Organizing for America | Ian Enos's Blog: Typical Judgment: Apparently, I'm a Conspirator Against America

Typical Judgment: Apparently, I'm a Conspirator Against America

By Ian - Oct 12th, 2008 at 11:49 pm EDT

Also listed in: Lapeer for Obama

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

"You used to be cool man, but now you're part of the vast liberal conspiracy to ruin the country. Poor form man, poor form [sic]"

-Josh Shull

I met Josh in 2005, after having worked on the John Kerry campaign in 2004 and having supported Gore in 2000, so the idea that I've somehow changed is definitely spot-on. But let's examine his claim.

I'm apparently part of a conspiracy. The conspiracy that apparently forged Barack Obama's birth certificate (it's been independently verified: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html). The conspiracy that covered up the fact that Obama isn't even a citizen (debunked: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html). The conspiracy that bombed the Capitol (no one is denying Ayers's actions, but painting Obama as a dangerous man with some nefarious intent, well: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html). Yes, I intend to ruin the country.

I want the United States to be a socialist paradise, where no one has to work for what they want. I don't want this to be a land that rewards innovation and punishes ethical turpitude. We're all the same, no matter what. That's what Barack Obama says.

Oh, but don't pay attention to the partial nationalization of our banking system that just took place (a pretty socialistic thing to do). That was George W. Bush's call, so it's okay.

And don't worry about that $300 billion-plus plan to buy all of the bad debt lenders have saddled themselves with. You know, the one that has the government buying properties at the inflated paper value including all outstanding payments left to be made. The one proposed by John McCain. It isn't a socialistic plan, because everyone doesn't get treated the same. Instead, those who have paid their mortgages on time are punished by having their tax dollars going to buy up bad loans, while the companies that lent money on nothing more than stated income are rewarded for behaving with complete disregard for common sense and ethical behavior.

No, Barack Obama wants to redistribute the country's wealth. Rich people should not have to pay taxes, because if any of their money goes to the government, they'll have to submit a no-bid contract to get it back, and that's a lot of work. Okay, no-bid contracts are more Cheney's thing, but still there's no way for a rich person to keep making money if they have to pay taxes. There won't be any way to create jobs.

It isn't like there will still be money to be made, even if it is slightly less than the money that was flowing before. It isn't as though if the old players don't like the new rules and stop playing there will be anyone there to step up and fill the void. No one is going to want to make large sums of money in an environment that will tax their earnings.

It isn't as though inexhaustible greed at every level of American society fueled this impending depression. So if we keep regulations off and let the markets "correct themselves," we can absolutely trust the people in power to do the right thing. After all, deregulation of savings and loans in the 1980s only offered a minor bump in the road compared to the Great Depression. Deregulating California's power grid only cost the consumers in the state $30 billion. Allowing Enron to engage in "mark to market" accounting practices allowed them to overstate earnings by tens of billions of dollars quarterly, which made for a lot of nice, happy magazine covers and spirited shareholder meetings. Everyone is happy.

What we've learned over the years is that there is simply no way to manipulate market forces to benefit insiders and the wealthy. Everything works out.

Also, there's not even a hint of socialism in the notion of giving everyone a $5,000 tax credit for health care, mainly because we'll tax it as income! And even better, some crazy independent economists say that the measure will cost $1.3 trillion over the first decade against the national debt, but it's actually budget neutral. Hell, even if it isn't budget-neutral, the plan is likely to provide new coverage to 5 million people. Wow! And hell, even if it was a socialist plan, no worries! A single individual will actually only get $2,500 of additional taxable income, and this is essentially the same plan George W. Bush proposed in 2000. Like I said folks, don't worry; it never happened!

That bastard Obama? His plan would cover 34 million new people. Treating a whole 34 million people all the same? Has anyone checked his family tree for Karl Marx? And at what cost to you and I? The plan would cost a whopping $1.6 trillion over a decade. Per capita effects are the tool of the socialist.

