Image

JUSTACARTOON

“IT’S IRRESPONSIBLE, IT’S UNPATRIOTIC”

It’s irresponsible; it’s unpatriotic and I am doing more of it.  I am Barack Hussein Obama and I want your vote.

THE INCREDIBLE NEW YORK TIMES

Ten days prior to election day, or more significantly, after nearly four years of Obama’s governance, the New Youk Times looks at his record and has this to say.

President Obama has shown a firm commitment to using government to help foster growth. He has formed sensible budget policies that are not dedicated to protecting the powerful, and has worked to save the social safety net to protect the powerless. Mr. Obama has impressive achievements despite the implacable wall of refusal erected by Congressional Republicans so intent on stopping him

In the Online edition a photograph of Abraham Lincoln appears beside that comment.  Subtle, isn’t it.  Those “sensible budget policies” were so outrageous that not one single Democrat voted for the his Budget Proposals.

In the poisonous atmosphere of this campaign, it may be easy to overlook Mr. Obama’s many important achievements, including carrying out the economic stimulus, saving the auto industry, improving fuel efficiency standards, and making two very fine Supreme Court appointments.

Sadly the day is past when the New York Times editors had a little class and knew enough to call their own candidate President and not Mr.

Mr. Obama prevented another Great Depression. Mr. Obama championed [programs] like the $840 billion stimulus bill. Republicans say it failed, but it created and preserved 2.5 million jobs and prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent. Poverty would have been much worse without the billions spent on Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits.

Obama “prevented unemployment from reaching 12 percent.”  Isn’t that just dandy.  Give him another four years and he may do twice as well; he may prevent unemployment from reaching 24 percent.

Foreign Affairs. Mr. Obama and his administration have been resolute in attacking Al Qaeda’s leadership.

Mr. Obama deserves credit for his handling of the Arab Spring.

These statements are understandable if the only news the editors read is what’s printed in their own newspaper.

Civil Rights. The extraordinary fact of Mr. Obama’s 2008 election did not usher in a new post-racial era. In fact, the steady undercurrent of racism in national politics is truly disturbing.

Yes, it’s very disturbing.  And as the Times implies, it has worsened over the last four years, yet this is somehow Bush’s fault.  The editors must have struggled over this one to no avail if the best excuse they could come up with was to blame Bush again.

For these and many other reasons, we enthusiastically endorse President Barack Obama for a second term, and express the hope that his victory will be accompanied by a new Congress willing to work for policies that Americans need (emphasis ours).

The endorsement of the Democrat was fully expected.  The Times endorsed Lincoln and he was probably the only Republican endorsement the paper ever made.  Their star correspondent Walter Duranty did give a hearty endorsement of Joseph Stalin but I don’t think Stalin was a Republican and Duranty wasn’t an editor.

THE WORD “AUSTERITY” IS PROPAGANDIC

Many words are chosen and brought into common use to further an agenda.  Our favorite example is “Capitalism”, a term that implies a system based on money, a system based on wealth.  Thus a system which is based on the freedom of everyman to exchange goods and services with his neighbor has become known by a name that implies something quite different.  The word “Capitalism” comes with an agenda.  Words that come with an agenda are propagandic.  Most people would look unfavorably on a system built around wealth but who could be against a system built on ‘pleasant companionship with friends or associates’?  There was a reason Karl Marx chose to identify the two systems as Capitalism and Socialism rather than as Free Markets and Government Controlled.

Now we look at “austerity.”  Say what you will about European Socialism, it does provide a comfortable life style.  Savor six week vacations, short working hours, retirement at age 55 on a government guaranteed income sufficient to live in modest comfort.  Some would argue that you give up many individual freedoms in exchange for that.  However, I ask how can you give up something you never had?

Merriam-Webster defines austerity as “stern and cold in appearance or manner, giving little or no scope for pleasure.”  That is not at all what advocates of “austerity” in Europe are calling for.  What they want is a responsible government that does not spend what it doesn’t have.  Yet they allow themselves to be known by a word that would identify them as seeking an uncaring government that leaves little or no scope for pleasure.  Thus applied, the word austerity is propagandic.

