Psychiatrist: Obama corrupting America with socialism

Psychiatrist: Obama corrupting America with socialism
Book author warns economic 'rescue' will turn citizens into 'wards of state'


By Chelsea Schilling
2009 WorldNetDaily

Only a month into Barack Obama's presidency, an acclaimed psychiatrist is warning that Americans are being slowly corrupted by socialism as Obama's policies intrude into their economic, social and political lives – a tactic he believes will secure future votes for the Democratic Party.

"We have a desperate population, and it's feeling even more desperate than usual," Dr. Lyle Rossiter told WND. "People are really quite frightened. They're looking for magic, and they think they are going to find it in this man."

Rossiter is a forensic psychiatrist and author of "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." In his book, he explains how the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party can only be understood as a psychological disorder. He examines how modern liberal collectivism undermines the legal and moral foundations of ordered liberty.

Rossiter warned that Obama, after only six weeks in office, is well on his way to institutionalizing a modern parental state – and his socialist programs will ultimately damage the moral fiber of the American people.

"This is not a stimulus program that is going to work economically," Rossiter said. "In the meantime, the character of the people – virtues of self-reliance, self-direction, self-determination, altruistic concern for others, charitable care for others rather than government-mandated welfare programs, regulation and taxation – all the capacities that made this country great are being contaminated.

"We are being corrupted by these programs."

Rossiter said Obama has seduced Americans into believing he can deliver them from economic distress associated with the housing, banking and unemployment crises.

"He has a particular gift for rhetorical speech that's inspiring, seductive and inviting," he said. "He's a quite charming person in his manner. People have been looking for someone to rescue them, and Obama has presented himself as the hero of the day."

However, Rossiter predicts Obama's collectivist rescue plan will end in disaster.

"He's headed for a very severe fall because the expectations are far in excess of what anyone could possibly provide," he said. "We've reached the point where, not only can the economy not respond to the stimulus, we have an incredible amount of debt. The entire project is going to collapse, and he will be humiliated."

Human nature is not conducive to socialism, Rossiter warned. Imposition of a collectivist system and policies encouraging citizens to seek help through government intervention and social programs may prove to be a death blow to the nation's spirit and liberties.

"If you keep trying to do it, you are going to destroy the character of the people," he said. "You may be able to subjugate them and get them into this dependent state, but, ultimately, society collapses because it's conceptually flawed."

While liberal policies eventually fail, he said the nation may suffer massive economic damage from oppressive taxation, stifling regulation and depreciated currencies; massive political damage in the form of irrational expectations of what government can and should do for the people; and, most of all, the permanent corruption of citizens by destroying their reverence for self-reliance, voluntary cooperation and genuine altruism.


"What Obama and the Democrats are doing is a profoundly political move to increase the numbers of voters by getting them on welfare so they will continue to vote Democratic," he said." Their immigration program is geared toward the same end – to provide legalization and benefits for illegal immigrants because they know 70 percent of those people voted Democratic."

Rossiter said the good news is that the collectivist agenda always self-destructs because it profoundly misconceives human nature and the human condition, but it will not do so before great damage has been done. It will attack the moral and ethical foundations of liberty, repeatedly violate the laws of economics and corrupt the character of the people as it invites them to become wards of the state.

"All of my fears in 'The Liberal Mind' are developing faster than I thought they would," Rossiter said. "It was bad enough under Bush, who expanded government beyond all bounds, federalized education and further socialized health care with a drug bill for seniors. It will get worse under Obama."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90121

A psychiatrist or a fortune teller -

Reads to me like someone who just happens to oppose your President, and just happens to me to be a psychiatrist.

I've asked this a million times, and every time someone uses an example they use a communist country - which isn't socialist.

What's wrong with socialism? Oh - and Obama's policies aren't socialist.

lisan23 wrote:I've asked this a million times, and every time someone uses an example they use a communist country - which isn't socialist.

What's wrong with socialism? Oh - and Obama's policies aren't socialist.

Communism is a political system of ruling a country, and socialism is an economic system. When a country is ruled by Communism, they almost always adopt a socialized economy. Socialism however, can be adopted by any political system.

Here is an article that might help you understand the problem with socialism:

Government vs. The Private Sector, Who Does Things Better?
By Joshua Steimle Categories:
Business and Entrepreneurship

When all is said and done, a lot of your money goes towards paying the government to do whatever it does for us. You pay income taxes, FICA, sales taxes, and hidden taxes everywhere, because every middle-man builds taxes into his cost as does every service provider. When you pay a lawyer he doesn’t charge you tax on top of his bill, but he might as well because he pays taxes, and that is part of where your bill goes to.

