Obama’ economic recipe for disaster

Living in a communist economy

July 21, 2013
By Alan Caruba

In the former Soviet Union, the joke was “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.” It took over four decades of the Cold War to finally put an end to the lie that Communism as an economic system works. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the Soviet Union came to an end on December 25, 1991. By then Communism worldwide had killed hundreds of millions of people.

Now, it is true that America is not a Communist nation, but by doggedly pursuing the theories put forth by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, as well as the historically failed theories of Keynes, a British economist who believed that the government must pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, Obama has been trying to turn our Capitalist economy into a Communist one.

Calling our economy “Communist” may seem unduly harsh, but under Obama and his predecessors, the government is in charge of the banking sector, the health and insurance industries, General Motors was nationalized, the government is deeply involved in mortgage lending and now controls student loans. Now stand back and ask if the government – the State – is not now more Communist than Capitalist?

Wedded to failed economic theories, Obama has utterly failed to turn around the economy after the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recession.

Writing in the August 2012 edition of Forbes magazine, Louis Woodhill said, “If mismanaging an economic recovery were an Olympic event, President Obama would be standing on the middle platform right now, accepting the gold medal. Deep recessions are supposed to be followed by strong recoveries, but, under Obama, the worst recession since the 1930s has been followed by the slowest economic recovery in the history of the republic. In a very real sense, there has been no recovery at all – things are still getting worse.”

Obama still has three and a half years to make things ever more worse than they are. A Marxist in every sense of the word, Obama is so wedded to his belief in “redistribution” of wealth, that he spent the first term blaming his failed economic policies in George W. Bush and blathering endlessly about “millionaires and billionaires.” If the government confiscated all their wealth, it would barely pay for its operation for a month, if that.

[/…more]

Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/caruba/130721

 

It is as if you are seeing the opening scenes of a play, one that gives plenty of hints of all that is to come. The only thing left out are the exact details but you know it is destined for doom. All you can do is sit and watch the sinister plot unfold.

What you do know, after the opening scene, is that its design leaves no way to reverse the course of events. The “fair” that is loosely tossed around has been completely stripped of meaning. All that seems to matter is the agenda.

Advertisements

27 comments on “Obama’ economic recipe for disaster

  1. Funny how differently you and I see things. I see an economy where the workers own the companies as a good thing, as opposed to the corporate/military controlled economy we have now. Everything else is a distraction from that fact.

    Obama reminds me of that guy in “Godfather Two” who Michael said about– “He’s been dying of the same heart attack for five years.”

    I don’t care what anyone calls it, I’d like to see an economic recovery, but Obama’s simply been talking about it for the last six years.

    Like

    • bullright says:

      Donald, But workers owning the companies is not really the issue. Government control is.

      Well, you have to wonder if that “recovery” is possible under Obama, or if it is just [another] pipe dream? Most of us have come to our conclusions. BTW, much of America would “like to see” a recovery.

      Like

      • You should check out my blog when you can.

        As far as Obama is concerned, I recently wrote a post subtitled “Keep the Change: Obama’s Staunchest Supporter Throws in the Towel.” The actual title is Barackalypse Now. Yet, I think we dislike him for the exact opposite reasons. Anyone who loved George W, should be enthralled by Obama.

        Write now, I’m reading 1984. The world we live in is worse than what Orwell describes because few people seem to notice or care about our ever-eroding freedoms. (Not that we had that many to begin with.)

        The surveillance programs. The secret prisons (torture chambers). The persecution of patriots like Bradley and Snowden, the incredible industrial scale human rights abuses. I feel like writing a post called “Where’s your community organizer now?” Placing his picture with Marx is an insult to Marx.

        They have us bickering with each other about what the best form of slavery we should adhere to rather than actually getting a democracy. Workers owning the companies IS the solution, as in the people of the US owning the US–as opposed to the pretend people that corporations are. Even Orwell couldn’t make this stuff up.

        Like

      • bullright says:

        So Obama “hope and change” is not fast enough or radical enough for you.

