The deficit: the Obama administration…
…has mortgaged our future, saying it’s okay because the good times will start rolling soon.
Or are they aiming for the collapse of the economy?
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
…has mortgaged our future, saying it’s okay because the good times will start rolling soon.
Or are they aiming for the collapse of the economy?
I don’t see any other way to look at it. It’s the Cloward-Piven strategy.
Every single thing Obama and the Democrats have done in the past year has caused further harm to the economy. Every. Single. Thing.
While it’s possible that he/they are simply incompetent, such a string of sustained bad policy decisions reeks of malice to me. If it were merely incompetence, you would think they would do something right now and then just at random. But they haven’t.
rickl–What you said.
Concur, Rickl and Wolla, I believe they are aiming to crash the dollar and default on the debt, the CBO in public says the spending is unsustainable, wonder what they say in private, and yet it continues unabated, has to be on purpose, no other logical explanation for me.
I just remembered the bumper stickers in the early 1970s; “The world will be a better place when schools are fully funded and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy guns.”
This administration is taking incompetence to new levels. Is it possible that there is no plan, no strategy, no coherence, nothing….but a cult of personality and a massive ego?
Jed–
I like to mash up that bumper sticker (which generally refers to “bombers”, not “guns”) with a popular pro-abortion one:
“If you can’t trust me with a bomber, how can you trust me with a bake sale?”
It does seem that the young people will be possibly the hardest hit with Obama as our President. And they were the ones who put him in office.
Let’s not overlook or underestimate the opportunity unsustainable deficits present. Sometimes, before someone with an addiction can begin to heal they have to hit rock bottom.
A majority of the US has been on a spending binge, living beyond their means for a long time. If the 2008 mortgage crisis and recession hadn’t hit, does anyone doubt that the spending would have continued? Even had Obama not been elected?
Victor Davis Hanson has some pertinent thoughts on the matter; Dronism
I have believed all along that none of what this administration (and this congress) is doing makes any sense unless they are deliberately trying to crash the economy, and rebuild their version of “Utopia” from the ashes. Obamalinsky is the hijacker in the cockpit of UA93, and people like Rush, Beck, Bunning, Palin, et al. are the ones trying to crash through the cockpit door and avert the suicide mission. And the Tea Partiers are boiling the water.
I’d read that VDH column, but it really hit home for me today when I was behind a Hummer and an early-model Saturn at a stoplight. The Hummer passenger waved at me; she and her husband (the driver) asked me this past fall to call my representatives to stop a new coal-burning plant because we “need green sources”. That old Saturn gets 30 miles to the gallon, but the plants are closing because GM couldn’t interest enough people in a gas-sipping, relatively inexpensive car.
An alternative explanation is that Obama and his crew actually believe all that left wing crap which says you can kill the goose that lays the golden egg and have lots of eggs to redistribute. Health care can be free if we just stick it to insurance companies. College can be free if we soak the rich. We can shrink the military and give the proceeds to the poor. We can be nice to our enemies and they will like us. Socialism and communism never worked because of bad leadership.
Malice or incompetence. Krauthamer’s law never invoke malice to explain some Washington created disaster, when incompetence will work as an explanation.
Don’t give anyone in Washington credit for having enough competence to make some triple reverse with a 360 landing work. They aren’t that good.
Or are they aiming for the collapse of the economy?
So how does that work again?
The economy collapses, there is panic in the streets, and no one knows what happens next other than the likelihood that everyone in power will be blamed and pushed out of power — if not put up against a wall and shot.
Cloward-Piven may make sense to young, would-be revolutionary SDSers far from the centers of power, but to professional politicians who control the White House, the Senate, the House and soon, possibly, the Supreme Court, it’s a strategy so risky that it’s stupid.
Geoffrey Britain wrote “before someone with an addiction can begin to heal they have to hit rock bottom. ”
I wonder what rock bottom for the US will look like? Since everything good, like freedom, security, prosperity for the last 70 years came from US economic and military strength rock bottom for the US could be an awful time for the entire planet.
The CBO *expects* 4.4% annual GDP growth 2015-20, while Obama *expects* 5.3%. Both are forecasts for 5-10 years out. It is clear to me that both are hot air.
