Financial Collapse is more Correct
BTW, when GDP / M2 drops < 1 it is game over for Capitalism
Posted on 12/09/2012 7:21:28 AM PST by Kaslin
“Mah fellow Americans, inflayshun is ow-uh friend…”
If you can pronounce the phonetic wording above – and if it sounds vaguely familiar – then for better or worse you probably grew up watching “Saturday Night Live” like I did. The line comes from a late 1970’s skit wherein funny guy Dan Aykroyd was impersonating President Jimmy Carter.
During his one term as President, Carter addressed the nation numerous times to try and quell people’s fears about inflation, the economic malady that defined the era. During those years, Carter announced several anti-inflation policy measures. He urged Americans to “tighten their belts” and consume less, in an effort to decrease the demand for goods and services and, therefore, to get prices to decline (consumption, by the way, was actually quite stagnant even as prices rose – hence the problem of “stagflation”). And as he got closer to his re-election date he looked increasingly anxious, as though he was trying to convince Americans that he was doing as well as any President could.
In the midst of this, “Saturday Night Live” delivered the definitive presidential satire. With his impeccable imitation of the President’s “southern gentlemen” accent, Aykroyd – as President Carter – addressed the nation one fine Saturday night and told Americans that “our economy is screwed, blued, and tattooed,” but noted that we could stop fighting the battle against inflation- because “inflation is our friend.”
Aykroyd was hilarious because his character’s statements were absurd - no adult in their right mind and certainly no U.S. President would “embrace inflation” or regard it as a “friend.” President Carter was desperately trying to assure us that he was ending inflation, and Aykroyd’s routine illustrated just how desperately the President was trying to remain in our good favor.
But that was in the 1970’s. Today, just three weeks away from 2013, there is reason to believe that our President and his Administration – and perhaps his party, as a whole – is “embracing” recession, as though it is an appropriate means to a necessary end.
Ron Scherer, Staff Writer at the Christian Science Monitor, was one of the first to catch-on. He noted in a November 30th news story that in the midst of the “fiscal cliff” tax rate negotiations, President Obama had begun to speak on the campaign trail about another $255 billion stimulus package. Scherer surmised that the President was proposing more stimulus spending as a means of “offsetting” the impact of his own proposed tax hikes.
But what, precisely, would need to be “offset,” if President Obama’s agenda prevails? He just completed a successful re-election campaign claiming that raising taxes on “rich people” would be good for the economy, yet it now appears that he wants more stimulus spending as a means of saving our economy from his own economic policies. This would seem to be, at the very least, a tacit admission from the President that raising taxes on individual people – even those awful “rich people” among us – does, indeed cause a slowdown in economic activity, and may very well bring about a recession.
Shortly after the President began his new stimulus push, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate) Howard Dean made some extraordinary remarks of his own about the economy. In an interview at MSNBC, Dean stated that he wants the across-the-board income tax increases entailed in the “fiscal cliff” scenario, and welcomed the resulting outcome. “Will it cause a problem?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful.” Yet despite the “painful recession” that will ensue, Dean expressed exuberance for the higher tax rates and the cuts in military spending that will result as well.
In a recession, individuals and families often lose. They often lose jobs, careers, and homes, and sometimes families are torn apart. Governments that truly prioritize the wellbeing of the citizenry, usually try to avoid recessions - for these, and other reasons.
But when governmental leaders prioritize their own power and agenda over and above the wellbeing of the citizens they serve, a “painful recession” is an acceptable means to an end. You and I may lose our home or job in an upcoming Obama recession, but that is of little concern. The President and his party have made it clear that their goal is to control more private wealth, spend that wealth as they see fit, and make the citizenry more dependent on government services.
When I was a kid, it was laughable to think that even the inept President Jimmy Carter was regarding inflation as “our friend.” Today, all Americans should be sobered by the reality that our President may be quite intentionally sending us in to recession, as an acceptable means of accomplishing his objectives.
