John Maynard Dillinger Obama

[PoliticalChic]

1. Every measure of the recovery of this economy reveals Obama to be the same as he had been in other areas favorable to America: a failure. As a lock-step Liberal, Obama follows old-time Keynesian dogma....as does Joseph Stiglitz:

"nequality leads to weak aggregate demand — or demand that would be weak in the absence of countervailing actions, say by the Federal Reserve. The reason is simple: Those at the bottom and middle consume essentially all of their income; those at the top save 15 percent, 20 percent, or more. When money shifts from the bottom to the top — as has occurred in recent decades in the United States — this low demand would lead to unemployment and an anemic economy. " Political Causes, Political Solutions - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

2. This thinking represents one of the two main modes used by politicians. The first, and most common, is lying. But the above has the seductive appeal of sounding scientific, and, thus, giving cover for reckless spending (i.e., buying votes).

a. Keynesian dogma calls for immediate spending to get out of a temporary slump, and the spending must be done quickly, presumably based on 'shovel-ready jobs.'

b. The 'quickly' part is cover for less time in debate and careful scrutiny.





3. Keynesian dogma also serves as the basis for the kick-back corruption on which politicians thrive. The plan is eminently simple...yet partisans claim not to see it: throw barrels of money to favored groups and industries, e.g., the 'green economy,' and the pols get back buckets of 'contributions.' Whether the Constitution allows for government picking 'winners,' or even whether the 'investments' succeed is not a matter of concern.

a. “On March 3, 2007 USA Today ran a piece on then-Senator Obama regarding two stocks in his portfolio. Obama was running for President and his critics were stating that the Senator may have been involved in insider trading, cronyism, using his position for personal gain, etc. Basically the media ran this story for a day, and then kissed it goodbye. Could you imagine the outrage if these same set of circumstances involved a Republican running for President?”
Obama the Investor ? Brian Sussman

b. “The liberal Daily Beast reports on a broadband project backed by a frequent Obama White House visitor and donor that has Pentagon officials concerned over potential military GPS interference. The Obama FCC took the lead in intervening on the donor, billionaire hedge fund manager Philip Falcone’s, behalf and granting his company called “LightSquared” one of those coveted Obama waivers from existing law. Then Obama officials reportedly pressured a general to alter his testimony about the company’s impact on military satellite transmissions.” Michelle Malkin | LightSquared: The next Obama pay-for-play morass? «






4. Now, back to Stiglitz. His Keynesianism gives Democrats a justification for their tax-the-rich schemes: "... Those at the bottom and middle consume essentially all of their income; those at the top save 15 percent, 20 percent, or more."

a. The same plan goes back to FDR, get those rotten rich! But, guess who scolded FDR: John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned:
“ ....even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.

Any wonder that FDR extended the Depression....in fact, turned a recession into the Great Depresssion.

b. And as long as the Democrat government education system keeps citizens really, really ignorant, they won't realize that 'saving' isn't such a bad idea. The money saved doesn't disappear, and contrary to Keynesianism, it isn't an enemy to a flourishing economy. Banks take 'savings' and lend them to others who spend it or invest it.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 86-89.


So, dear friends, what have we learned about this President?
He is really dumb.....no understanding of the economy...
a kind of John Maynard Keynes....
....or he's a kind of John Dillinger....a thief.


But in either case.....not deserving of the United States presidency.

 

[Mr. H.]

That "money at the top" isn't making it to the middle/lower echelons because no one wants to invest in brick and mortar thanks to Mr. Punk Of The United States.

 

[Mr. H.]

Hell no one is investing in much of anything other than oil and gas projects. And Obama has those targeted with $40 billion in taxes.

And it's much easier these days to sit on your ass and draw the dole.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those at the bottom and middle consume essentially all of their income; those at the top save 15 percent, 20 percent, or more. When money shifts from the bottom to the top — as has occurred in recent decades in the United States — this low demand would lead to unemployment and an anemic economy. " Political Causes, Political Solutions - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

to increase demand:

1) ship 11 million illegals home so they don't send their money home and take American jobs.

2) eliminate the corporate tax so corporations come here rather than leave here

3) make deficts illegal so China and Japan have to buy or demand our products rather than our deficits

4) eliminate regulations so we don't have another housing bubble and depression

5) don't discourage business confidence by blaming and threatening them for the recession when it was caused by liberal government.

6) don't tax the wealthy since they are the ones who save and invest to grow the economy!!

 

[Mr. H.]

Maynard G. Krebs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That "money at the top" isn't making it to the middle/lower echelons because no one wants to invest in brick and mortar thanks to Mr. Punk Of The United States.

yes the taxes are lower in other countries so Barry's incentives encourage them to leave. He's got to punish the rich even as they leave, and why not??? Who needs them anyway? I mean, all they do is pay all the taxes, create all the jobs, and make all the products that got us from the stone age to here!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

That "money at the top" isn't making it to the middle/lower echelons because no one wants to invest in brick and mortar thanks to Mr. Punk Of The United States.

yes the taxes are lower in other countries so Barry's incentives encourage them to leave. He's got to punish the rich even as they leave, and why not???. Who needs them anyway? I mean, all they do is pay all the taxes, create all the jobs, and make the products that got us from the stone age to here!!

"He's got to punish the rich...."


The purpose of taxation represents a major difference between conservatives and liberals.

1. For conservatives, taxes are to pay for the legitimate functions of the federal government, i.e., those functions enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Any in excess is to be returned via tax cuts.

