Big Govt and Obamanomics

[milohimself]

No More Bipartisan Bailouts | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

Good link. Gotta laugh when people say they vote Republican because they support free markets and instead wind up with a corporate shill.

 

[vols4sure]

Do you have examples?

(isn't saying: "nu-uh, they're different" without explanation is just as lazy?)

Obama screwing the bond holders mafia style in favor of the unions in direct violation of bankruptcy law.

Keystone pipeline.

Playing the class warfare game to pit the country against each other.

Etc.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Obama screwing the bond holders mafia style in favor of the unions in direct violation of bankruptcy law.

Keystone pipeline.

Playing the class warfare game to pit the country against each other.

Etc.

He screwed the unions by not green lighting Keystone.

In essence, you are arguing that he did them a favor in one instance, and screwed them in another.

 

[GAVol]

He screwed the unions by not green lighting Keystone.

In essence, you are arguing that he did them a favor in one instance, and screwed them in another.

He had to appease the unions on one hand and the environmentalists on the other.

 

[05_never_again]

I guess it s just so obvious to me where the differences lie.

Obamacare and the CFPB are a pretty good place to start.

An individual health care mandate was offered up as an alternative to Hillarycare (universal healthcare) by the Republicans in 1993. Newt Gingrich, as recently as a few years ago, was a backer of such a mandate and Romney of course passed what we would call Obamacare today while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Republican Executive and Legislative Branches passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. Essentially the CFPB of the time. Both costly to comply with (that's by design; the large, politically-connected corporations hate having to deal with smaller competition) and hailed at the time as "revolutionary" and "the biggest regulatory overhaul since XYZ."

There are no substantive differences between Ds and Rs on any issue of importance. None whatsoever. That's also by design.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

It amazes me that so many Republicans (who purport to despise Obamacare) can look past Romneycare and support Romney. It will be a major obstacle for Romney this fall.

 

[gsvol]

As Reagan said; 'those who have read the marxist manifesto are communists but those who undersatnd the manifesto are anti-communists.'



progressingamerica: What effect does Fabian socialism have upon Liberalism?

In a letter to 'Sorge'(probably Friedrich Adolph Sorge), Friedrich Engels commented about Fabian Socialism: (January 18th, 1893)

The Fabians here in London are a band of ambitious folk who have sufficient understanding to comprehend the inevitableness of the social revolution but who cannot trust this gigantic work to the rough proletarian alone, and therefore have the kindness to place themselves at the head of it. Dread of the revolution is their fundamental principle. They are the cultured par excellence. Their socialism is municipal socialism - the commune, not the nation, shall at least be the possessor of the means of production. This Socialism of theirs is then presented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of middle-class Liberalism, and hence their tactics are to fight the Liberals not as decided opponents but to drive them on to socialistic consequences; therefore to trick them, to permeate Liberalism with Socialism and not to oppose Socialist candidates to Liberal ones, but to palm them off to thrust them on under some pretext.
---------------------

Based on how Engels has described this, you could even go so far as to say that the Fabians were the original Saul Alinsky Radicals. For those of you who own this book like I do, see page 91, paragraph 3. Fits like a glove, doesn't it?

Ah, Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire

To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire!

Would not we shatter it to bits-and then

Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!

The Omar Khayyam Rubaiyat; (Persian poet/philosopher)
partially appears on the Fabian Window.

Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal

By any rational or civilized standard, John Maynard Keynes was a totally amoral scoundrel. Keynes At Harvard, a well documented study by Zygmund Dobbs, first published by Archibald Roosevelt's Veritas Foundation (Conservative Harvard Alumni) in 1962, thoroughly exposed Keynes as a Fabian Socialist sociopath, deliberately seeking to undermine free market Capitalism. Dobbs also showed Keynes to be a notorious homosexual pedophile, who predated NAMBLA, advising other wealthy & depraved British Leftists where, in the third world, they might expect the best price for "bed & boy." This vile bit of history is not, of course, our point.

