PDA

View Full Version : OPM - The Socialist Drug of Choice



Whet
2/19/2009, 09:58 PM
just so - on the spot right:

it is a bit of a read, so some of the true believers may have a problem with maintaining their thought process while reading it.

OPM -Drug of Choice (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ebalogh/2009/02/19/opm-the-socialist-drug-of-choice/)


OPM - The Socialist Drug of Choice

by (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/author/ebalogh) Endre Balogh When it comes to the wit and wisdom of Karl Marx, it’s likely that his most quoted statement is, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The perverse irony in that quote is that all of Marx’s pseudo-scientific philosophical and sociological musings are so antithetical to common sense and basic human nature, that in order to believe them one must take a leap of faith far greater than any required for belief in a religious dogma. Certainly, George Orwell had Marx in mind when he famously quipped, “There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them.”

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/02/getattachment1-255x300.jpg (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/02/getattachment1.jpg)
Marx wasn’t stupid, though, and surely recognized that in order to get his magical notions widely embraced, people would have to give up their traditional ideas of religiosity, since it is difficult if not impossible to maintain a belief in two, utterly conflicting religious faiths at the same time. Tragically, the true believers who swallowed the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few of the most egregious examples), all held at their sociopolitical core the same pseudo-religious tenets that Marx proposed, and the staggering amount of death and torture those monsters precipitate dwarf, by several orders of magnitude, the suffering resultant from any religious beliefs. ( I know, some who are ignorant of history will object and say that Nazism and Fascism were Right-Wing movements. To them, I suggest they read Jonah Goldberg’s seminal book “Liberal Fascism” to learn the truth. The word Nazi was an acronym stemming from the German name for the National Socialist Party!)

Most people (with the exception of many Political Science professors that still inhabit our Universities) have finally come to regard Nazism, Fascism, and Communism as the evils they inherently are, but Socialism is still widely viewed by vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people as a societal good. “Just think,” they say, “how nice life could be if only more people would recognize that individuality and private property are contrary to the greater Socialist good? Let’s just spread the wealth around.” Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.

Though implementing Socialism is a lot less vicious, its adherents are equally devoted to totalitarianism - witness just one of myriad examples: the recent rumblings about imposing the Fairness Doctrine on Talk Radio. Consequently, it may actually be more insidious, since over a long period of time people gradually get used to its spirit-crushing effects until, like the proverbial frog in the pot of gradually boiling water, all their freedoms are lost.

Recently, I found a marvelous quote from Margaret Thatcher who wryly observed, “The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When I read that, it suddenly hit me that the pseudo-religion of Socialism is fast becoming the very real opiate of the masses. Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole. The very phrase, “other people’s money,” when made into the acronym OPM and said fast becomes “opium.” In modern Socialist societies it isn’t religion that narcotizes people, but rather OPM that renders people weak, helpless, and dependent on the State for their every need.

Now, our duly elected President Obama, whose ideological roots are deeply watered by Socialist faith, is working to transform American society into one closely resembling the failed Socialist societies of Western Europe. Taking on a new role as Used Car Salesman-In-Chief, he has seized upon our financial mess (largely caused by disastrous Leftist policies - thank you Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.) to ram through the costliest Big-Government giveaway/restructuring bill in human history, without anyone in Congress even having had time to read it. In his few short weeks in office, President Obama has injected far more OPM into the lifeblood of America than did Roosevelt’s awful, Depression-prolonging “New Deal” policies. Just to give it a little context, until just a few weeks ago, former President Bush was roundly excoriated for having raised the deficit under his watch. Now, less than a month into his term, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have quadrupled the deficit in one fell swoop - all with OPM.

