Obama's Wealth Destruction

[Kevin_Kennedy]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

 

[ReillyT]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

 

[Paulie]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

Isn't that the same thing with Bush, though? He identified a need after 9/11, and pushed to meet it. It was a Trillion+ dollar decision based on assumptions and recommendations from people who, in hindsight, were pretty wrong. Why does Obama just automatically get the benefit of the doubt here regarding yet another proposal to spend a Trillion dollars on something? Some economists think it will help, others say it will hurt more than help, and even others flat out say it will be a disaster. There's not enough concrete consensus here that this bill is worth taking what amounts to just another "chance" that it will turn out to be right.

There's no difference between wasting a trillion dollars on war, or wasting a trillion dollars on domestic issues. It's interesting that liberals are so quick to take a trillion dollar "chance" on something now after the past 5+ years of watching the last trillion dollar "chance" turn out to be a huge waste.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.

 

[Modbert]

Kevin, what the fuck are you smoking to actually believe we have a free market?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin, what the fuck are you smoking to actually believe we have a free market?

I'm sorry, did I claim somewhere that we had a free market?

 

[Modbert]

It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.

You seem to agree with them if you're touting their opinion as being correct.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.

You seem to agree with them if you're touting their opinion as being correct.

I call them "free marketeers" because they believe, or at least claim to believe, in the free market. That doesn't suggest that we have a free market in the least.

Yes, I do agree that we need a free market.

 

[Truthmatters]

Mises again!


Dude come out of the cave and read other stuff.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Mises again!


Dude come out of the cave and read other stuff.

You're perfectly free not to participate in a discussion if the source displeases you, especially when it's not responding to you in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.

He said many, not every.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

It's certainly arrogant of President Obama to go around parroting about how every economist agrees that the "stimulus" package is absolutely necessary, when you won't find a single Austrian that agrees with it and very few general free marketeers that do either. It may not be arrogant, but it certainly is hypocritical, for Obama to tout the same doomsday prophecies that President Bush used to frighten Congress into voting for the bailout package.

He said many, not every.

My mistake, seems it was Biden that said "every."

 

[Richard-H]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

Underlying the theory that free-market capitalism will, if left alone, fix itself, is the fundamental notion that capitalist have some great sense of responsibilty to society. That the wealthy view themselves as leaders of the world economy, have a vast understanding of finances and wish to be great leaders.

This is the basis if free liberaterian theory.

Unfortunately, this contradicts basic human nature. In some ways capitalism ends up being worse than monarchy, becuase at least in a monochial state the rulers were supposed to be raised with a sense of responsibilty to their people.

There is no such sense of responsibilty in the current capitalist soceity. 50 years ago there was, but now we've had 30 years of an economic free for all.

I'd love it if the wealthiest people would get together and find a way to work us out of this mess. I'd love it if there was no need for government to get involved in the economy. Unfortunately, that just isn't realistic.

If we were to rely on private interests to pull us out of this mess, we'd have 100 years of depression with 60% depopulation.

 

[dilloduck]

If we were to rely on private interests to pull us out of this mess, we'd have 100 years of depression with 60% depopulation.

I'm all for it-when can we start ?

 

[xsited1]

Obama loves to use fear tactics to lead the people in the direction he wants them to go. Now where have I heard this before???

 

[Richard-H]

If we were to rely on private interests to pull us out of this mess, we'd have 100 years of depression with 60% depopulation.

I'm all for it-when can we start ?

YES! You are Evil! But be careful, that level of honesty defies your creed!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

Underlying the theory that free-market capitalism will, if left alone, fix itself, is the fundamental notion that capitalist have some great sense of responsibilty to society. That the wealthy view themselves as leaders of the world economy, have a vast understanding of finances and wish to be great leaders.

This is the basis if free liberaterian theory.

Unfortunately, this contradicts basic human nature. In some ways capitalism ends up being worse than monarchy, becuase at least in a monochial state the rulers were supposed to be raised with a sense of responsibilty to their people.

There is no such sense of responsibilty in the current capitalist soceity. 50 years ago there was, but now we've had 30 years of an economic free for all.

I'd love it if the wealthiest people would get together and find a way to work us out of this mess. I'd love it if there was no need for government to get involved in the economy. Unfortunately, that just isn't realistic.

If we were to rely on private interests to pull us out of this mess, we'd have 100 years of depression with 60% depopulation.

The free market doesn't rely on "capitalists" to fix it. The market corrects itself by reallocating resources from insolvent institutions to ones that are needed or wanted by the people, through supply-and-demand.

 

[Agnapostate]

Leave it to the Mises Institute to inaccurately claim that the New Deal was Keynesian.

 

[Care4all]

Obama's Wealth Destruction - Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. - Mises Institute

The arrogance of President Bush was only so destructive because he was so often wrong.

Obama doesn't seem particularly arrogant to me hear. This is not a simple case of whether the Iraqis do or do not possess WMDs. This is a question of economics that no amount of dithering or further research will answer. The President has identified a need and he means to meet it. The real question though isn't whether he is arrogant but whether he is right.

Isn't that the same thing with Bush, though? He identified a need after 9/11, and pushed to meet it. It was a Trillion+ dollar decision based on assumptions and recommendations from people who, in hindsight, were pretty wrong. Why does Obama just automatically get the benefit of the doubt here regarding yet another proposal to spend a Trillion dollars on something? Some economists think it will help, others say it will hurt more than help, and even others flat out say it will be a disaster. There's not enough concrete consensus here that this bill is worth taking what amounts to just another "chance" that it will turn out to be right.

There's no difference between wasting a trillion dollars on war, or wasting a trillion dollars on domestic issues. It's interesting that liberals are so quick to take a trillion dollar "chance" on something now after the past 5+ years of watching the last trillion dollar "chance" turn out to be a huge waste.

where would the money go from the stimulus? wouldn't it ALL land in the USA somewhere?