If there was any doubt that Obama's economic philosophy is grounded in
Socialist ideas -- and that he wants to take the country in that direction --
the evidence is clear, from the now-infamous "Joe the Plumber" incident to
this new radio show recording, just released:
a few key words, and let their definitions tell the tale of what we're hearing
from the 2 tickets... Here's what I found on Dictionary.com:
A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal)
government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States
Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby
the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government,
but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own
legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered
to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution.
This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to
the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of
the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy,
with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and
exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most
governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal
governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation,
business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.
Note: The precise extent of state and federal responsibility has always been controversial. Republican administrations, for example, have tended to grant more authority to the states, thereby encouraging political and economic freedom but discouraging comprehensive social welfare. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court left the interpretation of many civil rights guarantees to the states, resulting in widespread discrimination against minorities.
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals
or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to
earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government
control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through
the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how
resources are used and allocated.
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [antonym: capitalism (!!!)]
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor…
1. a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
2. a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and
advantage of all.
From my layman's perspective, it looks to me like Federalism -- the real
GENIUS built into our Constitution -- began to lose steam in the public square
after Sherman burned his way through Atlanta in the Civil War and the northern
"imperialism" was imposed on the South... The turn of that Century brought waves
of immigrant workers who lived a very poor standard of living, giving rise to
the Labor movement and the "it's not fair that we're poor" mentality...
The Great Depression also helped Americans see and feel and hear what abject
Poverty looks like, and many began to look to the Government for relief...
Then the "New Deal" President, FDR, established "social security", further
promoting the idea that the GOVERNMENT should take care of financial well-being
of its citizens (originally, Social Security taxes were called "contributions")...
Ideologically, there's been no looking back ever since: One side (usually
"Liberals") want MORE government intervention, MORE social programs, and MORE
"spreading the wealth around" (even calling it "patriotic" to pay more taxes!),
while the other side (usually "Conservatives") want to return to our Federalist
roots with LESS government intervention, MORE States' Rights, FEWER (and
much more closely administered) Social programs, and MORE "you keep what you EARN"...
Given the popularity of Obama in the polls, and the shameless and blatant support
of Obama by CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times (among others), and in light of
the definitions given above, is it not easy to see that this country is on a
clear path toward Communism?
The implications of that impending result should send a chill down the spine
of every TRUE Patriot in this country.