Posted on 12/06/2011 2:09:01 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Today in Osawatomie, Kan., Barack Obama laid bare his progressive agenda, calling for more federal involvement in education, increased spending on infrastructure, an extension of the payroll tax cut and increased taxes on the rich. He even invoked Teddy “the Trustbuster” Roosevelt, who, if you’ll recall, became increasingly socialistic as the sun of his national stardom began to set.
Not surprisingly, Obama was disingenuous in a few places — but just a few. At one point, he said he had already signed $1 trillion in spending cuts into law. Presumably, he was referring to the cuts included in the debt ceiling deal. As a reminder, those were cuts to future spending — and legislators will soon frantically work to ensure they don’t materialize. At another point, he called for “greater responsibility from homeowners to not take out mortgages they can’t afford, and remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” That statement would have had more punch if he hadn’t earlier excoriated lenders for “tricking” people into loans they can’t afford, as though people are too stupid to understand the terms of a loan.
He also cited two of the rare big-government projects of which conservatives approve — the post-World-War-II GI tuition bill and the creation of the interstate system — as evidence that we are “greater together” (a phrase that appeared repeatedly in the speech). Notice he didn’t cite the many New Deal, Great Society and modern programs — from headed-for-implosion entitlements to sunken welfare benefits to additional education spending — that have proved to be either ineffective or disastrous, exacerbating the very problems they were intended to solve.
But, on the whole, the president was pretty transparent about his belief that big government makes everything better. The speech reads like a compelling essay in defense of government interference in free markets at every level. Read it and you’ll wonder why we’re not rushing to increase unemployment benefits, hike taxes, tighten regulations and expand government programs. But then you’ll remember the president’s own advice: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
As tempting as it is to think not only that the government could supply us all with a comfortable living but also that it should, I’m tempted by something else far more. That “something else” is the Founders’ faith in self-government and voluntary associations in and through civic society. Obama said today “we can’t return” to a “do-it-on-your-own” economy, but what he fails to realize is that, for Americans, it’s not a choice between going it alone and going it with the government. He cited the example of a company — Marvin Windows and Doors — that voluntarily refuses to lay off its employees — but confusedly seemed to think more government involvement would help to proliferate that kind of company. But the CEO himself admits a sense of community inspires his faith in his employees — not any kind of government mandate. That CEO clearly keeps faith with the Founders, who, in the construction of our government, controlled for self-interest, but also admonished citizens to remember moral obligations to others.
Today, the president did sweepingly what he has done patchily for the past few months, did at last what I have long wished he would do. He honestly argued for a welfare state and directly stated his disbelief in trickle-down economics. For once — again, except in a few places — this wasn’t conservative rhetoric to cover up progressive policies. It was progressive rhetoric to promote progressive policies. Nobody who reads this speech should be in doubt as to what he’s selling — but they should think deeply about how much freedom they’re willing to give up to buy it.
Regarding Teddy Roosevelt, it would be good for all of us to keep in mind that all politicians have a personal interest in any form of government that increases their influence and power. It’s an aphrodisiac that has dangerous appeal to all of them, even conservatives.
Keep in mind, that Teddy was a republican.
He tried to be re-elected after sitting out a term, but was not selected as the republican contender.
So he ran as an independent on the Bull Moose party, and split the vote allowing the democRAT to be elected.
Just like old big ears Perot gave us the Clinton stain on the presidency.
AND, Teddy Roosevelt LOST in 1912. Hear that obozo?
The guy you are trying to copy LOST.
We can only hope that holds true for obozo.
There's a few exceptions, but darn few. George Washington knew when to call it quits. Jesse Helms was one of the few U.S. Senators who actually got better and more principled with age. J. Edgar Hoover and William Casey were genuinely dedicated public servents until the day they died.
I’m not so sure that the “taker” class is actually going to buy into this. So far all Obama has offered is talk, rhetoric, empty words. He is actually going to have to take something substantial away from the Eeeeeevil Rich and redistribute it in a very visible way before they will believe him.
You should have heard the local media’s nauseating coverage of the one’s speech.
Didn’t he say that people also called TR a Communist? DOUBTFUL. Communism had never even been put into action officially during the 1912 election, so people had no idea how horrid it was
I saw part of it, what a disgusting example of duplicitus
lying!
He talked about helping the middle class by taxing the
rich. I don’t suppose it occured to him that once someone
moves up a class they might just want to move up again?
Where are the middle class to go to? Oh right they want
to become rich so they can be taxed more. ummhumm.
Class warfare the meat and potatoes of socialism.
I was also stuck by the poses and gestures he uses,
the man is a narcissist of the first order.
If he manages to retain power we will see the establishment
of a cult of personality Stalin would envy.
The removal of Palin and Cain BEFORE the election is
typical Chicago thug tactics.
First we had the Arkansas Mafia, then the Chicago Gang
Boss, we won’t like what comes next.
Roosevelt gave what was called a “New Nationalism” agenda, talking about regulation on special interests (even using that term), and calling out for welfare, human rights and a greater role for federal government.
At the time the remarks, given to more than 30,000 people, had a wide-range of reaction, even some calling them “Communist and “Socialist,” according to the Kansas Historical Society.
The sad irony is that that “failed” economic policy probably saved the bacon of the people trying to take down the private sector today. If the growth of private sector tax revenue had not kept rough pace with the growth of public sector spending, government at all levels would have gone bankrupt in the last century.
So Obama’s going to run as an ideologue rather than a pragmatic “uniter” this time. It’s going to be interesting watching the media switch gears.
I’m sorry but I can only find where khs said he was called that, but they give no source to the actual quote..... TR said he WOULD BE called a communist agitator, not that he had been....but I never saw where people referred to him as a communist.... Socialist, yes, but if you have the source if him being referred to as a communist during the election, would you share? Thank you!
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.