Reality has an appallingly frequent way of surprising the “analysts” who make estimates for the future. Anyone who reads the financial MSM sees references to analysts and economists, the best-informed, surprised by actual data, whether up or down, every freaking day.
We do not know the composition of Congress for 2011, much less to what extent, in which revenue source classes, taxes will be raised by them or expenses cut. Nor, what macro economic effects that will have 4 (and more) years later. Those estimates are based on past history, which is likened to driving while only looking at the rear view mirror. Yet, everyone, everyone agrees the USA has never before been in such a deficit fix. Never.
The CBO and the Obonga growth estimates both approximate the projected yearly deficits as %GDP. Even if the Obonga growth rate proves right, the deficit growth rate will cancel it out. And the deficit interest will continue to inexorably compound.
It is reasonable to expect Obonga to overestimate economic growth and underestimate deficit growth.
This is not a real Cloward-Piven, because the ever-deserving oppressed can’t swim in muck, or stay afloat, any better than the rest of us after the ship capsizes. (It takes a lot of secure, stable assets to support Cloward) It is instead an obscene ignoring of basic facts, such as the power of compounding interest over time.
Our economic leadership thinks they can outrun the bullet if they just run fast enough, far enough. Larry Summers tried that at Haavaad, and is trying it again, but it didn’t worked for Larry then, did it, Larry?
(I use “Obonga” in memory of FredHjr)
Well, I’ll throw out an argument for the ‘not a strategy’ argument. Almost every lefty I know / have talked to personally… they don’t know anything about econ, budgeting, et cetera. When they complained about deficits under Bush (along with some of us) it was just a partisan thing. Now they assume it is the same thing on our side. These numbers mean nothing to them. They don’t get it.
When I first started posting here I kept saying, ‘conspiracy theory’ and it is how I think the lefties I know think. There are ‘powerful interests’, ‘rich people’, ‘corporations’, et cetera (and all these shadowy groups are blocks that work together) that if only they paid ‘their fair share’ the left could give all the goodies they want to give away out. They really have not delved deeper into it enough to understand we just can’t afford it. Any more than they think about how central planning and wage and cost controls never have worked (but lets give it another go with healthcare!)…
Of course, the thought process as described here is similar between the hard left and soft / useful idiot left… but I’d say there are many more on the idiot / not a strategy side.
I don’t believe it is a Cloward-Piven strategy because the tax and spend redistribution plan has been done in so many other countries – always with disastrous results. Look at Chile under Allende, Peru under Allan Garcia, Argentina under Peron, the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe under Mugabe, etc. This is proof to me that the left has no ability to see cause and effect. They just believe that it hasn’t been done right yet. Never attribute to shadowy conspiracies what can be laid at the door of wishful thinking and pipe dreams.
J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
“I don’t believe it is a Cloward-Piven strategy because the tax and spend redistribution plan has been done in so many other countries – always with disastrous results. ”
Yeah. Its not like left wing Greeks needed to bring down Greece.
“An alternative explanation is that Obama and his crew actually believe all that left wing crap” Mr. Frank
Of course they believe it, there’s absolutely no doubt that they do. Sure there’s a few cynical, power seeking leftists who know its crap but very, very few compared to the ‘useful idiots’.
After long reflection and for what its worth, here’s my take on liberals.
We’re not really dealing with Machiavellian malevolence, we’re dealing with immature, arrested emotional development and with narcissism.
ALL points of view which spring from the left are, at base, centered in issues of ‘fairness’.
Dig deeply enough and all leftist ‘ism’s’ boil down to the child’s eternal cry of “it’s not fair!” and just as logic and reason are totally ineffective when dealing with a toddler’s temper tantrum, just so with trying to reason with liberals using facts and logic.
Conservatives might ruefully reflect, upon how often, when trying to reason with liberals, a paraphrase of Sarah Palin’s comment so frequently applies; “So, how’s that reason and logic working out for ya, huh?”
Ever notice how it’s truly an exercise in frustration?
That no matter what you say, regardless of how factually undeniable your point, illogical denial or simple obtuseness is the response?
But it’s not liberal stupidity, it’s that we’re talking past them because we’re not addressing their fundamental problem; that life itself is not fair…
And of course life isn’t fair, which leads to the heart of the matter. Reality. Liberal objection to a fundamental aspect of reality itself is, at base, an objection to how ‘God’ has set-up the universe.
