Liberal Goal for America: Gutless Socialism

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
The United States of America is drifting away from capitalism and its free-market foundations toward a gutless brand of socialism. Yet unlike the tyrannical dictators who ruled communist nations in the 20th Century, congressional liberals lack the guts to tell the public their true intentions. Those intentions are motivated by the Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Instead of conducting a deadly revolution, liberals are waging their war on capitalism through public policy, assaults on our free-market system and socialistic rhetoric.
The oldest and most flagrant example of this gutless socialism began in 1913 with enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” The income tax code that followed forced a 1 percent tax on personal incomes above $3,000. Today it is a nine-million-word progressive violation of our liberties.

The next landmark example of gutless redistribution of wealth from those with “abilities” to those with “needs” is the Social Security system. Social Security began in 1935 as an assistance program for people who reached retirement age. The 1935 pamphlet describing the program stated that workers would never have to pay more than three cents on the dollar, up to a maximum of $3,000 of ones’ earnings. Twelve and four-tenths percent on the first $90,000 later, the program is now called an entitlement and is headed for a 2015 financial train wreck. Though President Bush and his bi-partisan Social Security Commission proposed a sound solution to fix the crumbling Social Security structure, congressional liberals on both sides of the aisle balked at any attempt to alter the socialistic underpinnings of the system’s original design.

In 1943, Congress continued the deliberate march toward socialism by enacting automatic withholding of taxes from our paychecks. Congress explained to the public that, since the U.S. was busy fighting World War II, automatic withholding was necessary to fund the war effort in a timely fashion. Congress also promised the public that automatic withholding would end as soon as the war was over. That war ended over 60 years ago. And if for some reason the government does not confiscate enough of our money during the year, we are charged interest for underpayment. That does not sound like the system our Founding Fathers envisioned.


Even liberals in state legislatures are attacking capitalism through overt assaults on our free-market system. The Maryland legislature in January overrode their governor’s veto of a bill that will force corporations with 10,000 employees or more to pay 8 percent of their payroll to their employees’ health care costs. Unfortunately, nearly 30 other states are considering similar legislation. State policy makers who legally force corporations to carry out their income redistribution schemes are as gutless as their counterparts in Washington D.C.

State legislatures are not alone in their use of backdoor attempts to inflict the pain of socialism on businesses and the public. Since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf region, causing temporary spikes in gas prices, oil company executives have been called to Congress to justify their companies’ profits. Some misguided members of Congress have even demanded that oil companies return their “excess profits” to the public.

The third and most visible gutless method liberals employ to attack capitalism is the use of rhetoric that attempts to disguise their socialistic ideology. The rhetoric of gutless socialism preys upon the economic illiteracy of many Americans, which fans the fires of economic class warfare.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) actually told supporters last year at a San Francisco fundraiser, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” That sounds like Karl Marx’s communism to me.

In January, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) issued a press release critical of the president and our growing economy that stated, “The President claims he has created a strong economy, but working Americans are telling a different story. They feel the American dream slipping further from their grasp and they know the reality is that this economy is not delivering for middle-class families.” When you look at the compelling positive metrics of the economy, this is not economic illiteracy. It is denial of economic reality.

Congressional liberals have carved out a position on every issue that defines success for their party as failure of our economy, failure of people to help themselves and even failure in our efforts to fight the war on terrorism.

National security is and must remain our top national priority. But replacing the income tax code, restructuring Social Security, restraining government spending and increasing economic literacy among the public must also be top priorities to end the march toward socialism. As the late Senator Everett Dirksen once said, “When they feel the heat, they will see the light.” Congress needs to feel the heat, generated by millions of their constituents demanding an end toward the march away from our free-market principles.

The debt we owe our founders and our grandchildren is to aggressively defend the success of capitalism and our free-market foundations. If we fail to pay this debt, the “shining beacon on the hill” that lights the path of hope and freedom across the globe will slowly flicker away, extinguished by our lack of will, not by our lack of skill.


