The (Obama) administration acknowledges that its energy proposal would increase costs for consumers but argues that the vast majority of people will get tax breaks elsewhere in Obama’s budget package.
“Now, if people don’t change how they use energy, then they will face higher costs for energy,” Geithner acknowledged.
Being interpreted means …
You children had better change your energy consumption habits or we will tax the hell out of you.
Geithner said the budget reflects what Obama views as “a deep moral imperative to make our society more just.” But it’s very good economic policy, too. It will mean there is again a fairer, more equitably shared tax burden on the vast majority of Americans.”
Being interpreted means …
Through the economy we are going to social engineer a more just society and if you don’t like it you can frack off.
Could we please have a public discussion on the standard that this administration is using to adjudicate what constitutes “a more just society.” Did Obama learn his standard about what constitutes a “more just society” from Jeremiah Wright? Did Obama learn his standard about what constitutes a “more just society” from his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis? Since we are the ones being socially engineered is it to much to ask what standard is being used to create this “more this just society.”
Finally we see social engineering in Obama’s proposal on charitable giving. Obama’s proposed budget seeks to limit the amount of money that can be given to charity in order to finance his billions for nationalized health care reform. This is social engineering because what it is proclaiming is that the government knows better how to spend your extra dollars than the average American does. It socially engineers because dollars that would have gone to churches, universities, and foundations are not going to be there to be given because they have been redirected by Obama’s wisdom to his favorite charities. It is a short step from here to just turning over to the government all the functions that charities fill along with all the money that is freely given to charities.
This stuff just makes me go wild. What makes me even go more wild is that not enough other people are making these observations.
Wake up people … this vile and wicked man isn’t kidding when he says he wants to “re-make” America.
Obama could have learned his standard about what constitutes a “more just society” from John Maynard Keynes himself.
Keynes here declares that what is mine, ultimately, is not mine.
Keynes then goes on with how to deal with the problem of “what is mine” that I no longer “possess a prescriptive ‘natural liberty’” to. Keynes removes God in the quote above and then sets in place his own program. He delegates it to the Federal government “to devise forms of government” to confiscate monies for achieving the Agenda (redistribution & spending) which the economists (socialists) have set.
Don’t let your local liberal tell you that Keynesian theory doesn’t have anything to do with redistribution, that redistribution is purely a moral/political/philosophical matter and has nothing to do with Keynes’ economic theory. Anytime monies are collected from someone because “he has it to give” involves a moral judgment. Keynes laid down an economic foundation for redistribution and spending. Next Keynes sets his target.
As Bret has written before. This is thievery.
Great quotes Jerry. Thanks for posting them here!
Throw in Margaret Sanger and her social program and 80 years later we have a de facto National Socialism
But what is the actual standard? Right, I have no natural liberty in economic activities. This still isn’t a standard by which to determine when things are fair and equitable. In fact, they still don’t seem really concerned about fairness (fairness being defined as someone not having more than someone else). They try to keep as much of theirs as they can, evidenced by things such as records of liberal politicians being more stingy in personal giving than conservatives.
So why do they play at games? Why not go all the way? I mean if someone making $300,000 gets $200,000 taken away, they still make more than me at $50,000. How is that fair to me!!! So why don’t they just take everything from everyone and then doll it out evenly?
Keynes admits that they need rich people. Can’t get rid of the cow, neither as an employer, nor to milk it later.
Keynes makes this conclusion about the rich just two paragraphs after my last quote above
The rich were going to be systematically & lawfully robbed (Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil). This couldn’t be done unless the “metaphysical principles” (God’s law, 8th, 10th commandments) that laissez-faire were built upon were removed first, which was being done by the church itself liberal theology. Machen was about to lose and God was going to give His people what they wanted, replacing the gospel with the social gospel, what government needed to become GOVERNMENT. God gave His church what it wanted, removal of His law and the breakdown of a godly culture.