C.S. Lewis was right when he observed, “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, “All right, then, have it your way.”
This is why liberal acceptance of secular relativism and post modernism has, for so many, led to their abandonment in a belief in God, which statistically liberals have done in far greater numbers than have conservatives.
Even when, rarely and after long, reasoned argument, you finally box a liberal into a corner and they grudgingly admit concession to fundamental points you’ve made… ever notice how, the next time you talk to them you find that the ‘liberal reset button’ has been pushed and it’s as if you never had the prior conversation?
That’s because facts are meaningless when addressing emotion-backed demands, so since factual objections to liberal panaceas don’t satisfy the immature, emotion-driven demand (that life be ‘more’ fair) the facts are brushed aside with whatever rationalization comes to mind, with outright denial of the facts, as the last stand of the ‘child’ (liberal) who no matter what, just wants their way.
Liberals suffer from arrested emotional development. Emotion-backed demands are not preferences. A preference allows us to accept life’s inevitable disappointments. A demand cannot accept dissapointment.
The simple fact of the matter is that in considering any entitlement, economics are inescapably involved. Somebody has to pay for the materials and services.
In our case, we have a capitalistic economic system and inherent to capitalism is unequal outcomes.
That happens to reflect reality which is, of course, why capitalism is so effective but reality’s unequal outcomes are what liberals are objecting to!
Reality sucks and they want it to change!
Given that overriding emotion-backed demand, (again, think toddler=temper tantrum) explaining that overall; having winners and losers is an unavoidable component for civilizational progress, that medical advancement and job development depend upon privately controlled pools of investment capital and that, even evolution itself depends upon unequal outcomes (beneficial individual mutations) is, wasted breath because none of those reasons for unequal outcomes satisfy the emotion-backed demand.
And that is why the social safety net is not nor shall it ever be enough, no matter how generous we make it. The ‘toddler’ wants the ice cream cone (total emotional satiation) and a ‘cookie’ just won’t do…
Well, Duh! Of course they are or rather The Zero is. It is what he said he would do. Remake America. How’s that Hope & Change working out for you?
Me? After 18 months unemployed I finally start a new job the 15th. I have never been that long without work.
My favorite line attributed to “Subotai Bahadur” @ wretchard’s place:
“Hope & Change? Naw. They really said Rope & Chains.”
“”Liberals suffer from arrested emotional development. Emotion-backed demands are not preferences.””
Yet we all know liberals who are not like this with their personal finances, business dealings or life in general. So something else is up.
I’d say we’re seeing the effects of political correctness propoganda getting them to publically espouse what they personally know in their gut not to be true. Don’t underestimate the power of peer pressure designed fashionable thinking to shame even the most level headed among us into an absurd form of lock step conformity so they don’t get lumped in with society’s conformist.
“”Liberals suffer from arrested emotional development. Emotion-backed demands are not preferences.””
confusing followers with leaders, tools with the users of tools…
all tyrannies are tyrannies of the incompetent….
[over the competent, using force]
in case you havent noticed….
I’d say we’re seeing the effects of political correctness propoganda
yes, the reason it wont happens and turn us into soviet is because of our soviet thinking (there is another term for politically correct, its original term). way to go
Per Geoffrey Britain –
“Even when, rarely and after long, reasoned argument, you finally box a liberal into a corner and they grudgingly admit concession to fundamental points you’ve made… ever notice how, the next time you talk to them you find that the ‘liberal reset button’ has been pushed and it’s as if you never had the prior conversation?”
Damn. You’re good. I’ve never been able to box a liberal into a corner. When I make the killing point they just change the subject and exclaim, “Aha”, as if raising the new topic trumps every point you made and disposes of your argument. Your logic only reinforces their feelings that they are good and you are evil. And, your evil consists in large part in not adoring them for their good.
Isn’t this how Obama responded to Paul Ryan’s terrific (and very logical) analysis of the Senate passed health care bill at the recent summit. When Ryan finished, Obama gave him a look that to me was somewhere between hate and disdain. And, without responding, Obama changed the topic as if Ryan had not even been at the summit.
