Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

reply to post by dadgad


Wow you guys don't really think do you??? It is not capitalism, it is the thought that manipulation of the market by government can make things run better that has jacked everything up.

We have not had a free market economy in many years. What has caused us problems, is unchecked greed and systemic corruption, and more government will only exacerbate the situation, because they are all bought and paid for by the corporations and lobbyist groups.

If you make unions what they were intended (voluntary groups of workers) implement import tariffs on countries with slave labor wages, force the government to work within the confines of the constitution, and get rid of the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking, then you will be operating within a free market and the government will be working the way it was intended.

Only then can you say whether or not it is working correctly. You can't have a socialist economy (which we do) and say that the free market is not working and has never worked.

Before the federal reserve and during the height of the industrial revolution, we were operating in a free market economy still and it was the greatest success that the world has ever seen. It was only the socialist ideals that were put in place later that started us on the road to failure.

Jaden


BTW, they won't have a choice, they WILL start operating within the confines of the constitution or reap their just desserts.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

American Socalist ROADS which I mentioned first and last really cause you trouble didn't it? Keep arguing wifi with others to avoid it all you want. Hell I said I was not on wifi anyway but I also mentioned the ROADS TWICE, those SOCIALIST AMERICAN ROADS.

Can you see it now?

What you mean is that you are using what techies refer to as "WARDRIVING", that is STEALING bandwidth from private users. You likely have found a nice neighborhood where rich people pay for private lan use. And another technical term for it is UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Well, I talked to the founders and they said Obama was wrong.

No one can deny it...Obama's agenda is clear. He is definitely wanting to "fundamentally transform America", as he said during the last election.

Seriously, have you ever heard of someone so arrogant? He knows better than our founding fathers. Maybe he could go somewhere else and found something, then. Warren Buffet can join him, and become Secretary of the Treasury. Buffett can make the first donation.

edit on 7-12-2011 by GeorgiaGirl because: Clarify pronouns

The founding fathers weren't American other than by a very loose stretch and even if they were do you hold them in such God like esteem that they were able to predict how the world would be a couple of centuries after their deaths? Really?

Yeah, I guess you really do, don't you?

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by Maxmars

 

i am very suprised that this thread hasnt been shut down yet or moved to the hoax bin, it is such a waste of time, it has already been solidly debunked....

You and I apparently disagree as to the criterion applied to determine what is or is not a "hoax."

While I applaud you're ability to detect policital theater at play, I must frown at your willingness to participate in the partisan drama. This is not about politics. It's about faith in Keynesian economic theory.

First off; history... correct me if I am wrong (please.)

The term "trickle down economics" became popularly used when it was invoked by then-candidate Ronald Reagan. He coined the phrase to allow non-economically educated people to 'relate' to an economic theory known as "Supply-Side Economics." As you and others already know, the theory is that the more wealthy can't help but 'spread' their wealth around when it gets to a certain magnitude. A crock, yes, I know.

In fact, this theory is entirely ridicule-worthy. Even the principle political figure running against Reagan for the nomination to run for president, George Bush (Sr.) would vehemently poke fun at the ludicrous idea, calling it "Voodoo Economics" - which I found a delightfully appropriate characterization of the notion. Of course, all that heated dissent went by the way-side when the offer of running as Vice President was made. At that point it became a "sound policy" according to Bush, even though it was for the benefit of none other than the banking industry, and their "Centralized" master, the misnamed "Federal" Reserve.

But, because of the pleasure it brought to the financial giants of the time, it became the darling of the conservative party members (most of whom were more for the "party" than for "the people".) Such support for a fiscal policy that fed into the monetary scam the Fed runs made for substantial support from key benefactors.

Now, I mention all of this because the bottom line is this, relatively few conservatives are not of the 'support trickle down' camp (Ron Paul being an exemplary figure in pointing out its deficiencies.)

And the OP source is one "CNSNews.com" a "news" service which is owned and operated by "the Media Research Center" - on their "about us" web page the follow excerpt can be found:

...As "America's Media Watchdog," the MRC seeks to bring balance to the news media
. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues...

There is the source of the editorial bias that interpreted this (from the Presidential Speech transcript itself)

... the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

To mean: ""Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked"

((But our esteemed President is not innocent of certain word-crafting that makes this equally biased. but I will not digress to that point yet.))

