|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 13, 2011 15:13:03 GMT -8
Barack Obama just spoke a at North Carolina company called CREE, which makes green energy stuff. He praised CREE for putting people back to work. Fine so far. The problem is that CREE uses a plant in China. Also, the CREE CEO is on record within the last few months as saying that he thinks of his company as an international firm, not an American one. But there is more.
The POTUS then said, and I quote verbatim. . .
My administration has invested heavily in clean energy manufacturing. . .
Say what! Geez, is there no limit to this man's hubris and self-adulation? Someone needs to tell Barry that "my administration invests in" means that the government takes money from productive citizens (unproductive ones do not pay taxes) and gives that money to favored companies (i.e., favored by the administration largely for political considerations), companies that might or might not receive the same amount of money from private investors whose judgment is based on accepted business practices.
The money that the government takes from taxpayers and then gives to certain firms is money that is unavailable for use by people whose decision making is not based on how much political advantage can be derived from favoring on company over another. Simply put, Obama (and those on the Left who feel the same way) clearly believe that they know how to run an economy better than business people do.
I should add that there are now two types of business people. The first is the traditional person who wants to build a better product or offer a better service as a way to succeed. The second is the business person who sees that a short-cut to success is to suck up to the government so that they get the lion's share when the taxpayers' money is doled out to friends and supporters.
AzWm
.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 13, 2011 17:23:44 GMT -8
Oh, please.  |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 14, 2011 1:48:11 GMT -8
Why are you continually trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?
Seriously, and again, all Presidents tout their accomplishments. You seem shocked and offended by this when Obama does it but I suspect that you'd be totally accepting of it if President Conservative were POTUS.
And not to alarm you but every dime of money in the budget is money that was taken from "productive citizens" and put to some use or another. Sometimes that money is directed toward "favored companies" (think Halliburton) but more often (I hope) it is directed toward favored projects (like green energy).
It has long been an accepted role of government, on both sides of the aisle, to promote innovative projects that private investors are not ready to touch. The space program, for example, resulted in thousands of privately held patents, tens of thousands of private sector jobs and considerable private profit -- profit that never would have been made if the government hadn't provided the funding and commitment to get the ball rolling. You could make a similar case for the Interstate Highway System -- or virtually any other public initiative.
And the fact is, the administration has invested heavily in green energy manufacturing. Obama didn't say that he invested his own money; that he directed public money toward something that he believes to be in the common good is almost universally understood and not at all shocking -- despite your shock.
Your reaction to some of these things seem to be much like spotting a fire in the fireplace and then running out of the building wildly screaming, "FIRE!!!!". Well, yeah, there's a fire but...
Better to argue the underlying policy issues than to run around loudly proclaiming that the sky is falling. Arguing the underlying policy issues, however, can be considerably more difficult. It requires a level of understanding of those policy issues that the Chicken Littles on the political fringes don't have.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2011 12:17:32 GMT -8
Sorry, Yoda, if you can't see the hypocrisy in what Obama is saying. You make it sound as if you believe Obama has the best interests of the nation in his heart.
True, that both sides engage in similar behavior, but we have never had such destructive policy displayed by any President. Obama passes Jimmy Carter as our worst President at least in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 14, 2011 13:21:42 GMT -8
Sorry, Yoda, if you can't see the hypocrisy in what Obama is saying. You make it sound as if you believe Obama has the best interests of the nation in his heart. True, that both sides engage in similar behavior, but we have never had such destructive policy displayed by any President. Obama passes Jimmy Carter as our worst President at least in my lifetime. Worse than Hoover? ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 14, 2011 13:37:45 GMT -8
Obama ... our worst President at least in my lifetime. Congratulations. You write very well for a two and a half year old. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 14, 2011 14:34:19 GMT -8
Sorry, Yoda, if you can't see the hypocrisy in what Obama is saying. You make it sound as if you believe Obama has the best interests of the nation in his heart. True, that both sides engage in similar behavior, but we have never had such destructive policy displayed by any President. Obama passes Jimmy Carter as our worst President at least in my lifetime. Actually, I believe that the vast majority of elected officials have what they believe to be the best interests of the nation at heart. Really, I do. I have no idea what "destructive policy" you are referring to. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2011 16:23:00 GMT -8
Sorry, Yoda, if you can't see the hypocrisy in what Obama is saying. You make it sound as if you believe Obama has the best interests of the nation in his heart. True, that both sides engage in similar behavior, but we have never had such destructive policy displayed by any President. Obama passes Jimmy Carter as our worst President at least in my lifetime. Worse than Hoover? ;D ;D When did Hoover die?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2011 16:27:31 GMT -8
Sorry, Yoda, if you can't see the hypocrisy in what Obama is saying. You make it sound as if you believe Obama has the best interests of the nation in his heart. True, that both sides engage in similar behavior, but we have never had such destructive policy displayed by any President. Obama passes Jimmy Carter as our worst President at least in my lifetime. Actually, I believe that the vast majority of elected officials have what they believe to be the best interests of the nation at heart. Really, I do. I have no idea what "destructive policy" you are referring to. Yoda out... It is not a single policy, but many and also the lack of clarity in what he does advocate. Lets start with ObamaCare and the lack of direction in Energy. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2011 16:29:04 GMT -8
Obama ... our worst President at least in my lifetime. Congratulations. You write very well for a two and a half year old. Yoda out... . Is that you Bob? I thought you said you were a six toed troll from Poulsbo. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 14, 2011 16:37:16 GMT -8
When did Hoover die? I guess you didn't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 14, 2011 17:06:12 GMT -8
When did Hoover die? I guess you didn't get it. I thought =Bob, the resident stunted troll, was the only one who used that line? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2011 17:16:55 GMT -8
Hoover gets a lot of criticism, some of which he deserves. On the other hand, his career before and after being President was quite distinguished.
