Tag Archives: economics

Protesting for the problem they're against

The Occupy Wall Street protesters are voicing a very real and understandable grievance. Corporate America is far too involved in politics. I agree wholeheartedly. What these protesters do not understand is how or why corporations got involved in the government in the first place. In their calls to end capitalism they are showing a basic historical ignorance. We haven’t been a capitalist country in a long time. We started transforming into corporatism during Teddy Roosevelt’s reign and were done with the metamorphosis by the end of FDR’s presidency. Wasn’t Teddy a Trust-Buster? He certainly was. But a close look into US Steel during that time shows that they welcomed government intervention.  Carnegie even wrote an article in the New York Times asking for “Government control” of the steel industry. The collusion is due to the fact that the free-market involves risk, and government control means they do not have to worry about their smaller competitors who were hot on their heels. Third–party intervention into business favors the largest companies and often bankrupts the smaller companies.

This basic idea can be seen in the story of Upton Sinclair and his book “The Jungle.” In the popular narrative, his investigative journalism changed the meat packing industry. What is not known is that the industry itself wanted regulation. A Big Meat, as it would be called today, spokesman said as much to Congress. Government regulation behooved the major packers because the regulation pushed smaller and ironically more sanitary meat packers out of business due to the cost of the regulations, and also provided the commercial benefit of a federal seal by which to further sell their product.

Government meddling in business in fact causes corporatism. The free-market keeps business at a safe distance from the government. In other words, capitalism is what the Wall Street protesters should be begging for, not protesting against. The story of Microsoft is a modern example of this idea. For a long time Bill Gates bragged about the fact that his company, Microsoft, had no interest in government. He was being honest- Microsoft had but a single lobbyist- that is until he was attacked for being a monopolist. Now he has a veritable army on k-street. Wal-Mart is another enlightening example of this. In 2000, the company was ranked 771st in direct contributions to Federal politicians. After being attacked by unions and politicians, Wal-Mart had developed the single largest corporate political action committee by 2004.

The only people that are helped by government intervention are large companies and politicians. Small companies and consumers take the hit: consumers in paying higher prices and small companies by being pushed out of the market. It seems that the protesters are protesting for what they claim to be against. Economics and civics are complicated and the people funding these protests rely on those who join them to be too lazy or ignorant to understand either. For now it looks like they are right.


Liberals: ‘Tea Party Waging War on the American People’ – What would they Call the Last Two Years?

Where in the world has the left been for the last couple of years? An Op-Ed Columnist for the New York Times – Joe Nocera – wrote a piece today claiming the Tea Party was Waging War on the American People. I would like to ask Joe, where he has been for the last two years? If you want to call trying to get the uncontrolled spending under control – war – then I guess the Tea Party is waging war, not on the American people, but on Washington.

In the past two years the Obama administration has been on a ‘No-limit’ spending spree. They have shoved Obama’s economic plans through congress by writing colossal bills stuffed with pork barrel spending. They shoved an unconstitutional health care bill (Obamacare) through congress, at last count 27 states were suing over Obamacare – a $787 billion stimulus package to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent, it is now 9.2 percent – and now that the Tea Party Republicans are the House majority leaders and this kind of wasteful spending ceases they get called jihadist?

The Democrats control the Senate in 2011, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives. Up until this past election the Democrats controlled both Senate and the House of Representatives. It was relatively easy for Democrats to pass bills before the Republicans took over the House of Representatives – now it is not so easy.

Since Republicans took over the House of Representatives it kind of reminds me of when the United States went to war with Saddam Hussein. Saddam would shoot those Scud missiles and the U.S. would fire the Patriot missiles knocking the Scuds out of the air – nearly every time. The Obama administration fires their “Scud policies” and the House of Representatives shoot them down with the “Patriot members.” The Tea Party members of congress, I guess are waging war as Joe Nocera writes – but it is not against the American people as he dreams – but it is against the Obama administrations almost ludicrous “back room deals” they try to shove through.

Obviously Joe is a libtard, because in his first couple of sentences he writes: These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. So this writer thinks the Tea Party Republicans are “Muslim?”

What is  jihad? Answer: The Qur’an describes Jihad as a system of checks and balances, as a way that Allah set up to “check one people by means of another.” When one person or group transgresses their limits and violates the rights of others, Muslims have the right and the duty to “check” them and bring them back into line. There are several verses of the Qur’an that describe jihad in this manner.