It is invaluable to understand, that there is an equation at work here.... The President (and/or his speech writers) agree that what those conservatives characterized as a "free market" can be equated to “The market will take care of everything” and "keep the government out of it."

a) The supporters of anything the President or his party proclaims take for granted that "the market will take care of everything” and "keep the government out of it." equates to "trickle Down economics" while

b) The dissenters against anything the President or his party proclaims take for granted that The market will take care of everything” and "keep the government out of it." equates to "free market"

Buried in that idea is the grossly mistaken meme that "Trickle Down Economics" (or Supply-Side economics) equals "Free" market... where by definition, it is just not so.

It is not surprise that partisan ideology would warp this into a debate about "free market" "not working"... The conservative editors of the CSN News story reinterpreted the statement as was politically expedient....

"Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked"

Of course President Obama never said that. But what he DID say in his remarks was was equally errant and revisionist.

" It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory."

There was no trickle-down (Keynesian) theory before the mid 1930's. There was no attempt by the government to do anything prior to the Great Depression - which was entirely a construct of the banking industry - our government was caught entirely flatfooted and unprepared for the lesson the banks were teaching our "leaders"...What lesson, you might ask? "The lesson that we own you."

... and the Great Depression led to a consolidation of wealth proportionally unrivaled until the late 20th century. The postwar boom he refers to had nothing to do with experimental monetary or fiscal policy. And to say that it was tried in the last decade is equally misinformative. As far back as the 1970's ... perhaps... because for the last decade the banks have been in nearly total control due to their utterly brilliant manipulation of the global economy... and Mr. Obama knows that. As do most politician-celebrities.

HOAX? I don't think so. Partisan a.k.a. "political madness," most certainly.

This is why populist politics almost always leads to illusions and pointless bickering.

Please accept this respectful insolence with the understanding that while I disagree this is a "hoax" I understand your objection to the politically expedient reinterpretation of President Obama's speech, but I refuse to excuse the President for recoloring the past to make a better sounding case for his party.

I'm speechless. This is something that will destroy America's chance of improving on what it started on.

Sadly, the fact that he was talking to the youth shows that this was more of a "expect this to come" rather than encouraging the kids to strive for that kind of system.

Obama is a traitor and criminal. He deserves to be treated as both. However since the system is so defunct and the media are wh0res to the liberal agenda to destroy the country and usher in communism, Obama and crew can get away with murder.
Bush picked our pockets,waged war without the consent of the people and helped to further the socialist advance under the guise he was a horrible old Republican. The media blasted him every chance they could and the reality is that he was no different than Clinton or Obama.
It's supposed to make a difference because they have a D or R behind their name, but intelligent people know this is a farce and the bureaucrats feed from the same trough, while screwing the American public.

I feel we're in this mess due to too little of proper regulations. It wasn't just the government and bankers. It was the employers. They stopped increasing wages when technology increased the production. They kept the excess and gave themselves raises for being so clever. The problem is, people can't be trusted. People who long for power seem to be particularity untrustworthy. The only way we can have equality is if a hack proof computer program makes sure we are equal. No one will go for that. Therefore, I'm all for Ron Paul's return to the wild west. Hopefully we'll call shenanigans on our current currency and start over with a land run of sorts (sorry Native Americans). Let's all lose our minds from the consumption of snake oil. Sounds like a nice change. However, we'll just wind up in the same mess again.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Well, I talked to the founders and they said Obama was wrong.

No one can deny it...Obama's agenda is clear. He is definitely wanting to "fundamentally transform America", as he said during the last election.

Seriously, have you ever heard of someone so arrogant? He knows better than our founding fathers. Maybe he could go somewhere else and found something, then. Warren Buffet can join him, and become Secretary of the Treasury. Buffett can make the first donation.

edit on 7-12-2011 by GeorgiaGirl because: Clarify pronouns

The founding fathers weren't American other than by a very loose stretch and even if they were do you hold them in such God like esteem that they were able to predict how the world would be a couple of centuries after their deaths? Really?

Yeah, I guess you really do, don't you?

What you really mean here is they weren't American Indian. But it is said that even the American Indians migrated here from Asia.....if you really want to go there. But the Founding Fathers were mostly born in America.
blog.edu-cyberpg.com...