It’s your right as a citizen to be concerned how and on what your money is spent. It doesn’t belong to the government, it belongs to you, and the government belongs to you too. The people who work in government are there at your mercy, because you have the power to vote people into office who can terminate their jobs.

The job of the government is to get certain things done. My question is whether government gets things done as well as the private sector does.


The main problem is inherent in the system, and it’s simple to understand. The problem is that people in government have a built-in incentive to spend more money, whereas people in the private sector are incentivised to spend less. Here’s how it works…

Let’s say you get hired into a government position. It’s an entry-level position that doesn’t pay much, but you’re interested in climbing the ladder and getting paid more. How do you do it? You either get promoted, or you find out a way to hire an assistant. You see, the more people you manage, the higher your pay. So you tell your boss that you’ve got too much work for one person, you need someone you can manage. So you get another person. Then you repeat the process a few times. Then you’ll need a secretary just to help you manage all these people. Then you’ll need a tech guy to support them, and another secretary, and so forth. Soon you’ll have a department of 30 people working for you. If you have 30 people working for you, you must be doing a lot, and so you better have a salary to reflect that.

But won’t my bosses crack down on this? Of course not, the more people you manage, the more people they manage. They’d love to manage more managers such as yourself.

Contrast this with the private sector. You get an entry-level job. You want to climb the ladder. What do you do? You work hard and produce results so that you can get promoted. As you get promoted you get management opportunities. And management gets paid more.

Either way, the way you make more money is to get people under you. In government, you do it by bringing in new people and sticking them under you. In the private sector, you do it by climbing over the ones who are already there. It’s kind of like raising a large ship in the one of the locks on the Panama Canal vs. sending a ship up a river.

So why don’t people in government try to get promoted the way people in the private sector do? Well, the truth is they do, and they do it a lot. But it’s easier to do it the other way in government. If it’s easier, why don’t people in the private sector do it the way they would in government? They do, but they don’t do it much, and the reason is that they’d get fired.

Over time, government becomes more and more bureaucratic. So do businesses in the private sector, but they generally never become as bureaucratic and the process is much slower.

So why this disparity? The answer is profitability. That gap between what your organization brings in and what it spends. Profitability creates incentives, and in order for someone to receive an incentive there must be accountability, or the ability to measure performance.

Here in Utah, we have a company called Novell. You may have heard of them even if you don’t live in Utah because they used to be the largest networking software company in the world before Microsoft killed them. Novell hasn’t been profitable for three or four years. As a result, they haven’t given out bonuses to their employees. However, at the end of 2004 they were profitable. And they gave out bonuses. Everyone at Novell knows that if they’re profitable again in 2005 they’ll get bonuses again.

If you were an employee at Novell and wanted to get paid more, you could try it two ways. Get more employees under you, get promoted, or get a bonus, or a combination of those. If you go and try to hire more employees under you, what’s going to happen? Your boss is going to ask “Will this make us more profitable or less profitable?” Then you’re going to have to make a case for hiring these people.

But wait, isn’t this exactly what would happen in government? They wouldn’t just let people hire people whenever they want to, right? Yes, that’s true, but here’s the difference. At Novell, the question is whether or not hiring people will aid or hinder profitability. At the government, there is no such thing as profitability, so the question is will hiring more people help certain tasks get done. The answer is always “yes” to the latter, and so people will always get hired. But what about budgets? Budgets in the government will always get spent, and the next year they’ll ask for more.

At Novell, the boss won’t so easily let those he manages hire more people because he knows he’s going to have to justify it in terms of profitability. Yes, hiring more people might make him look more important, and that trend could continue up the chain, but at some level someone is going to say “We’re spending too much money in this department” and then comparisons start being made. “Why is Larry the Manager spending so much doing his job when so and so over here isn’t?” Nobody knows for sure, but Larry’s job is suddenly in danger.

You see, Larry gets rewarded for doing more with less, because higher productivity is what generates larger profits, and ultimately at some level of management someone will step in and make sure money is only being spent where it needs to be spent. The top management in a company knows that if they’re more profitable that means more bonuses for them. If they’re a public company, they know they’ll be punished by the stock market if they’re not profitable, and they may lose their job.

In the private sector, there is a natural pattern of correcting influences that keep companies from becoming uselessly bureaucratic. That’s the beauty of a capitalistic society or a market-driven economy. In government, there is no naturally occurring incentive to keep costs down. The only way this happens is for those at the top to create systems of forced accountability (as opposed to natural accountability) and to focus on hiring people who are self-accounting. This is not easy.

Once you understand the dynamics that make government inefficient compared to private industry, you can see why socialism failed in the Soviet Union. Not only was the dynamic present in government in the U.S. present in their government, but it extended to their businesses as well, and the entire economy fell apart.

