Posted on 06/13/2008 5:25:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Barack Obama may be the political equivalent of a rock star with his huge crowds and his celebrity endorsements, but his economic policies are simply the warmed over liberalism of the sixties and seventies.
Stale liberalism doesn’t have a history of success in America and doesn’t match his image of Hope and Change. This same old big government tax and spend liberalism is a far cry from a “New Politics.” So Obama has been forced into some creative marketing to sell his leftist ideology as post-partisan solutions to the country’s problems.
If you can cut through the hype and the rhetoric, his worldview is clear. Look at the way he talks about money. Tax cuts are “giveaways” and “wasteful spending.” Forget for a moment whether specific tax cuts enhance revenue or stimulate the economy. Instead, remember that tax cuts are fundamentally different from government spending because the money isn’t the governments to begin with.
This captures the liberal view perfectly; the government knows how to spend your money better than you do. Wanting to keep your own money is selfish and wasteful. Obama even made the ludicrous claim that it is only with his nomination that America can began to heal the sick and find jobs for the jobless. It is only increased government spending that can solve problems and only Obama who can lead the way.
Obama is counting on the fact that many Americans have a poor grasp of history. He is counting on the fact that high gas prices and a slowing economy might tempt them to return to a philosophy that has failed repeatedly in the past. Have we forgotten the legacy of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter?
It was Lyndon Johnson who waged the War on Poverty and initiated “urban renewal.” These crusades resulted in a system of dependency and family dysfunction based on the warped incentives of government welfare; in rising crime rates and destroyed neighborhoods; in bloated government bureaucracies and higher taxes.
Jimmy Carter brought this same attitude to Washington. His solution to America’s problems was more federal government control and spending. Is American education better off since Carter created the Department of Education? Is America more energy independent and secure since the creation of the Department of Energy? Did Carter’s policies jump start the US economy?
Obviously, the answer to all these questions is no. The Carter administration was a time of long gas lines and rationing, stagflation and rising unemployment. A general malaise fell over the country. Facing this crisis Carter famously called on Americans to sacrifice in the name of energy conservation. Rejecting the dynamism and innovation of America, Carter proposed that we simply learn to live with less.
Despite all of his charisma, Obama brings the same attitude. He too castigates Americans for selfishly driving the car they want or for using air conditioning too often. He too believes that the answer to our energy challenges is more federal spending. He too believes that domestic sources of energy must be off limits; that the desires of the environmental lobby trump our national interest and the pocketbooks of average Americans. He too opposes free trade and favors big unions over small businesses.
Obama’s record matches his attitude, if not always his seemingly centrist campaign rhetoric. Obama and his allies in Congress have tried to resuscitate the windfall profits tax strategy that failed during the Carter administration. In his first three years in the Senate Obama voted for increasing taxes 94 times (including taxes on coal, natural gas, payroll, and income).
Obama talks at length about only raising taxes on the rich but he voted in favor of increasing the 25 percent federal tax rate to 28 percent (this bracket covers income from $32,550 to $78,850 for individuals and between $65,100 and $131,450 for married couples). And his plans to end the cap on Social Security taxes means an increase for anyone making more than $100,000.
In order to get elected Obama is sure to campaign with centrist rhetoric. He will try to play on the weariness of voters tired of Washington. His fresh face and rhetorical skills will be used to convince voters he is different.
In reality, Obama is a traditional liberal who favors more government and less freedom. These policies have been tried and failed. Dressing them up with fancier words and bigger crowds won’t change the outcome.
Let’s hope voters remember their history.
“Let’s hope voters remember their history.”
Let me help! US Misery Index, a combination of Inflation and the Unemployment Rate:
Jimmy Carter, 1977 - 1980, Misery Index: 16.27 (Highest ever!)
Worst. President. Ever.
http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
I think Obama will be so bad, he’ll make Jimmah look competent by comparison.
Note: The misery Index topped out at 21.98% by 1980, under his “leadership.” *SHUDDER*
I am concerned that style will overwhelm substance in this campaign.
Obama has lots of style(if he’s in front of a teleprompter) and no substance.