LANGUAGE
Carvings link Chinese with American Indians Asians may have crossed Bering Strait
BEIJING Carvings identical to ancient Chinese characters have been found in American Indian sites dating back thousands of years, the China Daily reported. They so closely resemble the 3,000-year-old Shang Dynasty characters for the sun, sky, rain, water, crops, trees and astronomy that if they had not been found in America, Chinese experts would have classified them automatically as pre-221 B.C. Chinese script, the newspaper said.
American Indian and Chinese pictographs in 56 matching sets were shown to senior academics at a symposium in Anyang, former capital of the Shang Dynasty.

Dr. Davis advanced the hypothesis that the Zuni Indians of New Mexico were distinctive in language, culture and biology, compared with other Indians, partly because they may have come in contact with Japanese in the 13th century. She noted similarities between the Zuni and the Japanese in blood chemistry and some basic words. Even the Zuni migration stories, she said, were suggestive in their description of the trek of a distinctive people from the "ocean of the sunset world" in search of the true middle of the world.

another source
www.cabrillo.edu...

Humans first evolved in Africa some 4 - 5 million years ago. Over the next 4 million years, through the interplay of evolution and adaptation, survival and extinction, many species of humans evolved. By about 100,000 - 120,000 years ago, people physically like modern humans had evolved in Africa and sometime around 100,000 years ago some of them migrated out into the rest of the world, reaching central and eastern Asia by at least 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. And it was from these "out-of-Africa" populations that the first immigrants into the Americans came, reaching North America about 12,000 years ago by means of a "land bridge" between Asia and North America.

The "land bridge" existed because at various times during the Pleistocene (Ice Ages), vast continental glaciers (in places up to two miles thick) formed over much of the northern half of North America. Each time the glacial masses reached their maximum extent (drawing massive amounts of water out of the ocean and causing a consequent lowering of sea levels worldwide), Alaska and northeastern Siberia were joined by a broad "land bridge" which formed part of a province geologists call Beringia. This land bridge appeared (and disappeared) several times during the Pleistocene (Ice Ages): from about 75,000 to 45,000 years ago, and again from about 25,000 to around 14,000 years ago, when the land bridge was exposed for the last time. And it was during this last emergence that high latitude living nomadic big-game hunters in Northeast Asia crossed into the Americas by way of the "land bridge." These pioneers lived in small bands, hunting large and medium sized game animals such as mammoth, musk ox, and bison which provided them with food, their hides a source of shelter and clothing, and their dung perhaps used in place of firewood.

However, once in Alaska, these big game hunters were blocked from going south or east by the presence of the glaciers, in some places up to two miles thick and stretching from the Atlantic coast to the mountain ranges of Alaska and British Columbia (but not quite all the way to the Pacific coast), and from the southern shores of the Great Lakes to the north polar regions. Then around 12,000 years ago the glaciers began to disappear and an "ice- free" corridor appeared between the receding glaciers of Alaska and British Columbia and those lying eastward in Canada, and opening the door to the Americas for the very first time (so the story went) in human history. And it was by means of this corridor that the hardy Siberian-cum-American pioneers made their way to the south, reaching the Great Plains of North America some 11,400 years ago.

Once the pioneers had traversed the "ice-free" corridor, they fanned out in many directions: some groups moved into the Eastern U.S.; others contined southward into northern Mexcio; while still other groups moved into the Great Basin and Southwestern regions of the U.S. In so doing they became the First Americans, or as the archaeologists call them, the Paleo-Indians, and have been regarded as THE ancestral populations to all of today's Native Americans.

So, while yes, they may have been the first people to have settled in the Americas, but does that mean that they have more right to it than Europeans?
Some people are so full of socialist anti-American nonsense it is thoroughly sickening.


Socialists and communists use exactly these types of arguments to criticize Americans of European descent and to instill shame and hatred and even more racial division.

reply to post by gentledissident


Barney Frank had ample time to OVERSEE fannie and freddie. Why did he shirk his duty? More regulations are not going to fix this stuff.


So now it's the evil Capitalists again. Same communist argument different day.

Originally posted by Godofgamblers
Obama is a traitor and criminal. He deserves to be treated as both. However since the system is so defunct and the media are wh0res to the liberal agenda to destroy the country and usher in communism, Obama and crew can get away with murder.
Bush picked our pockets,waged war without the consent of the people and helped to further the socialist advance under the guise he was a horrible old Republican. The media blasted him every chance they could and the reality is that he was no different than Clinton or Obama.
It's supposed to make a difference because they have a D or R behind their name, but intelligent people know this is a farce and the bureaucrats feed from the same trough, while screwing the American public.

