This article was independently confirmed to have come from Obama’s classmate. This is exactly how I see Obama’s and Democrat party plans for America’s future. Why Democrat voters can’t see the result from other countries experiences is beyond me. Anyway, I probably won’t comment much in the thread – no time today but I’d like to hear why democrats think this is a great plan.
============================
OBAMA’S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT
By Wayne Allyn Root, July 6th, 2010
Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is
brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming
the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social
chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
True per snopes!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp
the Air Vent 
Great article, boy do I enjoy reading this blog! Keep up the great work!
Hmmmmmmmmm, Rush Limbaugh has been suggesting this for over a year !
This sounds like right-wing pot-head paranoia.
This is the UK New Labour pattern Create and electorate of turkeys who wont vote for Christmas. They dam nearly made it hopefully the chaos can be unwound.
#3 can you explain why the plans are individually a good idea?
Mrpkw is correct, but a little conservative. I think Rush probably was talking about this since he first uttered the words “I hope he fails”.
Perhaps a lone voice 20 months ago, but I suspect he has a lot of support and mimickers now.
And Howard – just remember – sometimes they really are out to get YOU.
WRT Puerto Rico statehood, it is probably not going to be the only one. IIRC, he had made campaign stops at the 57, plus AK and HI, and had one more to go. Now, during the campaign, this was a remarkable gaffe that too few people seemed to notice. But what if it wasn’t? What if it was more of a Freudian slip? There may be plans to make TEN more states…crazy? Maybe. But these people have already proven that they don’t bow to anyone’s standards of sanity.
The top of the short list has to be Puerto Rico, followed by DC. The latter, however, would require a Constitutional Amendment, or knowing these people, a gross ignorance of that document coupled with an attitude of it being irrelevant.
“Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government.”
Too bad that supply side works much too well. Cutting taxes utterly failed to starve the government, in fact it INCREASED revenue by “stimulating” growth. The only way to starve the beast out is not just cuts but eliminations. You can’t collect any revenue from taxes that don’t exist.
Personally, though, I favor a flat rate around 10%, because the government shouldn’t ask for more than God does.
How Widespread the Corruption?
Thanks, Jeff, for having the courage to publish this and to Wayne Allyn Root for the courage to tell the truth.
Climategate exposed the abuse of science as a tool of propaganda by an unholy alliance of world leaders, Al Gore, leaders of the scientific community, leaders of both major political parties in the US (Yes, George Bush as well as his Nobel-prize winning opponent), research funding agencies, science publishers, the UN’s IPCC, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the news media, etc.
Can this silent slide into a tyrannical world government be stopped?
Not if we individually let fear keep us from speaking out. Not if those who exposed Climategate now insist that Earth’s climate is the only real issue.
The real issue: The future of our society and our civil rights.
Our collective future depends on each one of us exercising freedom of speech now, while we still have that freedom.
That is why I sent an open message asking for the resignation of Nature’s editor.
Am I afraid? Yes.
But I am even more afraid not to speak out.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
PS – Employees of Big Brother who know, cannot speak.
It’s the bully pulpit, all right. The bully counts on the politeness and naiveté of the victim and society to get away with abuse.
Incompetence, dream world thinking and not understanding reality economics are much more likely reasons for Obama’s administration failings, but to fail intentionally behind some brilliant plan to ruin the economy so it can be rebuilt in a socialist blueprint does not make political sense. What these comments from the right fail to see is that those who have proposed bogging the US economy down on purpose are even less in touch with the reality of current politics and live even more in a dream world than do the front line politicians of today. Obama may feel he can “talk” his way through his administration’s problems and maybe he can, but that will not make the problems go away. Obama certainly does not appear to see himself as some sacrificial lamb who will be martyring himself any time soon.
Another right wing misconception is that Obama can do “something” to jump start the economy. Actually it stems from the same admonition that the Democrats give the Republicans of late that they have to come up with a their own (government) program to bring back prosperity. Actually all government can do at this point is stay out of the way and let the market place sort out the winners and losers and get rid of the mal-investments that caused the current economic mess. Obama’s failure is following the traditional Keynesian theory that government can fix the problems when in fact that approach prolongs the recovery and makes it worst.
When the Republicans can admit that further government action will only make the problem worst and that it is government action that caused the problem and made it worse, they might have a fresh idea. Unfortunately they will soon be saying here is our (government) program to fix the economy. They will be prodded to do it the MSM who will be harping on the lack of an opposition program – since the only action they understand is that from the government. Actually there is nothing new about what the Obama administration is doing he is just dishing it out in bigger douses. The consensus intelligentsia backs what he and the Democrats are currently doing because they think it will work and not because they want to ruin and rebuild the economic system.
A pox on both of their houses and I am not damn well ready to vote for any of the bastards.
#10: I see that you subscribe to the “obama is an incompetent” theory instead of the “obama is doing this on purpose” theory. Why can’t it be both? I mean, of course it sounds crazy, but the reason people believe that he intended to do this on purpose (overwhelm us with debt and entitelements as fast as possible) is because he has been friends with, students of, or preached to people like this his entire life. Combine this with the general understanding of a liberal as someone who wants to expand government and even society out, and it’s not hard to understand why people think that he might actually have been recklessly spending for the sake of reckless spending.