What is ironic is that Hoover's mistakes following the 1929 stock market crash were, to a degree, the kinds of mistakes that the Left often makes. The classic example is when he and the GOP raised taxes via the Smooth-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, a move that is widely considered to have helped turn a bad recession into a depression.
Further irony is seen in Hoover's recommendation to President Harding in 1921 during the serious recession of that year. Hoover wanted a lot of government intervention, but Harding thought such action was not called for. The feds did essentially nothing and the result was . . . are you ready for this? . . . a big economic turnaround the next year which kicked off the big era of the Roaring Twenties prosperity.
Additionally, we should remember that FDR did not really end the Great Depression. Sure, there was some recovery, but not a lot and not very rapidly. In fact, in 1937/38, the economy took another nose dive from the relatively expansionist years of 1934 to 1936. (I say "relatively expansionist" because '34-''36 were still pretty bad when compared to the '20s and the decades following WW II.)
As for Obama, it's clear that he really is stuck in the pseudo-Keynesian school of economics. (I say "pseudo-Keynesian" because most left-wing economists who claim John Maynard Keynes are their inspiration either do not understand the man's theory or do not bother to adhere to its basic tenets.) The giant 2009 stimulus package could have achieved much more at half the cost had it not simply been one-time handouts to groups favored by the Democratic Party.
Worst of all, Obama appears to lack appreciation, and perhaps even understanding, of what the risk-takers (that's entrepreneurs, folks) have done to build this country into what it is today. He is long on how to spend the wealth created by the risk-takes and hard workers but seems not to understand that wealth does not just spring into being automatically. Some one has to create wealth. I suggest that, instead of pounding neighborhood pavements as a community organizer, a few years trying to start a business would have been better preparation for him.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 14, 2011 18:58:16 GMT -8
As for Obama, it's clear that he really is stuck in the pseudo-Keynesian school of economics. (I say "pseudo-Keynesian" because most left-wing economists who claim John Maynard Keynes are their inspiration either do not understand the man's theory or do not bother to adhere to its basic tenets.) The giant 2009 stimulus package could have achieved much more at half the cost had it not simply been one-time handouts to groups favored by the Democratic Party. AzWm Let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that Keynesian economists "either do not understand the man's theory or do not bother to adhere to its basic tenets". But you understand his theory and tenets? Forgive me, but the visual image of you in a room educating Keynesian economists about Keynes theories and tenets seems a bit of a comical reach. Incidentally, I would remind you that Timothy Geithner is a lifelong Republican who first served under Reagan. (For appearances sake, he switched to being an independent, as I recall, when he was appointed to the Fed as he felt that should be a non-partisan position.) Ben Bernenkie is also a life long Republican. And so his Henry Paulson -- who headed Goldman Sachs and was appointed Treasury Secretary by George Bush. So just out of curiosity, who are these liberal Keynesian economists that Obama has relied upon so? The three principal architects of the recovery are all lifelong, non-Keynesian Republicans. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 15, 2011 12:34:21 GMT -8
As for Obama, it's clear that he really is stuck in the pseudo-Keynesian school of economics. (I say "pseudo-Keynesian" because most left-wing economists who claim John Maynard Keynes are their inspiration either do not understand the man's theory or do not bother to adhere to its basic tenets.) The giant 2009 stimulus package could have achieved much more at half the cost had it not simply been one-time handouts to groups favored by the Democratic Party. AzWm Let me make sure I understand this. You are saying that Keynesian economists "either do not understand the man's theory or do not bother to adhere to its basic tenets". But you understand his theory and tenets? Forgive me, but the visual image of you in a room educating Keynesian economists about Keynes theories and tenets seems a bit of a comical reach. Incidentally, I would remind you that Timothy Geithner is a lifelong Republican who first served under Reagan. (For appearances sake, he switched to being an independent, as I recall, when he was appointed to the Fed as he felt that should be a non-partisan position.) Ben Bernenkie is also a life long Republican. And so his Henry Paulson -- who headed Goldman Sachs and was appointed Treasury Secretary by George Bush. So just out of curiosity, who are these liberal Keynesian economists that Obama has relied upon so? The three principal architects of the recovery are all lifelong, non-Keynesian Republicans. Yoda out... . No matter who is advocating bad policy, Democrat or Republican, if it is wrong, it is wrong. Keynes as interpeted today is dead wrong and so is our present policy of spending way beyond our means. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 15, 2011 13:09:19 GMT -8
