Socialism:
1. Any of the various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. (Houghton Mifflin Online Dictionary)
During the campaign and since Obama's election, I have often heard liberals make the argument that Obama's comments regarding ‘spreading the wealth around'' do not make him a socialist. Let's pretend for one minute that I would agree it was an unfortunate choice of words, the administration provides us with new examples every day. Two actions by Obama in the past week provide undisguised evidence of Obama's agenda to seize the means of producing and distributing goods. AKA SOCIALISM!
The following is an excerpt from an April 7th piece written by Stuart Varney in the Wall Street Journal .
"Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.
Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. " That's politics talking , not economics."
Varney's point is absolutely accurate. Under the guise of bailouts, the government has forced its way into private corporations, and is now demanding control for their ‘generosity'. Imagine the federal government installing their handpicked CEO's and having the ability to access the vast financial resources of the US banking system. Whatever social engineering they are unable to accomplish through legislation can be forced on US citizens through controlling the access to capital!
Not content with merely imposing socialism through seizure of the US banking system, Obama then turned over the financial sovereignty of the US to an international body of central bankers from each of the G 20 states and the European Union. The Financial Stability Board is to ‘set a framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires": The standards include ‘regulation and oversight to all systematically important financial institutions, instruments and financial markets" This means that any institution in any country the FSB deems ‘systematically important", may be regulated.
The FSB is also charged with "implementing tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and corporate social responsibility at all firms" (source; Dickmorris.com 4//7//2009)
What Obama has signed the US up for essentially a financial United Nations. An international body of saber rattlers forever hostile to US and capitalist interests while catering to petty economic dictators, victimizing the citizens they purport to protect and exploiting their positions for personal enrichment. Morris succinctly summarizes what we can expect.
"The Europeans have been trying to get their hands on our financial system for decades. It is essential to them that they rein in American Free enterprise so that their socialist heaven will not be polluted by vices such as the profit motive. Now, with President Obama's approval, they have done it"