Posted on 11/09/2008 10:51:19 AM PST by Jack Black
In 1980, when the U.S. economy was last in serious trouble, Ronald Reagan offered the correct diagnoses that government was the problem and not the solution.
His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda of lowering marginal tax rates, reducing government spending and business regulations, restoring sound money, abolishing entire government departments, and basically allowing free market vibrancy to unshackle an economy burdened by big government. Though in practice much of the Reagan revolution never materialized, at least in theory his basic premise was sound.
In contrast, the country has now hitched its wagon to the views of Barack Obama. We don’t know much about what he truly believes about economics, but the little that we do know is not encouraging. Obama has repeatedly heaped the blame for the current crisis on the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the greed of the wealthy. For him, the free market is the problem and government is the solution.
The President-elect has promised to cage the destructive forces of capitalism, impose more regulation, raise marginal tax rates, increase government spending, and restore prosperity by redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those considered to be more deserving. Like most of his generation, Obama believes that economic growth results from consumer spending, primarily from the middle class. Any policy that keeps the consumers headed to the mall will be promoted.
Unfortunately, while Reagan had a hard time getting his full agenda through Congress, Obama will likely be much more successful. The effort to concentrate more power in Washington will be far more appealing to Congress then Reagan’s idea of restoring it to the people.
This sharp contrast in philosophy should not be taken lightly. Reagan looked to unleash the pent-up free market forces that had been smothered by a generation of Great Society reforms and uninterrupted Democratic control of Congress. Today, the public is looking for the Obama Administration to create the growth that the free market has apparently destroyed. The hope that our economy will grow as a result of government spending and micro-management is the most seminal shift in political philosophy since the New Deal.
Despite the absence of Reagan’s promised spending cuts, the economy generally did well during his presidency (The growth would have been more genuine if the cuts had been delivered). However, Obama’s policies will immediately make the current situation worse and the nation will suffer severely as a result. Rather than a sharp recession at the beginning of his term followed by a significant expansion, the recession that Obama inherits will be far worse when his first term ends.
What nearly all politicians, on both sides of the aisle, fail to understand is that the current contraction and credit crunch is necessary to restore order to an economy that is horribly out of balance. Years of misguided fiscal and monetary policy and market-distorting regulations have resulted in reckless borrowing and spending on Main Street, pervasive gambling on Wall Street, and rampant fraud and corruption at every intersection. America’s borrow and spend economy, and the bloated service sector that evolved around it, must be allowed to topple, so that a more sustainable economy grounded in savings and production can rise in its place. Any government efforts to delay the adjustment and spare us the pain will backfire, turning this recession into an inflationary depression.
Of broader concern however is the sharp turn in ideology, and what it means for the future of our nation. If this is a permanent shift, then America will lose any resemblance to the economic titan of the 20th Century. Our standard of living will decline sharply, our economy will be ravaged by inflation, tens of millions will be unemployed, more individual liberties will be surrendered, and rugged individualism will be supplanted by the nanny state. In short, Latin America may extend north to the Canadian border.
However, if this shift proves temporary and Obama’s reign either ends in one term or if he can summon the intelligence and courage to reverse course once the situation deteriorates, then perhaps one day there will be light at the end of a very long tunnel.
While all of us can certainly hope for the best, prudence suggests that we had better prepare for the worst. Not only does that mean divesting our portfolios of U.S. dollar denominated investments but preparing for the possibility of emigration. With economic conditions at home becoming increasingly intolerable, the call of freer economies and greater prosperity abroad may be too tempting to resist.
Of course, I don't agree with his ideas about leaving the USA. I'd rather stay and fight, but I understand that a lot of families have done pretty well changing countries every few hundred years. I am certainly thankful that my great-grandparents left their homes in Europe to move to the USA.
Still, I'm here and plan on staying.
I dunno... Australia is looking kinda good right now.
I believe Question Liberal Authority has it right: personal success is not determined by which politician is elected.
Obama is going to make some bad decisions and make things worse. But successful new businesses were started during the Depression, during the 1970’s stagflation... etc
Obamanomics will make things harder, but not impossible.
0.50 / 0.85 = 58.8235or about 59% of the white population so as to be absolutely assured of victory at the polls.
In 2008, blacks and hispanics constitute more than 27% percent of the USA population, so among the remaining 73% of the population, the GOP needed to be able to count on about
0.50 / 0.73 = 68.49315or about 69% of the white population so as to be absolutely assured of victory at the polls.
And among children less than five in this country, blacks and hispanics constitute more than 37% percent of the USA population, so, in the not-so-distant future, among the remaining 63% of the population, the GOP would need to be able to count on about
0.50 / 0.67 = 74.626568657or about 75% of the white population so as to be absolutely assured of victory at the polls.
