Obama says the unemployment numbers — down slightly — are good news. Critics say these unemployment numbers are mostly a reflection of the fact that more Americans are giving up on employment permanently, and therefore are no longer figured in the statistics.
Don’t the critics understand? To Obama, people giving up on work IS good news. We’re getting closer to the day where a majority of Americans depend on the federal government for their very livelihoods.
This is what Obama wants. This is what all liberal Democrats who hold power want — and need. It’s their drug: Power over others by making them dependent.
The best way to make someone dependent is economically. Once you hold power over their purse strings, you’ll eventually get everything else.
Once 51 percent or more of Americans have permanently given up on employment, and depend on the government for their livelihood, we’ll truly be a one party system. And without so much as firing a shot.
Of course, Obama claims he wants the economy to improve. He knows he has to claim to want this. And it’s not all bad for him, if it does. If the economy does improve, and people are making more money, then this gives him even more excuse to raise taxes and expand government power with even more agencies and programs. The more wealth there is, the more wealth there is to redistribute. The worse the economy is, the more he can claim to justify having more people dependent on government programs.
For Obama, it’s a win-win.
The more the economy does well, the more it gives liberals and socialists like Obama a chance to say, “The rich are getting richer and the middle class is being left behind.” This is what liberals said back in the 1980s and 1990s, when the economy was better than now.
The more the economy does poorly, the more it gives liberals and socialists like Obama a chance to say, “The reckless rich have spent the wealth of the people.” They act as if rich people who make money from customers who voluntarily give their money up are somehow taking it by force. This is what liberals like Obama imply during both good times, and bad.
Obama has an answer for everything. Unemployment figures are still high? “It would be even worse if I weren’t here.” Unemployment goes down, a fraction of a percent (assuming you stop counting people who have given up on work)? “You see? The economy is getting better, thanks to me.”
Too many people accept all this uncritically. The idiot’s approval ratings go up and he starts to be favored for reelection.
Public schools have done their job. Instead of teaching people how to think, government-run schools are teaching people to conform to what the majority believes. And so long as liberals and socialists can keep that majority permanently at 51 percent or higher — well, they’re set.
We’re fast reaching a point where it’s no longer possible for a liberal/socialist to lose the presidential election. Republicans will give it their best shot by nominating a man — Mitt Romney — who differs little from Obama on significant issues, the extent to which he takes actual positions at all.
I read somewhere that Romney is the plastic man you see on top of the wedding cake. It was meant to be a joke. While Mitt Romney is a real human being, this joke actually characterizes about all he has to offer, politically or philosophically speaking, with respect to any leadership for a nation at an increasingly perilous time. His wife and children may adore him, and that’s fine — for them. But where will he lead us, and how will it differ from what Obama has imposed on us? And if most people don’t see a contrast or alternative, he’s not going to win.
The measure of a successful society is not wealth. It’s true that in a healthy society wealth — and the standard of living for all — will always be increasing. However, it’s not wealth by itself that creates or indicates progress.
What creates a successful society are two things: Rational, self-responsible people with the freedom to exercise those virtues, free of the constraints of either outlaw criminals or legitimized criminals (that is, politicians as we know them.)
A free society — including economically free — where rational people can do their thing is the measure of a good, just and prosperous society. The more freedom we have, the better. The economic indicators would surely follow.
It’s futile to put the politicians in charge of what people can better be doing for themselves. People yearn for economic prosperity, but not necessarily for freedom. To get one, you must have the other.