Mr. McCain, at least, has some substance. He fought for and suffered for his country.
Thanks to Jimmy Carter, college tuition increased dramatically: from being affordable to the sky high rates that we see today. (I would dare to pull up some figures and calculate average annual rates of increase, but I have to go to class in twenty minutes.)
Socialism, mercantilism, big Government, "progressivism"...call it what you will, but it has a 100 percent failure rate everywhere it has been tried.
The peanut farmer from Georgia was without a doubt the worst President of the last century, if not all times. If Senator Jugears is elected, he will tie him with that “honor”
This is an important article because it points out that there is no difference between the Obama and Carter policies. It really takes apart the claim that Obama represents a new way of thinking, or any kind of change.
He’s a fresh face with stale old liberal ideas .. the second coming of Carter!
...”Obama has lots of style(if he’s in front of a teleprompter) and no substance.”,,,
I agree Obama has no substance. I disagree that he has style. I find his preachy speaking style very annoying, his cadence annoying, his inflections annoying. The only thing I like about Obama is that he drove a stake through the hearts of the undead Clintons. For that, we can be thankful. However, I have great trepidation concerning the possibility of Obama in the Oval Office with a democrat-controlled Congress. That is a recipe for disaster.
I agree. Mr. Obama’s cadence is anoying. But many people seem to disagree with both of us, and more’s the pity.
Thanks for the note.
“Jimmy Carter, 1977 - 1980, Misery Index: 16.27 (Highest ever!)
Worst. President. Ever.”
History repeats. Couple that with Americans are stupid, and you get President Obama.
Conditions are very similar to the conditions that gave rise to Carter. A sour economy. A less than stellar Republican president. Obama is tapping into the same desire for change that Carter did. Carter was an “outsider” who was going to change Washington.
I think we’ll get President Obama, and we’ll regret it every bit as much as we did Carter and his 20+% mortgage rates.
obama is simply the most liberal in a long line of leftist libs who want to take from the productive and subsidize the unproductive i.e. the Dem base. Anyone who votes for a Dem expects the government to give them something they haven’t earned...it’s that simple.
“obama is simply the most liberal in a long line of leftist libs who want to take from the productive and subsidize the unproductive i.e. the Dem base. Anyone who votes for a Dem expects the government to give them something they haven’t earned...it’s that simple.”
America has shifted left, significantly. There was a time when a person was expected to carry his own weight. If a person wouldn’t work, although it was tragic, death was their choice. It was accepted. I still think that’s acceptable.
The left started with: “But what about the children?” Ok, welfare for the kids. “But what about people that don’t know better?” Ok, we’ll take care of them. It evolved to an expectation that everyone should be taken care of, regardless of their contribution to their own situation. The left made that happen. Today in America, you can do absolutely nothing and still survive in a manner that other countries would consider wealthy. Now, the left has decided everyone deserves healthcare.
No, no they don’t. Maybe it should be easier to obtain, and less expensive, but everyone doesn’t deserve it.
In summary: The right, (that would include me), believes pull your weight, or accept the bad that comes your way.
The left believes from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Obama, Osama, not !
“...Carter and his 20+% mortgage rates.”
This is where my optimism for my OWN family comes from. Due to being raised by two brilliant men who knew the deal, saved for a Rainy Day, worked hard and kept abreast of Current Events, (Dad & Grandpa) Grandpa was able to finance our first house for Mom, Dad, Sis & I when home loans WERE 20%+. He later sold that house to me, and I made my first PROFIT on a house and it was on to other real estate deals for me. Grandpa was a young man during the Depression with a wife, son and father-in-law to support back then; he’s seen it all. It’s amazing what you can learn from those that have been through Hard Times and lived to tell you about it, versus jumping off the nearest building! :)
Since I’ve been brought up to prepare for anything and not to live beyond my means, I know I can get through anything...even an Obama-Lama-Dong-Dong presidency, the next Congress which will most likely be even WORSE than the clowns we’re stuck with now, and the fact that a full 50% of my fellow Americans are easily-led Sheep. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.