Economically speaking, in an ideal world, government would be a thin layer of bureaucrats, and perhaps would be composed completely of volunteers from the private sector. Taxes could be almost completely eliminated, increasing the productivity of the nation by almost double overnight. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are problems such as national defense and crime that make a large government necessary. But there are still areas in which the government can save plenty of money, which could then be used to cut taxes and stimulate the economy.

I don’t pretend to be an inside when it comes to government waste, but here’s one example. A few years ago I hired a web designer who was previously employed by the state of Utah. He was willing to take a pay cut because he said his job at the state was too boring. He was getting paid $45K per year plus benefits to do what he described as “about two hours of work per week.” The rest of the time he sat working on his own website or surfing the web. When I asked him if the state employed other people in similar positions, he said just about every department had a webmaster like him, so there were about 25 of them and none of them did much work either.

Let’s do the math. If an employee gets paid $45,000 then their actual cost to the employer is usually about 10% more than that. 10% x 45,000 = $49,500. $49,500 x 25 = $1,237,500. Now let’s assume the work each of these people do could really be done in 2 hrs per week. In other words, at 1/20th the cost, based on a 40-hour work week. That would reduce the cost to $61,875 per year, resulting in total savings of $1,175,625 per year.

Even assuming that my former employee was exaggerating, it seems obvious that a substantial amount of money was being wasted, and this is one of those areas you never even hear about. And if you take a look at Utah’s state website, it’s not that great either. You could turn this over to a private company for $50-100K per year and get much better results.


Link

Truth is, there has NEVER been a nation whose people deployed true, pure, communism, or socialism, for that matter.

Thererfore, it would be a pardox to assert that something never done has failed.

It would be fairer to say capitalism has failed, as we see pure capitalism, and we now see the backlash of it (look around..).

lisan23 wrote:I've asked this a million times, and every time someone uses an example they use a communist country - which isn't socialist.

What's wrong with socialism? Oh - and Obama's policies aren't socialist.

I know, but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good soundbite -

Cartoon Head wrote:Truth is, there has NEVER been a nation whose people deployed true, pure, communism, or socialism, for that matter.

Thererfore, it would be a pardox to assert that something never done has failed.

It would be fairer to say capitalism has failed, as we see pure capitalism, and we now see the backlash of it (look around..).

How pathetic Steve. Socialism has never worked, and only a true Marxist would try and assert that it's because it hasn't been done to it's full extent. lololol

As for your capitalism statement, it's government intervention into the private sector that caused the current financial crisis in the US... But don't let the facts stop that crap your spewing... It's priceless... lolololololol

I honestly can't believe anyone thinks the government running things is a good idea. What do they do that is so wonderful?

I'm not saying a free market is perfect...but it's better than having a group of wasteful bumbling idiots run things.

Look at what the federal government has done in the last two decades. We're in this mess because of them. And you want them to run the private sector now too. Are you joking?

Perhaps in a world where we could trust our leaders to be smart and effective this might work. But look at the presidents we've had for the last 20 years.
GW ran us into the ground.
Slick Willy was a liar and a bastard that wasted a hundred million dollars cuz he wouldn't admit he got a blowjob from a fat ugly intern.
George Sr. - well honestly I don't remember what stupid crap he did other than "read my lips"...but I have no doubt he did.
Reaganomics.

That's enough for now.

People who want the government running things live under the delusion that once the government takes over...all the idiots will be replaced by intelligent competent people.

Get real. When the government takes something over it goes from bad to worse. If you want a "better" system come up with something new. Communism, socialism, capitalism, as well as other ism's have been tried.

They all need some work.

And as an example...if you think health care sucks now...just wait until our government tries to run it. It will be the suckiest suck that has ever sucked a suck. Just wait. It will be a gigantic black hole of corruption and waste the likes of which has never been seen.

Grim17 wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:Truth is, there has NEVER been a nation whose people deployed true, pure, communism, or socialism, for that matter.

Thererfore, it would be a pardox to assert that something never done has failed.

It would be fairer to say capitalism has failed, as we see pure capitalism, and we now see the backlash of it (look around..).

How pathetic Steve. Socialism has never worked, and only a true Marxist would try and assert that it's because it hasn't been done to it's full extent. lololol

As for your capitalism statement, it's government intervention into the private sector that caused the current financial crisis in the US... But don't let the facts stop that crap your spewing... It's priceless... lolololololol

What's 'pathetic' about stating that a pure communism has never been tried, therefore, one cannot fairly say that is has failed.

That is logical.

Unless you class the old Soviet Union and China as examples of 'socialism' or 'pure communism', but of course, my vision of communism would be a world apart from them.