        The point here is he is no good for the economy, much less the government.

        -“The persecution of patriots like Bradley and Snowden, the incredible industrial scale human rights abuses.”

        You might revisit Benedict Arnold. He had a chip on his shoulder, and believed he was justified to do what he did.

        Human rights abuse – Abortion.

        -“They have us bickering with each other about what the best form of slavery we should adhere to rather than actually getting a democracy.”

        Democracy = mob rule ( federalist 10) We have a Constitutional republic. But our leaders and government are to be chained by the Constitution — not us chained by our government. (which is increasingly the case)

        -“Workers owning the companies IS the solution, as in the people of the US owning the US–as opposed to the pretend people that corporations are.”

        Capitalism does not exclude employee ownership. (or profit sharing or partnerships) Maybe you also have an issue with private property, too? Our government even infringes on that.

        Like

        • I have the impression I’m being yelled at. If you want to discuss ideas, that’s fine by me. But I’m not enjoying the hostility.

          “Capitalism does not exclude employee ownership.”

          I don’t remember saying anything against capitalism. I have a “problem” with corporate capitalism. I submit that Wal-mart has driven many Mom and Pop businesses under to such an extent that people (real living people) have given up on the idea of owning their own small business. Corporations rely upon foreign slave labor and have hijacked the electoral system. Is it any wonder that nothing is getting accomplished?

          Like

          • bullright says:

            You are certainly entitled to your interpretation, but what word(s) in there conveys hostility?

            With survival of the country at stake, discussing some ideas is like window dressing in that context.

            Like

          • Davetherave says:

            Donald, “workers owning the companies IS the solution…” your words. May I assume then you are pro union? That’s workers owning the companies, because they bully the companies threatening strikes. Higher wages for union workers. Better pensions for union workers. Are you saying someone with a GED should get paid $25 a hour to put a bolt in the side of a car on the assembly line is a good thing? If you are, then WOW. That is why so many decent paying jobs have gone overseas. They can get folks to do the same work for half the money and those folks are thrilled to make that much payroll.

            Or are you opposed/for publicly held companies where the owners of stock call the shots? That is a completely different world than I wrote in my first paragraph and that is “capabilities” in its purse form. People investing money in a company to increase their net value.

            What do you define as “corporate capitalism”? I’m not trying to be hostile at all, but you’ve got me completely confused as to you definition of capitalism. Wal-Mart driving mom and pop stores out of business…so what? That is the basis of how our economy was always set up and the only employer with more employees than Wal-Mart is the GOV.

            I submit to you that capitalism is basically survival of the most fit. We do not live in a “make sure it’s fair for everyone society.” Never was set up that way to begin with. It was set up to have a “chance.” Nothing more and nothing less. Companies of all size come and go every day and that’s life whether you like it or not. Reality of capitalism…

            Like

            • bullright says, “With survival of the country at stake, discussing some ideas is like window dressing in that context.”

              I disagree with that. I think discussions between people with different life experiences and points of view is important because we each can do only a small amount–but we can do something. We aren’t helpless. It’s like that guy in Egypt who set himself on fire, and it changed the world. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m against both setting oneself on fire, and uncertain about whether all the turmoil in the Middle East is a good thing. But I think you get the point I’m aiming at.)

              Ideologically I’m not pro-union because I don’t think there should be a reason for having a union. But of course that is an ideal world–and as you mention we don’t live in one. But we can live in a better one than we have right now. I think that’s the main intent behind your post.

              You seem to be someone in favor of the Spartan way of life, while I’m more in tune with the Athenians.

              Do you happen to know who Noam Chomsky is? I really like his ideas. When I first heard them, I thought the guy was a bit off his rocker, but the more I listened to him the more I realized that even if his ideas have little chance of being accepted–they are in fact good ideas.

              Mr. Chomsky makes the point about people NOT being treated like they are machines. No matter what someone is making, that’s what is happening to them when they are putting a bolt into the sides of cars all day. It’s dehumanizing.

