Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Clive Crook has it wrong:He writes: (excerpts) Blame the Whining Left for the Democrats' Reverse
I don't think progressive Democrats are getting the credit they deserve for the hole Obama and the party are in.
Suppose that the Democratic base had not been sulking.
Suppose it was impressed [with what] Mr Obama did ...
Mr Obama's midterm strategy could have been different. Sure of the loyalty of the base, he could have addressed himself to the anxious middle, defended his policies as centrist compromises ... and told the country ... that its concerns were his concerns.
... he would have had his base and at least a shot at bringing the centre back. The 2010 results were due to independents shifting strongly from Obama to the Republicans. But that reality doesn't allow Crook to blame the left, say, for not voting - which they did, although at with less enthusiasm. So he has to conjure up a bank shot by first claiming that Obama spent time placating the left (which he didn't) and therefore wasn't able to attend to independents (which weren't going to be receptive to Obama's clumsy messaging this year). And he totally ignores the Tea Party response and the effects of the listless economy.
posted by Quiddity at 11/03/2010 03:30:00 AM
3 comments
He also ignores Obama's openly Socialist practice of seizing private industry so the government can run it and (supposedly) take the profits. The most egregious example being the government seizure of the student loan industry, which was tacked onto the health care bill for no other reason that it looked profitable and the Democrats needed some quick money. The banking industry, auto industry, and health insurance industry all provided object lessons in what to expect from this administration if you show any signs of being a tasty takeover target.
What business in their right mind would start looking profitable right now? If your business looks too profitable, then it might come to be noticed by the democrats. Then the pattern is clear. Demonize the businessmen, seize the industry. Greedy businessmen. Wall street fat cats. Greedy doctors who perform unnecessary amputations for enormous profits. Student loan profiteers. Sooner or later, it seems to Barack Obama, you have made enough money, and Barack Obama is just the person to tell you when you've made enough money and the rest should go to his friends in the government, thank you.
Better to slow down your business and hide away your capital. Don't expand or make investments now. Spend the next two years slashing your budget and laying off workers. Then, when Obama is gone and a Republican adult is in office, it will be safe again for American business to be openly profitable.
Obama doesn't understand that the problem is him and he made it for himself. The economy will no more magically "recover" by economic stimulus than deer will come out of hiding when there's a wolf openly and loudly prowling the woods seeking prey.
Some hard numbers from the Wall Street Journal:
But Fed officials are betting that inflation is still being pushed strongly in the other direction because there is so much spare capacity in the economy—including an unemployment rate at 9.6%, a real-estate landscape littered with more than 14 million unoccupied homes, and manufacturers operating with 28% of their productive capacity going unused.
The Journal also ominously notes:
In essence, the Fed now will print money to buy as much as $900 billion in U.S. government bonds through June—an amount roughly equal to the government's total projected borrowing needs over that period.
Translation: No one will buy our bonds anymore. We have reached the worst case scenario. We have to finance the government by printing money.
jms blithered incoherently, He also ignores Obama's openly Socialist practice of seizing private industry so the government can run it and (supposedly) take the profits.
Yawn. The biggest example of government "seizure" was the finance sector. It wasn't a seizure, it was a bailout. The losses were socialized, so to speak, but the gains were (and are) privatized. And unfortunately the government isn't controlling much of anything Wall St. does.
The most egregious example being the government seizure of the student loan industry, which was tacked onto the health care bill for no other reason that it looked profitable and the Democrats needed some quick money.
You're an imbecile. Lenders are free to make loans to students. They're just less free to get a free handout in the form of a government subsidy, which was the previous status quo.
The banking industry, auto industry, and health insurance industry all provided object lessons in what to expect from this administration if you show any signs of being a tasty takeover target.
Would that the government really seized the banking sector, so it could truly reform it; instead, it just handed the fat cats wads of cash. Auto sector: without gov't help, GM and Chrysler would be bankrupt. And health insurance? They're just a bunch of parasitic rent collectors that contribute nothing; a socialized single payer system would be far more economically efficient, as all the empirical data show.
Wall street fat cats.
In fact, Wall St. is comprised of nothing more than fat cat, parasitic, rent-collecting scum that should be hanging from lampposts, if there was a shred of justice in this world.
Greedy doctors who perform unnecessary amputations for enormous profits.
Actually, there are doctors like that. Most aren't, but some are.
Student loan profiteers.
Yes, actually, the so-called student loan "industry" only existed to take Federal subsidies.
How you post on these topics with such apparent lack of knowledge is amusing.
|