No matter who is advocating bad policy, Democrat or Republican, if it is wrong, it is wrong. Keynes as interpeted today is dead wrong and so is our present policy of spending way beyond our means. There are three situations in which deficit spending (aka: "spending way beyond your means") is acceptable. The first is in time of war. National defense trumps fiscal policy every time. The second is in order to head off or climb out of a depression. Bernenke is the world's foremost expert on the Great Depression -- more even than you and AztecWilliam put together. If he says to save financial institutions, the auto industry or anything else that will head off another Great Depression then I say, "yes sir". The third is to build infrastructure. Prior to us, the biggest deficit spenders in the world were the Japanese after WW2. They had an infrastructure to rebuild. Their economic success today is a direct result of their deficit spending a generation (gulp, two generations) ago. The problem isn't deficit spending. The problem is deficit spending for consumption. Deficit spending for infrastructure, increases productivity and increases our standard of living. That's why I don't have a problem with Obama's spending priorities. He is fighting 2 or 3 wars -- depending on how you count them AND he (and others) have kept us out of another Great Depression AND because much of his spending is directed at initiatives that will make us more productive in the future. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 15, 2011 15:53:13 GMT -8
I wish we would have put much more of the recovery money into infrastructure like was done in the 30's.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 15, 2011 16:27:56 GMT -8
No matter who is advocating bad policy, Democrat or Republican, if it is wrong, it is wrong. Keynes as interpreted today is dead wrong and so is our present policy of spending way beyond our means. There are three situations in which deficit spending (aka: "spending way beyond your means") is acceptable. The first is in time of war. National defense trumps fiscal policy every time. The second is in order to head off or climb out of a depression. Bernenke is the world's foremost expert on the Great Depression -- more even than you and AztecWilliam put together. If he says to save financial institutions, the auto industry or anything else that will head off another Great Depression then I say, "yes sir". The third is to build infrastructure. Prior to us, the biggest deficit spenders in the world were the Japanese after WW2. They had an infrastructure to rebuild. Their economic success today is a direct result of their deficit spending a generation (gulp, two generations) ago. The problem isn't deficit spending. The problem is deficit spending for consumption. Deficit spending for infrastructure, increases productivity and increases our standard of living. That's why I don't have a problem with Obama's spending priorities. He is fighting 2 or 3 wars -- depending on how you count them AND he (and others) have kept us out of another Great Depression AND because much of his spending is directed at initiatives that will make us more productive in the future. Yoda out... . If only what you describe was the case. It is not. Granted we are spending on The War on Terror. The problem is that most of the spending on what was to be infrastructure was wasted. Not only did it not put people to work, it just went up in smoke. We still have over 9% unemployment and Obama screwed with bankruptcy law and common sense in stripping bondholders and creditors of their normal rights and gave GM to the unions. All at the cost to future generations. You sound more and more like Chris Matthews as time goes by. You just have to be having fun in the discussion and not be serious. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2011 11:39:00 GMT -8
It is not a single policy, but many and also the lack of clarity in what he does advocate. Lets start with ObamaCare and the lack of direction in Energy. Does that mean, as you and others so often imply, that Obama WANTS to do harm to the united states? I'm with Yoda. I am not sure if Obama or any of his cronies are smart enough to do harm on purpose, but they sure are doing it. |
|