The fact that the Socialist Western European countries are in moral and economic ruin makes no difference to the fanatics who concoct our policies. Sadly, thanks to them, the long era of American exceptionalism and personal freedom will come to an abrupt end unless large segments of the populace awaken to the danger posed by the Socialist OPM. Lest anyone doubt that we are headed that way, need I point out that when the McCain campaign had the temerity to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Obama’s proposed policies might be vaguely Socialist, he was universally castigated for unethical mudslinging. Yet now, only a few weeks later, the cover story in Newsweek proudly proclaims “We Are All Socialists Now!”
A case in point is the ongoing budget crisis in California. Here we have the richest State in the Union, with an economy that ranks among the largest in the world. Yet, thanks to decades of Leftist mismanagement and redistribution of OPM into failing, Big Government / Socialist programs, it sports the worst credit rating of any state. Loopy from their OPM fix, the Leftist lawmakers who have a stranglehold on California politics have spent the past several decades running California into the ground. Are they held accountable for their fiscal irresponsibility? Of course not! They just demand more OPM. What is the solution proposed by the largely Leftist lawmakers to the budget shortfall? Burden the already crushed taxpayers with an unprecedented tax hike - a twelve cent per gallon gasoline tax (on top of an existing forty cent per gallon tax), a doubling of the car registration fee (already one of the highest in the nation), a one percent increase in sales tax (on top of one of the highest sales taxes in the country) and a huge surcharge on State Income Tax. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman demonstrated conclusively that beyond a certain point tax increases result in a decrease in revenue. So why does the Left continue to demand a tax increase? For two reasons: 1.) because they are not truly interested in the revenue but rather in the ideology of redistributing wealth and 2.) because they are addicted to OPM. As I write, a tiny handful of courageous Republican lawmakers are standing between these onerous tax increases and the utter destruction of what
is left of the California economy.
This final quote from the late Dr. Adrian Rogers sums up the problem of OPM best:
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
OPM is the real narcotic of those who fall for the ideas of Marx. If it becomes the drug of choice for the majority of Americans, we are all in big trouble.

Jerk
2/19/2009, 10:11 PM
I don't think it's about 'spreading wealth' anymore. If only their intentions were that good.

I think it's about 'getting even' for past injustices.

sooner KB
2/20/2009, 02:55 AM
just so - on the spot right:
Certainly, George Orwell had Marx in mind when he famously quipped, “There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual could believe them.”


Huh? George Orwell was a socialist.


Tragically, the true believers who swallowed the toxic claptrap Marx advanced have brought far more misery and brutality into the world than all the fundamentalist religious faiths of history combined. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (to name a few of the most egregious examples), all held at their sociopolitical core the same pseudo-religious tenets that Marx proposed, and the staggering amount of death and torture those monsters precipitate dwarf, by several orders of magnitude, the suffering resultant from any religious beliefs.


So the argument goes something like: "communism is a form of socialism, communism is totalitarian, nazism is totalitarian. Therefore, nazism is socialism." According to logical reasoning, this isn't even valid, in and of itself.

I'm sorry, Hitler and Mussolini were absolutely in no way, shape, or form socialists, or even communists for that matter. That is utterly ****ing ridiculous. These guys were extremely anti-communist and pro-corporatist.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were communist. Communism is a form of socialism, but socialism isn't necessarily communism. Socialism is the idea that wealth should be redistributed, which is not what caused deaths under these communist leaders. Most socialists (such as George Orwell), are not communists and do not condone people like Pol Pot (quite obviously).

If you don't know what the difference between communism or socialism, please google it. Religion has caused far more death and suffering than even communism.


Most people (with the exception of many Political Science professors that still inhabit our Universities) have finally come to regard Nazism, Fascism, and Communism as the evils they inherently are, but Socialism is still widely viewed by vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people as a societal good. “Just think,” they say, “how nice life could be if only more people would recognize that individuality and private property are contrary to the greater Socialist good? Let’s just spread the wealth around.” Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.

What an absolutely bizarre coincidence that more educated people such as political science/psychology/sociology profressors tend be left-leaning on political issues.



Indeed, throughout 20th Century history, one of the principal distinctions between Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Socialism has been how thuggishly the fanatical believers in a utopian vision of radical egalitarianism have tried to impose it.


Yes, lets lump "nazism", "fascism", "communism", and "socialism" together in the same sentence yet again to continue the theme of letting people know how EVIL left-leaning people are. When you can't make a reasonable argument against something, always just call it evil and compare it to the nazis.



