Under the guise of “being fair”, one preaches equality at all costs with success being squandered in the process while the other promotes prosperity while those who do not choose to excel pay the piper with regulation behind it making sure that there is equal opportunity for success for those who really want it.
Socialist-based economics at its core requires additional income from those who succeed via excessive taxation in order to pay for society as a whole, which actually keeps the poor people poor through de-motivation to outperform their peers. “Why strive to be better when I can only achieve so much?” or “Why should I want to make more money when the government will take it all anyway?” becomes the norm, thus creating economic stagnancy as a nation. Case study: USSR from 1960’s to its fall in 1991.
Capitalist economics rewards those who succeed with the understanding that if some win, most everybody does as well through additional employment and job-creation. When everybody’s working, more tax revenue is generated simply because of the overall quantity of contributors, and coupled with an eye on spending, the prosperity should continue.
On Personal Choices
Listen, where it exists that the playing field to succeed isn't level because of disparages in education or opportunity, those need to be addressed, I totally get that because again, in capitalist systems, when more people win, the country prospers! But at the same time there is nothing wrong with enjoying one’s success, nor conversely can you FORCE SUCCESS ON THOSE WHO ARE EITHER NOT WILLING TO GO GET IT OR NOT WANTING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR CURRENT “STATE OF BEING”.
As sad and pathetic as this is, there are some people who are so comfortable in the economic chaos where they lie that they do not want to improve their lives unless it can be done for them. Either that or they wouldn’t know what to do with success if it hit them square between the eyes as in the case of those who go bankrupt after winning millions in the lottery because they didn’t go out and seek education on what to do with it when they got it. For those people, the ones who choose to stay in their current condition, their destiny lies in the sewer because they decided to put themselves there by choosing that they either didn’t want to leave their current situation, or didn’t educate or motivate themselves to improve their lives or the lives of their children.
“Hopelessness” is not an excuse, it’s a choice. Nobody ever promised that “success” was an easy path, it's just a "feasible" one. Those efforts in life that require hard work retain their value. Remember, you don’t need “easy”, you need “possible”.
So why penalize through taxation or other means those that picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and busted their tail just because some others as described above will not do it for themselves?
Again, and I’ll reiterate this for clarity’s sake because I know I’ve stated this before. There is a huge difference between CAN’T and WON’T. “Can’t” due to disability (mental or physical) needs to be addressed through other means as much outside of government interference as possible with the government supplementing the balance. For those who physically or mentally cannot “contribute to society” through issues that are no fault of their own (typically due to medical issues,) there should be programs in place to assist, protect, and tend to those individuals. The common misconception of those of us who believe in conservative-based or capitalist economic theory that is force-fed to the masses by the liberal media pundits and politicians alike is that we are all a bunch of heartless bastards that would throw the disabled off of a cliff because it would tax society. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The others who “can’t” because of their current financial situation need to make whatever changes they need to make in order to better themselves. There are government grants for school, there are manufacturing jobs that employers are literally BEGGING to fill but can’t because of an un-educated work force, there are ways and means in existence already in place. And I know about the manufacturing jobs that exist personally because of what I do for a living. Operation and plant managers lament to me all the time about being able to find “bodies” but not good employees because they have unreasonable entitlement-based demands placed on the employers, or they’re not willing to learn the job, or they just flat-out don’t want to work and still get paid for it. Pathetic.
For those that truly want “out” of their current climate, change is possible. There are churches, there are social organizations, there are government programs. The fact is that receiving “government aid” is not contingent on staying where you are geographically. The individuals who really want out will find a way at all costs because improving their lives becomes so valuable that they convince themselves, rightfully so, that they have no other choice but to find a way. There are typically three things that stop most people who can change their destinies from choosing better paths: The first is lack of knowledge, the second is pride, and the third is laziness. Going to school and using libraries/other resources solves the first problem, aspiration eradicates the second, and ambition cures the third. Personal choice and responsibility leads to the resolution of all three.
As far as advancement in employment goes, did you know that I was passed up for a promotion on three separate occasions at one place of employment not because of a perceived lack of knowledge or in-experience, but because I was a white male. My immediate supervisor told me as much after a few drinks after work one night, so I don’t want to hear any of the “Minorities don’t have the same opportunity” crap that the liberal media also force-feeds people either. I could’ve just moped around thinking “I’ll never get ahead” because of that, and I would’ve had a good point. But I didn’t. Why should I have to pay for those that do?