Now, the incompetence part comes in here. He thought, for whatever arrogant reason (Alinsky’s reassurance perhaps), that he could do all of this and that nobody would stop him, and that the people would either not know or care what he was doing, or that they could welcome the barrels of “free money” coming their way. If you look back to 2009, this was completely correct: he steamrolled over a trillion dollars of spending through congress, with little or no debate, in a matter of months, with little criticism in the media save for those on the Right. It was ultimately the (appropriate, in my opinion) scaremongering of Rush Limbaugh & friends who caused the people at town halls to scare congress into slowing down on healthcare. With the liberal agenda squarely in the spotlight for months (including bills previously passed), with non-stop criticism and terrible political defense by Obama/Congress, the tide has turned against him. It is in this that he was incompetent: in not finding a way to rebuff Limbaugh. I thank god/fate every day for that.
There is absolutely no way for him to salvage his presidency, because his tricks and true agenda have been revealed now, and there is no turning back. You can’t go from a steady march to marxism to, as he is trying to do with his recent tax cut proposal, a sane attempt at fixing the economy in a way that might actually work. All republicans have to do is cut tax rates (bush ’01 ’03 tax cuts renewed, cut corporate tax cuts) and promise to stop the rest of obama’s agenda (card check, cap and trade, legalizing immigrants) and the economy will immediately grow. Obama may somehow get credit for this, since he’ll be in office, but hopefully he doesn’t and is washed out in 2012.
um Howard. it might sound like a kooky conspiracy theory but you can look up their “strategy” almost anywhere you want…. google,bing,wiki… it’s been out there for a long time. Edumacate yourself.
Ah yes, another conspiracy theory. Plenty of them here.
As somebody who did not vote for Obama – I almost never vote for Republicans or Democrats except maybe in local elections (it’s been decades since I voted for a major party presidential candidate) – I have seen how powerful rationalization is. I believe Obama believes that his policies will work at least reasonably well as much as some of you think that cutting the federal budget when we are on the edge of deflation will cure the economy. Smart people rationalize as much as anybody else. I think they may be better at it because they are so good at thinking of the reasons.
I personally think both sides are wrong and it’s probably too late to save the US economy. I think we are in a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. If we don’t spend a TON of money (and wisely, but that’s another story), we go into deflation and maybe a depression. If we do spend a TON of money, we go into inflation and risk a currency collapse.
Kind of like somebody with two serious diseases, where the medicine for each disease makes the other disease worse. You choose to treat one disease first, and hope you survive to treat the other one. The point where we could survive one to treat the other was probably a decade or two ago. And the medicine to treat the second disease is a lot harder to swallow than for the first disease, so we probably wouldn’t take it anyway. Electing a hardline fiscal conservative now would just push us into a deflationary spiral, and you can’t fix a deficit in the middle of a depression. Keeping the Democrats probably avoids the deflationary spiral, but when will China stop buying T-Bills and the Saudis stop pricing oil in dollars?
Well if Obama is trying to destroy capitalism, he should have just let Wall Street restart its sales of CDOs and CDSs. These people did a very good job to destroy capitalism without Obama’s help. Who else would give credit cards mortgages to people who couldn’t pay simply to get the proftable late fees?
Really this blog posting is amde of tin foil hat stuff.
This is the basic scheme for ANY politician who wants to establish a base of faithful voters. This happens in municipal elections -take for instance a wealthy community, advocate lots of high density condos, bring a population who will be grateful to enjoy all the equipements paid for by the high property taxpayers while always voting for the politician who haelped bringing them there-.
In Canada, the top 25% of earners earn 58% of total income and pay 78% of taxes collected… And the free loaders want more.
Kenneth Frisch wrote
===================
that it is government action that caused the problem and made it worse,
===================
Wasn’t it deregulation that caused the problem. The government got out of the way of Wall Street and they almost destroyed the economy. They paid themseves very well to do it as well? Did the government put a gun to their collective heads and force them to into a bubble?
TAG, read more of the history of the housing bubble and which laws and people put it in place.
Both parties were involved, but the banks were giving loans which shouldn’t have been given to minorities, basically with guns to their heads.
It’s a corrupt self feeding mess and the bankers never really feared collapsing.
It is my opinion that the only way one can make sense of Obama’s policy is to recognize that the teachings of his youth, which were extensive, are being followed. He doesn’t see it as a bad thing to switch to more regulated forms of existence. He doesn’t cringe at the thought of a new form of Marxism, although he won’t call it that. Slow economy means better environment and more central control. All together, more beholden people.
I’ve still not seen one post rationalizing any single one of these policies.
And, of course, you do not need left liberals to keep up the drumbeat for more government intervention when you have the Deans of the world convinced that the worst possible scenario is to have some price deflation in order to get rid of mal-investments – and do it rather quickly. They have bought the Keynesian (and Bernake and most of the curent consensus economists) line that deflation is the worst possible scenario when in fact some price deflation is required to get the economy going again by ridding it of poor investment choices that were made possible by past Federal Reserves policies. The Feds intervention only prolongs the agony and in some cases can even create a second bubble on top of a past one that will create another crisis very shortly down the road.
