Socialism: Yes Or No

With bailouts and ‘stimulus’ plans and a new federal budget out there, all of which are a burden on our future generations, can it be that the fix is worse than the problem?

Under the cover of economic recovery, the Obama administration has managed to legislate a blend of socialism by that or any other name. It is nothing short of socialism via fiat.

The first question should be:

Do you want to shift the United States from a free-market capitalist society to a more socialistic one, controlling your bank, your health care and your welfare? YES or NO

This necessitates one more question:

Do you believe the government can do all that to your satisfaction?  YES or NO

With only its record to go on, the Obama administration is assuming the answer to the questions would be YES. And the  media watchdog is apparently of the same opinion.

Spread the love

0 thoughts on “Socialism: Yes Or No”

  1. No question that Bush ran record-breaking deficits. After inheriting the Clinton recession, and the attack of 9/11, fighting the war on terror, add Katrina and a few more natural disasters here and around the world, did give him a good reason to do some deficit spending.

    So where are your facts that I didn’t mind Bush spending like a drunken sailor? Or is that what you were taught to say? Creating that prescription drug entitlement program was a disaster in terms of feeding a deficit. Not surprisingly, that isn’t near enough for his replacement.

    All Bush’s spending pales to what Obama has in store. He has already proposed and/or put into law, spending and entitlement programs that not only do not stimulate the economy, but it is more money than was spent from our founding until his inauguration six weeks ago, and that includes all wars. That is more money than we have. In fact, it is more than our next generation also has. In fact,the second generation from now will be paying for this socialist conversion.

    To top it off, in responding to the continuous slide in the stock market since he took office, he blows the question off by saying he is looking more long term than the daily ups and downs of the market. Apparently, Obama’s ‘long term’ seems to be limited to 4 or 8 years. Writing off future generations is not even on his radar. Now THAT’s audacity!

    Does this mean that you would answer YES to both questions?

  2. So now you’re worried about the future generations? You didn’t seem to mind when Bush ran record-breaking deficits. Or when he allowed polluters to destroy our environment. But if Obama spends money it becomes damaging to future generations? I wish I lived in the same topsy-turvy alternate reality that you are in, where up is down, left is right, and ignorance is bliss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *