This is a great article. I've been screaming for over two years, these are socialists, bent on destroying our way of life and I've been attack at nearly every turn. Dennis Prager is among the Conservative talking heads that REFUSED to call them what they are - leftists, socialists, marxists or fascists.
Well, while he finally catches up on the debt and the pending economic destruction, he refuses to call them socialists - only leftist.
It's a start.
Here's his article "Why Democrats Don't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt"
As reported by The Washington Post, "President Obama's proposed
budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the
next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday."
CNN adds, "Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone."
The Post continues: "The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the White
House (are) ... both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this
year -- a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall
economy. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future
years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the
economy under Obama's policies and would begin to grow rapidly after
2015.
"Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue
borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90
percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said."
CNN adds that "By 2020 the (CBO) estimates debt held by the
public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of GDP. That's up from
53 percent of GDP in 2009."
I suspect that most Americans, if asked whether these numbers
trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama, would answer in
the affirmative.
They would be wrong.
They would be wrong not because the Democratic Party or the president are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic Party and the president are
leftists. And most Americans, including most Democrats, do not
understand the left. They may understand liberalism; but President
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most Democratic representatives
and senators are not liberals; they are leftists. And most Americans do
not understand the difference between liberal and left. They do not
realize, for example, that there is no major difference between the
American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of
Western Europe. They do not know that from Karl Marx to Obama, the left
(as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has never
been interested in creating wealth; it is interested in redistributing
wealth.
Therefore, unprecedented and unsustainable debt, a debt that
will negatively affect most Americans' quality of life, renders the
dollar increasingly undesirable, and undermines America's prestige and
power in the world -- these developments do not particularly disturb
the left. They may trouble the president, the Democratic Party, and
others on the left on some political level, but that pales in
comparison to what the left really wants: a huge government overseeing
a giant welfare state and a country with far fewer rich Americans.
decline in the American quality of life. The further left one goes, the
more contempt one has for the present quality of American life in any
event. The left regularly mocks many of the symbols of that life --
from the three-bedroom suburban house surrounded by a white picket
fence to owning an SUV (or almost any car) because Americans should be
traveling on public buses, trains and bicycles.
decline of the dollar's prestige. I am writing this column in Morocco.
In Casablanca, my wife and I and another couple hired a Moroccan driver
for the day. And when it came time to pay, the man refused to accept
dollars; he wanted to be paid in either Euros or Moroccan dirhams. Yes,
dirhams rather than dollars. But the demise of the dollar as the
world's currency disturbs the left as much as does America's not
getting a gold medal in curling at the Winter Olympics.
And as for America wielding less power in the world, that is
a positive development for the American left. It is the world community
as embodied in the United Nations that should wield power throughout
the world, not an "overstretched," "imperialist" and "militarist"
United States.
America, that they just differed in the means they wanted used to get
there. I was mistaken. The left has a very different vision of America
than those who hold the founding values of America, most especially
individualism and small government. And if the price of a once in a
lifetime possibility of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by
the left is America's steep financial decline, that is a price fully
worth paying.