Please understand that Bernake thinks the only policy is to inflate and even, as he once noted in an object lesson, that a helicopter drop of money to the masses is required. If he were not a noted academic, one might want to think that that little object lesson came from a screwball. Furthering the most silly of the arguments have been that though things might be bad they would have been even worst without government intervention and including attempts to inflate the money supply. Now there is an argument that can be accepted only pretty much on blind faith alone and it would appear that the intelligentsia and MSM is more than willing to make that leap in faith.
“I’ve still not seen one post rationalizing any single one of these policies.”
How about:
“Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs” from USAToday. Many economists, including plenty who call themselves conservative, think that the stimulus package was needed. Everybody has criticisms of the details, but many consider it much better than doing nothing. I think I could easily Google plenty of business and economic interests who think TARP prevented the collapse of our economy as well.
And there are plenty of economists and business interests who think we need amnesty for immigrants to keep costs down for consumers.
So there are plenty of reasons/rationalizations, however you wish to refer to them. I don’t list these to start a debate about their merits on this post, just to point out that plenty of people have plenty of reasons to support these policies, and their support is not necessarily motivated by the reasons you give, though I expect that at least some people might see those reasons as good secondary reasons.
Dean says:
Bahhh, wheres the edit or preview functions when you need them. Need to close the block quotes. Dean only said the first two sentences.
TAG, agencies were set up during Clinton administration to encourage banks to give loans to people who might not otherwise qualify with the threats of possible law suits for discrimination. Freddie and Fannie were enterprises set up and regulated by the federal government to give loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. The Federal Reserve keep interests low to facilitate these loans. Finally the government rescued and rewarded these operations for making bad decisions and continues to attempt to keep interest rates low to facilitate mortgage lending even after the experience of the bubble.
The banking system was already heavily regulated before the crisis. The way it works is that the a crisis occurs and the government increases regulations. The Federal Reserve keeps interest rates artificially low and a potential bubble starts and the regulated enterprises seeing potentially large profits with little risk (too big to fail – and believe me that philosophy prevails even after the latest rounds of regulations) finds ways around the not so bright regulators to provide some unintended consequences. The bubble breaks and we start all over again. Failure in a capitalistic market system is an essential requirement of the system. Government involvement and intervention fails because it does not have a failure mechanism from the market forces. Votes do not work like market forces and never will.
We have laws against fraudulent dealings in banks and financial enterprises that have never been “deregulated”. What the banks did in the mortgage markets could and was done by enterprises outside the “deregulated” banking system.
Dean (#13, #19):
I am to the left of you politically. I voted for Obama in 2008. I voted for Al Gore in 2000.
The Climategate scandal convinced me that these two politicians and many other world leaders and organizations seek to establish here what I observed first-hand for myself in Moscow in 1980!
In November of 1980, I travelled to Moscow to see for myself and to and present a paper, “Heterogeneity of isotopic and elemental compositions in meteorites: Evidence of local synthesis of the elements” that was translated and published in Geokhimiya (12) 1776-1801 (1981) [In Russian].
When I arrived in Moscow, it took me about 15 minutes to realize that the old USSR government was very tyrannical, like the government described in George Orwell’s book “1984”.
Conclusion: Regarding Democrats and Republicans, I agree with Kenneth Fritsch (#10), “A pox on both of their houses and I am not damn well ready to vote for any of the bastards.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
#21, Greasemonkey at climate audit has been configured for here. It’s awesome.
#19 thanks Dean, that’s exactly what I’m looking for.
““Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs” from USAToday. Many economists, including plenty who call themselves conservative, think that the stimulus package was needed. ”
First, question the source. USA today is one of the most leftist publications imaginable so you need to look carefully at their claims.
Do you agree that ‘3 million jobs’ were created?
Do the numbers make any sense at all?
Certainly it was enough money to pay for a lot more than 3 million people to work for an entire year, but rationally, do you think this statement is anywhere near reasonable with the losses of jobs we’ve seen?
When you look at a list of where the money was given away, does it still make sense?
Come on, really do you think that the claim that 3 million jobs were created, has any physical reality with respect to this world?
I know it’s harder than ever to get an SBA loan. It’s tougher to get a student loan. I know that I can put an ad in our local newspaper for $9/hour production job with benefits ad receive over 100 applicants.
It’s an appreciated attempt though, but saying that there are lots of reasons to support these policies doesn’t fly with me. There are in fact zero.
Let it rip, tell me where I’m wrong. Blogging is the only place you can be wrong a thousand times a day. Defending amnesty as a method to keep costs down is as bad a misnomer as I can imagine. These people leave and our wages go up, costs do go up a little, americans are again employed and we go back to working for a living.
We had a new hire employee quit recently because his unemployment finally came through, the best feeling I’ve had in a while was seeing the government notification that he and his two children won’t get the free money. People here aren’t working anymore — on purpose — cause someone else will pay.
We’ve become a massive welfare state for those who claim poverty and sell drugs.
The fact that President Obama attended college alongside a paranoid libertarian doesn’t surprise me. I know there’s a lot of people who hate Barrack Obama’s policies, but these claims of a secret agenda don’t impress me at all.
I wonder if people can come up with some more intellectual explanation for the evidence.
I didn’t write the policy, I ask for an explanation of why it makes sense.
