[RWLake8662]

Take a look at the following opinion (although I believe it is accurate, I can't claim I actually put in writing):

What?s the difference between the right to free speech, which is enshrined in the Constitution, versus the ?right? to health care, which is not? Well, back in the day, we would simply say that a right has legal authority, it?s in the Constitution and therefore it?s a not just a right, it?s a birthright.

So why shouldn?t we amend the Constitution to include the rights to health care, food, housing, education?all the rest? What?s the difference between the rights we have and the ?rights? Obama wants to give us?

Simply this: Constitutional rights protect us from things: intimidation, illegal search and seizure, self-incrimination, and so on. The revolutionary idea of our Founding Fathers was that people had a God-given right to live as they saw fit. Our constitutional rights protect us from the power of government.

But these new so-called ?rights? are about the government?who the Founders saw as the enemy?giving us things: food, health care, education... And when we have a right to be given stuff that previously we had to work for, then there is no reason-none-to go and work for them. The goody bag has no bottom, except bankruptcy and ruin.

I know it is easy in the current time to want these functions provided to us via the government. But are you willing to give up Democracy for Socialism? I have been fortunate to have traveled to many European countries, and socialism ( some try to call it something else) is entrenched in many of those societies. However, I heard the same comments from the locals in many different towns, we are OWED this. The government has the duty (?) to provide these. However, in the same conversations I heard how (unless you were a professional) everyone was making just about the same salary (National Average) and the Fed tax rates were approx 50%, and the sales tax started around 19-20%! During my conversationsa it didn't appear there was a great deal of interest in going out and really trying to do your best at work as the guy next to you was getting the same salary. In addition, if you could find a house to buy the normal mortgage ran for 40+ years. The last key point is these countries are in bigger financial trouble than we are due to a decling birth rate ( less tax payers) and HUGE government out lay to cover all the entitlements. The question is, do you feel this is the correct direction for the US to persue ( and why?) and how do you believe this will effect the moral / determination of the work force to suceed.

[FreedomLiberty]

Great question RWLake.

Logic, reason, and history tells us that this is not the right direction for the US to pursue. The reason why the US became a great nation was because of its adherence to the ideology of individualism (as opposed to collectivism - a general term used to describe socialism, communism, fascism, nazism, etc.).

Free market capitalism is the only ideology that adheres to individual liberty, freedom, and private property. The collectivists' ideology only leads to trampling of civil liberty and loss of private property. Free market capitalism rewards hard work and discourages expectations of handouts.

The problems we have right now is basically because of socialistic policies being used by the country for quite some time now. We have not been very capitalistic for the longest time. There are no more incentives to save, and moral hazards are everywhere because of the government. (Banks do not take care of their clients' money because they know they will be bailed out by the government). Now we see nationalizations of banks (where a number of banks do not even want to participate in). We are fast moving from freedom to fascism.

They are using the same tactics that caused all this mess. So the more they insist on "planning the economy" instead of allowing the market to do its work, the worse it is going to get.

Imagine also how the media plays it out. One news outlet featured a "sad, sad story" about how Americans are having to tighten their belts. One example given was a heart-wrenching story - a guy is told by a car dealer that he can't buy a car unless he actually has some money! Can you imagine? What is this country coming to when you have to actually pay for stuff? (sarcasm of course).

It used to be that people worked hard to save to buy stuff. Now, we can just borrow money to buy stuff that we really cannot afford - and it is encouraged. How messed up is that?

***Funny how Robrobiii assumed that the author of the question is pertaining to Obama even though there was no mention of any politicians in the original post. A little defensive there Robrobiii?

[robrobiii1708]

I think someone is a bit off thier rocker.
Housing and food stamps and public education have existed for far longer than Obama was ever involved in politics, much of it for longer than he was even alive. The author ascribing these ideas to Obama is very silly.
And the author's views on 'european' nations and people are equally misleading. The standards of living and GDP per capita in many european nations excedeed that of the US, hardly making them terrible places to live. I suspect this peice is a simple (and simple-mindly written) persuasion peice meant to try to influence a political election with scare tactics that seem unrelated to the person they are trying to convince you to not vote for. I wouldn't fall for this age old trick if I were you.

If your fear of socialism is real, you must hate Bush, who is nationalising more of the economy than ever before.