ThinkingSkull.com

And I’m seriously leaning toward the McCain-Palin ticket. It really isn’t hard to see why, and I’m sure anyone paying attention to this bit o’ blogging who is pro-Obama will disagree, but this is pretty much what this election comes down to: Capitalism vs. Socialism.

Forget that George W. Bush off-teleprompter comes off only slightly ahead of Dan Quayle. The entire housing crisis / credit crisis / global economic meltdown really comes down to one idea: there are elected officials who believe that isn’t fair that some people get to be rich and other are stuck being poor. Worse yet, this is the platform that got them elected; vote for me and I’ll change whatever it takes to get you more, and you won’t have to lift a dimpled chad to do it.

This, by definition, is socialism: “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” In simpler terms, everyone gets their fair share, the same share, and the government will tell you what that share is. Additionally, in Marxist theory, it is also “the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.” Again, in simpler terms, at the rate things are going, what we know as the “American way of life” that allows you to strive for more and “get ahead” may, by law, be prevented so that everyone else can catch up.

You’ve heard of this happening in schools already. Teaching test-taking to meet standards instead of learning how to learn? Those who can move ahead have to stay behind because it isn’t fair to “the rest.” Where is it written that everyone deserves to have as much as everyone else? Put another way, who decides what enough is, or even what a “fair share” should be?

Over the last twelve years, lawmakers required banks to create the “subprime” (read: less than prime) market that enabled families and individuals who couldn’t previously qualify to own homes to make such a purchase. In doing so, it caused housing prices to rise disproportionately because anyone could get a home, inflating the market value and creating “securities” that weren’t backed by anything real. Because of this (and the reason it was a bad idea to begin with), prices rose, income didn’t, those new home owners couldn’t afford their payments because they were strapped to begin with, and no one was left to buy new homes. Values fell and banks started collapsing because the money to repay loans stopped coming in: worthless property and defaulted loans don’t pay the bills.

Barack Obama and his entire platform of “change” is a great idea, mostly because he and politicians like him were instrumental in causing the current problem; a “change” away from this could only help. His idea of raising more money from new taxes (read: that no one can afford to pay) to give money more away to those in need (but that has no actual value) isn’t a good idea. On the other hand, John McCain warned people years ago that the government-run Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac programs that went belly up could possibly cause the very problem that America is facing says now, a fact that tells me that he a much better idea of what is going on (and hopefully a decent chance to fix it).

Here’s my plan for the next four years: tighten my belt, pay off my debts, look for capitalistic opportunities, and hope my vote for McCain can keep me out of standing in line for an Obama-endorsed, government-rationed “fair share.”