Jeff, is this a joke? You really believe that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the economy? Why do you believe this? I mean, doesn’t this have about as much credibility as NASA faking the moon landings? (Please don’t tell me NASA faked the moon landings).
#28,
yeah, I do think that obama wants American capitalism to fail.
He wants a soft fail though, such that socialism can be the future. Why don’t you think so?
It was corruption, not deregulation, that created and popped the bubble.
Republicans called for re-regulation, capital increases at FNMA, an end to outcome based lending…and democrats blocked it everytime.
The same dems who are writing the reforms got rich off of stealing us blind.
#10
“Actually all government can do at this point is stay out of the way and let the market place sort out the winners and losers and get rid of the mal-investments that caused the current economic mess.”
Yes this is exactly what is needed, but at every opportunity to do so, the Democrats have not. They have in fact gone the other way, and made the uncertainty even greater.
Dodd-Frank: everybody is still sorting it out. 12 new Federal Agencies, and 243 new rules YET TO BE CREATED.
This like betting in Vegas, before they tell you the game, the odds the rules. You gonna make a bet?
# 23 Oliver K. Manual
“I voted for Obama in 2008.”
Will you vote for him in 2012?
“The Climategate scandal convinced me that these two politicians and many other world leaders and organizations seek to establish here what I observed first-hand for myself in Moscow in 1980!”
2) You did not see the hints of this before 2008? He was not really shy about his goals during the campaign.
#5 Jeff
I didn’t say I agree with Obama’s programs. You are changing the argument to a different topic, which sounds more like Gavin than JeffID.
The assertion that
“it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States
into a socialist/Marxist state ”
is pure paranoia usually espoused by pipe-dreaming pot-heads. First, this brilliant Machiavellian plan has the Dems in the tank likely to lose the house and take a buzz cut in the senate.
I’m surprised you don’t have any confidence in our republic.
#28, Paul;
The economy must fail so that a socially just replacement may be “deemed” into existence.
Also so that the US can be made a de facto ward of the UN, which is the throne which Barry expects to occupy next. (First Citizen of the World.)
#24;
Jeff, what does Greasemonkey have to do with edit and preview and so on? Great for ignoring posts and posters, but …
29,
I don’t think Obama wants the economy to fail. Why? Because it’s stupid, and the classmate claims Obama is an evil genius. He won’t get a fraction of his desired legislation through, if the economy doesn’t improve under his watch. How do you suppose the ‘evil genius’ is going to get what he wants when most Americans vehemently oppose his policies? They hate his policies even more that the economy is stagnant.
Maybe I’m ignornat because I’m Canadian, but wasn’t a big chunk of the stimulus and bailout money approved under Bush’s watch? The economy collapsed at the end of Bush’s second term. I suppose the reasons are complicated. However, I don’t see the need for the second round of tax cuts, when they had the opportunity to balance the books, and parts of the economy were already over-heating. The regulatory environment in the US was ineffective, and lacking. It didn’t concern itself with the over-leveraging of banks, subprime mortgages, etc. Canada had stricter capital requirements, and our banks had less leveraging. Strong and effective regulation in Canada helped keep our banks from failing, and bailouts were virtually non-existent. The housing bubble didn’t grow to the extent it did in the US, and even with a severe recession, housing prices did not collapse. And that’s not to mention these crazy exotic financial instruments (e.g. CDSs), which your Wall Street geniuses didn’t understand. Methinks stronger regulation would have helped keep these geniuses in check.
And forget the myth that Reagan starved the government. The debt sky-rocketed under Reagan’s watch.
Perhaps Canada set a good example in the 90s and early 00s. The Liberal government stimulated a recessed economy with increased infrastructure spending when they came into power. The economy grew, they balanced a pretty large deficit within a few years, they continued to balance the budget for several consecutive years, they were fiscally prudent, they modestly cut taxes, but not so much as to bring back budget deficits. The debt/gdp ratio was cut by more than half. Now the Conservatives are back in power, and we are back to large deficits again. I don’t think this is all about political stripes (e.g. a lot of Canada’s growth came from a strong American economy (under both Repubs and Dems), and it’s recent downturn is also because of the financial meltdown in the States), but it does demonstrate in my mind that far-right America’s paranoia with liberal politics is well into the deep end.
I hope America learns the right lessons from its mistakes.
#33;
Lessee;
Barry’s parents, grandparents (who raised him), mentors, schools, church, college associates and chosen profs, and “work” career as community activist were all leftist or overtly Marxist. What could possibly have inclined him to actually implement nationally the strategies he excelled at teaching from Rules for Radicals (an elaboration of the Cloward-Piven “creative destruction by overload” strategy which bankrupted NYC by flooding the welfare rolls)?
It’s a mystery. Not.
#26;
Lachlan, the roommate was a genuine moderate leftist who used to debate Barry about whether a violent revolution was necessary to achieve reform. Barry was all for it, and apparently got even more adamant once he’d made certain connections and suddenly was dripping with money, cars, women and party chemicals.
He’s a real piece of work. Which is now being put to its intended use.
#32, Kan;
re 2); actually, he wasn’t shy — but used code words which obfuscated what was being offered, unless you spoke Progressive (which is itself a code word). Expressions like “fundamental change”, too, were put through the listeners’ political hyperbole filter, and they didn’t actually concern themselves.
