When Obama came into the national spotlight a few years ago, those who bought into the Obama "Hope and Change" message were those who view government as a caretaker. Obama's speeches contained the message of 'No need to think, we will do it for you!' Perhaps this is why when one questioned an Obama supporter with what Obama planned to change, the hypnotic response came back as 'I don't know, he is going to change things.' Some of us know the price for government caretaking. The childlike need expressed by this mentality is now manifested in the so called "Stimulus Bill". Unfortunately, we are just beginning the journey to grasp what this bill will require, what that price will be monetarily, in terms of our freedom, and will it keep requiring more money from each American citizen, formerly known as capitalist consumers. According to Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, "if we had spent a million dollars a day from the birth of Jesus, then we would have spent less than the proposed stimulus package."
When Obama made his weekly radio and Internet address, he said recently, "I will sign this legislation into law shortly, and we'll begin making the immediate investments necessary to put people back to work doing the work America needs done." Obama also uses futuristic words that reveal the heavy price for this stimulus bill that bloats our government even more with this predictive statement: "This historic step won't be the end of what we do to turn our economy around, but rather the beginning. The problems that led us into this crisis are deep and widespread, and our response must be equal to the task."
Socialism has arrived with the passage of this economic stimulus bill. It now demands we ask and answer, "What are your abilities? Do you have any needs?"
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lono
I could not disagree more. First off, I think our 'freedom of religion' is horseshit. Every single day as a child I recited the pledge of allegiance every day, which included god, before I even knew what it meant.
To hold office in the US, you swear on a bible. Look at your currency, it all espouses god. That isn't freedom of thought, I say that.
As for Obama making America socialist, you are wrong. Bush started this with the TARP funds. He pushed us to bail out the banks that he didn't have the sack to regulate. The WHOLE tarp thing went down on Bush's watch.
As for what President Obama is doing, he is doing exactly what he said he would when we elected him. It's why we elected him.
While this is plenty expensive, I am happy to finally see tax dollars be spent in the USA. Bush was the king of spending, it just all went to everyone else. Pakistan got 10 BILLION in aid, what did that get us? bin Laden? Nope, nothing. While Pakistan got that aid, GW Bush vetoed and infrastracture bill.
Remember the deadly freeway collapse? Remember the NYC black out? Our infrastructure is shit, and the president refused to allow congress to work to repair it.
Don't fight America, fight for America.
2 - jman
you'll see Obama cool aid drinkers... typical liberal, justifies Obama's actions with Bush's. Gee, that's real smart...
Get the F out of the country, if saying the pledge of alligence bothers you. If it were up to liberals, we would all be "butt porking" our boyfriends in the middle of the streets like some giant Greek orgy without any consequences. You see, liberals have no morals. They think morals are offensive and hate speech..
3 - Cindy
jman,
They think
moralsmorons are offensive...There you go.
H&C,
One of your pals has stopped by to visit you.
4 - Roger Nowosielski
That's cute. But now you're gonna incur his wrath.
5 - Arch Conservative
Well Cindy seeing as it's more common to see a liberal sticking up for the rights of illegal aliens or pedophiles than the rights of unborn babies in the womb I'd say it's more accurate to say their morality is suspect rather than saying they have no morals.
6 - Cindy
Arch,
That wasn't intended as a reflection on conservatives. Only a reflection on the poster.
7 - Roger Nowosielski
Come on, Arch, we don't wan't to have that debate. I don't know about illegals, but I'm certain she doesn't approve of pedophiles.
8 - Cindy
I don't believe in aliens of any kind.
9 - Roger Nowosielski
Not even from the Orion constellation?
10 - Roger Nowosielski
jman is the man.
11 - Cindy
especially not from the orion constellation :-)
12 - bliffle
Socialism? The author is surprised to see socialism?
We've had socialism in this country for as long as I can remember. It's all been directed at major US corporations. Even now we are instituting more socialism to give away trillions to financial corporations.
Most Presidents and other rulers have been Corporate Statists. Just look at George W Bush: increased the US debt by $5trillion with loose spending and big socialistic handouts.
I guess the author is worried that some of this socialistic handout might end up going to individuals. But most of the socialized corps are fronts for rich and powerful people, so it DOES go to people.
Maybe that's OK because they are rich people, not those nasty poor and middleclass people.
13 - Roger Nowosielski
Nasty, poor and brutish! You might as well quote from Hobbes, bliffle.
14 - Cindy
That wouldn't do, as I noticed Hobbes has a limited imagination.
15 - Cindy
On to remember Locke next.
16 - Cindy
Hobbes reminds me of something I read. Who talked about the "noble savage"? It was some other "insightful" white guy.
17 - Roger Nowosielski
Not really, Cindy. He had quite a problem trying to reconcile the radical changes in philosophical, theological and political thinking of his time. All considering, he had done a marvelous job and opened the door to Locke and Rousseau.
A pioneer.
18 - Cindy
Yes, in his time. But hardly very useful now considering what is understood about his bias toward "the savage".
19 - Roger Nowosielski
But the state of nature was only a philosophical construct - in order to account for a progression to a civil society - a thought-experiment and a lever.
20 - Cindy
But you'll have to explain to me why a mythical construct that does not prove to be real (you know like in the sense of anthropologically) is so worthwhile to base present decisions on.
21 - Cindy
My understanding of things comes from social science. How people really behave. Not thought experiments.
22 - handyguy
Oh you two! So in-tee-lek-shu-al and all.
23 - Cindy
Sigmund Freud wasted an entire generation's time with his wacky ideas.
It seems like it was necessary at one time, but impractical in the present. As I would have to ignore everything I have learned. Or try to force it into outdated presumptions.
24 - Roger Nowosielski
It's what's called in philosophy as a "move." In this particular case, it provided an opportunity to account for the state and to justify the existence of the state. There was no need to do that in antiquity (Greece) because the state arouse under circumstances which did not call for any explanation. But it was different in Hobbes's era when the monarchy was under attack (Cromwell) and theological views as regards God's manifesting his presence in the natural world were being questioned.
25 - Cindy
Yes, so that is what I see. It had a historical context that was useful. And then thought progressed along.