Herman Cain is host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show The Bottom Line with Herman Cain and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/HermanCain/2006/02/21/187385.html

I really like this guy, he tells it like it is....
 
Excellent article.

Congress also promised the public that automatic withholding would end as soon as the war was over.

Still waiting.

State legislatures are not alone in their use of backdoor attempts to inflict the pain of socialism on businesses and the public. Since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf region, causing temporary spikes in gas prices, oil company executives have been called to Congress to justify their companies’ profits. Some misguided members of Congress have even demanded that oil companies return their “excess profits” to the public.

The return on investment is actually at an all time low for "oil companies". Excess profits is a figment of the socialist left.

The third and most visible gutless method liberals employ to attack capitalism is the use of rhetoric that attempts to disguise their socialistic ideology. The rhetoric of gutless socialism preys upon the economic illiteracy of many Americans, which fans the fires of economic class warfare.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) actually told supporters last year at a San Francisco fundraiser, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” That sounds like Karl Marx’s communism to me.

This is really the MOST important of the points he makes in his article. "Hearts, and Minds", this is a "war" we have to win, or this great country is doomed.

Lock, and load...... :firing:
 
1. The IRS charges intrest on underpaid taxes. They don't, however, offer intrest on refunds. That's a ripoff and is only a minor problem when compared to the rest of the archaic, oppressive, incomprehensible tax code.

2. There's a difference between a profit and a profit margin. The profit margin on selling gasoline and other petroleum fuels is at an all-time low right now. The 'excess profits' are from volume, meaning we all got our damn gas, and at a real bargain, too.

3. The companies forces to pay 8% towards health care will raise prices to compensate, ultimately causing inflation, making the pay everyone gets worth less.

4. Hillary and Pelosi are court jesters. They're communists, plain and simple.

Socialism has been tried and doesn't work. That's why the walls of communist countries are directed inward. Our system is the best in the world, which is why our walls are directed outward. I will fight this movement to squelch our capitalist system to the death.
 
trobinett said:
The return on investment is actually at an all time low for "oil companies". Excess profits is a figment of the socialist left.
Was wondering how there could be so much "excess" profit. Don't they have to foot the bill for rebuilding hurricane-damaged structures? Surely insurance didn't cover it all.
 
Hobbit said:
Hillary and Pelosi are court jesters. They're communists, plain and simple.

Socialism has been tried and doesn't work. That's why the walls of communist countries are directed inward. Our system is the best in the world, which is why our walls are directed outward. I will fight this movement to squelch our capitalist system to the death.
Incomprehensible to me... after all the examples in the world of failing/failed communist/socialist governments, why would someone think his version is the one that will work? It seems to me to be the zenith of conceit and self-deception.
 
And Conservatives would like a Big Brother Theocracy. Can we stop with all the generalizations about the groups as a whole?
 
Kagom said:
And Conservatives would like a Big Brother Theocracy.

I don't know how you arrive at that. "Big Brother" was a terrified George Orwell's desperate warning to the world. A lifelong socialist dupe, Orwell had finally come to terms with the truth of the "workers' paradise", under the gentle, guiding hands of Stalin and Mao. "Big Brother" is centralized government, taken to it's logical, cruel, tyrannical conclusion; the absolute antithesis of conservatism.

And, "Christian theocracy" is a contradiction in terms. Man's free will is the bedrock principle of Christianity; a Christian, by definition, cannot practice theocracy - else, he would cease to be Christian.
 
Kagom said:
And Conservatives would like a Big Brother Theocracy. Can we stop with all the generalizations about the groups as a whole?

Bull. We just don't want our mostly Christian country dictated to by godless heathen commies and a bunch of pansies. :gay:
 
musicman said:
I don't know how you arrive at that. "Big Brother" was a terrified George Orwell's desperate warning to the world. A lifelong socialist dupe, Orwell had finally come to terms with the truth of the "workers' paradise", under the gentle, guiding hands of Stalin and Mao. "Big Brother" is centralized government, taken to it's logical, cruel, tyrannical conclusion; the absolute antithesis of conservatism.