In retrospect, the summit was a disaster for the Democrats because the Republicans were finally able to demonstrate to the public that they were very focused on health care and its problems and for some time had suggested solutions of their own. If Obama intended it as a forum in which to demonstrate his goodness to the world (and isn’t this really the goal of every one of his ever more boring speeches?), the Republicans were playing not to Obama but to the public and they scored point after point.
Geoffrey Britain . . .
Excellent summary of the liberal mind. Two key ideas: Liberals want things to be “fair.” They also hit the reset button as soon as you’ve pointed out some inconvenient facts.
This is why I no longer argue with liberals. It’s all about emotion with them. Facts DO NOT MATTER.
This is important, so I’m posting it on more than one thread:
http://tinyurl.com/ya9vxd3
Start a neoneoconlanche!
Or do it this way:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/95199/
betsybounds . . .
It’s interesting how many posters and commenters on the internet have recently started writing about the Declaration of Independence.
When in the course of human events . . . etc.
I believe some kind of revolution is brewing. Maybe it will be a gentle one, if we’re lucky.
note on arguing with liberals:
“reason will not take out of a man’s head what reason did not put there” Woodrow Wilson
First, we need to resist the urge to become the same type of fascists as those who are trying to destroy our freedoms and economy.
That means not deleting comments that contain slightly uncomfortable ideas.
[from neo-neocon to Alice Finkel: please quit throwing around the word “fascist” in an attempt to make it mean what it does not mean.
There are plenty of comments here that contain slightly and even quite uncomfortable ideas. I prefer interesting discussion here and welcome other points of view. And I appreciate humor and even a certain degree of ribbing.
However, this is my blog, and as such it is something like my home. I set the standards for what is allowable in my home and on my blog. I happen to prefer that the comments section here not descend into an exchange of insulting, sometimes disgusting, flagrantly racist and/or anti-Semitic, or annoying troll-like remarks. The internet is a big place, and I don’t censor other sites there. But I have every right to delete any comment I want that appears on my blog. I am destroying no one’s freedom to post anything they want anywhere else online. But I retain the freedom to delete comments I deem unacceptable here, or to ban anyone I wish.]
> Or are they aiming for the collapse of the economy?
Why… YES!
Yes, I am!
Indeed. WordPress sucks
> I just remembered the bumper stickers in the early 1970s; “The world will be a better place when schools are fully funded and the Pentagon has to hold a bake sale to buy guns.”
The sheer abysmal stupidity behind this is fairly obvious when you really, really consider it.
Guns are more important than schools.
If you don’t worry about the guns, you won’t have to worry about the schools, that problem will be the concern of the people who conquer you.
> but to professional politicians who control the White House, the Senate, the House and soon, possibly, the Supreme Court, it’s a strategy so risky that it’s stupid.
And you figure that isn’t applicable to Obama&co?
These are people who really, actually believe in the Marxist theory of economics. In Keynesianism, for crying out loud. AFTER the 1970s!!
How truly smart can they be?
I don’t assume they’re smart enough to accomplish their end goal. I assume they’re smart enough to accomplish the maximum shreklikeit that it requires to set up for that end goal.
Destroying things is usually not all that hard.
And you figure that isn’t applicable to Obama&co?
Obloodyhell: Why would they want to destroy the economy intentionally?
They are already in power and the biggest obstacles to achieving their objectives are the weak economy and terrible employment statistics.
I think they do believe some form of Keynesiansim and they expected a real recovery would start kicking in by now.
It’s one thing to be stupid and negligent about the economy and it’s another to malevolently want to destroy it.
IMO people here often confuse consequences with motives.
In the case of Obama that’s like assuming that he went to Denmark in order to be snubbed for the Olympics as part of some Machiavellian strategy.
hux: The conclusion that Baraq and his crew want to destroy the economy is based, IMO, on their actions in the face of a few straightforward facts which have little to do with any economic theory:
1) One cannot borrow oneself out of debt. Increasing leverage cannot decrease leverage.
2) Basic Demography: aging population, falling birth rate due to abortion on demand=shrinking labor pool.
3) Unfunded liabilities of entitlements.
4) Compound interest.
Tom: No sale.
Obama has no trouble finding economists, such as the Nobel Prize winning Krugman, who agree with his approach. It’s basically what FDR did in the thirties and most Democrats don’t think much deeper than that IMO. Never mind that it didn’t work then, but that’s still a point economists argue.
