Random Thoughts

I've long been a believer that socialism doesn't win national elections in the United States, at least when the election is an honestly-contested, fair fight. After all, the most recent Battleground poll data available shows that 59% of Americans consider themselves somewhat or very conservative - compared to 36% who consider themselves somewhat or very liberal.

Nevertheless, as things stand at this moment, the presidential race is being led by one of the most liberal candidates in history, who only a few days ago openly acknowledged to a voter his intent at re-distributing wealth within America. It's not like he can hide who he is anymore - which is normally what is necessary for a socialist candidate to win in this country.

So are current poll numbers reflective of the massive voter fraud that is taking place on Senator Obama's behalf? It's hard for me to believe that this alone could make up for the 23% difference between conservatives and liberals.

Is it the appealing sound that socialist rhetoric has to it during times of economic crisis? Has the left-wing dominated Democrat party finally found the perfect time to throw their achievement-punishing sales pitch to the public?

Is it the cult of personality that has grown up around Senator Obama, that has displaced interest in issue stands?

What's the explanation?

**********

And speaking of the documented voter fraud that is taking place throughout the nation, I find it interesting that, during the last two presidential election cycles - when a Republican won - left-wingers, including those in Congress, howled that the election results were not valid, based on their unverified allegations of voter intimidation and fraud. But now that a liberal Democrat stands poised to carry the day in an election - the results of which many have genuine reason to have little or no confidence in due to documented fraud - the silence from the left is deafening.

**********

I find it striking that Senator Obama's plan for bringing about economic recovery in the United States does not allow for the concept of ecomic growth, or the creation of wealth. His plan - as expressed to the afore-mentioned voter - revolves around taking money/wealth out of the economy and putting it in the hands of the government, so that it can re-distribute the wealth as it sees fit.

It seems that, to the left, prosperity is a zero-sum game, in which there is only an unchanging set amount of wealth in existence, and therefore the gains of some must be offset by the losses of others. So, if somebody's got to win, and somebody's got to lose, why not let the rich be the losers? After all they've got it to spare.

There seems to be no allowance for the idea of the creation of new wealth, in which case there is more prosperity brought into the system, and in which case everyone can indeed enjoy more, as there is a larger pot for every citizen to draw from, based on his willingness to work for it.

The fact is that the amount of wealth in our system never remains static. If it is not growing, which the capitalist system gives it the best opportunity to do, it is shrinking. Take $100 away from a rich man in order to funnel it through the government, it will be something less than $100 that comes out of the other end of the system to be given to some other citizen - unless we can develop a government agency that operates for free.

What's more, penalized enough, the citizen who actually produces that $100 will be incentivized to eventually take all his wealth out of the system altogether, as some heavily-taxed industries have already done in the United States.

Even Senator Obama has been heard to say that he may put off certain tax increases if the economy doesn't strengthen a bit first. Why would he say something like that? Is it because, maybe deep down, he recognizes that higher taxes do not spur economic growth, or even recovery? Why should I vote for a candidate who essentially acknowledges that his plan for economic recovery in the United States doesn't work unless the economy doesn't need to recover?