Obama said limited government and economic freedom don't work

It was about a year ago in Kansas that Obama gave his speech claiming that free market principles have never worked. Is there any wonder that our economy is stalled with a President in power who ridicules limited government and economic freedom? Obama characterized limited government and economic freedom as rugged individuals claiming that markets can do everything, just lower taxes, especially on the rich, and remove regulations and let her rip. Obama told his audience that this simple theory is appealing, but the only thing wrong with it is it doesn't work. It didn't work before FDR and it's never worked, Obama defiantly proclaimed.

Americans have to decide if we believe in limited government and economic freedom or not. There really is no choice in 2012 if you are someone who believes that government shouldn't intervene in the economy, because a vote for Obama is a vote for more intervention. Businesses of all sizes have let it be known that they aren't hiring and expanding because they don't know what's coming next from government nor do they know how much it will cost. The Left has tried to refute this by saying that there's no evidence government interventions have stalled the economy. The Left says the problem is demand, and that government must do more to stiimulate demand. Obama has poured billions upon billions of taxpayers' dollars into the economy to stimulate demand, and it hasn't worked. It has made the problem worse by increasing the debt. This is the same analysis of FDR's interventions by revisionist economic historians -- FDR's interventions prolonged the depression causing suffering to last a lot longer than it should have lasted. Japan's interventions into its big recession caused the recession to linger for more than a decade.

The choice regarding the economy in 2012 is between statist intervention in the economy or economic freedom. Which do you trust?

Up with Chris Hayes 12/12/2011 -- Who's really in control?

On Up with Chris Hayes this morning, the guests were Buddy Roemer, Esther Armah, Victoria Defrancesco Soto and Ben Jealous. The show started out with the panel talking about OWS's occupation of foreclosures. I'm not sure what the goals are except for poor families to move into empty foreclosed homes. I don't know if payments are worked out, or whether banks have to agree to this arrangement, or whether the banks are supposed to give the poor families the homes -- I'm not sure. I also don't know who decides which families should move in if there is a disagreement between 2 or more families over an empty foreclosed home they all want. Can individuals occupy the homes? Who verifys the actual need? Who pays to fix up the homes so that they are habitable? Can they sell the home, if they want to move? If they sell the home, does the bank get any of the money from the sale? If the goal is to get the banks to restructure the loans, what if the family can't or won't pay the restructured amount? Is there ever a point where it's legitimate to force a family out of the home? None of these issues were covered, but Armah thinks that occupying foreclosures is a gamechanger -- it's about justice and fairness, so details don't really matter. A community organizer was on the show who has moved his family into a foreclosed home, and Hayes did ask him who would fix up the home -- the organizer said that OWS was helping, but he didn't give details regarding what kind of help.

The topic then turned to Republicans who protect the 1% "rich bastards" like Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and the Koch brothers. Republicans are blocking the nomination of Rich Corday to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Chris Hayes panel said Republicans will block any nomination because they're protecting the Big Banks. Roemer said that Obama is bought and paid for by the Big Banks, but Hayes and the rest disagreed, because if Obama was bought by the banks, he wouldn't have created the regulatory bureau to start with. Roemer then did his best to suck up to the panel by agreeing that Republicans are bought off, except Roemer who is fighting for the Little People. Roemer is a Republican presidential candidate, although he doesn't show up in the polls, and he's not invited to debates. While I agree with Roemer about cronyism, I don't agree with his ideas regarding who's the buyer and who's the seller.

Portions of Obama's Kansas speech were played. Hayes, Soto, Jealous and Armah believe that Obama is responding to OWS, and that his speech was pitch perfect in highlighting the problems with fairness and inequality. Obama said Democracy is sold to the highest bidder. The overall message from Hayes and the panel, even Roemer, is that the 1% is in control, and the 99% are fighting to disempower the 1% and to force the system to respond to the issues of fairness and inequality. Government in general is seen by the panel as the solution to the problem, if Obama and Democrats can respond to OWS, but the Republican Party is seen as the biggest cause of the problem, blocking Obama's efforts to make progress on dealing with the fairness and equality issues. Obama is trying to regulate the Big Banks and Obama has offered a jobs act, but he's being blocked by Republicans who are patsies for the 1%.

I think they have it wrong. Our powerful State machine has co-opted a few large corporations who've become parts of the State machine, and both parties have acted in service of the State by effectively dividing the people into warring camps. The State, with its bureacracy, the Fed, the miltary/industrial complex, media, co-opted corporations and international connections in the IMF, World Bank, UN, etc, is in control and is not bought by private companies. The State is powerful -- it's ridiculous to think that Goldman Sachs pulls the strings -- Goldman Sachs is a monkey on a string -- a rich monkey, no doubt, but they simply do the State's bidding, and as a result are allowed to steal all they can steal. An interventionist government protects the State, because the government has a monopoly on coercion.

There's a good chance that Chris Hayes and many on the Left, and the Right, for that matter, know this, but they think that their political party can influence the State to get what they want, whatever that is, but the State is basically anti-social and cares first and foremost about power. Until we limit government power, no one outside the power structure of the State is going to get much but whatever crumbs are necessary to sedate the American people. OWS is fighting the wrong source of the problem. When they run up on the wall of the State, if they push too far and demand too much, and if they really threaten the arms of the State, when they lose their usefulness, they'll be squashed.

