This morning The Wall Street Journal publishes an amazing attack on Barak Obama, America´s next President. "Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession", by Prof. MICHAEL J. BOSKIN from Standford.
What if I told you that a prominent global political figure in recent months has proposed: abrogating key features of his government's contracts with energy companies; unilaterally renegotiating his country's international economic treaties; dramatically raising marginal tax rates on the "rich" to levels not seen in his country in three decades (which would make them among the highest in the world); and changing his country's social insurance system into explicit welfare by severing the link between taxes and benefits?I am amazed by that (1) the center of American capitalism has been sleeping till now. I for one, thanks to Steve Sailer's outstanding research work, discovered the appaling "World Bank" appropiate technology economic outlook in Obama about a year ago. (2) the violence of the attack on a popular candidate, that could end badly, because lets be realists, a few words from Obama and the people of United States will be torching Wall Street and its bankers.
The first name that came to mind would probably not be Barack Obama, possibly our nation's next president. Yet despite his obvious general intelligence, and uplifting and motivational eloquence, Sen. Obama reveals this startling economic illiteracy in his policy proposals and economic pronouncements. From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.
To be sure, Mr. Obama has been clouding these positions as he heads into the general election and, once elected, presidents sometimes see the world differently than when they are running. Some cite Bill Clinton's move to the economic policy center following his Hillary health-care and 1994 Congressional election debacles as a possible Obama model. But candidate Obama starts much further left on spending, taxes, trade and regulation than candidate Clinton. A move as large as Mr. Clinton's toward the center would still leave Mr. Obama on the economic left
7 comments:
"A study of politicians from JFK on shows that most of them fulfill the campaign promises of their enemies and violate their own promises."
http://thegoldbugnet.blogspot.com/
Also, de Tocqueville said second raters become president. Apparently with little harm to the Republic.
There is a lot of ruin in a nation.
I'm no more worried than usual.
There will be no "torching" - those leftists who already hate or do not comprehend Wall Street (and I have to add that McCain himself made his career in government service) cannot hate it any more than they already do now.
The real question is why there is such support from Wall Street itself for Obama. In part, this has to do with the Jewish nature of Wall St. - Jews, for reasons I do not understand, remain wedded to the Democrat Party even though they are no longer an oppressed and poor minority (the target audience for Democrats). Perhaps they imagine themselves to be so? But in case of these really smart Wall Street guys, not all of whom are Jewish, there must be another explanation - perhaps they see some benefit to themselves from the huge pool of wealth that will diverted to the government - if they can figure out a way to skim even a small portion of this cream, great wealth awaits that will more than make up for the higher taxes they will have to pay. Or perhaps they are wealthy enough already and now wish to convert some of their wealth to power, which is even more intoxicating than wealth?
I should also add that the reason that you can see this picture more clearly your is not just Ungarische Yidische brilliance, which is definitely greater than that of the average American reporter (journalism is not a career chosen by the very best students) but because people who are wearing ideological blinders (meaning 99% of the American press) cannot or do not want to see what is obvious to any unbiased outside observer. Anything unfavorable to Obama will be deemed "racist" and unprintable in most mainstream publications from now until November.
I am amazed by what Obama is allowed to get away with - I don't know if he is truly an empty suit or if he is just hiding his cards til after the election. Yesterday after his meeting with economic advisers, he came out and made a statement to the press. The substance of the statement was as follows, "We have been doing things wrong up until now. After I am elected we will do things differently." That such a vague and meaningless statement was presented unchallenged as though an oracle was speaking is chilling to me, but the press does not seem to notice at all.
When I said torching, I meant torching. I went through similar experiences in Argentina, where fanatized masses left their suburban shanty towns and occupied the center of Buenos Aires for several days. During Catalina disaster I became aware that American cities house masses ready to sack and burn down. One word of a populist leader like Obama and you have one million of them dancing in Wall Street.
Sorry, but I disagree - this is what separates the US from the banana republics. If Obama's masses break so much as one window on Wall St. at Obama's (even implied or veiled) suggestion, his political career is over. Nor would it be necessary for him to ever do so, since he can confiscate their wealth by means of tax increases without resort to violence. The poor can riot and torch their own communities and kill the Korean shopkeepers (who replaced the Jewish shopkeepers) but they are not organized enough to travel to Wall St. nor does the profession of "community organizing" extend to that. The devil's bargain that is made with guys like Obama is that as long as they are paid their "protection" money it is their job to keep the masses quiet. Violence upsets the bargain and is seen as bad faith. "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind."
There are many scenarios of an Obama presidency but Obama is not Hugo Chavez or Juan Peron and America is not Venezuela or Argentina - this is just not how things are done here, in the country with the world's oldest written constitution.
Well, Argentina´s Constitution dates from 1816, so the difference is not so great. Anyway, I have seen in New Orleans (Katrina) how things are nowadays done in certain parts of the US. Obama is not Hugo Chavez, but Hugo Chavez was not Hugo Chavez before he became Hugo Chavez. Juan Domingo Peron was a most respectable professor in the Army´s Academy before he became a leader of the descamisados. I dont like charismatic leaders.
Obama frightens me also but the US has recovered before from worse Presidents - I agree with Mr. Moroco above. There are a lot of checks and balances built into the system which prevent one man from accomplishing too much change (for good or ill). If Obama leads the shirtless ones of America on a rampage thru Wall Street I'll eat my three piece suit.
New Orleans was a special case - it was always corrupt and afflicted by that southern sort of lethargy found in most hot humid places - we'll get around to fixing that leaky roof mañana. On top of that you had a black majority that was so welfare dependent that they were like zoo animals - they were incapable of organizing anything, even their own evacuation from a pending hurricane without assistance from their keepers and the local government (being black run) was itself incapable of even providing that much - in short New Orleans had more in common with Haiti than with any other US city.
Post a Comment