A very good read for those who really want more informed insight into the topic.

More excerpts:

To understand the "hows" & "whys" of Keynesian appeal, one might start with the well documented fact (in Keynes At Harvard) that John Maynard Keynes was a key participant in the British Fabian Society, which set out in the late 19th Century to turn Great Britain into the Socialist domain, seen now, by tactics of deception--their chosen symbol, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
------------------------------

Socialism, in all its manifestations, substitutes centralized planning & control for individual motivation & aspiration in the direction of human conduct. Even on questions of morality--the philosophy of ethical behavior--of the nature of good & evil, of what is altruistic and what is not, Socialist movements--of every sort--challenge the diverse traditional mores of the earth's peoples. And, unlike more traditional systems, there is a cold "utilitarianism," despite all pretenses of good or kindlier intentions, present in every Socialist movement, whether Fabian, Social Democratic, Nazi, Communist or some other or blended variety.
----------------

The Keynesian approach to any business downturn is a policy of contrived inflation--Governmental deficits, monetized with fiat money, intended to reblow a bursting economic bubble.
---------------------------

The history of Governmental efforts to control or manipulate actual market performance has proven one disaster after another. The reality is that no attempt by a select few--by committees or bureaucrats removed from the daily behavior of the individual participant--to plan, control or stimulate market decisions, can ever prove satisfactory substitute to the organic ability of a free Market to adjust to the ever fluctuating dynamics of human action & interaction. The reason is not hard to grasp.

 

[milohimself]

Of all the legitimate reasons to discredit many of Keynes' ideas -- and there are many -- I didn't find one in that whole link. There was zero economic analysis there, just a bunch of Randian bogeyman arguments going on about how anyone who supports public systems of virtually anything is a radical socialist.

 

[gsvol]

Of all the legitimate reasons to discredit many of Keynes' ideas -- and there are many -- I didn't find one in that whole link. There was zero economic analysis there, just a bunch of Randian bogeyman arguments going on about how anyone who supports public systems of virtually anything is a radical socialist.

You're the icing on the cake.

Tell me how my grandchildren are not tax slaves to the present keneysian regime?

I would say a lot more if I were ready to permantly leave this forum, which may come sooner that later.

The longer you are enabled to be a moderator here lessons my inclination to even participate at all.

 

[BigPapaVol]

An individual health care mandate was offered up as an alternative to Hillarycare (universal healthcare) by the Republicans in 1993. Newt Gingrich, as recently as a few years ago, was a backer of such a mandate and Romney of course passed what we would call Obamacare today while he was Governor of Massachusetts.

Republican Executive and Legislative Branches passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. Essentially the CFPB of the time. Both costly to comply with (that's by design; the large, politically-connected corporations hate having to deal with smaller competition) and hailed at the time as "revolutionary" and "the biggest regulatory overhaul since XYZ."

There are no substantive differences between Ds and Rs on any issue of importance. None whatsoever. That's also by design.

Taxes? Entitlements?

 

[milohimself]

You're the icing on the cake.

Tell me how my grandchildren are not tax slaves to the present keneysian regime?

I would say a lot more if I were ready to permantly leave this forum, which may come sooner that later.

The longer you are enabled to be a moderator here lessons my inclination to even participate at all.

Tootles, then

 

[05_never_again]

Taxes? Entitlements?

No substantive differences. The only difference between the parties on taxation is that the Ds want a few percentage points higher rate on "the rich." A Republican Congress passed and a Republican President signed into law a massive, unfunded healthcare entitlement in 2003.

Entitlements? Essentially off limits for cuts. Defense? Off limits. You've eliminated 62% of the budget from discussion right there. Neither party is serious or wants to cut the debt/deficit.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Neither party is serious or wants to cut the debt/deficit.

Sad, but true.

 

[milohimself]

Taxes? Entitlements?

I would say entitlements are a bit bigger of a deal than taxes, and if you're talking entitlements, then SS and Medicare are the two biggies. AARP can and will see to it that any legislator who actually tries to make any substantive cuts to either won't get re-elected. They are every bit as big as Pharma, the NRA, VA, etc.