I can buy the idea that Obama doesn’t mind being the last president to soak up our remaining credit for Dem pork, but not that he is trying to destroy the economy.
Again, why would he do so?
No it isn’t what FDR did, hux. I am disappointed in you. My points 1 and 4 are mathematical, not historical. Point 2 did not then apply. And point 3, the entitlements, with their unfunded liabilities now exceeding $50 trillion, didn’t then exist, did they?
Please spare us the Krugman-Nobel stuff. Krugman is to economics what Ayers is to education. But perhaps you don’t know much about the Krugmans. Most people who invoke THE NOBEL as a sign of super-worthiness don’t know much. The neurosurgeon who came up with frontal lobotomy for psychiatric disorders got one, for Pete’s sake.
Huxley,
I have a little of both feelings.
There are some days I think – aha – he is trying to destroy America – he can’t be that stupid.
Then there are other days I just know he has surrounded himself his entire life with yes men.
But as a student of history – it doesn’t much matter. Leaders like Hitler and Stalin were just as destructive and surrounded themselves with yes men.
Their war against each other had 5,000 people dying each day for a long period of time. But their economics? Crazy stuff !!!
While ∅bama isn’t killing people who disagree with him – he simply seems to have his head in the sand and alternative ideas simply do not penetrate.
It is so bad that on the heels of the deals with the unions, Florida, LA, Nebraska etc, he’s making even more deals concerning a lawmaker’s brother for a position as a judge
Huxley,
One thing you keep asking is:
1) Obloodyhell: Why would they want to destroy the economy intentionally?
2) Tom: Again, why would he do so?
You can’t explain the motivations of others and why would you put that on us? Why would a rapist rape. Why would a murderer murder. Why would a lazy worker be lazy. What is the motivation of a person who reports the news so irresponsibly. You can ask that question of journalists I suppose. Why would a journalist intentionally mislead.
Yes – it’s harder to prove. The intent. But it doesn’t much matter about the intent – except that it’s an interesting exercise. Seems that it interests Neo as well.
There are some who believe our position is near Greece’s. Or at least that California’s position is that way. I’m interested in knowing what in the heck the legislature is thinking.
And…. I was a liberal !!! You think I’d understand them better !!! When I was a liberal the deficit was a concern to me.
Sometimes I do believe we give liberals too much credit for “good intentions”.
Because you can have a 5th column which is highly destructive hiding in the cloak of good intentions….
hmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
You can’t explain the motivations of others and why would you put that on us?
Baklava: The possibility claimed way up at the top is that the Obama administration is “aiming for the collapse of the economy.”
Anyone making that claim is already making a general claim that the Obama admininstation is motivated to destroy the economy.
All I’m asking is specifically the nature of that motivation. It’s a logical question and the onus is on those making the claim to provide some explanation.
Otherwise the argument reduces to “Obama is intentionally destroying the economy. But don’t ask me to explain — I just know it.”
Which may satisfy those who already believe but should persuade no one else.
Sometimes – it’s the only thing we can conclude…
It’s the kind of thing that was said about the auto unions (UAW).
And why would the UAW aim for the collapse of the companies that the workers work for?
It’s unexplainable. But that doesn’t mean we can’t make the statements about the UAW or ∅bama and the Democrat congress.
We simply cannot explain their motivations. Their actions are so ridiculous to logical men and women.
Huxley, Doesn’t it leave you wondering sometimes? Remember I’m an in-betweener…
Sometimes I’m left wondering about the UAW and ∅bama and the Democrat Congress.
What motivates them? Can they be that incompetent to the point of this magnitude? Can they hear alternative viewpoints AT ALL???
Will the U.S. see the way of GM and Greece? Who bails out the U.S? Not the E.U or the federal government. It is the ultimate single point of failure.
Can a man from Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya, and Chicago have motivations?
This in-betweener has to scratch his head wondering. You aren’t convincing me the other way either.
huxley: the motivation is that, if you are a socialist, you want to prove that capitalism doesn’t work and then you can put in place more and more government controls, ownership, and power. The goal is power and control by the left.