And as far as that whole “Capitalism doesn’t work anymore” crap argument that I keep hearing from the left, and then using the recession as their basis for it, the real reason for our current economic mess is the housing market crash that was based on the issuing of crap loans to people who had no business buying houses anyway under the misguided Barney Frank (D-Rep)/Charles Schumer (D-Sen) politically-motivated socialist principle that “everybody has a right to a house”, and then proceeded to use Freddie and Fannie to carry out the agenda. Capitalists didn’t issue these loans, criminals did (at least in my mind) and used capitalism as a tool to do it. A true capitalist would've seen the issue and not issued anything. Some did, and those that tried not to were quickly forced to do so via legislation. Whoever came up with the idea of issuing those loans to people under such a mis-guided principle were taking advantage of people and they need to do serious time in prison.
Oh, and for all the Bush-bashers out there, President Bush warned Congress of the possible economic mess that would be created if Rep Frank and Senator Schumer did it too. It’s a documented fact, but those good-ole liberal media pundits keep pushing that fact under the rug too…along with other little tidbits of truth.
And for the record, people do not have a “right” to a house. They do, however, have a right to have equal opportunity to earn one through hard work, thus my reasoning (as well as most conservatives) behind funding education.
On Social Issues
Churches need to ignore the societal calls of political-correctness that they must be “feel-good” places to go on Sundays and they need to get involved. "Laying low" has kept them in the background behind the scenes, so they need to ignore the current stigma that all things “Christian” are bad and step up their involvement, especially in and around the inner cities where, statistically speaking, most of the poor reside. That’s also where, again statistically speaking, most of the single mothers are, most of the crime is, most of the gangs do their business, and coincidentally enough, most of the individuals who actually do “tax” society live. Not “all” mind you, but again, statistically speaking, “most”. If anyone has different stats, I’d love to see them. There was a time when the church did the very same job the Goverment is telling you belongs to them, and requires more money of yours to do it.
...by the way, can anybody tell me exactly why the Bible is "bad"? Even if you think it's just a "nice collection of stories," is there actually a single wrong or bad lesson in any of it? Or is it that whole dogma of "nobody wants to answer to anybody so just do what makes you feel good"?
The unions need to back off too. I’m not for eliminating unions here, but the fact is that they’ve gone from protecting workers to taxing the economy as a whole. These aren’t the same unions of 30 years ago; they’re nothing more than political money-hungry machines that tax the consumer by driving up costs of products. Again, I’m not for abolishing unions altogether, but I am totally for worker choice to enlist in them (that’s freedom, right?) and I’m also for ultimate fairness principles that involve equality for both the employee AND the company. As a business owner, I know that in order to keep my product competitive, a lot of times I have to use non-union labor to install our equipment. If I quote union labor, I lose the bid due to the increase in cost. You don’t have to like it, hell, I don’t like it to be perfectly honest with you, but that’s reality. And for the unions to DEMAND union-only labor while driving up the cost in an economic climate that doesn’t promote prosperity is simply illogical, and any system that supports it will, in the end, not sustain itself. Read your history.
A great example is at McCormick Place Convention Center in Chicago. Union rules require a Union Electrician at a trade show exhibit hall to <ahem> plug in a 110v display kiosk into an outlet, they then charge $125 for this service. $125 dollars. It's a household plug, it's a houselhold outlet. Really? There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, that you can tell me that could convince me that this procedure is morally okay. It's theft. And I promise people, it happens. I've seen it myself, and it's not just the Electricians.
On "Is President Obama a Socialist?"
I firmly believe that President Obama is a person who believes in current Socialism as it is defined today. He may not be as radical as one as defined in terms of past Socialists such as Karl Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but rather he is in terms of modern socialistic political and economic theory as defined by what is currently taking place in Europe and other areas of the world who subscribe to that thinking. Listen to the words he says about wealth re-distribution and universal health care. You don’t have to like it, you don’t even have to believe me, but to blindly follow someone without comparison to universally-defined political theories is outright willful ignorance.
There is an incredible article in Forbes magazine for those who haven’t read about it here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-truly-a-socialist/. I encourage all of you to read it and judge it for yourselves. Now I’ve read both conservative and liberal based op-ed articles in Forbes before so I don’t want to hear all the “Forbes is politically-biased to the right because they’re pro-business” crap, but I wanted to inform everyone as best as I could by making sure everyone knew about this article's existence.
By the way, I’m also not saying Mitt Romney is the answer either, quite frankly I would’ve preferred someone else less, well, “plastic” or “cookie-cutter Republican” if you ask me, but the real power is in the hands of the Congress anyway. And personally, I think that’s where the real battles lie.
The people haven’t been this divided since the Civil War. It’s scary. The media, pundits, and politicians from both sides have all effectively used this recession as a lightning rod and turned it into a class war. In the end, our efforts as true Americans hell-bent on the spread of prosperity should not be to equalize the income of all through further taxation of those who succeed; the battle should be to raise the income of the poor by making educating them to succeed a priority.
Okay, I’m done ranting now…I hope I’ve done my job, and I hope I haven’t lost any friends in the process.