Though implementing Socialism is a lot less vicious, its adherents are equally devoted to totalitarianism


Once again, socialism doesn't have to be totalitarian. For instance, some people advocate socialist anarchism (also called libertarian socialism among other things) where the government and private owernship are abolished. This is what George Orwell (as well as Noam Chomsky) believed in.



Big Government radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are obsessed with redistributing “other people’s money” and are among the principal “pushers”, addicting enormous swaths of American society to the public dole.


First off, everyone is basically for redistributing wealth to some extent. For example, every time a school or road is built, wealth is being redistributed.

Second, to say democrats are radical redistributors is an extreme overstatement. Comparatively to other countries, the U.S. spends a very low percentage of GDP on social programs--lower than any other first world country. Out of the 63 most industrialized countries, the U.S. is the only one that does not have some kind of guaranteed income for all familes in need, and the only that does not have univeral health care. TANF, or what most people refer to as "welfare" accounts for 0.6% of our annual budget. To say that increasing social programs at all is "radical redistribution" is rediculous.

Third, it is kind of funny how some people are so outraged by the low percentage of our money going to the less fortunate, but seem to be ok with wealth being redistributed upward. Examples would be our government's billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations, tax cuts for the wealthy, or CEO's with very low tax rates. Our government spends more money subsidizing the rich than it does for welfare.



The fact that the Socialist Western European countries are in moral and economic ruin makes no difference to the fanatics who concoct our policies. Sadly, thanks to them, the long era of American exceptionalism and personal freedom will come to an abrupt end unless large segments of the populace awaken to the danger posed by the Socialist OPM.


Which Western Eurpean countries are socialist?

If you want to compare us to Western European countries however, (that are not socialist, by the way, but do spend much more on social programs and healthcare for its people) fine.

According to the Human Poverty Index, which evalutes the 17 richest nations (including all I believe of the Western European countries) on overall conditions associated with health, poverty, and the state of educational and job opportunities, the U.S. is ranked last.

Since the 1970's, the U.S. has had the highest income inequality of all industrialized nations, and has been increasingly moving further away this whole time. The U.S. also has the highest wealth inequality, where the top 10% of the population in this country own around 72% of the wealth. (The top 1% own about 40% of the wealth.)

Recently the World Health Organization ranked 191 countries on the health care systems. The U.S. came in 37th. Most if not all of the Western European countries ranked ahead of us. (France and Italy were ranked 1 and 2, respectively.)


What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

This assumes that all wealth redistribution is redistributed to those that do not work. The vast majority of wealth that is redistributed in this country (education, healthcare, social security) is to people that do work or retired people that have worked their entire lives. Once again, TANF accounts for 0.6% of the budget and provides temporary assistance, meaning that you can not live forever on welfare. Unemployment insurance, which is also temporary, accounts for around .12% of our budget. To think that anyone on the right or left actually wants people to be unemployed is absurd. The point of these programs is to provide temporary assistance until people can support themselves again. When 99% of government spending goes to people that do work, this is a pretty hard argument to make.

...

Look, I am not a socialist, but I'm not a person that believes in far-right corporate-dominated capitalism either. I think if we can spend billions on the military and billions on subsidizing corporations, we can have a safety net for the people on the bottom. Does this make me an evil facist commie?

I know I'm probably not going to change anyone's mind on politics. The point is, you don't have to make extreme, absurd statements like the above author. Calling the other side nazis is extremism. Saying that we are going to become a socialist nation because someone with an "evil" college education wants to raise social program spending by 1% is an extremist, unreasonable view. Notice I didn't compare anyone to nazis here, but instead used statistics and facts. I don't think conservatives are evil. I think they are mostly rich people who benefit from our current corporatist system, and non-rich people that are well-intentioned but have been mis-guided to wrongly believe that our government spends loads and loads on social progams and that old rich white people and there children who just happen to grow up to be rich old white people (because they are super-duper hard workers of course, unlike the rest) are somehow under attack.

Most college professors tend to be leftists because they carry out research and read other people's research. They understand that the U.S. spends a very low amount on social spending. They understand that the U.S. is one of the worst (probably the worst) industrialized country when it comes to inequality, education, and healthcare. They understand that research shows that most people who are poor are not poor simply because they are lazy.