If fairness is a goal -- a level playing field where the law is equally applied -- and if equality of opportunity is the goal -- where Big Corporations aren't favored over small businesses and individual entrepreneurs -- then government has to be limited so that State power is reduced to the necessities of protecting individual rights, protecting the borders from foreign attack and providing courts to settle disputes and decide on justice.

Fact-checking Obama's Kansas speech

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/08/fact-checking-the-kansas-declaration/

Have you had enough? It might seem like I support Republicans, because I'm always refuting Democrats' claims, but I only have an interest in...dare, I say...fairness. I also refute Republicans when they lie. There are different types of fairness, and one is telling the truth when you have the country's top government position. We might have become accustomed to Presidents lying, but this only speaks to the pitiful condition of politics and statist propaganda in America.

Another point is Obama's conflation of nationalism with statist worship. Our nation as a whole is one of the most, if not the most, diverse, compassionate, innovative, talented, creative and productive nations in the world, but propaganda from our President to sell statist schemes which continue to stagnate our economy and keep many people out of work is a disgrace to the spirit of America -- statist glorification is not nationalism. Both Republicans and Democrats have been at fault, and both have played the Lying Game. What voters should be concerned about going into 2012 is not finding a President or congress to save us, but to save ourselves from Presidents and congress. We need to first understand the problem, then we'll know to do at election time.

Morning Joe 12/7/2011 -- Obama's anti-free market speech

On Morning Joe today Mika was very pleased with President Obama's Kansas speech. The guests were Peggy Noonan, Donnie Deutsche, Boone Pickens and Donald Trump during the first segment. It's a little depressing that the Left is so pleased with Obama's speech, because it appears they're more concerned with image and marketing than with substance and results. Even if I believed in the Leftist vision, I'd have to say that Obama has been a failure.

But, certainly, there is nothing for the Right to cheer about, or to be afraid of in the long run, except if enough in DC embrace Obama's direction. Obama is pushing a tired ideology that can hardly move forward. Obama is taking a cattle prod to it, and it still won't move forward -- it can only go backwards. We're broke and statism has failed. Even if Democrats do get tax hikes on the rich pushed through congress, what then? The Left can't get enough from the rich to make much difference. Yes, the Left can waste more money on a transportation scheme or a few infrastructure projects, but what then? In a few years, the same systemic problems will exist, and the little economic bump will have dissipated, and the economy will still be stagnant.

Major systemic changes are needed to make a difference in people's lives, and only through a free market can economic growth and the required innovation take place. Obama's denigration of free market principles are so out of touch with what's needed, it's sad. Following China to an infrastructure bubble is not the answer -- another New Deal is not the answer -- redistribution is not the answer. The State has succeeded in gaining almost complete control over the economy, but what's next? It's a dead end that leads to decline. The global market will require dynamic economic growth, but no country yet has accepted what this requires. Worldwide statism has only misdirected capital, and until there is freedom for capital to flow to where it's most productive, large countries who try to centrally plan economic direction will experience bubbles or stagnation and decline.

The conversation on Morning Joe talked all around the fundamental issues. Even if Obama is successful with his populist plan, what then? If America doesn't take the lead with free market economic growth, some other area of the world will, and that's where the action will head. America will be left trying to fairly divide a pie that's mostly leftover crumbs. If Obama does believe in equal opportunity, then he will fight to end the feeding trough in DC which rewards the hogs who create the most unfairness and inequality of opportunity-- politicians and rent-seeking corporations.

Obama's Kansas speech - The free market doesn't, has never and won't ever work

Obama gave a populist, statist speech in Kansas today making the claim that free markets don't work, and he blamed the economic stagnation on, of all people, George Bush for his rabid free marketism. George Bush was a statist in the Center. Obama used another Republican statist to highlight his populist direction toward reelection -- Teddy Roosevelt. Oh my, Obama is adopting Roosevelt as a model? Obama said that curtailing regulations and reducing taxes lead to disparity and what we see today in the economy. This is the clearest speech Obama has given in a long while portraying his hardcare statist views. You don't need to call Obama a socialist, because being a statist is bad enough, especially since we see the failure of statism all around the world. Statism in Europe is threatening to throw the global economy into another recession, if we ever got out of the original recession.

There have been plenty of regulations for many decades, and the financial crisis of 2007 came about mainly from years of government incentives to push money into housing, creating a bubble and a crash that threatened the biggest banks. Government interference in the market has escalated through the years until now businesses are frozen by all the new regulations and the threat of much higher taxes.

Obama's solutions are to implement short-term gimmicks pandering to the middle class and to raise taxes on the rich -- taxing the rich will get us about 70 billion which is a drop in the bucket compared to what we're spending. His speech was called a landmark speech by pundits on the Left, yet his speech was a pathetic mish-mash of shifting blame, denigrating free market principles and holding up government as our only hope. Until we get Obama and the all the other statists from both parties out of government, we can't hope to recover economically.

If the voting public falls for this cynical, populist, political spin, then the American people are lost. It makes me sick to my stomach listening to Obama blame a few rich people when government has set up the government/corporate enmeshment, which favors the few, in an attempt to consolidate control over the economy. It's this decades long government control over the economy which has stagnated the economy and buried us in debt-- we've reached a tipping point where government interventions have placed us the edge of a cliff, and now Obama wants to push us over the cliff, and he wants your help.