Posted on 09/04/2011 6:34:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
There is absolutely nothing wrong with President Obama’s big-government economic policies. We simply need more of them, and more time for them to work – or so the President and many academicians would have us believe.
It’s interesting to watch Barack Obama run for re-election against his own track record. When he became President in January of 2009 he promised to “fundamentally transform” America, and in terms of our nation’s economic policies he has certainly achieved this objective.
But after almost three years of “transforming”- which has involved putting healthcare under government control, a government take-over of two car companies, huge expansions in government control over banking and lending institutions, hundreds of millions of dollars spent to create “green jobs,” and a roughly 30% increase in government spending overall – nobody seems happy with the results (not even the President himself). In light of the history-making “zero job growth” month of August, things are perceived as being so bad that many Americans who once believed the President’s promises about job creation and free healthcare are now wondering if – maybe – our government needs to try a different approach.
This doesn’t seem to deter President Obama, or many of his ideological soul mates. At the White House, as in many universities, it is simply understood that private individuals and organizations only do reckless and self-serving things with wealth. And it is equally understood that when super smart politicians and government bureaucrats control greater portions of the nation’s wealth – with more taxation, more government spending, and more government regulations – well, those super smart politicians always produce great results for everybody.
Thus, despite the growing discontent among us everyday folks, the President is vowing more big-government programs, while highly educated intellectuals at universities and think tanks keep thinking of more big-government “ideas.” We’ll get to some of President Obama’s plans in a moment. But first, consider this idea from Yale graduate Daniel Hamermesh, Ph.D., currently an Economics Professor at University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Hamermesh has proposed special legal protections for “ugly people” in the workplace. Yes, he calls them “ugly” rather than homely, and he argues that “being ugly” is a disability that should be protected under the “American’s With Disabilities Act.”
Good looking people have all the advantages in this economy, Dr. Hamermesh suggests, and “for purposes of administering a law,” he reasons that “we surely could agree on who is truly ugly, perhaps the worst-looking 1 or 2 percent of the population.” “Affirmative Action for ugly people” (another term he uses) would likely create lots of opportunities for employment law Attorneys, but it is difficult to imagine that this would incentivize businesses (other than law firms) to begin hiring again.
Then there’s one of my favorites – the “Spread The Jobs Around” agenda from University of Michigan alumnus Dean Baker, Ph.D. As head of the left-wing Center For Economic And Policy Research in Washington, D.C., Dr. Baker has proposed that businesses be “encouraged” (read “mandated”) to stop laying-off workers, and instead be “encouraged” to cutback fulltime workers’ hours and wages so as to “share” the work and wages with everybody, and keep people on payrolls.
“Spread the Jobs Around” probably looks great on paper at Dr. Baker’s office, and it sure seems like a super-smart guy’s clever way of preventing the unemployment rate from going higher (something Obama desperately needs). But if business owners are further restricted (government already places enormous constraints on hiring and firing practices) from hiring and firing whomever they need to in order to be profitable, businesses will have even more reasons to NOT hire new workers.
As for President Obama himself (by the way, his degree title is “J.D.” in case you’re interested), he recently established a new division of our federal government whose agenda looks like the mission statement of a college “diversity” office. By Executive Order, the President has created “The White House Office of Diversity And Inclusion.”
Exactly what this “office” will attempt to do to business owners is unclear (and the lack of clarity from the government is yet another one of those things that creates uncertainty in the economy and inhibits job growth – but I digress), yet its’ stated agenda reads as follows: “Eliminate demographic group imbalances in targeted occupations and improve workforce diversity. To attain this, special initiatives have been created targeting specific groups, including Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, women and gays and lesbians.” In short, the President has a problem with some of his key supporters – Black and Hispanic people in particular: the unemployment rates among these groups are in some regions topping 30%. The goal of the “Diversity and Inclusion” office would appear to be to threaten and coerce businesses into hiring more workers from these “minority” categories, so as to enhance President Obama’s chances for re-election.
We’ll know more of what the President intends to do about “jobs” after his upcoming speech. But we can be assured of this right now: Barack Obama will seek more control of the economy as a means of “fixing” it.
Yep, BHO has transformed the US from hopeful to hopeless.
The Soviets gave Marxism-Leninism sixty years to “work” - and then gave up.
How long are the American people expected to wait?
We need different names for different degrees.
There is absolutely no comparison between a PhD in physics, math, or engineering and a PhD in economics, education, or political “science”.
And those loons are ruining the title.
That is undeniable
We could ask, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"
Or we could ask, "Do you like the New America? Is the transformation working for you?"
He has certainly moved fast,
I believe that the reason he moved so fast was the belief that other Socialist Presidents failed because they moved too slow.
I sure hope the next wacko President doesn’t double down and try to enact this kind of crap within 3 months of taking office. I don’t think we will survive it.
Yup, typical Keynesian economic response to failure. . . we didn't spend enough, that's why it didn't work. However, "enough" is never defined and is always a moving target. A trillion dollars didn't work because we didn't spend 2 trillion. Two trillion didn't work, etc.
This is exactly how they argue "Man Made Global Warming". No matter what the weather conditions are at the time, it is always proof positive for its existence. Too hot. . . GW, Too cold . . GW . . just right . . GW.
Not necessarily, the Ph.D.’s in the hard sciences use “science”, “technology”, the “scientific method”, “proof in the laboratory,” and other such terms to justify their own “science,” which is also often politically-driven in order to get liberal government grants. I understand a person can’t get a master’s degree as well as a Ph.D. in biology if he disbelieves in “evolution,” which they no longer consider “just” a theory but essential to the total understanding of biology. Government has corrupted all fields of knowledge with the carrot of popular “grants.”
2or 3 % ? I think he'd need at least 5% to get what he wants.
Utopia never fails.
Zero could pull his chestnuts out of the fire by proposing a flat tax with no exemptions, but he’ll never do it. He truly believes the rich should pay more because it’s “fair.”
--------------------------
LOL!
He'll lie about the economy and the Tea Party. That's all he's got.
What shocks me is how few people see how exactly 2008 copied 1929. Our experts say the same things they did then; the only difference is that the Democrat got elected right then instead of three years later. People ought to remember this, either from their own memories, or from older family members.
But because it worked last time, the Democrats are STILL blaming the Republicans!!! And the Republican are letting them get away with it!!! America couldn’t spend itself into prosperity then, and it can’t now.
Guess we’ll have to have a major war to ‘recover.’
I wouldn't be surprised to see that tactic again - “let's paint the conservative as a moderate so all the conservatives stay home.”
BHO didn't appoint himself to the job - he had alot conservatives that were too proud to get out and vote for the lesser of two evils and the result was that they voted for BHO in the end by not showing up.
How many people use rude rhetoric to describe convserative candidates rather than principled arguments ? I hear alot of that on talk radio.... I wonder how many Mike Savage fans stayed home.... (and I like Dr. Savage).
Yes, but lets not forget that Hitler didn’t do it in 8 years.
What he need to do was set the country on a path where it would reach critical mass.
That is what Obama is trying to do....make everything collapse quickly enough so he can move in with massive government controls to save everyone one.
He is trying to make it a decision of liberty vs food.
You are exactly right and the same thing happened in the 2006 election and we know what that result was
“There is absolutely no comparison between a PhD in physics, math, or engineering and a PhD in economics, education, or political “science”.”
I have to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.