Quite frankly, 2008 was just about the last election that the GOP had any chance of a narrow victory - it's possible that the GOP might be able to win in 2012 if Obama made a shambles of the economy, and if somewhow the GOP could peel away the white catholics from the DEMs, but the GOP has been trying to win the white catholic vote for a century now, and I just don't see it happening.
But beyond 2012 - as you begin to look out into 2016 and 2020 - the situation for the GOP nationally is more or less hopeless.
I don't know if they understand it or not, but what they are planning on doing is virtually guaranteed to make things much worse. The Bush/democrat bailout plan was one of the worst things they could have done and the market responded accordingly. *hint* Of course, their predictably obvious response is not that they did the wrong thing, but that they didn't do enough!
We are about to get schooled, because the powers that be won't learn, despite getting the same lesson over and over, again and again. Tidy up what's left of your finances after last summer and batten down those hatches, it's going to be a wild ride.
I love this statement and it's so true.
Capitalism works, and the pain and constant change associated with it is what keeps it alive, adopting to technology, consumer tastes, geo political security and resource realities, and always trying to figure out a way to build or provide a product or service better than before and at a lower cost. Flint Michigan, often used by the liberals and socialists abroad as some huge testament of the horrors of Capitalism is a perfect example. In the end, people moved away, new firms and businesses sprang up, and those who lost their jobs found new ones. However, the constant death and rebirth of businesses, the constant reorganization and restructuring, the pressure to compete and figure out new ways to produce a product, or develop a new product all together is what has provided us with the wealth and technology we so enjoy today.
At the most macro level, socialism simply promises social security at the expense of free market activity and personal liberties. The policies of subsidies, protectionism, the nanny state, etc. all work towards that end of this social security/stability. Obama, the candidate of “hope and change,” really has no new ideas at all, it's classical socialist thinking; and his change is in reality providing a sense of security to people, which is no change at all either. The socialist, like Obama, is concerned with maintaining equality and providing security in a social context, and the implications are what you see in most parts of Europe, economies that are stagnant, a complete reversal of hope which Obama preached, because social mobility tends to decline.............
Listen to the message of the socialist, it's always the same. Give up your guns for your safety. Let the government run your retirements for your security. Let the government run your health care for your security. Let the government manage education for equality and social security................. Side step the free forces that drive an economy and abdicate your freedoms in the name of equality and security. The most basic forces driving an economy are ALWAYS present, as is human nature. The socialist simply chooses to ignore this and drives on with an ideologically motivated vision of the future, a vision whose origin dates back to the mid 1860s when Socialism/Communism was born.
Sorry - that was a mistake - it should have been:
0.50 / 0.63 = 79.365or about 80% of the white population so as to be absolutely assured of victory at the polls.
Also, here are a few articles on the demographic hopelessness of trying to preserve a Free Republic in the 21st Century USA:
Of U.S. Children Under 5, Nearly Half Are Minorities
Wednesday, May 10, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901841.htmlWhites will be minority group by 2042, Census predicts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/48071.html
This is the right direction I believe, but it’s not going to be an easy sell as the Lefties are going to campaign that the free market lead to all the problems...
The case must be made in the strongest terms that it was Democrat rules in the houses that lead to this...
At the same time, ala Sarah Palin, those Republicans that were complicit in helping bring this about need to go...
Neo-cons and country-clubbers...their willingness to disparage and canabalize the base (McCain calling the base “extremists”) is intolerable.
The key theme, government is the problem, not the solution. That’s the place to start.
mark
This is NOT a Reagan counterrevolution. Obama is going to see double digit employment and inflation under his term if he screws things up.
The republican brand may be trash right now but it was also trash in 1976.
Americans have short memory, especially in an economic recession. The GOP needs to position itself for 2012 and begin the process of blaming dems for this financial crisis.
55 million people voted for McCain. We need a small group of that large bunch to nationalize the election and articulate the following ideas, in Jim's words “God, country, Life and Liberty. Marriage, family and traditional values. Constitution, inalienable rights, private property and limited government. Small government, small spending, small taxes. National security, national sovereignty, strong defense and secure borders. Individual rights, individual responsibility and self-government. Privacy, individual and family security, self-defense and right to keep and bear arms. Rights to freely exercise our religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of dissent and freedom to resist government intervention, intrusion, tyranny or abuse. Right to constitutional government and constitutionalist/originalist judges, not liberal activists. “
Minorities are not opposed to Liberty, they just haven't been conveyed the message.
Sadly, that is false.