              Many people mention Orwell’s book 1984, but I wonder how many people have read it. I’m reading it right now, and it’s a good description of what life is like in North Korea. In a way life in the US is getting . . . well too many ideas to discuss in such a short time.

              You might find Orwell’s book “Animal Farm” interesting. I think it’s a great book. It describes what communism is and how human nature and corruption ruined a good idea. Here’s the link to a free audio version of it. It’s an excellent and insightful story–and not really all that long.

              http://archive.org/details/GeorgeOrwellsanimalFarmRadioAudio

              .

              Like

            • Davetherave says:

              No; I’m not advocating a “Spartan” style society at all. That is an apple and orange comparison I did not make. I’m not in favor of leaving babies to die in a field, because they are faults. That’s my opposite thinking actually, because I’m 100% Pro-Life. I’m simply suggesting there is no perfect system and while some will get left behind (and I do have empathy for them) we still have the best system in the world. IMO that is simply reality and no matter how much we improve our country some will still get left behind. I believe that to just be a simple fact of life.

              Could improvements be made? Certainly. No system is perfect, but I believe our founders set down a great framework to follow. I agree one person can make a huge difference and that why I’ve been on my “soapbox” for years telling the Republicans to stop bitching about the president they end up when only 5% of registered Republicans voted in the 2008 primaries. Change for the better is certainly achievable, but now with so many sitting on the sidelines watching the game.

              I have not read 1984, but I have read Atlas Shrugged and Animal Farm. The parallels between the further our current society is heading is somewhat scary how much parallels the last two mentioned books. I’m also not familiar with Noam Chomsky, but thanks for the tip and I will research him.

              There is way too much to discuss on this subject in a short time, but it appears to me you and I agree some changes need to be made to once again make our country respected and appreciated by those that live here and return to being the beacon of light for the world we once were. I personally believe the most important changes are in the political arena where control of country needs to return to the citizens of our country and politicians once again remember we are their bosses.

              As far as capitalism (sorry, but I still don’t have a clear picture of your idea of what capitalism should look like); I believe it should look exactly like it does now. I would however like to see unions knocked down to size to take away their control of companies. It’s very hard for us to be competitive in the market with the current union pay scales.

              Bull is very capable of speaking for himself, so he can address your starting comment to him.

              Like

  2. bullright says:

    To Donald,

    DM: — “I disagree with that. I think discussions between people with different life experiences and points of view is important because we each can do only a small amount–but we can do something. We aren’t helpless. ”

    Let me take sort of a progressive reply to that, it depends on what you mean by discussing ideas. I have spent a lot of time discussing ideas with what I can only presume is the left. I hate to generalize, but it has not been productive.

    Now you yourself point to the condition, lets call it, of America saying its Orwellian. Well, that sort of makes the point. In a way we are beyond discussion. The post has been moved. Some of us spent many hours discussing. In the end, they voted and now for Obama twice. It seems to me someone reached something of a verdict. I only see what we’ve been dealt.

    But I take issue that the problem is in discussion of ideas, if that is your claim. It is what we do with ideas, that really counts. There are those who believe communism is the answer not a threat. I don’t and we would reach no consensus on that. We already know that. At this point, there is not much that has not been said, discussed, or argued. Yea, I have spent a lot of time discussing. As the Bible says, everything has a season.

    There has been a “discussion” going on in this country, mostly one-sided, for fifty years. It is now a time for choosing.. (assuming we still have much of a choice left)

    Like

    • To Davetherave:

      “. . . it appears to me you and I agree some changes need to be made to once again make our country respected and appreciated by those that live here and return to being the beacon of light for the world we once were. I personally believe the most important changes are in the political arena where control of country needs to return to the citizens of our country and politicians once again remember we are their bosses.”

      We are in complete agreement on that.

      I personally have a distaste for communism. My American heritage of individualism won’t abide by that way of life. But that doesn’t mean I totally reject all of the ideas. Most systems have some good ideas in them. For instance, as we mentioned with the Spartans and Athenians, it’s clear that Socrates and Plato admired the Spartans (even if they wouldn’t want to live like them.)

      When you listen to Noam Chomsky, keep in mind that part of his job is to be Socrates. There are patriotic reasons for why he speaks out against US human rights violations. Socrates was important and so is Chomsky. What I like most about him is his encyclopedic knowledge of various ideas.

      Like

      • Davetherave says:

        Donald, without a doubt we need to have a open and honest conversation of what is gone so wrong with our once great nation and the best approach to get it back on the right track. I’ll got ahead and mention IMO Obama is NOT the best approach nor the possibility of Hillary being the next president.

        IMHO; our elected officials are now very self severing and have left We The People hung out to dry. I do not advocate or approve of any style socialism, communism or Marxism was we now see overrunning our nation and destroying it.

        My overall point is We The People still have to the power to change the direction of our nation. But; sadly way too many have fallen into the pit of living off freebies and believing our nation can provide for everyone. No country is rich enough to provide for everyone and a IMHO a program such as Obamacare is ridiculous, a train wreck waiting to happen and our nation simply can’t afford such a socialistic idea. So many European nations seem to now be realizing that same point.

        It is up to We The People to change the direction of our country, but we simply can’t get enough to participate in the process to do so. Registered Republicans refuse to vote for people like McCain and Romney due to they disagree with some of their ideas and just sit out the race. If those folks really care, then we’d see more than 5% registered Republicans voted in primaries to push forward the candidate they desire. I totally debunk this notion the RNC picks the Republican candidate (as so many bloviate about while they did nothing in the primaries to made their voice known) and then they bitch about who is on the ticket. That is completely ass backwards as far as I’m concerned.

        We will never have the perfect Republican candidate, but if a lot more registered Republicans get involved early in the process (primaries) we sure stand a better chance of getting a good candidate.

        This type dialogue is exactly what our side needs (I’m assuming you’re on the side of more conservative values as oppose to socialism, liberal values) in a polite exchange of ideas to have any chance of getting our nation back on the right track. I’m so damn sick and tired of so called conservatives arguing amongst themselves with no respect for the others opinion that is getting us no where.

        Like

    • “But I take issue that the problem is in discussion of ideas, if that is your claim. It is what we do with ideas, that really counts.”

      The thing is I only know so much. I can add to what I already know, and I can modify my ideas when I come across better ones. That’s why I find it useful (and interesting) to be a part of this discussion on your weblog. There wouldn’t be much chance of my coming across new and challenging ideas if I only had discussions with people who already agree with me. I have convictions about what’s right and wrong, but knowing more about the issues that confront us is important to me.

      Like

      • bullright says:

        Maybe I need to clarify, I simply mean that I have no intention to repeat what I have in the past done to no avail. It is not a matter of “convincing” to me. I will probably not convince you and you will not convince me. Sure I always look for the truth but discussion, as far as websites facilitating it, is over rated. Reading is enough for me; I have no need to illuminate the disagreement in some fictional back and forth with liberals — since it usually is. I don’t kid myself.

        Like

        • “Sure I always look for the truth but discussion, as far as websites facilitating it, is over rated.”

          But it’s *your* website that I’m commenting on. I have one. You can express your opinion there also. Some people just want to adhere to a particular belief system because it makes them feel superior to other people. Well, you’ll never get anywhere with folks like that. But I think there are people genuinely looking for ways to contribute to resisting the corrupting of our system of government.

          For all of what is said about communism, for instance, what the Soviet Union had really wasn’t it. “Animal Farm” at least to me isn’t just about the betrayal of that idea, it’s about the betrayal of all systems by self-interested people. We are faced with the same exact problems here in the US. As you mention, things are constantly being redefined. Sometimes that’s a normal evolution, but often it’s a perverting of the system. I keep coming back to the corporation–because I see it as not simply a threat to democracy, but something that has actually destroyed much of what democracy is all about. The artificial person that is a corporation can easily get away with murder–sometimes mass murder. No person in a true democracy would ever be able to do that. Moreover, corporations are without allegiance to any control. They’re all about money–which I’ve been told is the root of all evil.

          Like

          • bullright says:

            But behind that you still have the ever corruptible — some even incorrigible — pols doing what they do best. They are not innocent bystanders, then. Don’t they play right into the corrupt hands? Then we hear “it’s not my fault.” (its never pols fault — follow that line from Obama)… I.E. there is something wrong with Washington, but the fact he is in Washington, in the WH, is completely irrelevant. Worse yet, people fall for it, over and over.

            Like

  3. “All that seems to matter is the agenda.”

    That’s the heart of it, BR. That’s always the case with this bunch, which is why they unfailingly attribute the absolute worst motivations to those who disagree with them.

    Classic projection.

    Like

    • bullright says:

      JTR: 🙂 LOL and it often works.

      Like

    • I agree with bullright on the “it often works”, but possibly disagree with him on what it is that always works. For instance, I’ve always thought that the smartest foreign policy is one where we let our enemies fight among themselves–because then they are too busy fighting us.

      That’s what I think is going on right now–and has been for decades, domestically. If those in power can keep the population distracted by fighting each other, we won’t be placing our energies into fighting the power structure that exists.

      Like

  4. bullright says:

    First of all, Donald, you seem to pack a lot into that. Then getting to Noam Chomsky. Well, there is so much there but people tend to toss around labels a lot. I sort of resent the redefining that has gone on so long. So at issue is not only discussing ideas, naively as that sounds, but some redefining going on.

    If we are to keep changing the terms of things, and definitions, how does anyone discuss something – let alone ideas? It just comes to my idea of what you are vs. your idea of what I am. What, then, have we accomplished? This has been much of my experience. I am no fan of Chomsky, though he could have some reasonable ideas. But he also has been busy defining the landscape. I could say I lean heavily libertarian. But certainly not a Chomsky brand libertarian. I could say I’m classical liberal in the traditional sense, however I am not a classical liberal by Liberals’ terms – say Alan Colmes’ definition. Liberals have been very, very busy defining and redefining the terms.

    So no, I don’t appreciate this redefining that has been going on. If you don’t have some standards and definitions, or moral absolutes, then this is what happens. I grafted with libertarian ideals when it first gained attention in the early 70’s. But then there has been some redefining going on everywhere. I would be more the Goldwater mold, but then there are those like Chomsky who press the envelope everywhere. Libertarian, the ‘classical’ liberalism, does not have to be a fixture of the left. And there has been a loose alliance of Libertarians with conservatives. But that seems to be in question now, and some want to push it much further into the left ideology. Most libertarians I know question or oppose that. I don’t have much in common with Anarchists either – circa Seattle or OWS. And then there is the anti-Israel positions. All of which do not fit or help. So if one wants to use the term libertarian today, one has to really explain what the hell that is, they mean. And I think all this progressive redefining is not by accident. But enough of that.

    Generally, what Chomsky feels (or sees) to all forms of authority, I feel toward the political powers. But I also resent some establishment authorities. Does that align me or make me sympathetic to him? No. He is still a sort of “fellow traveler” and I am not.

    Like

  5. bullright says:

    Donald: Here is a for instance, You seemed to interpret a lack of sympathy or agreement with your views as hostility. Earlier I asked what words convey such hostility? I suspect you mean generally you deducted that from what I said.

    That is the same sentiment from the right about Obama. Generally he is a nightmare for the country, but for good reasons…. and hostile to it. Even you point to some of those. But whatever Bush did that conservatives disagreed with — and there was plenty — Obama has taken it to the stratosphere. (even by Obama’s own campaign claims, then vs. now)

    earlier –“Anyone who loved George W, should be enthralled by Obama.”

    Not so. This is why liberals and the left should disagree with Obama way more than conservatives and Republicans should like or approve of Obama. (he just manages to be ten times as offensive as Bush) This too twists logic like a pretzel. Saying Republicans should like what Obama’s doing is ludicrous, but the left should be outraged for many of the reasons you mention, and then some. Though I don’t expect it will happen. (even media will not call him out) They can be outraged but don’t project the right should love Obama.