 

[05_never_again]

AARP can and will see to it that any legislator who actually tries to make any substantive cuts to either won't get re-elected. They are every bit as big as Pharma, the NRA, VA, etc.

Agree 100%. Among lobbying groups, they are probably the single-biggest defender of the status quo on entitlement programs.

 

[bamawriter]

It amazes me that so many Republicans (who purport to despise Obamacare) can look past Romneycare and support Romney. It will be a major obstacle for Romney this fall.

If Romney had had the good sense to come out from the beginning and claim that Romneycare was a huge mistake, and that Obamacare would be even worse, he'd be polling 60-40 against Obama at least. Trying to contrast and compare the two is completely absurd.

 

[warhammer]

If Romney had had the good sense to come out from the beginning and claim that Romneycare was a huge mistake, and that Obamacare would be even worse, he'd be polling 60-40 against Obama at least. Trying to contrast and compare the two is completely absurd.

The real question for voters is why he hasn't done this. I believe you are correct with your projected polling numbers (maybe a tad high). Is it because he really believes in universal healthcare? Is it because he is afraid of admitting failure? Is it because he is trying to win over (or not scare off) moderates who are in favor of the program or some version of it?

I am not a Romney supporter in any way. If he wins the nomination, I am going to be at a loss for whom to vote. I am like you. I haven't heard or seen enough to separate the two significantly. How can you believe any of it anyway?

 

[Weezy]

I don't mind Romneycare. He was governor of a state, and that state supported it. I think his stance is fine that it's a state's rights issue. I'm more concerned with his big military ideas and how that effects the deficit.

 

[bamawriter]

I don't mind Romneycare. He was governor of a state, and that state supported it. I think his stance is fine that it's a state's rights issue. I'm more concerned with his big military ideas and how that effects the deficit.

The state's rights stance is fine. However, he's tried to differentiate between the two programs, and they aren't fundamentally different. He should say it was fine for MA to pass that law, but he should say he does not support it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Of all the legitimate reasons to discredit many of Keynes' ideas -- and there are many -- I didn't find one in that whole link. There was zero economic analysis there, just a bunch of Randian bogeyman arguments going on about how anyone who supports public systems of virtually anything is a radical socialist.

For real -

GS, it's this simple...According to Keynes himself, the only way to make his policy work is to save surpluses in boom periods. Since our government is fully incapable of that sort of discipline, Keynesian economics can never work long term.

 

[warhammer]

I don't mind Romneycare. He was governor of a state, and that state supported it. I think his stance is fine that it's a state's rights issue. I'm more concerned with his big military ideas and how that effects the deficit.

I will admit to only having a growing amount of interest in this election cycle, so I am sure to have missed some things. Regardless of that, I do not think "states' rights" when I think of Mitt Romney.

 

[gsvol]

Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential

Obama did not just happen! For over two generations, mainstream Americans have been bombarded with a three pronged challenge to the continuity of their values, culture & identity.

These have included the absurd, yet oft repeated, lie of an equality of human potential; a direct attack on the ethnic pride & identity of mainstream Americans as unique peoples--coupled with the pretense that they are somehow guilty of causing most of the earth's problems;--and the promotion of a cynical Utilitarian view of Government, which imagines that despite a written Constitution--precisely intended to prevent such misuse of power--the Government has whatever power a majority desire, to address any & all problems of unhappy individuals.

 

[05_never_again]

For real -

GS, it's this simple...According to Keynes himself, the only way to make his policy work is to save surpluses in boom periods. Since our government is fully incapable of that sort of discipline, Keynesian economics can never work long term.

Keynesian economics can't work, period.

 

[milohimself]

Keynesian economics can't work, period.

The rest of us: "Keynes theories put in practice in reality exhibit some serious flaws."
GS: "Keynes theories will turn you into socialist scumbags!"

 

[05_never_again]

Who is GS?