Translating Obama's press conference

Obama was asked what he thinks about the majority of Americans polled who don't want to raise the debt limit. Obama said there is a difference between professional politicians and average Americans who are busy worrying about other things. Obama said that the professional politician should know better, and the politicians who are listening to the public and representing their wishes are irresponsible. Obama should know, I guess, since he voted against raising the debt ceiling when in the senate. Listen to what Obama said, and you will understand my translation.

Obama also said he wants to make long term plans to deal with the debt so that he can spend more money short term -- then he said the infrastructure project wouldn't only be for a year or two but for many years. He's talking about trillions in new spending.

Update on Monday, July 11, 2011 at 12:17PM by M. Farmer

Obama also said that his recommended revenue enhancers aimed at those who can afford it, job creators, will not go into effect until 2013 and after. So, Obama is saying these tax hikes will not hurt job creators now because the taxes won't take effect for two years -- so, the companies hire someone now, and then in two years the companies' expenses go up, so what then? Do they fire the extra workers they took on after two years of employment? Does Obama think businesses make plans for a year at a time?

Morning Joe 6/27/2011 -- Taxes and spending cuts

On Morning Joe today there was discussion regarding the staged stalemete between Republicans and Democrats regarding disagreement over spending cuts and tax hikes. Joe Scarborough focused on a statement made by Mitch McConnell -- McConnell stated over the weekend that Democrats couldn't get tax cuts passed when they had a majority in both houses. Scarborough stated that Democrats don't want to raise taxes in this economy -- they just want to use this issue to bash Republicans and to avoid an agreement to cut spending. Most Democrats are actually calling for more spending to "create jobs", so they don't want to be hamstrung by balanced budget agreements or any restrictions on spending.

The question is how much would the Republicans cut if they had the power? Would a congress controlled by Republicans cut entire government programs? We need radical change, but neither party can even agree on short term fixes at this point. Andrew Ross Sorkin and Harold Ford were on and they called for bipartisan compromise and pragmatic legislation to solve problems. What this means is for Republicans to stop insisting on spending cuts, raise the debt limit and continue to spend money on "investment". Joe S. has even favored "investment" like infrastructure and improving the education system. The problem is that this has been tried, and money goes down a black hole that somehow favors those with good government connections, but never accomplishes the stated goals. Our government is obviously incapable of creating jobs, improving education or innovating in the field of green energy -- our government is obviously incapable of creating change in the Mideast. So why are we still calling for more waste in these areas, and why is the public allowing politicians to distribute counterfeit money to cronies, while the public winds up paying the higher prices caused by the new inflation of the money supply?

China's amazing growth

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chinas-real-estate-bubble-and-its-victims/2011/06/08/AGJa5caH_story.html

Last week I commented sceptically on a Morning Joe segment in which Jeffrey Sachs and Joe Scarborough praised China's infrastructure development and ability to get Big Things done. The above WaPo article confirms my scepticism.

Morning Joe 6/17/2011 -- socialism,statism, pragmatism

Morning Joe was interesting today, especially as the conversations revealed our confused political ideas. Early in the program, Joe S. blasted Newt Gingrich for criticizing Obama as having a secular, European, socialist mindset. Gingrich must have really screwed over Joe S. when they were in congress together, because Joe S. becomes enraged when responding to Gingrich. Gingrich is basically right that Obama has a socialist mindset not unlike the socialist mindset in Europe, which is now exposed in the problems of Greece, Spain, Britain, Portugal and Ireland. Joe S. brought up the fact that Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts as evidence that Gingrich is hyperbolic and off track when it comes to Obama's political philosophy. I don't want to go into the history of socialism and how it's morphed into progressivism in America, but I'm sure that's what Gingrich is referring to, and the fact that Obama gave into political pressures regarding taxes doesn't negate what he's done with healthcare, and what he would do if he could with energy and education and unions and finance, etc. If Obama was allowed to implement his plans without resistance, we'd see a much more socialized America suffering even greater under the thumb of statism.

Words like "socialism" and "statism" are not meant to demonize, but to describe and make distinctions. If Joe S. wants to defend Obama's statist, progressive agenda, then he should do so, but it's disingenuous to pretend that Obama isn't socialist-minded, as socialism has manifested in America, influenced by European socialism.

The irony is that the rest of the program, with Jeffrey Sachs as guest, was about how statism and American-style socialism have created the serious problems now threatening America with financial collapse. They didn't blame "socialism" and "statism", but they described the consequences of our statist system. To add more irony -- their solution is more statism. I see statism and socialism as closely related -- socialism devolved into the State centrally managing the economy and society though technocratic engineering. It's really an odd mixture of fascism and socialism, although Mises said they are basically the same, and, now, odd couples like Sachs and Scarborough, progressives and moderates, are promoting China as the example of a modern government we should follow to do great things in the form of strong State Marketism. It's all statism/socialism. China simply hasn't heard from its people yet.

Sachs just returned from China and he was glowing -- oh, the airports, the shiny new buildings, the fast trains, the swiftness in which the State gets big things done -- it's just wonderful. Never mind that it's a dictatorship, and that most of the people live in poverty and oppression, and that they are now experiencing inflation. Never mind that Sachs and Scarborough sound like American intellectuals in the early and mid 20th century praising the Soviet Union as the State of the future.

Sachs and Scarborough acknowledged that China can get things done because they can make it happen by force, but they said we can do the same thing through "leadership" without violating rights. In other words, if we only had the right, intelligent, wise technocrats in government, they could lead the nation to accept the correct central plans and social engineering that will enable us to compete with China. This is what statists on the Right and Left have been saying for decades -- if only we had the right, wise, benevolent technocrats in power, we could do big things and solve our problems -- full employment with high wages, social justice, a clean earth, peace and puppies.

Later, Mark Warner came on and talked about the Gang of 5 plan to lower tax rates and close all loop holes. Sachs said this is ludicrous, that we need to take the money we need from wealthy corporations, not lower tax rates. I understand Sachs' disgust with corporatism, but he never puts the blame where it belongs -- statism. Statism has to have corporate cronies to survive -- it's the Merchant State rigged game that's the problem, not business in general, and certainly not wealth creation. Sachs could be a good libertarian if he could ever realize that statism will fail over and over, no matter how wise and benevolent the technocrats or how solid their plans, and our best chance for success and prosperity for all is through a free market with a limited government to protect our rights.

Infrastructure and green energy madness

I've said what I have to say on education -- government has practically destroyed it in many areas across the country. Obama and the Democrats are pushing for not only more spending on education, but infrastructure spending and subsidizing green energy projects. This is only more Keyensian stimulus, after the failure of the last couple of stimulus fiascos. This is true economic madness.

Whatever it takes, the Republicans and the public must resist this type of intervention and spending. It has to stop. If Obama wins in 2012, I have little hope for our country.