Sunday, August 16, 2009

Democrats: The Party of Mercy?

Last blog I posed to you a question, and as promised I will now answer it. For those of you who forgot, (I say forgot because I know it is not possible that there is anyone who did not read it,) the question was as follows: If Obama's goal in increasing welfare programs, and for pushing the healthcare reform was truly to help those with less, then why does he propose to remove the tax cuts the upper brackets receive when giving charity? If he really cared about getting aid to those in need, why would he try to do something that would surely reduce the amount of charity given?

[Excuse me, I am going to answer my phone..................Ok, I am back]

In order to answer this question we must dig deep into the mind of the liberal politician. The liberal party has strategically created an image for itself as the party who cares for the less fortunate. (If we look at much of what they do and say, it would be very clear that they are not the pious men and women they pretend to be, but continuing.) This was a very smart plan, and it has worked wonders for them. By posing as humanitarians, and protectors of the poor, the liberals have been able to tap into two voting groups: those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal, and those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies. I would like to analyze these two groups.

First we will look at those who think they are doing a morally good deed by voting liberal. I do not necessarily blame them. The liberal politicians do a pretty good job at performing their act. They speak about lowering taxes on poor people (who already do not pay taxes, so they are not really saying anything,) about increasing entitlements, about working towards healthcare for all, among other projects. To the untrained eye, these all seem like great deeds. But, one must look at what they are actually voting for. No matter how much one wishes to help the needy, the way to do it is not to take from others. When the story is told about Robin Hood, I do not think these 'morally compelled' liberal voters would feel he is doing a good deed as he steals from the wealthy. So, let me ask them, why is this any different? Why when it is called 'taxing,' does it change the situation? If we believe all people were created equal, why would one be entitled to something another earned? I am not questioning, that many of these voters are in truth under the impression that they are doing a good deed. I just think that they are blinded by the picture that is painted for them, without thinking about how the artist acquired the paint.

Now to those who are set to gain financially by liberal policies, I can not really speak for them. I understand why many of them are compelled to embrace that which they would be given, but how they really feel comfortable to take mystifies me. How the liberals were able to convince them that they are entitled to be given something taken from another I will never understand. How they were able to tell people, 'we will spread the wealth and take money from your neighbor to give to you,' and have the people take that money is amazing. But they were able to, and continue to do it more and more. This past campaign you had Obama telling millions, 'I will give you money, and healthcare, and college and this and that' it was no contest.

This is the playbook of the liberals. They have devised this strategy to make themselves the 'party of mercy' and it has worked. They have fooled millions into believing it. But it is not their real philosophy. Their philosophy is to have government involved in as much of our everyday lives as possible. Part of that includes having the power to manage a large percentage of our money. But even more than that, they use this illusion of mercy to gain the votes. They need votes to get power. It would be hard to say 'we are going to step in, and manage most of your everyday life.' But when they can say we are going to help the poor, it is a lot easier. They get the votes of those who think they are doing a good deed, and the votes of those who they are saying they will be giving to.

But, they have begun to go even further. They have been working to create a polarized country where you have rigid classes, and an envy of classes. Where you have people believing that they are entitled to that which another has earned. Where people are angry and despise those who have more than them. And it is all fueled by the fact that we have the entitlement programs. So wisely named to create this mindset: that 'I am entitled to another's money.' This is where the anger comes from. If one believes they are entitled to it, than the only reason they do not have it is because someone else does. So the anger, and hatred of the wealthy sprouts from the fact that they were led to believe that the wealthy is in possession of what is rightfully theirs. This enables the liberals to keep this bloc of voters for eternity, for it becomes part of their life, and frequently the lives of their children; that the government is there to make sure what is rightfully theirs gets given to them.

This is the same reason why the liberals are such strong supports of providing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and for making it so easy for immigrants to move here. They do not see poor underprivileged people, they see voters. That is what we all are to them: voters.

How do I know this, you might ask. How do I know that this is really what they are motivated by? To me it is simple. Just listen to them. F.D.R.,when he was trying to establish a single-payer system said that it was all about politics, not about getting healthcare for those who need it. And look at Obama now; seeking to remove the tax cuts the wealthy get when they give charity. This will reduce the amount of charity given. So why would it be something a man who cared about the poor would ever talk about? The reason is because he sees the poor as votes, not as people. This leaves him with one simple question: what will make the country think that the liberals being in power is directly resulting in more being done for the lower class? People giving charity, or the government providing healthcare? When they say 'look, I gave you healthcare,' they know they can count on votes from the recipients.

It's a numbers game: The last poll showed about 40% of Americans support the government having more control of the healthcare industry. The same percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes.

PTP: In one of the townhalls last week Obama said that the government will just be keeping an eye on the insurance companies and making sure they are being fair. But he made it clear that they would not be taking over the system. If, and he said this, the government will be regulating who the insurance companies must provide for (not allowing them to deny coverage because of a pre exsisiting condition,) and saying how much they can charge, and saying what they must cover, then I ask you, what part of the system is the government not controlling?

No comments:

Post a Comment