2. For liberals, taxes are to used to equalize material wealth toward some imaginary level where all have the same amount. An impossibility, that child-like attempt to reach Utopia on earth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That "money at the top" isn't making it to the middle/lower echelons because no one wants to invest in brick and mortar thanks to Mr. Punk Of The United States.

yes the taxes are lower in other countries so Barry's incentives encourage them to leave. He's got to punish the rich even as they leave, and why not???. Who needs them anyway? I mean, all they do is pay all the taxes, create all the jobs, and make the products that got us from the stone age to here!!

"He's got to punish the rich...."


The purpose of taxation represents a major difference between conservatives and liberals.

1. For conservatives, taxes are to pay for the legitimate functions of the federal government, i.e., those functions enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Any in excess is to be returned via tax cuts.

2. For liberals, taxes are to used to equalize material wealth toward some imaginary level where all have the same amount. An impossibility, that child-like attempt to reach Utopia on earth.

And even if they reached it for a moment it would vanish the next moment as it would destroy the incentive of the giver and receiver to work as the USSR and 42 other countries demonstrated.

The desire to reach utopia on earth leads to Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

Hi, worm.....


What brings you out?
Must have rained, huh?

Too wet for you in the dirt???

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

Hi, worm.....


What brings you out?
Must have rained, huh?

Too wet for you in the dirt???

Me dear, you need to get a clue. I just picked up a rock, and there you were.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

Hi, worm.....


What brings you out?
Must have rained, huh?

Too wet for you in the dirt???

Me dear, you need to get a clue. I just picked up a rock, and there you were.

Has anyone ever suggest that you might just be...
Senselessly Cruel, Edmund?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=j3hLUJsnFgk"]Lou Reed - Senselessly Cruel...Wolverhampton 1.7.2011 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama is following the FDR "How to Crush the US Economy" Playbook page for page with the exact same results

 

[Rshermr]

Obama is following the FDR "How to Crush the US Economy" Playbook page for page with the exact same results

Funny how history escapes cons. They blame FDR for the great recession. They tend to somehow forget that unemployment had reached over 24% by the time he took office in 1933. Funny how that works. You see, they do not like to admit that the republicans had taken unemployment from 3.2% in 1929 to over 24% when the repubs were forced to hand over the presidency in March of 1933.

The Great Depression Statistics

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Even more spectacular were the apparent amnesiac nutball politicos Chinless McConnell and Spineless Boehner and their legions of human cattle who in 2009 began blaming Obama for unemployment that every rational human on earth understood was the direct result of the 2008 crash-and-burn of Bush League policy fueled by voodoo accounting.

 

[Dot Com]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

good post. BTW- we just humor PoliChic w/ her highly partisan, sparsely sourced, OP's

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

good post. BTW- we just humor PoliChic w/ her highly partisan, sparsely sourced, OP's

You may think of me as a parhelion....or, with one.

You, on the other hand, are a person of no consequence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow. Look at this thread. A whole bunch of con tools standing around the drinking fountain talking smart. At least, in their little minds. Just plain the shits when the economy keeps getting better, as hard as the cons try to make it tank.
Still can not find a single con who can show when general income tax decreases, during a time of high unemployment, ever helped said economy. Should not be tough, based on the drivel you folks are spreading. Dipshits.

Hi, worm.....


What brings you out?
Must have rained, huh?

Too wet for you in the dirt???

Me dear, you need to get a clue. I just picked up a rock, and there you were.

You can't even come up with your own insults????
You need to copy mine???


On the other hand....that does demonstrate a certain level of good taste....


Truly...you are worthless.
But you already know that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yes the taxes are lower in other countries so Barry's incentives encourage them to leave. He's got to punish the rich even as they leave, and why not???. Who needs them anyway? I mean, all they do is pay all the taxes, create all the jobs, and make the products that got us from the stone age to here!!

"He's got to punish the rich...."


The purpose of taxation represents a major difference between conservatives and liberals.

1. For conservatives, taxes are to pay for the legitimate functions of the federal government, i.e., those functions enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Any in excess is to be returned via tax cuts.

2. For liberals, taxes are to used to equalize material wealth toward some imaginary level where all have the same amount. An impossibility, that child-like attempt to reach Utopia on earth.

And even if they reached it for a moment it would vanish the next moment as it would destroy the incentive of the giver and receiver to work as the USSR and 42 other countries demonstrated.

The desire to reach utopia on earth leads to Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals

Indeed.
I like this analysis:

1. "What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?

…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

2. Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

3. Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.


4. So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

5. Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.


Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.
Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.
...Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company.



6. In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | Right Wing News

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"He's got to punish the rich...."


The purpose of taxation represents a major difference between conservatives and liberals.

1. For conservatives, taxes are to pay for the legitimate functions of the federal government, i.e., those functions enumerated in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Any in excess is to be returned via tax cuts.

2. For liberals, taxes are to used to equalize material wealth toward some imaginary level where all have the same amount. An impossibility, that child-like attempt to reach Utopia on earth.

And even if they reached it for a moment it would vanish the next moment as it would destroy the incentive of the giver and receiver to work as the USSR and 42 other countries demonstrated.

The desire to reach utopia on earth leads to Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals

Indeed.
I like this analysis:

1. "What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?

…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

2. Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

3. Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.


4. So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

5. Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.


Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard.Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.
Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.
...Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company.



6. In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | Right Wing News

Its so obvious that conservatives think of liberals as utter fools. NOt one will try to argue with POlitical chick's reasoning. Liberals are not bothered though because they see no need for intelligence or logical thinking. How do conservatives combat that?