For example Obama's high pitched claim that this is the worst since the Great Depression is so far from true that a 5th grader could debunk it. Unemployment is only 7.6% compared to 25% in 1932. GDP actually rose slightly in 2008, whereas it fell 9% in 1930, 8% in 1931, 13% in 1932. The actual data suggests that the current situation is more nearly comparable to the recession in 1981/82, from which the economy rebounded without the funneling of trillions of taxpayer $ into the hands of failed fat cats.
But the false politics of doom will work for the Obamites, who will ultimately claim credit for saving the USA from the horrors of the impending depression. Meantime, taxpayers will have no clue where their trillions of $ went.
In the WSJ article Schiller concludes,
"Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."While Schiller is correct, that is beside the point for Obama and the Left. The chance to socialize a little of this and a lot of that is what the rhetoric is designed to aid and cover. And to funnel a few billion here and there off into the fog where it will help the Left in the future.
3 comments:
But couldn't you say the same about W. and Co.? All I remember from 2001 to 2004 is "fear, fear, fear, be afraid, be afraid, be afraid" and then the selling of an expensive war.
A war expense which, mind you, is hated not only by liberals but by paleo-conservatives and libertarians as well.
And a question:
While I'm not strongly economically liberal OR conservative, having not made up my mind about it yet, I must admit I'm a bit confused by conservatives' constant fear of "socialism" as if we were still living in the 1950s. Isn't it at least possible that SOME social programs are good for a stable society? Why are conservatives so against anything with the word "social" in it?
Martin,
W. is not without responsibility for the economic muddle; he approved the Democrat "American Dream for ALL" plan to make mortgages available to everyone with no regard for the ability or intent to pay.
As for the war, Saddam would still be in power if he had just complied with the U.N. directive to allow inspection of the suspected WMD facilities. The U.N. believed the possibility of WMDs just as W believed it, and there was no way not to consider it possible, due to Saddam's incredible stupidity.
As for the socialism issue, study the socialists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the National Socialists (NAZIs) and then explain why we should want that. What decade we live in is beside the point: socialism is still the same.
The US government has continued to take control that was not only not given to it but was expressly prohibited from it; it has never given any of it back, but continues its march toward the userpation of personal rights for the benefit of the community (aka humanism). W certainly contributed more than his share to that.
Socialism depends heavily on the philosophy that the elites know what is good for the masses, and that the masses are too inferior to take care of themselves; AND the philosophy that equality of outcome is more important than freedom to develop an independent outcome and live with the consequences. No one should have consequences.
Socialism is NOT the caring for widows and orphans and the disabled. It is equalizing the conditions of existence for everyone regardless of the value of individual contribution or need. It is intended to remove personal responsibility and initiative and replace it with complete egalitarianism of return for unequal effort. In other words, whether you contribute anything toward your own subsistence no longer matters; you still get the same health care, food chits, carbon sequestration allowances, etc. Socialism negatively impacts personal incentive and positively impacts sloth and fraud. That is the natural result of utopian desires to eliminate consequences.
Children will now grow up expecting marginal health care, subsidized (or free); there will be every reason to expect it throughout adulthood as well.
Now that I think of it, there are very few - if any - uses of the word "social" that are not negative. Think social engineering; social Darwinism; Social Security. All presume that the elites can and should dictate the outcomes for the masses, because the masses are too stupid to take care of themselves.
Control by a group of elites is never a good thing. The USA was founded to prevent the control by kings and church prelates, the elites of their day. The self-designated elites of today are the sequestered, myopic university intellectuals. The same ones that hate Israel and love the Palestinians no matter what barbary they inflict. Today's elite are very very dangerous and are now in control it appears.
It was said that the French Revolution (Liberte', egalite', fraternite') actually achieved two out of three; liberty was sacrificed at the altar of enforced equality, and this condition resulted in the necessity for a dictator: Napoleon, one of the ultimate elitists.
I don't know.
While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fiscal conservative (obviously not the Christian conservative) view of things, I'm not completely convinced that it's correct.
A free market tends to produce better quality service and products, as well as it's own forms of self-regulation and correction.
But if I had to pick between living in a recession of yesterday or recession of today, I think I'd pick today because of all the social safety nets we have.
Before: bread lines and no other recourse. Now: higher taxes but unemployment pay.
Are you so afraid of socialism JUST because it has been associated with brutal dictatorships in the past? Isn't it possible that a free capitalist market with SOME social safety nets (maybe not necessarily the ones we have now) is possibly a good formula for a happy society?
What about Western Europe and the Norwegian countries? Socialist, but not exactly oppressive dictatorships. In fact, some surveys show these countries as being at the top of the world's happiest populations.
Post a Comment