Well put, star for you. The Illuminati and Skull and Bones disguise themselves with different masks. Bush is a stealth progressive and Michael Savage said he is a fiscal socialist.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by Maxmars

...
Any who would believe that "it doesn't work" when the last century was spent not doing "it" would have to be what some refer to a sheep.
....

Is your only argument to call the other a sheep?

More and more I realize that you and others behind you have absolutely no arguments for this crisis, except blaming the government and addressing the need to return to sound ethics. That's all.

How about questioning your system? I think Obama is completely right. It doesn't work and didn't work. It had the illusion of working, you have profited endlessly from brutal exploitation, but these times are coming to an end now. The system is eating it self up.

Notice that you distilled my comment to: "Is your only argument to call the other a sheep?"

There is an older phrase, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different"

Need I explain that I am not saying those who do so are insane, but that it does fit the generality of the comment?

I fear you are angered that I disagree with the President's assertions. Sorry for angering you.

More and more I realize that you and others behind you have absolutely no arguments for this crisis, except blaming the government and addressing the need to return to sound ethics. That's all.

Sadly, I can admit to no such "people behind me" and I will ask you not to assume that personal attacks will be tolerated because the speaker perceives them as righteous. I certainly do have an argument. See my earlier post and consider it more carefully please.

I don't blame the government AT ALL. I blame YOU, and ME, and THEM. We have all entrusted our government to people who have little interest in anything other than maintaining the illusion that they care about something greater than their own welfare and that of their posteritry and associates. WE allow that. Election cycle after election cycle we play this stupid game pretending that one party or another is at fault or has the answer to the problems we face. Sorry... those people DON'T CARE ABOUT US. They care about their appearance, their glory, and the continuance of their status and power. You really expect ANY of them to "fix" a problem which for them is an interruption from their glamorous lives? Truly?

The government is a cosntruct... a tool of the people.... those who man the positions of government are our SERVANTS. It is not the governemnt at fault... it's the people.. the social club, the self-appointed elite, and in large part the economic royalty that control them.

I know it is presumtpuous to assume you will understand me as not being a partisan player.... but clearly, the last thing I will pretend is that it is the fault of any one man, or any one party. The fault is ours - which is why we are paying the price. The politicians want to keep us focusing our concerns away from that reality... so they can stay in the limelight as heroes of the people... and continue to promote their particular social club above the need to struggle and labor.... while they tell us how "complicated" things are....

How about questioning your system? I think Obama is completely right. It doesn't work and didn't work. It had the illusion of working, you have profited endlessly from brutal exploitation, but these times are coming to an end now. The system is eating it self up.

Obama could have been right. If he had not mischaracterized history; and if he had dared to speak of specific solutions. What is "it" that didn't work? Certainly not the fantasy he described....

I agree the exploitation is inhuman... but I can all but guarantee that neither he, nor his party, nor his "mentors" - NOR THOSE OF HIS OPPONENT'S have a solution. Why am I so certain? Because the solution means removing THEM from the equation. We can't have that now can we?

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Misoir

 

As an Englishman, i don't usually get involved in the topic of US politics. However here in Britain we see Obama as the most Anti-British President for many decades. His comments about your founders may be because of the man who is regarded as the instigator of the War Of Independence. That man was Thomas Paine:-

en.wikipedia.org...


You guessed it.......Thomas Paine was an Englishman.

Lol, in actuality, they all were Englishman until we won our independence. Hence, Paul Revere referred to the invading army as the Red Coats and not the British, for at the time, we all were British citizens.

reply to post by macman


This is so far from irrelevant it is not funny, Denying someone access to the internet because they can't afford a $70 + a month internet connect card. Deny someone access to something that's fast becoming a right?

Someone does have to pay yes, a small tax to guarandamntee that the entire land area of The United States Of America is one massively giant WiFi hotspot is the end result here and care not for what anyone thinks about this.

For every major advancement comes a small price!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's not his fault for others failing to harden and encrypt their WiFi signals. Besides, seeing what they have all stolen means that a little internet access is far minute by comparison.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Don't count your chickens before they hatch buddy. I have just heard word that Sensenbrenner has come out of a courtroom whereby the AG Holder is going to have his feet held to the fire on his dirty dealings and it is an impeachable offense what he did.

