The two things that are clear now that the election is over are (one) that Obama spent a lot lot lot more money toward the cause of winning and still barely took the win and (two) the Obama campaign was a damned well-run organization. My hope is that the community organizer turned campaign organizer turned country organizer -- I mean he became the country's president, Skippy -- is what predominates in the White House, and not the vigorous money-spender. After all, only taxes can fund his spending now. And many millions cannot even get a job at this point, let alone pay more taxes.
I hope the organizer is who shows up for the economic recovery work and for keeping the world's militant terrorists and other cretins at bay. We don't have money, not any longer, and if Obama expects to raise taxes as expertly as he raised campaign cash, we're all in deep doo-doo. Exclamation point.
America: wake up and start thinking like a businessman, not a welfare or "bailout" proponent. Capitalism is about selfishness, you say? So socialism is the opposite of selfishness? Please! In a perfect world, perhaps no one would work and all our problems would be solved. If you live in that world, let me in! Otherwise, let's talk about making the real world function.
Here's the problem: a socialist country with lots of power is dangerous, far more dangerous than we could be -- really -- and all the examples of extremely socialistic powers ought to be proof of it. The USSR, for instance, in WW II and afterward, under Premier Stalin. Supposely a nation rules by the common man. As if. Enough said.
Socialism is akin to communism (the real world thing, not the idealistic thing that Marx supposed could work but has been proven a failed idea, because people cannot stick to it, seeing as they are diverse humans and not simple-minded widgets) and they are akin to totalitarianism and fascism. They are not safe models of a national structure for countries with power. Look at what the USSR did for the world: not much. Killed millions upon millions for the will of one leader. That's a wrong idea. Capitalism and republicanism and democracy are far safer, since in our case at least, they are also propped up by ideas and a rule of law (not a rule of man).
We have far too much power, still, in this darker time, than most nations can dream of. We are not Sweden. So, snap the heck out of it, folks. We need to stay at least modestly individualist-minded. That way, losers can learn to win, or they remain losers. The bitter can learn to solve problems, or continue to have them. I have loads of problems. My life will always suck unless I solve them. Simple. That is not a bad system. One where Joe Stalin can rise to the top is a bad system, not one where Obama, or GW Bush, can rise. They are not inhuman, madly paranoid, or otherwise unseemly, no matter how badly you want to believe it. They are not Blagojovichs, for instance. Or even silly, unethical Ted Stevenses.
There is a very clear line to be drawn, and that is going to determine if this economic problem turns out to continue far too long (allegedly) as did the American Great Depression and the Japanese deep recession of the 1990s. Mind you, there are fair arguments that it was not Roosevelt's socialistic ideas that pulled us out of depression, but extended it. It was the efforts to get people back to work, quite simply, that got us out of depression. Social programs don't solve money woes, they exacerbate them. Work and commerce solve money woes. We can only print money so long until it weakens the dollar so much that it is worthless, too, so don't count on that solving the woes, either.
See this post ("In the end, did money win the White House?") for more about money, winning, and what spending tons of cash versus the election outcome means in a fairly rational sense, as opposed to what Obama's fanatics want it to mean. In short, call this a landslide, and what will come eventually is a blow back -- a very painful one for Obama, Democrats, and the government leaders who seem to never learn how to govern.