Posted on 09/04/2011 6:34:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama’s big-government economic policies. We simply need more of them, and more time for them to work – or so the President and many academicians would have us believe.
It’s interesting to watch Barack Obama run for re-election against his own track record. When he became President in January of 2009 he promised to “fundamentally transform” America, and in terms of our nation’s economic policies he has certainly achieved this objective.
But after almost three years of “transforming”- which has involved putting healthcare under government control, a government take-over of two car companies, huge expansions in government control over banking and lending institutions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to create “green jobs,” and a roughly 30% increase in government spending overall – nobody seems happy with the results (not even the President himself). In light of the history-making “zero job growth” month of August, things are perceived as being so bad that many Americans who once believed the President’s promises about job creation and free healthcare are now wondering if – maybe – our government needs to try a different approach.
This doesn’t seem to deter President Obama, or many of his ideological soul mates. At the White House, as in many universities, it is simply understood that private individuals and organizations only do reckless and self-serving things with wealth. And it is equally understood that when super smart politicians and government bureaucrats control greater portions of the nation’s wealth – with more taxation, more government spending, and more government regulations – well, those super smart politicians always produce great results for everybody.
Thus, despite the growing discontent among us everyday folks, the President is vowing more big-government programs, while highly educated intellectuals at universities and think tanks keep thinking of more big-government “ideas.” We’ll get to some of President Obama’s plans in a moment. But first, consider this idea from Yale graduate Daniel Hamermesh, Ph.D., currently an Economics Professor at University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Hamermesh has proposed special legal protections for “ugly people” in the workplace. Yes, he calls them “ugly” rather than homely, and he argues that “being ugly” is a disability that should be protected under the “American’s With Disabilities Act.”
Good looking people have all the advantages in this economy, Dr. Hamermesh suggests, and “for purposes of administering a law,” he reasons that “we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.” “Affirmative Action for ugly people” (another term he uses) would likely create lots of opportunities for employment law Attorneys, but it is difficult to imagine that this would incentivize businesses (other than law firms) to begin hiring again.
Then there’s one of my favorites – the “Spread The Jobs Around” agenda from University of Michigan alumnus Dean Baker, Ph.D. As head of the left-wing Center For Economic And Policy Research in Washington, D.C., Dr. Baker has proposed that businesses be “encouraged” (read “mandated”) to stop laying-off workers, and instead be “encouraged” to cutback fulltime workers’ hours and wages so as to “share” the work and wages with everybody, and keep people on payrolls.
“Spread the Jobs Around” probably looks great on paper at Dr. Baker’s office, and it sure seems like a super-smart guy’s clever way of preventing the unemployment rate from going higher (something Obama desperately needs). But if business owners are further restricted (government already places enormous constraints on hiring and firing practices) from hiring and firing whomever they need to in order to be profitable, businesses will have even more reasons to NOT hire new workers.
As for President Obama himself (by the way, his degree title is “J.D.” in case you’re interested), he recently established a new division of our federal government whose agenda looks like the mission statement of a college “diversity” office. By Executive Order, the President has created “The White House Office of Diversity And Inclusion.”
Exactly what this “office” will attempt to do to business owners is unclear (and the lack of clarity from the government is yet another one of those things that creates uncertainty in the economy and inhibits job growth – but I digress), yet its’ stated agenda reads as follows: “Eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians.” In short, the President has a problem with some of his key supporters – Black and Hispanic people in particular: the unemployment rates among these groups are in some regions topping 30%. The goal of the “Diversity and Inclusion” office would appear to be to threaten and coerce businesses into hiring more workers from these “minority” categories, so as to enhance President Obama’s chances for re-election.
We’ll know more of what the President intends to do about “jobs” after his upcoming speech. But we can be assured of this right now: Barack Obama will seek more control of the economy as a means of “fixing” it.
Unfortunately, you are exactly right - I’ve met and had to work with too many scientists and engineers who have absolutely no idea of how the economy, government or market works. Nor, do they have any interest in finding out. All too often they believe themselves to be either ‘above’ or ‘untouched’ by politics or what happens in government. In other cases, they see that as being irrational and go with what they ‘feel’ is right. A disaster either way.
After WWII, the power of science to understand and control the great forces of the universe was obvious and indisputable. This dismayed the irrationalists, who saw their control over the terms of "the great conversation" slipping away. The strength and confidence of America, its power to shape the world culturally and technologically, was a horrible setback to them.
It took many years for them to implement their response, but they are as patient as the Devil himself.
Part of their response was to debase the prestige of science. One of the ways this was accomplished was through the proliferation of all these bogus "sciences," economics and political "science" (as you rightly put it) being just two of these; you can, I'm sure, think of several others.
These fields attract wannabees, second- and third-raters, of whom John Maynard Keynes was a typical, humdrum example... except that his body of "work" gave politicians a license to expand central control over economies. For this reason, he has been virtually canonized by the elites, his nonsense taught to generations of fellow-wannabees in halls of higher learning built by the wealth of better men.
Are the incidents of "flash mob gangs" higher now than 4 years ago?
Are the incidents of ambushing law enforcement officials for the purpose of assassinating them higher now than 4 years ago?
Are there more people on "government assistance" now than 4 years ago?
Was the US more respected overseas 4 years ago than now?
Did the US have better manned space capability 4 years ago?