The worse the economy gets (and we can quibble about the degree; by the word “destroy” I did not mean “completely and totally obliterate,” but meant it to be shorthand for “render even more dysfunctional and in need of even greater ‘rescue'”) the more you can diss capitalism, the “fat cats,” Wall Street, and all those things you hate. If you are ignorant about economics (and I believe Obama is), then you think you can control the economy and take it over more and more, at the same time dissing corporations and Wall Street and all of that, without collapsing it completely beyond repair.
Note that in the post it was a question I asked, however. I don’t have the answer as to what their aims actually are. But I believe it is a valid and important question to ask. But I understand that this would be a difficult thing to prove either way, unless one had a smoking gun of some sort. But I believe we can look at the evidence so far and speculate, because these things are certainly a possibility.
And even if they don’t ever succeed in accomplishing these aims, it doesn’t mean these were not their aims.
We simply cannot explain their motivations. Their actions are so ridiculous to logical men and women.
Baklava: If we can’t explain their motivations, then we should not make claims about their motivations, including that they are motivated
If I shoot my big toe off, I might have done so intentionally — to get out of the draft perhaps — but unless you have some specific explanation as to how I might be motivated to do that, it’s pointless to make any claim about my motivation.
Huxley, Doesn’t it leave you wondering sometimes? Remember I’m an in-betweener…
Baklava: Not really. I was once a leftist and my previous self would have had little trouble supporting Obama’s current programs. I would have considered it pernicious right-wing propaganda that Obama was intentionally trying to destroy the economy.
Also, as a leftist, I remember many on my side constantly going on — in much the same manner Artfldgr does — that everything Republicans and conservatives do is to bring America and the world under the boot of their fascist dreams.
During the Reagan years I truly believed America was like pre-Nazi Germany. Turned out I was wrong.
I understand the high road of not talking about motivations. I employ that kind of strategy on many topics and I abhor when the left does it to conservatives.
That is why I’m an in-betweener on the issue.
I can’t come to grips with why ∅bama and the Democrats simply cannot see the obligations and debt being so problematic.
Where do they think we can meet the obligations in the future Huxley?
If you raise the tax rate for the rich to 100% you only get 400 Billion more and then you have nothing left to confiscate.
And one more question.
Have you every talked about Hugo Chavez’s motivations?
Does he want to run down the private sector? What does he want to do?
The problem with socialists and communists is that they simply cannot see the value of a thriving private sector. They think they know better and their “good intentions” only brings about more misery…. unless you are in the protected class with a job and benefits
huxley: the motivation is that, if you are a socialist, you want to prove that capitalism doesn’t work and then you can put in place more and more government controls, ownership, and power. The goal is power and control by the left.
neo: Thanks for some explanation and placing it in the honest category of speculation.
Point taken that it was a question that you were asking. I was acknowledging that when earlier I described the claim as a “possibility.”
I can’t prove that Obama isn’t trying to collapse economy. However, I would say that Occam’s Razor (though not his Beard) is on my side in this.
It’s an extraordinary claim that the party in power would aim to collapse the economy since it clearly undermines their power at least in the short run.
Hubris, greed, and incompetence, qualities constantly on display in Obama’s administration, provide a simpler explanation of Obama’s terrible handling of the economy and thus a better shave from the Razor.
Does anyone here doubt that the political landscape would be far more favorable to Obama if unemployment had peaked at 8% and started falling?
As it stands Obama is close to becoming a lame duck in record time. I don’t think he was doing that intentionally either.
Hugo Chavez and Iran’s leader’s are unpopular also. Do they intend that? 🙂
I believe that Obama does not see the value of the private sector. Instead of seeing the free market as efficient he sees it as an inefficient means of deciding who gets what resources and is “OK” with redistribution and “taking” and “confiscating” what he feels needs to be taken anyway in order to distribute health care for all no matter the price.
Let’s talk about this a minute.
I ACTUALLY agree with Obama and Romney that a mandate or “buy-in” needs to occur by ALL citizens on “health-care”. People need to understand that this stuff is NOT free and isn’t a “right”. If you want to treat it like a right then so be it. The the government has a right to “take” your money and then give you your right.
People with catastrophic plans make decisions all the time about what health care they want to get and pay for.
Some of those people want it BOTH ways. They want the catastrophic insurance and the right to walk in and get “care” without paying for it.
We need a grown up discussion in this country about the price of your wants and needs. Many people simply are not being honest about their choices being the cause for the mess we are in.
It goes to the housing crisis, environmental issues, health care, etc.
