Obama Takes off the Gloves

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exchanges between Friends

Herb Sorensen

Candidate Obama campaigned every day—and rightly so—against the "fiscal irresponsibility" of the Bush era. "When George Bush came into office, our national debt was around $5 trillion.  It's now over $10 trillion.  “We've almost doubled it," he complained in his second debate with Republican nominee John McCain. "We have had over the last eight years the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history."

As president, Obama tacked on another $5 trillion in debt in record time.  In every measure of basic budgetary incompetence, the last three years have dwarfed the previous eight, despite the candidate convincing a majority of voters of his superior credentials as a fiscal steward.  United States debt zoomed through the 100-percent-of-GDP threshold around Halloween, and as the Baby Boomers get ready to scoop up their old-age entitlements, there isn't even a proposed end to the budget leakage in sight. 

And it's not just the size of government, it's the scope.  Obama has given historical leeway to regulators on health care and financial reform, and (like presidents before him) is increasing his influence on executive branch enforcement at a time when his sway over the congressional branch continues to wane. All of which begs a question: If we just finished three years of a cautious and centrist Obama, what in the name of government vigour will the next 12-60 months look like?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/08/obama-takes-off-the-gloves

Ellen Townsend

The 'talk' that is circulating here in my part of California, is that Obama did his best to be bi-partisan and to demonstrate a willingness to work with compromises, so long as the vulnerable members of the population were not made to suffer more than they are.  He tried!  But, it is crystal clear that the other party is refusing his presidency, period.  (I happen to think that McCain threw his candidacy in self-sabotage. I think he didn't want  the mess!)

So now, sources say, Obama has years of presidential good will to refer back to, when challenged in the days and weeks ahead when we see the expected backbone!  You go, mann !

William Ferguson

I voted for Obama, but right now I cannot tell what kind of man he is.   My hope is that he's biding his time while swimming with the sharks, my fear is he's become a shark.  For now, I hope for the best, if for nothing else that when everyone hates you - its often a sign you're doing something right.

Herb Sorensen

The stimulus was just a bailout for State budgets.  It’s gone to pay salaries in state Governments.  It’s one of the few things that's kept California afloat.  But I agree with you, not much of it got into the non-government economy.

What he's put on the budget is nothing to what the unelected and unaccountable FED has put the citizens on the hook for - 7.7 trillion and climbing (wait till they try to bail out Europe!).

Ellen Townsend

By the time I got to this thread again, a lot had transpired between Herb and Bill.  I think Obama's first years were spent basking in the glow of his historical significance as the country's first black president.  I'm not being sarcastic; I think it took him an inordinately long time to stop with that amazingly irritating pose where he lifts his chin and looks into the distant future to catch a glimpse of Martin Luther King's "promised land."  I want to scream at him, "Stop already! Your country is suffering a meltdown!"  And, the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize only served to prolong the trance and make a conciliatory man into a political masochist.  His efforts to be bipartisan were glaringly apparent in the appointment of some of the same people from the Bush years for good or ill.  Oh, yeah, there was also the elimination of Osama bin Ladin which should have, but didn't impress the voting public for long.  So, in 2011, sounds like he has been awakened by...the Occupiers maybe?  Being the first black president, gaining world recognition as a peacemaker, and nailing Osama only gets one so far.  The mess from the Bush years was a lot more complicated than he realized; somebody convinced him of the PNAC, probably Condi Rice in private consultation.  I'm betting on this as the reason for the appearance of carrying forward the Bush policies in the Middle East.  A LOT of people are convinced of the PNAC!  So, now, today, we have a perspiring president who understands that he had better stand and deliver if he wants re-election. 

Herb Sorensen

It's not complicated.  Do NOT spend more money than you were getting 5 years ago, period.  Anything left over goes on paying off the debt created over the past 11 years - it's accelerated in the past 3 years.

Stop class warfare immediately!  It is killing the poor, and especially blacks, who have slid backward tremendously under this white president that has a bit of black blood. Idiocy is not color related, so far as I know.

Cut taxes of every variety and stop threatening the people who are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash - they are not going to spend it as long as they may need it to defend themselves, business-wise.  Threaten them and they will move it to other, more friendly countries.