Happy Holidays buddy!

WTF does any of that have to do with my post or the OP????

That is the issue here...It is not about Pro-Obama or Anti-Obama...it is about people BSing.

I am not an Obama "loyalist"...no one should be. Be loyal to your country and the truth.

And this OP is utter BS...it offends me not because it is Anti-Obama, but because it is Anti-American to fabricate complete BS to further a political agenda.

Assuming that anyone who confronts a lie is somehow defending a politician is just mentally handicapped...about the same as lieing to attack a politician

I agree with you... Instead of address what Obama was speaking of, Trickle Down economics,
OP and co have used the language to fabricate something that advances the giant pile on lies
they have been concocting for years now.

reply to post by Maxmars


Don't forget that Bush Sr then became the VP for Reagan even after Reagan refused him but somewhere along the way, the Illuminati CFR told him what he must do and so he finally acquiesced to the Bush Sr VP team. Later, when Reagan didn't want to play ball for the Illuminati CFR they used Hinckley as a "lone shooter" to put him back in line. They may have intended for him to actually die leaving Bush Sr to become the President, but miraculously Reagan survived the incident.
Remember Bush Sr was not only a 2nd Gen Bonesman, but later on when he did succeed as President, he told the world that the NWO would succeed.
Reagan did commission a study to balance the budget and possibly return to the Gold Standard which stealth Progressive Nixon caused us to go off.
So is it trickle down economics or the Hidden Hand of Adam Smith legacy the Founders believed in?


If by some remote Divine Providence Ron Paul actually does get elected, he had better have some trustworthy people guarding his life and the life of our country.

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Yet you are part of the same crowd here on ATS that seems so bent on getting rid of Obama, you will vote for Newt Gingrich, Goldman Sachs Lobbiest.

Oh goodie .. yes please .. let's go there ....

Obama hires Wall Street Lobbiest for Re-Election Campaign

President Barack Obama’s new senior campaign adviser is a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, and has the potential to damage the president’s aspirations to appeal to the protesters currently “occupying” New York City’s Zuccotti Park.

Obama’s new adviser, Broderick Johnson, has an extensive history of lobbying for big banks and corporations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2007, he lobbied for JP Morgan Chase and in 2008 Johnson lobbied for Bank of America and Fannie Mae. From 2008 through 2010, he lobbied for Comcast and in 2011 he lobbied for Microsoft.

Johnson is currently a partner at D.C.-based communications firm Collins Johnson Group, which boasts that it excels at “providing superior strategic planning and political consulting services to multinational corporations, government entities, political campaigns and parties, elected leaders, nonprofit organizations, issue groups, investors and entrepreneurs.”

Obama received more money from Wall Street than any politician

As the Wall Street Occupiers (aka 99 Percent) approach week four of their vigil, they have yet to publish or announce a set of clear-cut objectives. One general theme around which the loosely knit protest movement is organized is a vague opposition to Wall Street and an antipathy toward all who have access to its purse strings.

That would include the man who is arguably Wall Street’s biggest detractor and an OWS sympathizer—Barack Obama. A study by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project finds that Obama has received more in campaign donations from the financial sector than any other politician in the last two decades


So far, the president has received $16 million in Wall Street contributions. The amount, which accounts for 20% of Obama’s total campaign funding, is $2.7 million more than George W. Bush received.

NY Times - Obama's bundlers and lobbiests
CNBC - Obama's Lobbiest Heavy Administration
Partial list of Lobbiests in the Obama Administration
Lobbiest ties to the Obama Administration
and so on and so on and so on ...

Flys in the face of Obama's campaign promise that 'no lobbiest will find a job in my administration'.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

It's not his fault for others failing to harden and encrypt their WiFi signals. Besides, seeing what they have all stolen means that a little internet access is far minute by comparison.

edit on 8-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Well you are a nice person, but as I see it a bit misguided.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


However true you may be, are we to not to do the same to them that they've done to us?

reply to post by Misoir


Fascinating.

Truth of the matter nothing works- When I say "nothing" I'm afraid that's exactly what I mean. Your militaries the leaders the super wealthy and the intl intel agencies are scared to death.
Everyone just needs a little help seeing this