Were there more jobs available per capital 4 years ago than now?
Is anything better now than 4 years ago? Anything?
After all, one need only examine the policies of California to see how well it works!!!
I'm not a conspiracy nut - but you were were going to make one up this would be a good one...
We did things your way in 2000. Voting for a "moderate" "he can win" "compassionate conservative" that the left then demonized anyway got us a Democrat majority in congress in 2006, once those "compassionate" policies of "reaching across the aisle" predictably failed.
We did things your way in California when, after two successful conservative governors in Reagan and Deukmejian we elected "moderate" Pete Wilson. He, with Carl Rove's help, gutted the CAGOP conservative base and installed his crooked corporate gamesters. Within two years California elected Gray Davis and headed predictably down the tubes.
We did it again with "fiscal conservative" Arnold Schwarzenegger. The results were even worse.
If you go back in history, the ONLY Republican presidents who were followed by another, albeit "moderate" Republican, were Coolidge and Reagan, both conservatives.
Electing RINOS as some kind of intermediate step toward conservatism fails, every time, because the policies they enact NEVER undo what the left has done. They are merely watered down progressivism still headed over the communist cliff.
So, I'd like YOU to "take a bow" for the disaster GWB inflicted upon this nation.
No more traitors. No more RINOS. I'm not doing things your way in 2012.
The Soviets gave Marxism-Leninism sixty years to “work” - and then gave up.
As Jane Fonda stated the only reason communism failed is because the people fail to grasp it.Obama seems to have the same mind set.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
One thing Gov. Pataki (R) of NY taught this conservative: nothing gets the Democratic agenda enacted faster than a left-leaning Republican.
The problem with conservative voters in 2008 is the primary field was so full of conservatives that the vote didn’t just split, it shattered - leaving the lone left-leaning R to gather a plurality, take the nomination, and give the Right a choice between evil and evil lite.
The other problem with the 2008 field was Fred Thompson's fan dance. It precluded conservatives selecting and organizing behind a committed conservative candidate until it was too late. Sarah Palin might well be playing the very same role.
So I will take that bow for trying even if I end up with a RINO and then I’ll assume you will take that bow for BHO - because you didn’t.
So if you want perfection in your politics you won't get it, unless you are the king. If the choice is evil and evil lite I'd probably go with evil lite, and join a Tea Party to change and try harder to change my choice in the future.
A vote for Reagan is a vote for Brown!!!
A vote for McClintock is a vote for Bustamante!!!
It wasn't nearly true then, and it isn't true now.
I'll warn you politely now: The reason I pinged JR is that your rhetoric is exactly coincident with that played by FairOpinion, now banned. We've had it with RINOs here on FR. The historical record proves that electing them backfires. The historical record proves that electing conservatives leads to more Republicans. What we must accomplish is to rid the Party of it's country club corporate "progressive" leadership at every level. Let them decide whether they'd rather have a socialist than a conservative in the general election. Reagan's success, despite the same arguments you are making now, proves that conservative governance is worth the risk. The people already know what they're going to get from the left, good and hard. They've had it with crooked government too.
All we have to prove is that corporate racketeering is even more true of the left than it is of Republicans, that they are owned not only by unions but by global banking, real estate, and transnational investment exporting American jobs. Sure, they pander to the welfare queens in order to buy a majority with other people's money, but look at how that has worked out for the poor. Conservatives are the friend of the little guy. It isn't hard to prove.
Dog feces. They never anticipated and frankly disapproved of political parties. You can take that Hegelian dialectic and stick it where the sun don't shine.
How can you disapprove of something you never anticipated?
Either way, we're no more likely going to stop the two party system then the world is to throw away all nuclear weapons. No parties would become one party against a multitude of helpless factions.
Ironically, the lesser of two evils two party system is itself the lesser of two other evils. ;-)
Nicely taken out of context. I was speaking of the TWO party system in the post to which I was responding. I should have anticipated your ilk doing that and apologize to the forum for the lack of specificity.
Either way, we're no more likely going to stop the two party system then the world is to throw away all nuclear weapons.
How positively Whiggish of you. I'm not so clairvoyant, nor am I advocating such; I was instead clarifying the historical record. The very idea of a Democratic Republican Party, Inc. was unknown at the time the Constitution was written and implemented.
Ironically, the lesser of two evils two party system is itself the lesser of two other evils. ;-)
Go ahead and support said bald-faced assertion. I want a cogent argument supported by fact or reference.
I would hazard a guess that you actually would rather have liberal dems like BHO than a conservative you don't agree 100% with. Which makes you just as much as a danger to the conservative cause as any DUmmy.
Take your rhetoric to the foothills and build a wee fort and leave the adults to govern, and quite polluting the party with your do or die crap... it is your ilk in part I can thank for the economy.
I'm tired of you people electing dems because you don't get your way...
I want someone as conservative as I can get - I just won't tell everyone that they should sit out if the person I want doesn't make it.
not much of history buff are you Carry.
I never said the founding fathers approved or disapproved of political parties.... I said they didn’t agree.... which is part of the political process.
BTW - I don’t want RINOs I want conservative repubicians first, republicans second.
Your second choice looks like democrat.
It took Hitler 3 months to control radio and print news in Germany. Our technology is holding Obama in check - thanks to the internet we still have the daily news at our fingertips.
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.