Slick has had this very chat with you before, and from memory, you took second prize on that one

What is priceless and pathetic are your futile attempts at painting a set of principles, a concept, into being something that everyone should be rushing out to nail their door shut, over.

It is pathetic, because the only people who would suck up your hyperbole would be the simple minded. Who knows, on forums someone might be gullible enough to suck it up.

And it is priceless, since anyone with more than one brain cell on here can see what you are trying to do.

*Waves*

JReed wrote:I honestly can't believe anyone thinks the government running things is a good idea. What do they do that is so wonderful?.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that goverment is wonderful, have they?

So, in this miniscule Government that you envisage, would you privatise everything? What about a privately funded US army?

In my experience, privitastion was not everything it was promised.

We were told that it would bring lower prices, because of competition.

We were told that it would increase efficiency.

Yet there are so many examples were that has not happened, indeed, there are examples of quite catastrophic results privatising various nationalised sectors.

Ok I am on an ipod. Do you have a condensed answer grim?

lisan23 wrote:Ok I am on an ipod.

Really? You must be very very small. Very.

Cartoon Head wrote:

lisan23 wrote:Ok I am on an ipod.

Really? You must be very very small. Very.

Wow... that was hilarious.

I'm not going to read any crap from Joshua Steimle - it's his personal blog, nothing more. That's like me linking someone's blogspot opinion on why you're wrong Grim. It's freaking useless. Plus, 90% of Utah's population is freaking CLUELESS. Oh, and he's biased.

lisan23 wrote:I'm not going to read any crap from Joshua Steimle - it's his personal blog, nothing more. That's like me linking someone's blogspot opinion on why you're wrong Grim. It's freaking useless. Plus, 90% of Utah's population is freaking CLUELESS. Oh, and he's biased.

You wanted to know what socialism is, and why it's bad.

Your answer is there... Refusing to read it, tells me you you don't really want an answer.

I don't want Joshua Steimle's OPINION on why he thinks it's bad - because first it's an OPINION, second he's Republican so of course he'll do and say whatever he thinks and wants to make it look like it's some evil thing taking over the world, third one of his blogs is "Dr. Laura vs. Facebook". C'mon, Grim, it's a blog full of his personal opinion's and nothing more. Opinion doesn't mean he's right.

Oh, and another blog on skateboarding. Should I commence with some of his more ridiculous stuff?

Oh... and he couldn't spell dilemna. This guy is just some random dude - and yes I'm using dude because I think that best describes him - in Utah.

lisan23 wrote:I've asked this a million times, and every time someone uses an example they use a communist country - which isn't socialist.

What's wrong with socialism? Oh

It gives people who don't want to support themselves a chance to mooch off Regular Americans like myself. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics , even Putin made a statement in the news recently that Barack Hussein Obama shouldn't lead the US into socialism.

Oh - and Obama's policies aren't socialist

I think Barack Hussein Obama's whole stimulus package is pure socialism, he is giving money to people who can't pay their mortgages, he is giving money to the United Auto Workers union who are directly responsible for the serious condition of the Ford , GM and Chrysler , he is giving money (900 Billion to be exact) via the Global Poverty Act to feed 3rd world countries at the expense of the american taxpayer.

Not to mention his ties to socialism over the years , besides being voted the most liberal senator in 07 he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) the largest socialist organization in the United States

Here's an excerpt from an article that hopefully meets with your approval:

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society.

The US is taking baby steps towards socialism. We may not be as far as France, and we're definitely not as far as China, but unless we reverse the current trend we will suffer the consequences.

Here are a few other quotes:

"The drive to succeed as an individual is the strongest motivating factor a human being can feel in their work. When work is uncoupled from reward, or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who don’t work hard (socialism), society suffers. The fact that individuals are driven to succeed is in all our interests."

"The guiding hand of government is too strong in a socialist system; it means that change is slow – which means that innovation is missed. This isn’t just pro-business, it has real effects on the lives of citizens - people are poorer because of it. In a capitalist system, economies are diverse enough that when problems happen in one sector, others are often insulated by their differences. In a socialist system, where everything is centrally controlled and diversity is non-existent, when government gets things wrong, everyone suffers."

"In capitalist systems, society is ruled by the individual. Who would want to live any other way? In socialist systems, society is ruled by the state. Why would one want to live like that?"

"Competition yields better products and more efficient processes in all fields of man's activity. Whilst it is true that monopolies sometimes form, these are combated by regulatory methods like monopolies commissions (witness attempts to break up Microsoft, or regulators forbidding the merger of some airlines on competition grounds). So capitalism actively tries to stop monopolies. On the other hand, monopolies are inevitably a part of every aspect of activity in socialist systems - the monopoly of the state."

Here is a fine example of a socialist/liberal being schooled on the flaws of socialism: