Leave it to Chelsea and Planned Parenthood

Really leave it to Chelsea to make a case for the economics of Roe, well, if economics is not really your thing anyway.

Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade:

By Charles C. W. Cooke | National Review

“Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this.

“It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?

“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.”

“So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
Comments

“Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.”

The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.

And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/

She’s a monster, trust me on this one!

Frankly, I don’t see the need to even argue with her economics, vacuous as they are. What we have been saying for a long time is this is their type of economics — merging morality with failed economic policies, in the wrong way. They called Reagan era voodoo economics? This is actually what they have tried to drive the Roe debate on since concocting it. Yes, it was stood up on a right pulled from thin air, but they have tried to feature it as an economic need. So that does not surprise me. Stay tuned here though.

Every little twisted lie Leftists try to sell is under a guise of economics. Not so much to the other side, but to their own base. They don’t like economics really, but they do have an affinity for faulty economic arguments. And leftists believe those are bulletproof. (as can be anyway) After all, they have been selling class warfare, surf and turf socialism, and wage issues for how long? Illegal immigration too. There is usually an economic tie and lie somewhere. Redistribution abuses economics, it doesn’t use them.

If economics were really a winning combination with Roe’s success, then it doesn’t add up or should not follow that their party would be on the verge of insolvency, and the socialist schemes would be in the sewer, having murdered 60.65 million babies since Roe’s inception. You’d think it would be sunshine, lollipops and rainbows if it were winning economics. It would be paying dividends to Democrats in spades, no? Funny how the party enshrined in supporting abortion on demand would be flirting with bankruptcy, in more than the fiscal way. Sort of dark irony in that. But they will use any means available to cloud or ignore the morality of it. When swearing on the alter of abortion became the litmus test, there was no visible conscience left. What else was left but economics?

But maybe I could be off target somewhere.

New American System

A troubling thought:

“Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.”

Obamism and Neo-fascist America

By Steve McCann – August 10, 2015 | American Thinker

The philosophical foundation of the American Left and the Democratic Party is a proprietary hybrid of Fascism. While in lockstep with the economic and political tenets of Fascism, the unique feature of the current American iteration is anti-nationalism as reflected in the belief that the United States is the locus of malevolence in the world as compared to militant nationalism of Italy and Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.

The concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American Left since Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR that initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the Government the final arbiter in labor issues. The National Recovery Act governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce and the Agricultural Adjustment Act which introduced central planning to agriculture. It is generally acknowledged today that this approach by Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by another five years. (Jonah Goldberg’s masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the fascist roots of today’s liberalism.)

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Left, while nominally in favor of Marxism, had as their foundational tenets narcissism and rampant anti-Americanism. However, as the societal and economic seeds of Fascism were already planted and generally accepted by a sizable segment of the populace, it was a short logical leap, therefore, to become proponents of the economic and political precepts of Marxism’s closest cousin. […/]

Continue reading>

Once again, remember the top quote, from the closing of the article:

Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.

This was published before Democrats first debate, which was more less a coming out party for the new American system. The emphasis was about socialism, but in the background is all this ideological baggage that goes with and into such a system.

As the article suggests, Obama has gone a long way in instituting — beyond setting the foundations for — this toxic system. And a key component of all his efforts was to make each element hard to rip out at its roots. We see how hard it’s been trying to weed out ObamaCare, which is only one of the things he planted. The EPA regs, the Iran deal, illegals and his executive amnesty are just a few more. Throw sanctuary cities on top.

Of course we talk about getting rid of them but have yet to do it. Plus Obama is not through yet. Even one or two are troubling, but combined together they all have an even greater effect. (one on one they make up the fabric of the greater whole) Add to it his social justice component which is just another economic tool. We were in trouble as a country before but now with what he has done, what are the odds that we can undo it all?

Same old socialism… different year

  

Sandy or Frankenstorm…. maybe a big storm but probably pales next to the one brewing in DC for Obama’s 2nd Occupation.

This election harckens back to Goldwater’s root ideas. The same mentality is in place with the left only on an even larger scale. Here was an article I had that was posted on Pepperhawk farm’s blog. It really is worth remembering how the left sees everything.

And it is interesting now, after the election, how the left defines what Obama’s reelection apparently means. He may have won but he doesn’t get to redefine and interpretate what it means to us. He outslicked a lot of people but behind it all they are still the same old stale Marxist ideas.

You know, the ones he really wouldn’t talk about. Instead he used words like “an economy built to last;  fair shot;  level playing field;  you didn’t build that; spread the wealth around.”
 
See article from earlier this year for some background

http://pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/who-is-right-tea-parties-or-occupiers-by-privatebullright-contributor/

The road to serfdom is paved with Obama’s golden tongue, built on old ideas that enslaved people for years — not on good intentions. And no, Obama “didn’t build that” either. He didn’t build anything; he’s just marketing old ideas. He’s perfecting that, as they project the “old ideas” mantra onto their opponents.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
While they will be talking about his win and what it means, what is lost is the truth.

I saw a new book. A Catholic who was involved with the left decades ago, and came through research in economics to see ties between theology and free markets, in the affects on people.

Defending the free market: the moral case for a free economy

by (Fr) Rev. Robert Sirico

From the book preview: (Laissez Faire Club)

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Democrats in Congress and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to President Obama and his allies, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society.
(link to find book )

Rarely are you ever going to hear anything positive about the economy or markets from the left. They do make the argument for control for those reasons. This makes the “moral” case for the free market.

But I noticed, as Goldwater showed decades ago, that it is curious how the left despises economics yet bases so much of its politics on economics. (class warfare et al) And seems to seethe with resentment toward economics through their politics.

I almost want to label it all “political economics” (politiconomics) after hearing what Goldwater and others have to say about it, and on my own observations. I don’t know the accuracy of that term but it works for me. They despise it as a threat when it holds so many of the answers to the problems they claim to be concerned about. Though in reality their objective is control. The problem is not economics or the markets, but their need to control it.If Sirico makes the moral case for free markets, then what is liberals’ case for control?

I think we certainly need to hear the “moral case” for anything right now.

It is the same old socialism just dressed a little different, with a different spokesman. The same socialism ideas that brought us Reagan and his “A Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, or A Time for Choosing. He carried the torch. Reagan talked about the Shining City, but these days the beacon is growing dimmer not brighter. (and its not for lack of green energy)

Economic Stupidity

 

The old “its the economy, stupid” line is relevant now. But I think there is another way to look at it. I think the line could be tweaked to “It’s the economics, stupid“. Bad economics don’t work and they don’t help the economy..

The economics of big spending don’t work. It is not just the economy, its the entire bad economics they use. Saying “it’s the economy” doesn’t do it justice. They’d like to try to fix the economy by applying bad economics. What once was a theme and the major problem is not the same today. The economy is just one part of the whole problem. Today its so much more than the economy.

Dems will say they want to get the debt under control, but by spending more money. According to Obama and Krugman & company, the problem is we didn’t spend enough money. Besides, votes are expensive too.

‘No budget – no worry.’ If they are looking for a new slogan, that one would work today. On top of that, people are asking questions and looking for the jobs and recovery this guy promised, with all his freewheeling spending plans. Heaven knows he’s spent enough. Explain that they can’t. How can you make the guy who is out of work feel a little better so he’ll vote for you? That is their quandary. The prescription is Joe Biden.

So instead of dealing with the economics, we get Biden reducing it to a nice bumper sticker, telling people:

“We are better off… You want to know whether we’re better off?” Biden said to a cheering crowd of about 3,500 people in downtown Detroit. “I’ve got a little bumper sticker for you: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” – cbs news

That bumper sticker also reveals their entire strategy for 2012. We’re supposed to think that GM is the economy, or that their failed economics work. Those two things were to assure his reelection. We hear from accounts of the bin Laden raid that was part of the politics of the bin Laden decision — or indecision at times. Then they wasted no time rolling out the White House account. So what if details differ with it? We knew that behind the decisions or schemes of this prez was always his reelection strategy. And now its the bumper sticker for his campaign, surprise.

Joe Biden and Barack Obama are better off today, not the average family that has lost net worth and income.

Then Joe went further to distract from the truth. He set his laser to attack mode as only Joe can.

Of Romney and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, he said, “They don’t believe in your very right to bargain. … They view you, the working men and women of America, as the problem. You’re the solution in America.”

Let me get this straight Romney and Ryan (and the whole GOP for the sake of argument) believe “working men and women of America” are the problem? I thought Obama was the master of the straw man. But then that is his answer to the problems, more specious reasoning and bad economics. Romney wants to reduce the burdens on people and the middle class and he’s against working men and women? Old Joe can’t see or admit the problem unions dug us into, but that is “working men and women of America” to Biden.

Here’s their secret formula: 1 part blame worked into a lather and spread around generously, 1 part specious reasoning, and 2 parts bad enconomics = the solution. They sometimes alter the recipe but that’s the basic one.

All we get from Obama and his minions is the blame game. As if fixing blame on anyone else corrects the problem. The only critical thing is they don’t blame him. A CEO has to be accountable for the company under them but not the president. More dangerous ideology from the grand masters of demagoguery.

And if people really believe the politics and the party is about them, they are the big losers.

Ref atricle: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57505234-503544/biden-we-are-better-off-bin-laden-is-dead-and-general-motors-is-alive/?