And how many actually found out things like his refusal to have anyone in uniform appear in any photos, TV shots, or videos in the same frame as him? Tingle Boy certainly didn’t tell them.
#36 Paul Brand
“Maybe I’m ignornat because I’m Canadian, but wasn’t a big chunk of the stimulus and bailout money approved under Bush’s watch?”
That was Stimulus I. It was passed in Spring 2008. Around $300 Billion (US)I believe.
Stimulus II $860 billion (US) drafted by the congress sworn in Jan. 2009 and passed in early 2009 (February I believe)and signed into law by Obama.
Do not confuse TARP (this was passed under Bush in Fall 2008) with Stimulus I or II.
#39 Brian H
Code words aside, he flat out said it. Joe Plumber is known to us today because Obama answered a question without a teleprompter.
His voting record in congressional – when more interested than just being present – screamed the answer.
Re: Brian H (Sep 9 00:24),
There’s another greasemonkey addon created at Climate Audit called CA Assistant. It gives you quicktags for bold, italic, link, quote, superscript and subscript(which seem only to work in preview mode), a less than symbol < that won’t be misinterpreted as HTML,
strikethrough, underscore, source code, LaTex (for equations if it’s implemented for the site and you know how to use it) and image as well as a preview function and a reply with link for each message. Greatest thing since sliced bread.Bush Stimulus I was signed into law Feb. 2008 and was estimated to cost $152 Billion (US).
Full Disclosure – I did not get $300, like everybody else. Nor did I put it into the bank either, like everybody else.
According to The Creature from Jekyll Island, Obama is not the instigator of the moves to subjugate the people, and voting for the other side of politics is unlikely to make much difference. The real power is now wielded behind the scenes by an inner circle of the Council for Foreign Relations. Whether you believe the conspiracy theories or not, the truth seems to be that the bankers have Congress, the Fed and the American people by the balls.
Socialists always, always fudge the figures to make it look like they are doing a good job. Here in the UK the “fudges” being uncovered after thirteen years of labour government look certain to plunge the UK into double dip recession.
Oh yes, Obama wants to destroy his country from within. Please tell me this is satire.
#46,
Not destroy the US, remake the US into a French or even Russian style government.
There is no cite for the USA Today article. I believe it is the one which relies on a study that is completely dependent on the initial assumption of the authors. They believe in the Keynesian multiplier, i.e. govt spending creates growth and jobs. So they looked at the amount of spending and deduced that it must have created 3 million jobs.
They didn’t actually make any effort to look at the current jobs situation and measure whether it has been improved by the Obama programs. Their answer was nothing more than plugging a spending number into their economic model and doing the projection. And that brings this thread full circle back to climate science!
# 48
Yes, it’s called the “Broken window theory of economics”
Otherwise known as FAILED Keynsian economics.
John Maynard Keynes is to economics as Michael Mann is to climate science. Both have been disproven and discredited but still worshiped by many.
I’m with Howard and Paul Brand and Bart. When you put up right-wing rants referring to ‘Marxism’ like this it just gives your critics something to attack you with. And repeatedly asking why it’s a good idea makes no sense at all (it is like someone asking you, “why is your oil-funded anti-science planet-destroying denialism a good idea?”).
I’m not going to get into an argument, I just want to point out that you don’t have to be right-wing to be a climate sceptic!
The difference Paul is that I can answer your question.
I don’t deny anything, am not oil funded and am very much pro-science.
I realize your question is an example, but there is only one way for me to make sense of Obama’s actions. They are part of a well known and documented method to shift to a more controlling system of government. It’s been preached to Obama by people like Ayers since he was a small child.
I don’t see any right wing rant in this, I see rationalism and facts. Where is the rant in believing this is Obama’s intent. This is what he wants, unless you can explain the reason for these apparently crazy policies in a different light.
They intend to spend us into submission, if they have enough people not paying taxes at all they get reelected based on services provided to those people. Now whatever kind of government you call that, that’s what he’s doing. If you can’t see it or explain it to me another way, what can I do but assume I’m right that his policies are all about guaranteeing long term power for the central government.
The same one which was supposed to be small with power residing in the states.
Here’s a better question, why wouldn’t Obama personally want this?
(49) I was making specific reference to the inadequacy of a “study” which is nothing more than a computer model projection (exactly what the Keynesians on Obama’s staff did before the bill was passed). I hope everyone can see that “we project X will happen, if we do Y” is not proof that X happened when you did Y.
Don’t disagree that Bastiat’s broken window fallacy is a decent illustration of the flaws in Keynes’ multiplier theory. (see also Amity Shlaes and her explication of the forgotten man). I prefer the simplicity of explaining that voluntary exchanges between willing participants produce greater economic welfare (utility) than coerced exchanges. By definition! Govt is thus incapable of anything but net economic harm when it interferes with the market. The only way the left can try to avoid this obvious shortcoming of their theories is to argue that externalities demand correction. Of course, the ‘externalities’ Obama supposedly addressed were the destruction caused by previous govt interventions in the market. (see definition of insanity)
Jeff
I have mountains of respect for you and most of your ideas. I am very sympathetic to your political views being a life-long libertarian. The funny thing is that what has disappointed me most about Obama is how similar he is to George Bush.