I understand that capitalism has many major benefits. That's why I believe in a form of capitalism that still looks out for its people, instead of being a socialist. I understand principles of fiscal responsibility. But don't say you're a champion of fiscal responsibility when you advocate tax cuts that contribute to our debt. These are not tax cuts, but tax increases on our children. Don't say you are all about fiscal responsibility and then be ok with trillion dollar wars or billions being spent on pointless, useless cold-war weapons systems or holes that just happen to appear in the pentagon's budget. Where was the outrage when 2.3 trillion dollars vanished from the department of defense's budget in 2000/2001? Oh that's right, we only get outraged when money is spend on the less fortunate.

Nobody likes taxes, but they are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you are the richest nation in the world where there are people making billions of dollars, it is only civilized to create a safety net for people at the bottom that may be suffering. It really doesn't cost that much (just look at how much we spend on military spending, etc). Will it work perfectly? Of course not. Will there be lazy people out there that abuse the system? Of course. But the majority of the people in this country that are below the poverty line do work. There are countless people in this country that work there asses off with low paying jobs that have a hard time providing everything for their family. I'm fine with paying a few taxes to help these people out. I know that some day I may be one of these people, or a friend or child of mine may be one of these people.

So please, don't call me evil because I would like to see everyone in the richest country in the world have food, a roof on their heads, and healthcare.

I will leave you with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHDVCZp83pY

King Crimson
2/20/2009, 05:14 AM
there's nothing "common sense" can't fix.

OU4LIFE
2/20/2009, 08:30 AM
They understand that research shows that most people who are poor are not poor simply because they are lazy.



I'd like to see the research, please.

yermom
2/20/2009, 08:57 AM
how would you define "poor"?

and wtf is OPM?

Whet
2/20/2009, 09:00 AM
I'd like to see the research, please.

You're asking for too much!

OU4LIFE
2/20/2009, 09:41 AM
how would you define "poor"?

and wtf is OPM?

did you even read it? ;)

Other People's Money.

yermom
2/20/2009, 10:35 AM
i saw the quote, missed the rest of that paragraph somehow. i'm kinda slow

OU4LIFE
2/20/2009, 12:05 PM
speed isn't everything. :D

Turd_Ferguson
2/20/2009, 12:15 PM
Ya'll down with OPP?

sooner KB
2/21/2009, 12:44 AM
I'd like to see the research, please.

Very well. Here is some:

Goodwin, Leonard. 1972. Do the Poor Want to Work? A Social-Psychological Study of Work Orientations. Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Kaplan, H. Roy, and Curt Travsky. 1972. "Work and the Welfare Cadillac: The Function and Commitment to Work among the Hard-Core Unemployed." Social Problems, 19:469-483. (Both this and the above research by Goodwin are empirical studies that found that the poor do not value work less than other people do.)

Wright, Sonia. 1975. "Work Response to Income Maintanance." Social Forces 53:553-562. (Found that offering the poor government aid only slightly below what they could receive by working, that the poor continue to seek and accept employment.)

Duncan, Greg, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 1997. Consequences of Growing Up Poor.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Duncan, Greg, W. Jean Yeung, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Judith R. Smith. 1998. "How Much Does Childhood Poverty Affect the Life Chances of Children?" American Sociological Review, 63:406-423.

Miller, S.M., David Riessman, and A. Seagull. 1971. "Poverty and Self-Indulgence: A Critique of the Non-Deferred Gratification Pattern." Pp. 285-302 in Poverty in America.

Bane, M.J., and D. Ellwood. 1991. "Is American Business Working for the Poor?
Harvard Business Review (September-October): 58-66

Craypo, C. 1994. Working Poor in America: Climbing the Down Escalator. South Bend, IN: United Way of St. Joseph County.

Burtless, G. 1995. "Employment Prospects of Welfare Recipients." In The Work Alternative: Welfare Reform and the Realities of the Job Market, ed. D.S. Nightengale and R.H. Haveman. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Levitan, S.A., R Gallo, and I. Shapiro. 1993. Working but Poor: America's Contradiction. Baiimore: John Hopkins University Press.

OU4LIFE
2/23/2009, 09:22 AM
anything not 15 years old?