"The difference between a gift and a theft"
...Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.
Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).
Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.
As I've said before, this election will come down to whether more Americans are still paying attention to facts, reason, and common sense, or whether they are either not interested in those things, or just gullible.
Last night, while my son and I were watching Obama's infomercial, I got frustrated at the snippets of sob-story views of the Americans featured by Obama who are finding it hard to make ends meet (for various reasons many Americans share, or perhaps for unstated reasons many Americans do not share--who knows?), and how little they had to do with Obama's actual policies--and how little he or his actual policies will help these people. I was frustrated by Obama's "concern" expressed in platitudes and assumptions I do not share. In other words, I resented him exploiting these people and spinning their circumstances for his own political gain.
In fact, Obama has no good track record of helping anybody.
"Plus, is that really the role of the U.S. President--to hold the hands of "the least" of our brothers and sisters? Solve their mortgage problems, their prescription drug problems, their career problems?" I asked my son.
"No it's not. He'd make a better preacher," he said. "Or psychiatrist." Indeed.
As I've said before, millionaire liberals who believe in "giving back," like John Edwards, George Soros, Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy, Ted Turner, Bill & Hillary, and Oprah Winfrey could quickly and easily create and fund a system of private charity to provide access to free health care for life for all needy Americans if they put their minds to it. (Many people across the political spectrum would generously contribute.) Millionaire liberals could, in a handful of years, create a solution by putting their money where their mouths are--and the rest of us who believe in personal liberty and the importance of maintaining a competitive free market in health, medicine, and everything else could remain free of government's clutches. But some of us know that's not REALLY what such millionaire liberals and politicians want, don't we?
Obama, like other sanctimonious, pretend do-gooders in politics (John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, etc.), wants the accolades for seeming to do good with other people's money--without actually having to prove his policies ever have or will do good. And he wants the glory of the political arena, and the big bucks and power politics can bring him. Actually helping people in a community or a church--that's not big enough to reflect his self-importance.