As far as conspiracies, I’m more inclined to believe Alex that the big banks are pulling most of the strings. The Obama classmate is a complete and utter idiot. The economy crashed before Obama got in and the recovery is being stymied due to people saving more and paying of credit cards. The classmate also does not understand Machiavellian philosophy or tactics. If Obama is so brilliant, why are his poll numbers tanking and his party is about to be voted out??
Bart is right, this paranoia nonsense is disturbing.
But, hey, we all have crazy notions 😉
# 53 yes, we may all have “crazy notions ” such as “Obama is how similar he is to George Bush”
Sorry, not even close at all.
It is not so surprising to those with an Austrian economics background to see how appropriate Bastiat’s broken window fallacy is in explaining that the claim that 3 million jobs were created with stimulus spending can be a fallacy. What’s always forgotten/ignored in these statements is that the moneys used to create those jobs, whether taxed, borrowed or from an inflated money supply all have to come from somewhere and that somewhere has to extract those funds from other uses. It is almost as though some otherwise apparently intelligent people began believing in money from heaven or Santa Claus. Let us see 3 million jobs created and the jobless rate remains the same. Not to worry say the economic pundits, what we mean is that there would be 3 million more unemployed without the stimulus (assuming this is money from heaven).
I suspect that while a number of people believe what they hear from the MSM about what would have been without the bailouts and the stimulus and continue to do so, it must be admitted that that political argument can be used as the economy continues to fall to the depths, since it has to be taken on blind faith and without any deep thoughts about what is actually happening, i.e. it would have been much worse if we had done nothing. At some point, given sufficient failure, this “believe in me” approach will fail, but I am not at all sure that it has yet.
Jeff, I think some of the replies that you received here should be evidence that it is not just left liberal radicals that believe Obama is on the right track. The intelligentsia has thought this way for many years and that is why you would never hear a MSM person reference the broken window fallacy, even to disparage it, or even understand fully what it means.
I think the arguments in coming months will not be rational discussions about the effects of more government but rather more about personalities and about partisan politics. The MSM will certainly be conjuring up some horror scenarios about what would have happened without the bailouts and stimulus and, of course, since we will never know exactly what might have happened they are not limited to the horrors they might chose to depict. Will we have an Austrian version versus a Keynesian one in these debates? I do not think so.
# 55
I think the most recent reviews and studies of FDR’s policies and actions show that the depression was prolonged by 7 years because of the government’s meddling. That alone should have been evidence enough that Obama’s PORKULUS bill would be a failure.
Jeff ID
“unless you can explain the reason for these apparently crazy policies in a different light.”
This is a very tough task indeed. In his recent speech in Cleveland, Obama had this to say:
“I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine of our recovery.
I believe government should be lean, it should be efficient, and it should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. ”
How to reconcile these two statements with Obamacare, or his signing of Dodd-Frank? If a leaner government means the complete takeover of the health system, or in the case of Dodd-Frank, the need for 12 new Federal agencies, then I must confess ignorance of the meaning of “lean”, “efficient”, “free to make choices”.
One is left to conclude that all free choices can “hurt others”, and thus should be regulated.
Don’t worry guys, I certainly don’t expect people to always agree. It’ may seem extremist to those less sensitive to govt. than I but to me it’s standard fare..
Kan, that is an example of a master politician, i.e. tell your audience what that want to hear and then act according to your own philosophy and hope that your audience (and as voters) are too damned ignorant to figure out that they have been had. The fact that this approach can work can be evidenced by people I hear comment on TV and who should know better quoting Obama the master politician and ignoring Obama the administrator.
Murray Rothbard , a brilliant Austrian economist and libertarian, succumbed to just such rhetoric from the New Left back in the 1960s and 1970s before he realized that he had been had.
Jeff, your posters are pussy cats compared to what I have been used to from bloggers, friends and even family.
Gosh
This really is the week for the Obama college experience.
I have the following link to hand because I have already posted the below on another blog where a similar question arose in respect of BHO’s real philosphical roots:
quote:
I was interested when this story of Barry’s early college days appeared on Breitbart:
http://www.academia.org/obama-a-college-marxist-2/
The gentleman concerned, John Drew, was most emphatic that Barry was a fervant chardonnay marxist ( mixed metaphor alert ) before heading off to law school.
And by this I am not presuming to suggest that Barry remains some sort of Hugo Chavez deep cover plant.
“Hi guys – remind me again where the nuclear launch codes are !?”
More that he has drifted through a life of some considerable socio-political extremes, and yet at the end of the day is actually a passionate advocate of – what, golf and the Hamptons ?
Probably the more damning critique that can be made is that he is a lifetime member of the New Class Professional Left stepping through the careerist ladder almost rudderless.”
or not….
As some others have also pointed out, this classmate’s conspiratorial argument is bordering on the lunatic, regardless of someone’s opinion on Obama’s policies.
#62, While I agree it is lunatic to support these policies, I’m still waiting for the justification that paints them in a different light. Why again must this be a conspiracy, because it requires a group to agree that they want more power? Speaking in reference to a politician, I don’t know who that surprises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy
Every single government on earth is working for more power, excepting perhaps the shining lights of Cuba and North Korea. In the US, we used to have citizens that understood the need for the government to have less power.