    Like

    • Oh, well that earlier comment was just because we didn’t get a feel for how to chat with each other. I’m over it. I was probably wrong about it. But anyway, we’re good now.

      Saying that the right ought to be “enthralled” by Obama because of his ruthless foreign policy probably was a bit snarky of me. But the right seems to go in for that sort of thing–at least that’s the impression I’ve had. Maybe I’m wrong.

      But here’s a for instance, if Obama is a communist threat, why is it that NO bankers or CEOs have gone to jail for wrecking the economy. I don’t know much about Lenin I’ll admit, but I do know that when he heard of railroad conductors holding up the trains if they didn’t get a bribe, he gave orders to have the next one shot. (Interestingly, the trains began running on time again.) BUT Obama, unlike Reagan for instance, hasn’t jailed anyone. He doesn’t seem like much of a commie menace to me–more like the same, but perhaps worse. And I was someone who had high hopes for a turnaround–that didn’t come.

      Not everyone on the left (whatever that is) is pleased with Obama. Probably many are disappointed. He’s been fine as far as disaster relief and public speaches regarding national tragedies, but in every other way, he’s a disappointment to me.

      Here’s Chomsky after Obama was in for two years–

      .

      Like

      • bullright says:

        Well, so that’s the thing about it and I’d agree on the point on Lenin. What Putin does often is more correct or less “politically correct” than Obama. I’ve often noted that myself. Why could Putin get tough on the Islamists and we can’t? And Obama deserves that criticism. He’s spineless. That is not agreement w/ Obama.

        Or how about when Reagan took on and fired Air Traffic Controllers? Not the politically expedient thing to do but the right thing. But we don’t see Obama doing or even talking about doing that.. Worse yet, he does the exact opposite, he panders and encourages them — and says he’ll put on his walking shoes and march with them even as President. As I said, Chomsky is not my hero, nor is Bradley Manning or Snowden (at least in the present)

        On corporatism and cronyism, Zero is second to none.(but he has a good many of fellow allies in the congress of the same ilk) And I don’t just mean William Jefferson. Its common on the left. And they are willing to spy on thousands in the media. IRS acting as a political arm for the administration. and he sighs they themselves will investigate it, and on and on.

        Like

        • I’m disappointed in Obama, but I don’t think I want to go on a rant about it, because there’s already enough people doing that. . .

          I think Clinton was a pretty good president. Not a good man, but the economy was good and we were not at war. And when he said, “If a memo came across my desk saying, ‘al-Qaieda determined to use aircraft as weapons’, I’d have done something about it.” I believe that.

          There’s been a lot of speculation about why Bush acted as he did when he was told “Mr. president, we’re under attack.” He didn’t ask for any details. And there is (at least to me) a good reason why he didn’t–he already knew (not in terms of a conspiracy) but because Richard Clark and others had been begging him to take the threat seriously.

          Anyway, I think between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party (regardless of what one think of either of them) there is a clear indication that more than a few people are discontented with the status quo. And that’s a good, thing IMO. We shouldn’t be content.

          I think the people in power–and let’s face it, they didn’t get into power by being morons–are playing the general population off one group against another, when in fact many of the same ideas are held by both, or indeed several, groups.

          Like

          • bullright says:

            “”I’m disappointed in Obama, but I don’t think I want to go on a rant about it, because there’s already enough people doing that. . .”

            Oh come on, why wouldn’t you, on your blog and elsewhere…exercise your dissent? He’s not getting what Bush got. Maybe he should hear it in that echo chamber of his, especially from his own crowd?

            Like

      • bullright says:

        And there is another, Lyndon LaRouche, who has been harping on him for months saying the Benghazi scandal alone should force him out or impeach him. But those remarks don’t sound too whacky anymore, and one would think it would resonate with Americans, even some part of the media. They never seem to get traction and I don’t know why.

        Like

Comments...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s