More people need to see: Obama is not stupid and inept; he is deliberate, and he is successful.
yes
Most who voted for Obama in 2012 don’t care, as long as they get theirs.
BTW, when GDP / M2 drops < 1 it is game over for Capitalism
Well, that was what Rush was telling us in January, 2009. That is also the message of” 2016,” the documentary. He believes in a much less powerful America, an American Sweden but of course one without the sturdy Swedish common identity.
Fiscal cliff? What a cartoonish concept. It evokes some silly scenario where all will be saved at the last minute when yet another deal averts the whole Obama clown parade with their tattered “Its all Bush’s fault” banners from tumbling into the abyss. Well it ain’t that simple. Sixteen trillion in Federal debt growing by 3-4 billion per day as deficit spending continues, trillions more in state and municipal debts, huge unfunded entitlements, wholesale dollar printing and worse of all a bizarre anti capitalist EPA spewing daily regulations that kill entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. Obama has America in a very bad state. Too sad to be sarcastic.
Is America Headed Into An Intentional Recession?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama is a fascist bent on the destruction of free America. Its quite simple.
Everyone should brief themselves by reading here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
The nation is daydreaming and under the bludgeon of a continuous media campaign waged by the left ( Media, Politicians, progressives, educators , unions.) There is a disconnect from even the budgetary necessaities of government and its spending and borrowing.
The signal that Obama intends to destroy America is in his
insistance to have a unilateral unconstitutional control over the debt ceiling.Obama wants absolute appropriation power and complete authority over the power of the purse, a power relegated to Congress by the Constitution.
If we are to win, the GOP must now invest in and wage a counter propaganda campaign, and attack Obama for his ideology, and empower the conserbvative base of the GOP. Boehner is doing the opposite by conducting a silent purge of conservatives in the Senate and the House committees.He does so to secure his position as Speaker. The rumble is beginning and Boehner needs to leave and let a strong leader emerge.Jim DeMint’s exit is a sign which portends
horrible future suffering in America.
Obama is the enemy of The People, pushing them to make decisions based on emotion rather than the most fundamental logic.
Opps, double tap...
Why is sucking money out of the private economy by cutting spending recessionary, but sucking money out of the private economy by government borrowing stimulative?
“Mah fellow Americans, inflayshun is ow-uh friend…”
FDR actually had MGM produce a propaganda film that made precisely that assertion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUvm9UgJBtg
It is a False Dichotomy
This why the GDP/Worth/Debt graphs are foreboding
Sorry, but Slick tops this list.
At least Obama got Bin Laden when he had the chance, something Clinton didn't do even though he could have with much less risk. Clinton's only saving grace was coming into office after the Cold War ended and being in office when the tech boom occurred. With a compliant MSM to give him credit for all of the jobs created by the tech boom and to keep our attention off of the numerous attacks from Bin Laden that occurred during his Presidency, he got to leave office with the legacy of "the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years" while punting the WOT and its cost to the next administration.
Take away the tech boom, add the cost of either the Cold War or the WOT, and Clintonomics doesn't look much better than Obamanomics.
It’s sad that Rush is not getting his wish, which is my wish as well, that Obama would fail.
No...I want a Democrat to explain that false dichotomy to me.
The longer they delay the inevitable,
the worse the crash will be...
When this thing goes,
Those who cannot fundamentally support themselves will Die
The Cities will be Death Traps
To be more precise, as long as they get “yours”.
People will buy things they normally wouldn’t buy if they had to use their own money.
You see it every day in the grocery store.
People on the govt dole buying what people that provide their own way don’t buy.
That’s one reason food prices are skyrocketing.
If it hadn't been for the Fed buying U.S. debt, the stimulus in '09, and all of the other government spending, GDP would be negative.
In other words, we (the private sector) never got out of the 2007-08 recession.
So, as proved once again, you can't spend your way out of a recession, or debt.
Speaking of debt, the brain trust in DC forgot the first rule of holes, among other things.
5.56mm
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.