J.D. Longstreet at Save America Foundation wrote an excellent article. J.D. has been in the business a longtime and adds a personal flare to his material that makes you feel as if you have known him your life. He is a dedicated patriot and in many instances, his writing has made me feel my own material had better have its own flare in order appear on the same page as him. The topic of discussion for J.D., today, is the upcoming political debates that will be preceding the 2014 elections.
There is no doubt in the minds of American patriots that conservative minded politicians must retake the senate and hold the house if there is any chance of "saving America." J.D. alludes to a topic that this author was going to tackle at some point, but he beat me to it. Such is the way I suppose. The topic is the main talking point of the Democrat Party, and it is already taking shape while becoming categorically prioritized in the minds of the Democrat constituency through the minimum wage debate. Thinking Americans know that forcing a higher minimum wage will cost more jobs, but we also know many Americans are simply not thinking these days, they are merely reacting to emotional cues set by the liberal narrative. The topic of the Democrat talking points for the election is going to revolve around their cherished theme of income inequality, and something that J.D. has identified as B.I.G. which as he points out means Basic Income Guarantee. The Democrats want their base to believe that they can provide a guaranteed income for them without them ever having to lift a finger. I would certainly hope that after watching the Obamacare soap opera that Americans will be able to realize the fallacy in this as well. Sadly, we won't know for sure the mind set of those who have been betrayed by their dear leader, Comrade Obama, until after the election. In which case, if the Democrats retain the senate, then those who voted for them get exactly what they have coming; more disappointment and lies.
Where does this idea of a guaranteed income for all Americans come from? Most people realize that individual wealth grows with an economy that is producing goods and creating jobs. Basic education used to include economics, which taught the fundamentals of a supply and demand economy. Companies produced products, if people wanted these products they bought them, company grows, creates more jobs and the money earned is used to pay employees among other things. The employees were free to stay with this company or invest their earnings and perhaps start their own business. This was once referred to as… What was it called again? Oh yeah, THE AMERICAN DREAM! This system has all but been destroyed because somewhere along the line someone didn't think it was "fair." Who were these people? Communists mostly, or else people educated by communists. I was people like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, a husband and wife team of dedicated social engineers, pursuing their fanatical dream of a Utopian paradise by teaching communism at Columbia University. While Richard Cloward is no longer among the living, Piven is still (to the best of my knowledge) a professor of social work at Columbia. In the 1960's Cloward and Piven, as this dynamic duo has become best known, wrote a scholarly article which was published in "Psychology" journal. The article was called "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to end Poverty." This is where the idea of a guaranteed income came from as this article called for the creation of a welfare state designed with the explicit purpose of destroying America's capitalist system; which would in turn force the government to provide a guaranteed income.
Their idea entailed creating a system where everyone qualified for some type of welfare. This is likely where terms like corporate welfare originated from (I'm speculating here) as their intent was literally overloading the system so it would inevitably crash. There is only one little problem, and I don't think these two socialists gave it so much thought. Where will the wealth to give everybody a guaranteed income come from if the system that creates wealth in the first place is destroyed? I will address this question again in a moment.
Did you notice that Piven is a professor of social work? I majored in social work, and I can assure you that the anti-capitalist pro "social justice" (wealth redistribution, government control) is the attitude prevalent among the vast majority of social work professors. In fact, not only was I told I wasn't fit for the profession because of my position opposing social justice and white privilege, it is admitted by many professors that a belief in social justice is necessary to be in the field to ensure equality and that everyone is entitled their fair share of societies resources. Seeing as though Piven has been very influential in social advocacy, having been involved in Students for a Democratic Society, ACORN, Occupy Wall Street and has had been tied to many other communist front groups; it is safe to say that she still, from her bully pulpit at Columbia, wields tremendous influence over social work education. The professors in the field of social work truly believe in the leftist's cause of wealth redistribution, and it is safe to say that social work is actually the profession of advocating socialism. It never ceased to amaze me how asking such simple questions about where the money would come from could generate such hostility from a group of people. The mindset of liberalism is one where they believe there ideas are so obviously the solution to the problems we face there cannot possibly be another explanation. They believe that redistributing wealth will, without a doubt, lift everyone out of poverty to the extent that the fail to take into account how our system creates wealth in the first place. This is because people like Piven have conditioned the minds of these young socialists to view our system as a poison that favors the lucky or the rich and leaves everyone in the cold. It can be compared to the gun control debate to the extent that liberals think that removing guns from the hands of the law abiding will "Obviously reduce gun violence because there will be fewer guns." It doesn't matter what the evidence says.
Another thing I can tell you for sure America is this, and I know this from my own experience which I have shared with you through my writing. The education system is training people to be social activists for the left. There have been many indications which suggest the college crowd may be turning on Obama because of Obamacare, you better hope so. These people have already been beaten down so much with lies about wealth inequality that jumping on the "Basic Income Guarantee" choo choo train could very well be the ticket to distract these young people away from Obamacare's failures. If the Democrats are successful at this, then the only ones we have to blame would be ourselves. We have to be involved with these young people and show them the fallacy of liberal logic. They have to see that, by forcing this deranged version of equality upon us, they are simply guaranteeing a system where the middle class has all, but been destroyed, and two classes exist, the elite and the serfs. This is what many of these young people believe they are protesting in an effort to prevent from happening. They believe their dedication to the Democrat party and the leftist cause is one that will create a world where there is no suffering, and everything is fair. They don't understand that total equality has historically proven that everyone will be equally poor. Perhaps that's what they think will be fair. Maybe they are so full of hate towards those who have achieved something that they would just as soon see them poor as they would try to do that for themselves.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.