Shut down and shrink entire regulatory agencies.  Stop spending the people's money to prop up failed businesses, no matter how big.  The bigger they are when they fail, the more prosperous the non-idiots will be picking up the pieces.  The role of government in business should be like the role of a referee in a game with clearly defined rules.  Any ref caught trying to move the ball should be shot!  Business is tough enough for people risking their own money.  It is outrageous to let anyone in government use the people's money, pretending to "help" by picking winners or keeping people from losing.  BTW, Obama is Bush on steroids when it comes to crony capitalism.  What in hell did anyone expect with a Chicago front man?  How many Illinois governors have gone to prison? Senators?  Representatives?  You have got to be kidding!!!

Six Republicans debated this evening.  Any one of the six would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

Wendell Krossa

Without trying to oversimplify complex situations, varied commentators present the basic issues in the following way- the Left is concerned with what they term fairness in the distribution of a society’s wealth.  Right leaning people refer to this in terms of redistribution.  The Right appears more concerned with protecting the golden goose that lays the eggs, protecting the ability of the wealthy to generate wealth that all depend on (wealthy including small business owners and on up according to Obama’s definition- anyone earning over $200,000).  To protect the ability of wealth generators to produce more wealth it is important to reduce regulation, reduce taxation- to get government out of the way.

Now Bernstein (The Birth of Plenty) tried to delineate the golden mean between redistribution and protecting wealth generators, and offered this in terms of government size in relation to GDP (20% or 30% 0r 40% or whatever).  Too low and there is social unrest as the left feels there is too little redistribution.  Too much and you crush the wealth creators ability to create wealth. What is the golden mean?

The Left in Europe pushed redistribution too far and crushed the wealth creators ability to create enough wealth and now numerous states face collapse and social unrest.

Henry Hasse

I am sorry, Wendell, but I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of a “golden mean between redistribution and protecting wealth generators.” I think it’s because I see “redistribution” as theft, something entirely different than say, taxing to fund public works, or funding the armed forces. I see the Left’s thinking not as “fairness,” but as stealing what I have worked for to supposedly give it to those who do not care to work for it.  And as to a % of whatever, the Left seems to never be satisfied and always wants more.  The Right should have learned that lesson long ago through their attempts to compromise.  This stuff has gone wild ever since FDR (before too, but especially since FDR), and has to be turned around.  Taking care of those who are truly needy is another matter, and one has to wonder whether a typical government can actually do that efficiently.  I have my doubts.  Both promises of Social Security and Medicare have not been kept.  And now a National Health Care on top of them?  We live in self-deception if we think all this will turn out OK.  The Left complains about the opposition always saying “No!” or wanting to reverse “progress.”  So what?  Going into debt head over heels is not progress by any stretch.  I had to learn this the hard way and now I expect the Left to learn it the hard way.  At least I hope they do if they have any sense at all.  It’s really hard for me to see things getting better with the Left in control of government.  It’s not a whole lot better when the “progressive” Right is in control either.

Herb Sorensen

I'm in complete agreement.  Now let me say why I think "redistributionists" consider it a matter of "fairness," rather than the frank thievery and robbery that it is.  Just like the whole Leftist world conspiring to present Obama as a centrist, they don't think of as "lying", but simply a necessary compensation for the ignorant boobs that don't appreciate their own magnanimity.

The reason they think it is "fair," is because they are absolutely mentally and morally committed to the fixed pie.  That is, there is only so much of anything, so if you have more than me, I must not be getting my fair share.  In fact, the only way you can have more than me is by taking some of my share.  They do not believe that humans can actually "create" anything, they only consume.  They don't believe that there is enough stone in West Virginia to build a mansion for every man woman and child in America - all that is missing is the energy, vision and a creator/builder/developer to do it.  As long as there is unemployment, there is plenty of muscle and brain - just no vision coupled with willful intent.

This is not a trivial matter.  It's no accident that America, the richest nation on earth, has the greatest number of Nobel prizes, number of patents, number of Steve Jobs/Bill Gates/and a whole lot more.  If we can get the ignorant, poverty minded out of leadership positions in government, we will be great again in a New York minute.

It's very frustrating dealing with people who do not understand creativity, and do all in their power to foul up its operation.  Peak oilers are guilty of an assault on the human race.  There is no way to treat this as just a parlor game of thrust and parry opinions.  In fact, if you read that Atlantic article on China and Walmart that I circulated, in the last paragraph there is the standard Leftist lament that all this provision for exploding prosperity will be just more than the world can bear.  Unfortunately, they drummed this crap into the younger generations for so many years that there is a serious cabal of losers in the world.  But try as they might, we're still producing crops of super-performers and super-achievers.  Now if we can just keep them from redistributing the country into abject poverty.