Blacks vote overwhelmingly for tyrannical government.
Hispanics [especially aboriginal/mestizo hispanics, as opposed to caucasian/castilian hipanics] vote overwhelmingly for tyrannical government.
Asians [and this is really shocking, given that so many of them fled communism to come to the USA] vote overwhelmingly for tyrannical government.
Jews vote overwhelmingly for tyrannical government.
Catholics vote by vary solid, implacable majorities for tyrannical government.
The ugly truth of the matter is that the only people who will vote consistently for liberty are the same ones who started it all 230-some-odd years ago: The White Anglo Saxon Protestants.
We fought exactly the same demographic & ideological wars for the entire 20th Century, and after 100 years of trying in vain - of wheedling and cajoling and begging and pleading - we never did bring around the Jews, the Catholics, the blacks, the hispanics, the asians, or anyone else - none of them have ever shown any inclination to vote for liberty, nor do any of them show even the slightest hint that their inclinations could be changing - indeed, if anything, the tyrannical nature of their voting patterns is continuing to increase, unabated.
The awful truth is that we are in this thing alone - always have been, always will be.
That's a very naive view, sorry. The black vote went 98% to Obama. Even long time conservative blacks were coming out for Obama near the end. Blacks vote for their race first, ideology is a distant third of fourth place. Blacks rightly understand that the Donkey's will give them more free stuff than the Republcans. 1/2 of blacks in America pay no Federal Income Tax. As a group they are *not* just like whites, they are very different. Whether the difference is mostly historical, or cultural, or genetic can be debated endlessly. But what can not be debatted is that there is some hope of changing them into a Republican supporting group. In fact I suspect that the black/dem self-identification will go way up now that the Donks have secured the POTUS job for a black man. If / when Hispanics go the same way the GOP as a national governing party's days are over. I agree with the poster above.
vary solid = very solid
I'll bet it's a lot higher than that.
BTW, back in the 1980s [or early 1990s], I once saw a statistic which held that something like 80% or more of all employed blacks were employed by some government entity [federal, state, or local].
I.e. the set of all blacks who are employed in the private sector is a tiny subset of the set of all blacks who are employed at all, which, in turn, is probably a fairly small subset of the set of all blacks.
Or, in other words: The set of all blacks who actually pay real, honest-to-goodness taxes into the system [as opposed to the "funny-money" taxes that government workers pay] is just about nil.
In all honesty, what lost us the black vote and most minority votes in the first place was that our party couldn’t shake the perception of it being the WASP party.
And you do forget, there are many WASPS that live in liberal New England, and many rich, elite country club WASPS are also Dems. So don’t give me this bull about how WASPS are these people that are all about liberty.
We also need to figure out the notion that conservatism, patriotism comes in all shapes and sizes. We need to start embracing defectors instead of discouraging them. There are a lot of defectors out there (Including MANY black conservatives, more than you would know exist) that would probably join the Republican party, but are turned off by the country club WASP establishment.
How we need to shake this perception isn’t to throw tokens around and hope we’re going to win a few votes here and there, but throw quality minorities in there and destroy that perception. The Dems have the foolish idea that because they have a minority president, they’re the party for the minorities in this country.
To put it in historic and athletic perspective, I’ll use the examples of Jack Johnson and Willie O’Ree. Jack Johnson was an arrogant, crude, womanizing boxer. If anything, Jack Johnson did more to destroy race relations during the Nadir of racism in our society than help it.
Willie used to play hockey in the NHL. The NHL thought that they found a color barrier breaking player in O’Ree. Turns out, the guy stunk up the joint and no other black person played hockey after O’Ree (Sorry, Willie, you were half blind).
MLB however, chose Jackie Robinson. Jackie Robinson was everything you would like in an athlete. Talented and also very friendly. He was America’s first lovable black superstar. (Oh, by the way, Jackie was a STAUNCH conservative)
The Dems chose Jack Johnson and Willie O’Ree combined; an arrogant prick with no real talent. We need to counter with a Jackie Robinson of some sort. Could that Robinson be Jindal? Who knows, but what we need right now is somebody to tell the Democratic establishment “Your vague, patronizing message is getting stale and you really have no solutions and ideas”. And who better to do it than somebody who’s a minority?
You should read “I just wanna be average” by Mike Rose and anything written by Ken Hamblin to get the real idea behind how the inner city communities are doomed from the start because of low expectations.
A government worker in the ghetto is seen culturally and socially as the equivalent of maybe a GM of a retail store in the outlying areas. Low expectations means that they’re going to go do jobs that give them low risks of termination instead of being daring enough to get ahead in the private sector.
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.