The irony of propagandic is the acceptance and use of words by the targets against whom the term was coined.  Even Milton Friedman called the Free Market system Capitalism.

 

TO HIM IT’S ALL ABOUT ‘ME’, NOT ABOUT US

If you watched the third Presidential debate you heard Obama say
“Americans should be proud of [*] this nation,  [pause]  ME…”

Click on the President’s nose to play the 35 second video.

And they said G.W. was arrogant because he was from Texas.

* a parenthetical reference was made that was only a distraction from the President’s main point which was that Barack Obama IS America.

REAGAN vs. OBAMA ON THE ECONOMY

President Obama often asks the voters to understand that he inherited a very bad economy, and he did. But in many ways it was not as bad as the economy Reagan inherited from Carter.

On Reagan’s Election Day in 1980, unemployment was at 7.5 percent and headed for 10.8 percent; inflation was at 12.5 percent, headed for 13.6 percent, and interest rates were at 15.5 percent, headed for 21.5 percent by Christmas, well before Reagan was sworn in.

Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent and no inflation problem. Inflation was only 1.1 percent in comparison to the crushing 21.5 percent left by Carter. By the time Reagan was sworn in in January business men, farmers and home buyers (if you could find one) were paying 23 to 24 percent interest rates on loans.

Reagan wasted no energy on blaming Jimmy Carter. He approached the problem by lowering marginal tax rates in gradual steps over three years. He eased the regulatory burden on businesses, making it simpler to open or expand a business. His infectious optimism reminded people “the best is yet to come.” America was still “the shining city on the hill,” and Reagan reversed the country’s mood from a Carter-induced “malaise” to a can-do spirit.

In stark contrast, Obama did just the opposite with predictable results. He increased the regulatory environment increasing the cost and difficulty of opening or expanding a business. He introduced new law burdening business with new costs that are significant and beyond measurability at the same time. He fought for a return to higher taxes before acquiescing. Obama made his belief clear that America never was a shining city on a hill; it was a country in need of complete transformation. For America’s leader to wear a flag pin on his lapel was to honor a nation that was undeserving of such respect, a country that was in no way exceptional.

Reagan’s policies worked. By the end of his first term, inflation was down, employment was up, the economy was in good shape again and the mood of the nation had gone from morose to bright and cheery. In the bid for a second term, Reagan won every state with the sole exception of Minnesota.

Today we are where we are because of the president we picked in 2008, not because of what he inherited.

This post was adapted on an article by Peter Hegseth.

SNIPPETS FROM ELSEWHERE

Closing words at the end of the second presidential debate:

I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded.   President Barack Obama

Real Clear Politics reaction:

I have no doubt that Obama believes he believes in free enterprise — except in the case of health care policy, the auto industry, the housing market, education, banking, job creation, manufacturing, green energy and so on and so forth.

If you believed the free enterprise system is the mechanism of great prosperity, your crowning achievement might not be legislation that constricts competition in health care, layers it generously with regulations, institutes effective price controls, coerces participation and sets up a government board to mete out advice on rationing.

Put it this way: Folks who admire free enterprise seldom spend two months bashing private equity to kick off a re-election campaign for president.

About bailouts, by Steven Haywood:

Milton Friedman liked to say, the capitalist system is a profit and loss system.  The losses are just as important as the profits because they discipline ongoing resource allocation.  Bailing out losing firms assures us of mediocre economic growth.  Haywood [edited]

When losses are made, under the present system these losses are borne by the individuals who sustained them and took the risk and judged things wrongly, whereas under State management all losses are quartered upon the taxpayers and the community as a whole.  The elimination of the profit motive and of self-interest as a practical guide in the myriad transactions of daily life will restrict, paralyze and destroy British ingenuity, thrift, contrivance and good housekeeping at every stage in our life and production, and will reduce all our industries from a profit-making to a loss-making process.  Winston Churchill 1947

If Obama is re-elected,
He will fundamentally transform America from a society that strives to eliminate class to a society of four classes: wealthy elites, government and union bureaucrats, the growing dependent poor, and a shrinking pool of working gainfully employed taxpayers supporting everyone else.