Like the IPCC, the ‘conspiracy’ as you call it, is self evident. Like the IPCC it requires little discussion if any. No central planning required whatsoever, just a self interested view that this is a good idea. If the population is fed from the central government they will vote for those who feed them more.
“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” – Benjamin Franklin
When the people’s money comes singularly from the central source, who will they vote for?
Yes, indeed! President Eisenhower warned on Jan 17, 1961 that science could be destroyed by the very forces that Ben spoke abut 200 years earlier:
“Once the people [scientists] find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Bart,
Do you know who paid for Obama to go to law school? He didn’t have the grades, the test scores or the money to get into Harvard Law. Obama refuses to say how. Evidence points to two likely sources. 1) Barry met Bill Ayers (the radical revolutionary, terror bomber, and son of a wealthy Chicago family) in NY when Barry was at Columbia and seeking out the radical kids on campus. Ayers ghost wrote his book for him later and, with his wife and fellow radical revolutionary Bernadine Dohrn, hosted Barry’s first political fundraiser. Dohrn got Michelle her first job in Chicago. Ayers got Barry his gig chairing the Annenberg Challenge’s school initiative where Barry blew 150 million to no effect. Regardless of whether Ayers paid his law school tab, Ayers and Dohrn were clearly extremely influential in Obama’s life and his rise to power.
2) Former Manhattan borough president Percy Sutton gave a tv interview in NY saying that he first met Obama because Khalid al-Mansour asked him to write a rec letter to help get him into Harvard. al-Mansour is a radical Muslim and black nationalist who is an avowed enemy of Israel. He told Sutton that he was raising the money to pay for Obama to go to law school.
With associations like these (not to mention his 20 years with the America-hating Rev. Wright and his formative years where he has admitted he was influenced by an avowed communist, Frank Davis, who openly admired Stalin and detested the USA) why would it be “lunatic” to wonder if Obama actually agrees with their views? After all, they raised him, taught him, supported him, financed him, greased the skids for him, lied for him, and sponsored him. Maybe, just maybe, he agrees with them. His actions as president certainly do not contradict such an interpretation.
You may choose to disagree with Jeff. I don’t see how you can view all the evidence and conclude that his speculation is “lunatic”.
Stan,
one item of disagreement. The 150 mil from the Annenberg Challenge was well spent from the Leftist point of view as it continued the radicalization (destruction) of a number of schools.
I would add that his actions appointing Czars and others from the same political background would appear to support the idea that he believes in those radical leftist views, or, at least does what he is told by his handlers!!
Every once in a while he slips the code words “social justice” into his speeches and responses.
This means enforced equality of results. Period. And he’s eager to be the enforcer.
Kloor has no interest in evidence. It is obvious to him that Davis, Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, and all the other left-wing radicals and revolutionaries who raised Obama and guided him through life had no impact on his ideology. Kloor ‘knows’ this because it’s what he wants to believe.
Yes, it all make sense… these people tell us what they are going to do, they gather the very people necessary to do what they want to do, then they follow out their plans exactly as they said they would… and somehow we’re the “conspiracy theorists?”
Wow, such claims beggar the imagination. Suspension of disbelief is the term used by those playing video games. Benny Hill had this wonderful look that went across his face when presented with such a silly argument that made one wonder in shock, amazement, and befuddlement all at the same time.
Mark
Here’s a new hypothesis, courtesy Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html
I have done a PDF conversion of the post, text-only, available for D/L here:
http://www.filejumbo.com/Download/2956A6A36741889C
I retitled it “Obama, Anti-colonialist Jr.”, which pretty much says it all. He’s living the “dreams from his father”, which were to humble and redistribute the stolen wealth of the colonialist powers — whose “white man’s burden” America has seized!
Carbon confiscatory taxation, poisonous stimuluses, etc., all fall into place once you “grok” this.
Socialism is just a mean to this end for him, not a core value/belief system. He really means it:
Brian H.,
I would caution that those words were, based on all available evidence, likely written by Ayers. Of course, Obama was willing to put his name on the book, so he is responsible for the contents. He’s admitted that much in the book is made up and the details are only ‘illustrative’ of his journey.
Why is it unacceptable that Puerto Rico become a state? Come to think of it, why is it acceptable that it be prevented from becoming a state? Why do the Puerto Ricans have to pass some additional beauty contest or probity examination not imposed on other citizens of the United States before they can stop being partly disenfranchised? Why is that taxpayers in other parts of the United States get to choose whether they would like the Puerto Ricans to no longer be partly disenfranchised or not? Would it be acceptable for taxpayers elsewhere in the United States to decide that they don’t like the look of, say, Arkansas, and so its state government should be abolished? If not, why not? Simply because Arkansas already is a state while Puerto Rico is not? Or is there some other reason?
#19;
Every state certainly had to be accepted by and acceptable to the others when it joined the Union. Whyever would you think otherwise? There is no “right” to statehood. Despite what you are vigorously implying.
The problem with P.R. is that it has developed a permanent welfare culture which it wants to enrichen with additional mandated entitlements. If it can begin to pay its own way, or even contribute something, perhaps a case could be made for it to become a state. Not until.