——
One last word on Obama’s intentions. Since he might not put a high value on the private sector – it may not matter how much he intends to destroy it. He doesn’t see it with respect anyway.
I believe that Obama does not see the value of the private sector. Instead of seeing the free market as efficient he sees it as an inefficient means of deciding who gets what resources and is “OK” with redistribution and “taking” and “confiscating” what he feels needs to be taken anyway in order to distribute health care for all no matter the price.
Baklava: Basically I agree with this. It’s close to a quote from Richard Epstein, a law prof colleague who knew Obama at Univ of Chicago:
So I don’t think Obama is intentionally trying to collapse the economy. He just sees it as a sort of machine that chugs along no matter what and produces money. It’s the government’s job to reroute that money as necessary to benefit society,
I hope you can see where some days I don’t know what his intention is.
It’s hard to call a man that incompetent….
… to the point of ridiculously incompetent.
I used the words ‘confiscate’ and ‘take’ on purpose. To help illustrate how absurd it is that corporation “Provider of Service” can’t provide as much research and development, pay for it’s employees in the future, capital improvements, or anything if that money is taken or confiscated. You have to then start wondering if it is incompetence.
You are a good person Huxley. I don’t want you to judge us off the deep end for having these questions.
The Admin’s ignoring the simple truths which I submitted above shows either stupidity or intent.
No one here thinks Baraq is stupid, so whaddaya left with?
Part of my duty for my family is to anticipate the financial future. That has been, and is facilitated by viewing Baraq as malicious. A stupid Baraq might be coming at us from all angles, and that has not happened. His Congressional cronies are surely not ALL stupid, yet they’re in bed with him 100%.
Baraq is malicious, as are his buddies; his intent is malign.
I hope you can see where some days I don’t know what his intention is.
Baklava: Me too.
You are a good person Huxley. I don’t want you to judge us off the deep end for having these questions.
Thanks and likewise.
The thing is that I spent much of my life frightened of the usual left-wing bogeymen: nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, the population bomb, and conservative fascist government.
None of these happened, though they all seemed plausible. I still can’t entirely rule some scenarios out.
However, as I deconstructed my left-wing mindset I also saw how I put it together. By ignoring or minimizing positive information, focusing on frightening information, and repeating it all in an echo chamber of like-minded associates.
Of course, sometimes reality really is bad, but generally our terrible worries don’t come to pass, though it’s easy to talk ourselves into them.
So I draw back from apocalyptic talk and ask myself what other ways could this be interpreted and look outside the box. I also look to my faith in God and to the large panorama of history in which humanity keeps overcoming obstacles.
Maybe that sounds irrational, but my point remains that we can talk ourselves up or we can talk ourselves down, and IMO it’s better to talk ourselves up. Reality will let us know soon enough.
Best.
Good stuff Huxley,
You and I as most posters here came from liberalism.
I only considered one source of information back then.
Now, I look at both sides of the argument. This is why I am a centrist conservative and not a libertarian.
∅bama is what he is though. I listen to the man speak. I get information from the source. Him. He talks around. He doesn’t address what was said to him. He creates strawmen. He is the first president that I know where people can’t really characterize him. Nobody truly knows what he stands for except that he keeps trucking down the road of banning fishing, redistribution, imposing this and that on this and that industry (insurance and energy companies and banks, etc)
These things are draconian to me.
Yes, others here are talking about stealing the next election – but there is a vast amount of evidence of shenanigans going on in democrat controlled districts for decades. St. Louis, Miami Dade, etc.
Huxley, I don’t think you are irrational. I love the discussion but I want you to see how you are judging us sometimes.
We don’t know WHAT to think. This is a new type of president you must admit. And we aren’t fully protected.
Huxley, I don’t think you are irrational. I love the discussion but I want you to see how you are judging us sometimes.
We don’t know WHAT to think. This is a new type of president you must admit. And we aren’t fully protected.
Baklava: To be sure.
But there is a large range of positions in this discussion. Some participants, such as yourself and betsybounds, acknowledge their doubts, but others do not.
And their scenarios go far beyond Democrats stealing the next election to stealing all the next elections and transforming America into a left-wing fascist state.
On a word count basis that point of view pretty much swamps this blog.
Thanks for the extended conversation!