And, "Christian theocracy" is a contradiction in terms. Man's free will is the bedrock principle of Christianity; a Christian, by definition, cannot practice theocracy - else, he would cease to be Christian.
Read all of my post. It's an obvious tone of sarcasm in it. I'm going for "stop generalizing and stereotyping political groups simply because they have radically different views from you".
 
Kagom said:
Read all of my post. It's an obvious tone of sarcasm in it.

Sarcasm is fine; gross inaccuracy is not. About the only way you could get further away from conservatism than "Big Brother" or "theocracy" is "Big Brother theocracy"; it's inaccurate to the point of meaninglessness. Sarcasm should have a point that's based in reality.

Kagom said:
I'm going for "stop generalizing and stereotyping political groups simply because they have radically different views from you".

Some generalizations ARE accurate. The agenda of modern-day American liberalism - carried out to it's logical conclusion - is, in fact, socialism.
 
musicman said:
Sarcasm is fine; gross inaccuracy is not. About the only way you could get further away from conservatism than "Big Brother" or "theocracy" is "Big Brother theocracy"; it's inaccurate to the point of meaninglessness. Sarcasm should have a point that's based in reality.



Some generalizations ARE accurate. The agenda of modern-day American liberalism - carried out to it's logical conclusion - is, in fact, socialism.



:clap:
 
musicman said:
Sarcasm is fine; gross inaccuracy is not. About the only way you could get further away from conservatism than "Big Brother" or "theocracy" is "Big Brother theocracy"; it's inaccurate to the point of meaninglessness. Sarcasm should have a point that's based in reality.

Some generalizations ARE accurate. The agenda of modern-day American liberalism - carried out to it's logical conclusion - is, in fact, socialism.
And modern-day American conservatism when carried out to its own logical conclusion would be a semi-theocratic form of government centered around morals of one certain belief or another instead of what would probably be the good of all.

More or less with sarcasm. I've seen sarcasm with no point and with a point. I had no point other than to make a point that we're grossly misconstruing political groups for something they're not in entirety.
 
Kagom said:
And modern-day American conservatism when carried out to its own logical conclusion would be a semi-theocratic form of government centered around morals of one certain belief or another instead of what would probably be the good of all.

More or less with sarcasm. I've seen sarcasm with no point and with a point. I had no point other than to make a point that we're grossly misconstruing political groups for something they're not in entirety.
Yer doin good kid.
 
Kagom said:
And modern-day American conservatism when carried out to its own logical conclusion would be a semi-theocratic form of government centered around morals of one certain belief or another instead of what would probably be the good of all.

Untrue. The difference between American liberalism and conservatism boils down to the size and scope of central government. Modern-day American conservatism, carried out to its logical conclusion, would be a strict return to this nation's design as a constitutional republic - with all but a few very specific powers devolving to the people, through their duly elected representatives. If that's your idea of a "semi-theocracy", I'm afraid you and I are conversing in vain.

Kagom said:
More or less with sarcasm. I've seen sarcasm with no point and with a point.

But it should have some basis in commonly perceived reality. "Those damned purple, solar-powered conservatives" is not good sarcasm.

Kagom said:
I had no point other than to make a point that we're grossly misconstruing political groups for something they're not in entirety.

I don't see how judging each entity in the context of its ultimate goals is "misconstruing". I'd rather be well-informed than willfully blind.
 
musicman said:
Untrue. The difference between American liberalism and conservatism boils down to the size and scope of central government. Modern-day American conservatism, carried out to its logical conclusion, would be a strict return to this nation's design as a constitutional republic - with all but a few very specific powers devolving to the people, through their duly elected representatives. If that's your idea of a "semi-theocracy", I'm afraid you and I are conversing in vain.