Re: Brian H (Sep 11 15:07),
Correction: the above comment relates to Anonym @ 2:11; Greasemonkey has overridden the numbering, so I should get used to its linking system, I guess!
Brian H:
I believe that Puerto Ricans, as Americans, have the moral, not the legal, right to political representation in the government of the United States. Either the Puerto Ricans have this moral right, or no Americans have it, in which case the Revolutionary War and the Thirteenth Amendment were unnecessary and possibly undesirable. It is very likely that ending the Puerto Ricans’ status as second-class citizens will have undesirable consequences, which is too bad. It is not a morally acceptable reason to prolong their status as second-class citizens. I shouldn’t have to explain why depriving a geographic region of people of the vote on the grounds they would vote for the wrong candidates is not compatible with a belief in a moral right to political freedom.
Of course, you wouldn’t necessarily have to establish a new state in order to end the Puerto Rico anomaly; you could for example incorporate it into Florida, if the Floridians would have it. Of course that brings up the Rhode Island-California question, but that’s a less urgent and much bigger issue.
Re: anonym (Sep 11 16:17),
Calling them “Americans” begs the question (i.e., presumes the conclusion in the postulate). They are Puerto Ricans, not Americans, until the rest of America decides it wants them.
Re: stan (Sep 11 13:27),
I have no doubt that Billy wrote Barry’s bio. But on the evidence of the disorienting discontinuities in Barry’s behavior, I betcha he’s basically a resentful American honkey-hater.
Abject apologies for the runaway ‘riteration. Not! 😉 ;p
Brian H:
Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917. They are also subject to the draft and to taxation at the discretion of the federal government.
#80 Anonym
And they keeping voting down statehood. You kinda of have to want to be State, to be a State.
JI, please don’t listen to the Keith Kloors of the world who are trying to keep you “politically correct”. You’re really demonstrating your independence from the liberal “thought police” that end up censoring so much of today’s political discourse. Some people might try to take advantage of your honesty to impugn your motives in auditing climate science, but I think that it’s pretty clear that you’re a real independent.
If anyone tries to get you to tone down this kind of real talk, ask yourself, “Who are they trying to protect?” It sure isn’t you. The more people that get to know your real opinions, the more they’ll be able to trust your impartial auditing of the field of climate science. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts and all that. They’ll try to couch it in terms of “constructive criticism”, but they’re really trying to limit the range of acceptable speech.
Wayne Allyn Root is a pseudonym used by S. Fred Singer. It is true, I read it at snopes.com
I’m surprised at how many believers feel the need to marginalize this post. Hmm..
Perhaps the word Marxist was too strong, but the intent to add permanent voter base to support big government programs and step ever deeper into socialism is pretty clear as is the economically destructive redistribution of wealth.
Toss it in the air,
Fling it four feet and pounce it.
Keith, the mouse is dead.
==============
I certainly don’t see Obama as brilliant. Just watching him speak without a teleprompter makes me long for the semi-articulate Bush days.
Nor was he somehow more brilliant in his college days. This is supposedly the law review Note that Obama wrote to qualify for membership of the Harvard law Review:
http://groups.google.com.ag/group/alt.lawyers/browse_thread/thread/ec5d4fa44cde6699
Reading that Note brings several words to mind, like pedestrian and mediocre…but brilliant just is not one of them.
You don’t have to be brilliant to try to impose leftist policies, just a true believer. Reagan was an excellent president because of his principles and commitment,not his IQ. Obama is a disaster as a president for the same reasons.
Kan:
This is true but not very relevant. I agree that the Puerto Ricans ought to get their act together and resolve their final status. The question was whether it is acceptable for others to prevent them from having the option to achieve statehood inside the Union (and/or incorporation in one or more of the existing United States).
#88 Anonym
Your “The question…” is moot until they decide they want to become a state.
Re: GaryM (Sep 12 17:52),
“Reagan was an excellent president because of his principles and commitment,not his IQ. Obama is a disaster as a president for the same reasons.”
Well said, sirrah.
But the best summary of O’s talents I’ve read is that he is
verygood at “emulating the mannerisms of an intellectual.” Producing results, not so much.There has been a negative critique of Jeff, for posting this entry.
Frankly, it *is* “off topic.” (But it is NOT Joe Romm, or others.)
Here’s an interesting interview I stumbled across, about our President, several months ago. I am taken with
the length of it, the lack of sound bites, the sincerity of understanding. But, it is about Marxism, not socialism…. And, as a wisp of a girl, I, too, was there, once. (It was the maintenance of the Crime Report Phone Tree calling list done me in…)
Then, I grew up.
Here ’tis:
Sad; another once valuable web site known for exposing climate science charlatans gone down the rat hole of political drivel and conspiracy theory. Is Steve the only climate blogger that can resist the temptation to let partisan politics diminish his site?
The standard knee-jerk talking point. Tell us, Davie, do people who say they’re going to do something political and and do it or attempt to do it constitute a political conspiracy?
I’m glad to see this blog.
I really like that because the post have many things to learn………
The air force one high shoes are at a cheap price with 60% off here.The latest styles of Air Forces Shoes and Basketball shoes are on sale for long-term. Get your Air Forces Shoes on http://www.maxjordans.com.