"Commoners" for the "Common Good"...

My husband told me tonight on Glenn Beck, he disclosed that the way the redistribution of wealth will occur is using the stimulus money and re-defining poverty...

The stimulus money, it is reported will be used within the White House "councils"...possibly in the charge of one of the czars...I imagine. And the definition of wealth will be what one is able to buy, versus what another is not able to buy. So consumerism will promote prosperity with equal distribution, but at what costs?

Do those that have worked hard, bought second hand cars, and saved, deserve to be punished by such a policy? Maybe I don't understand what the total picture is, but it seems to me that creating personal wealth is forbidden UNLESS, one is part of corporate greed, that is.

Do NOT get me wrong. Corporations are not wrong in and of themselves, but when they play politics with policy of the American people, then our democracy suffers. And the people are left with little recourse but to "foot the bill"!

Corporate greed will play into the hands of stimulus monies this way so that consumers consume so that they will not be punished by punitive measures to alleviate class envy. And the religious will "call on the virtue" of their parishioners to "give blood" to the cause of the "common good", while the blood-letting will go on behind the scenes. And the end will be the alleviation of the "economic" crisis through ploys of manipulating public opinion through temporary "fixes" until after the election cycle.

So, instead of workers uniting, maybe us "commoners" should unite to protect our liberty before it is sold to the highest bidder and we have to pay for it.

Government's Intrusion Limits Choice

Government knows how to "give" at other's costs. They do it well, as they pay their contractors over and above the "local price". Such is the state of beauracratic governments that try to be "moral".

Governments cannot be "moral", as they do not have choice. People can only be moral, because they do or, at least, should have choice. Government binds choice in beaucratic "mess", so it limits the choices of individuals. Some seem to think that this "limitation of choice" is "good", because it will re-distribute wealth or "benefit the public". The "moral socialists" think it is "immoral" to make too much money! And countries that adhere to capitalism are culprits of corruption due to corporate greed.

Is it any less "immoral" to take from one to give to another? or to limit individual choice in giving or not giving? Those in powerful beauracratic systems do not seem to be "more moral" than the corporate world. But, what happens when govenment and the corporate world combine to "do good", or to "do business" for the "public good", at the costs of the taxpayer? I believe this is what we are seeing happen in our country today. Those in powerful positions are taking advantage of those who are dependent on the "power".

Americans used to be those who were independent, self-reliant and industrious, but now, it seems we have lost our "will" to be independent from government help. We depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, etc. and now, we are told that we cannot do without the government's "help" in our healthcare! I think we have become indulgent and "entitled", without even realizing what we give up when we do limt our "independence".

I agree that some system shoud be in place for the disadvantaged, disabled, and those who cannot help their situations. But, our country has become too lethargic in becoming informed and understanding the issues, so that they can be "good citizens".

I hope that the healthcare "transformation", or "takeover" will be America's "wake-up" call!