But it should have some basis in commonly perceived reality. "Those damned purple, solar-powered conservatives" is not good sarcasm.

I don't see how judging each entity in the context of its ultimate goals is "misconstruing". I'd rather be well-informed than willfully blind.
But the problem here is that the majority of conservatives ARE from a Judeo-Christian background who want to infer their religious beliefs into the government and would rather you fall under their beliefs. Call me a douche or misinformed, but I am going on by what I see in the news and what I see in my own life and surroundings.

You are misconstruing the ultimate goal. It's not socialism at the core, it's a system that caters to the people and the power of the people.
 
The biggest supporters of economic control are big businesses. They want a system whereby government controls the economy by giving them advantages over competition. For example, the government sets a certain production standard that only a company with a lot of money can meet. This means only the big business survives and it's competitors are killed off. This corporate control of government has a name, it's called Fascism, and that is the very essence of the Bush administration.

Conservatives and liberals want big government, conservatives want a big-brother government that controls thought, speech, the media, and religion. They want to control behavior and force their own rigid religious system on the entire country. Liberals believe that government has a duty to help people in need, to protect the environment, and to protect consumers from abuse by greedy corporations. Most often a large bureaucracy is required to do this. The real difference is that liberals admit they are for a large, active federal government, conservatives say they aren't when they are.

acludem

acludem
 
Kagom said:
But the problem here is that the majority of conservatives ARE from a Judeo-Christian background

So were the majority of the founding fathers. And, as I stated before, the bedrock principle of Christianity is respect for man's free will. That's why our founders created - not a "Christian nation" - but a nation founded on bedrock Christian principle. Do you see the beauty in that? A nation that was - to any degree - coercively Christian, would immediately cease to be grounded in Christian principle. "Coercive Christianity", and "Christian theocracy", are contradictions in terms.

Kagom said:
who want to infer their religious beliefs into the government

You want to infer your beliefs - your sense of right and wrong - into the government, too. And - since this is a constitutional republic - you CAN. Representative government means that - ultimately - you and I ARE the government. But, what I can't understand is this: just because my sense of right and wrong is informed by religion, and yours is, perhaps, not - why is MY having representation problematic?

Kagom said:
and would rather you fall under their beliefs.

LOL - interesting choice of words! Accepting Jesus is the best thing that's ever happened to me, Kagom. Life is a frustrating and confusing struggle, but, at the end of the day, my heart is peaceful and happy. I wish that kind of joy for you, as a fellow human being. But I'm not trying to cast any spells on you - I promise!

Kagom said:
Call me a douche...

Why would I do that? I don't dislike you, and our conversations have always been civil.

Kagom said:
...or misinformed,

Now, THIS I might have to take you up on, since:

Kagom said:
...I am going on by what I see in the news

What you see in the news is colored, biased, riddled with omissions and half-truths, and meticulously orchestrated to lead you to a predetermined conclusion. Therefore...

Kagom said:
and what I see in my own life and surroundings.

...how you PERCEIVE what you see in your own life and surroundings - your sense of right and wrong - is informed by forces outside yourself, who are - whether you know it or not - advancing a religion of their own. And it's not a very tolerant one, either. There'll be none of that troublesome "free will" bullshit in the liberal, one-world utopia.

It's cool, though. I don't see your having representation as problematic. I'm a Christian, you see...

Kagom said:
You are misconstruing the ultimate goal. It's not socialism at the core, it's a system that caters to the people and the power of the people.

Just keep your eyes and ears open, Kagom. Watch and listen. You're young; you've got time. Above all, observe their DEEDS. See the true agenda behind their pretty words. Then ask yourself: who trusts the people, and who despises them?
 
acludem said:
The biggest supporters of economic control are big businesses. They want a system whereby government controls the economy by giving them advantages over competition. For example, the government sets a certain production standard that only a company with a lot of money can meet. This means only the big business survives and it's competitors are killed off. This corporate control of government has a name, it's called Fascism, and that is the very essence of the Bush administration.