Of course, there are other differences. Ever single small business gets treated the same by getting fined if they don't offer health insurance. It isn't as though there will be rewards for businesses doing the right things and offering health care (like tax breaks). Nope, everyone gets fined. I mean, sure, some people who have actually read the plan will tell you that there are no small business fines anywhere, but once again, sounds like it came straight from Stalin's mouth.

And if we're raising taxes on individuals that earn over $250,000 per year, what about those same small businesses, all 10 trillion of them? How are all those freelance writers supposed to create jobs if their taxes are higher? I mean, sure that lady that owns the Ace Hardware down the street brings home about $50,000 per year, but that's not the norm. Most small business owners are multi-billionaires that would have to close up shop if their tax rates adjusted even a little bit.

We need to cut taxes, damn it. But we can't cut programs. Well, not unless they treat people the same as other people. There may be a sprawling bureaucracy, but we should probably get rid of Medicare, because we all know old people never get sick, and if they do, they've all got gigantic retirement savings and jobs at Walmart. Not a single senior citizen in America lives on a trickle of fixed income. That's why we all work so hard!

And damn it, there's no way a Democratic president could protect this nation. It's never happened before and I'll be damned if it's going to happen now; am I right? Sure, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called himself a Democrat, but that was only to pander to the sissies. Underneath, he was a hardcore war-monger. He's universally regarded as one of the greatest presidents in our nation's history, and why? Because he was able to lay the foundations of success for our boys in the Second World War, as well as lead the nation out of its worst financial crisis of all time. Did he have to resort to socialism? Hell no. The country would have fallen apart if he'd done so.

And a Democrat in office would surely mean socialism at best, communism at worst. Not a single Democrat has ever done a damn thing to prevent the spread of communism or protect this nation from being in the proximity of a tactical strike. Sure, Kennedy called himself a Democrat, but that was only because the morals of Republicans would never accept his philandering. Nope, it was pure Conservative Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And believe me, no Republican's administration (especially during the Cold War) would ever sell munitions to our enemies, enact programs that would invariably lead to a series of financial meltdowns, use American hostages abroad as pawns, or steer this country to a gigantic increase in spending and a MASSIVE national deficit. Not one time in the 1980s did this ever happen.

Wake up, folks. You can theorize all you want, but here are the simple facts: in the 1990s, things were pretty good. We took action against genocides abroad, but we were able to keep spending under control. Most of us had good jobs, the budget was balanced, and our financial stability was unquestionable. Now, Bill Clinton deserves some of the blame for this crisis, because it was his administration, near the tail end, that loosened the requirements on mortgage lenders. Make no mistake about it, we are here because of a series of bipartisan efforts, and members of both parties are very much to blame.

But, the overriding ideal that has gotten us here is this foolhardy notion that bankers, lenders, volatile markets, speculators, commodities, these things don't need any rules. We seem to be married to this naive notion that these markets can't be manipulated for ill purposes. We have this idea that everyone has all the foresight in the world and will always do the right thing.

The fact of the matter is, people are greedy. And that greed will, in many cases, even blind them to what will, in the long run, even be most beneficial to themselves. Allowing the housing market to run wild will only result in a gigantic boom followed by a colossal crash, then a large sum of public money to kick start it again (because there isn't enough money flowing for the market to correct itself). If you don't believe me, watch this video of conservative financial guru Peter Schiff explaining exactly how this current crisis was going to unfold, two years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoSwkCog-Ro

So, you've got two choices.

Option 1: Boom, bust, bailout, so on
Option 2: Regulation, highs, correction, lows, correction, so on

These are analogous to periodic depressions and massive government nationalization projects without regulation and common sense rules that will still have periodic recessions, but will result in long-term economic stability.

So, you tell me which idea is more socialistic. You tell me which idea is less American. I have no doubt in my convictions. I may not be an expert in all these areas, but I'm pretty sure business as usual isn't working. Vote for whomever you'd like.

Obama logo

Show 1 Reader Comment	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.