Conservatives and liberals want big government, conservatives want a big-brother government that controls thought, speech, the media, and religion. They want to control behavior and force their own rigid religious system on the entire country. Liberals believe that government has a duty to help people in need, to protect the environment, and to protect consumers from abuse by greedy corporations. Most often a large bureaucracy is required to do this. The real difference is that liberals admit they are for a large, active federal government, conservatives say they aren't when they are.

acludem

acludem

First off, we know who you are. You don't have to put your name at the end of your post...twice.

Next off, I don't care what liberals want their big government to do. Government is not a good thing, it is simply a necessary thing. Government is a thing to be feared and kept on a short leash.

As for the Bush administration, I don't see anything that squelches small business. In fact, his tax cuts have been one of the best things to happen to small business since Clinton took office. In fact, high taxes, like what the liberals want, is one of the biggest obstacles to a privately owned business there can be.
 
musicman said:
So were the majority of the founding fathers. And, as I stated before, the bedrock principle of Christianity is respect for man's free will. That's why our founders created - not a "Christian nation" - but a nation founded on bedrock Christian principle. Do you see the beauty in that? A nation that was - to any degree - coercively Christian, would immediately cease to be grounded in Christian principle. "Coercive Christianity", and "Christian theocracy", are contradictions in terms.

You want to infer your beliefs - your sense of right and wrong - into the government, too. And - since this is a constitutional republic - you CAN. Representative government means that - ultimately - you and I ARE the government. But, what I can't understand is this: just because my sense of right and wrong is informed by religion, and yours is, perhaps, not - why is MY having representation problematic?

LOL - interesting choice of words! Accepting Jesus is the best thing that's ever happened to me, Kagom. Life is a frustrating and confusing struggle, but, at the end of the day, my heart is peaceful and happy. I wish that kind of joy for you, as a fellow human being. But I'm not trying to cast any spells on you - I promise!

Why would I do that? I don't dislike you, and our conversations have always been civil.

Now, THIS I might have to take you up on, since:

What you see in the news is colored, biased, riddled with omissions and half-truths, and meticulously orchestrated to lead you to a predetermined conclusion. Therefore...

...how you PERCEIVE what you see in your own life and surroundings - your sense of right and wrong - is informed by forces outside yourself, who are - whether you know it or not - advancing a religion of their own. And it's not a very tolerant one, either. There'll be none of that troublesome "free will" bullshit in the liberal, one-world utopia.

It's cool, though. I don't see your having representation as problematic. I'm a Christian, you see...

Just keep your eyes and ears open, Kagom. Watch and listen. You're young; you've got time. Above all, observe their DEEDS. See the true agenda behind their pretty words. Then ask yourself: who trusts the people, and who despises them?
I have always heard that the founding fathers were not Christian and I've heard/read quotes from Thomas Jefferson to at least get the idea he wasn't.

Your having representation is not a problem at all. It's when people try to break the separation of church and state we currently have is when I have a problem. If your political views are influenced by religion, nothing completely wrong with that, but it's if you try to impose your beliefs on others it's wrong.

I'm very much happy with my life, a lot happier than when I had been Christian. Many of the people who know me personally can attest to that.

I was just throwing up that some people might call me a douche. You have been a very calm and collected person in our conversations and that only makes me respect you more.

I watch conservative and liberal news so I can compare and contrast stories. I'm taking in what I see from both sides.

My perception is reality where I've lived. I have not met many conservative in Illinois, Mississippi, or South Carolina who were not Christian and were not wanting to impose their Christianity into their politics on others.

Just for clarification's sake: I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I can see the agenda on both sides and I hate both sides more because of it. They each have their strong points and their weakpoints and I tend to take the best of the strong points from both sides to form my own political mind.
 

Forum List

Back
Top