See Joe tried to use jihad in a “bad” way to make the Tea Party Republicans look bad. But, I guess depending on what website you look at to get your definition of jihad the above definition is the most that I found. So I guess if we go with the above definition then I guess the Tea Party Republicans are waging jihad but not on the American people – but the Obama administration.



California’s ‘Boondoggle’ Report – I mean High Speed Rail Report

The term “Boondoggle” may be used to refer to protracted government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure, where at some point, the key operators, having realized that the project will never work, are still reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors.

Generally there is an aspect of “going through the motions” – for example, continuing to waste money on High-Speed Rail – as long as funds are available.

Obama’s inspiring vision of a nation crisscrossed by bullet trains, providing cleaner, safer and cheaper competition to airlines and reducing reliance on gas-guzzling automobiles, is in serious jeopardy as a new Republican majority in the House looks to slash his funding plans. In this environment, California is a test case for whether high-speed trains can succeed in the U.S. — and so far, the state is failing the test.

California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office forecasts a state budget deficit of $25.4 billion that the Legislature needs to plug before the next fiscal year begins. The LAO’s gloomy budget outlook is blamed in part on a $6 billion shortfall in the current fiscal year. California faces a $20 billion a year deficit through 2015-2016.

Seems California is in serious economic trouble, but yet they want to continue with Obama’s “Boondoggle” called high-speed rail?

Viewpoints: Case for high-speed rail grows only stronger. The last time many Californians thought about high-speed rail was in the voting booth. On that day, Nov. 4, 2008, more than 6 million voted to tell the state to get going, to build high-speed rail in California. Now, 2 ½ years later, the second guessing is in full swing. In recent weeks some have suggested that the project – High Speed Rail – be put on hold.

Most people I talk to have said this about high-speed rail – this is something the country ‘wants’ now, but it can’t afford it at the moment. The backers of high-speed rail are now using the “high Gas, cleaner environment issues” to their advantage – claiming that these HSR trains are cleaner and people will decide to pay to ride the train – instead of grid-locking the interstates with automobiles.

This of course is all speculation, because no where in the United States do we have an actual HSR service. The Legislative Analyst’s Office published a report calling for at least a ‘temporary halt’ to the project. The report alluded to a number of concerns about the project:

  • The amount and timing of future federal funding are unclear.
  • Spending state funds on rail will mean there is less money for other things.
  • We do not yet know how much private investment the system can attract, or when it will come.
  • Starting construction in the Central Valley is a “gamble.”

These “concerns” would make me cautious of this project too.

  1. They have no clue when or even if they will receive more federal funding.
  2. California is in real debt trouble – wasting states money on HSR – means less money for projects that are really needed.
  3. There is a “hint” of interest from private investments – but they have not seen any money from them yet – nor have the private investors 100% committed to investing.
  4. To qualify for the federal funds, planners had to agree to break ground by 2012. Federal officials deemed that the only segment that would be ready for construction so quickly was in the ‘sparsely’ populated Central Valley. As a result, the bulk of the $3.5 billion kicked in by the Obama administration must be spent on a train running between the tiny towns of Borden and Corcoran. Ridership on this initial segment would be slight, making it impossible to operate the train without taxpayer subsidies. Yet under the terms of Proposition 1A, the state can’t issue bonds to pay for the project unless it has been demonstrated to be self-sufficient. What’s more, if federal and other funds for further construction dry up, California could end up with an expensive train to nowhere.

So I can see why the Legislative Analyst’s Office has their concerns. I have my concerns as well, since I am helping to pay for it. California has a huge debt problem, my main concern is that Obama will want to help “bail” them out of debt forcing taxpayers to pay for California’s problems. Then we as taxpayers are obligated to pay for all these HSR Boondoggles too!

The train’s biggest problems can be laid at the feet of the California High Speed Rail Authority, which is overseeing its construction. Inexperienced board members appointed by the governor and Legislature on the basis of political patronage rather than expertise have made a host of poor decisions. The poor planning shows as the board plans to take a circuitous route from Los Angeles to Bakersfield by veering through Palmdale and Lancaster. This would add 30 miles to the trip plus $1 billion in construction costs, and make it all but impossible for the train to meet its promised travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to San Francisco. Compared with the more direct route along Interstate 5 through the Grapevine.

This country is in a real debt crisis with unemployment way up, high gas prices, higher food prices and such. Why are we allowing Obama to “gamble” with his HSR dream? This is something the country would like to have but it doesn’t necessarily need it at the moment. We need to get our priorities straight spend our money wisely on things we already have but are in severe need of improving. Instead of “gambling” away at projects most of us already know – won’t succeed.



Correcting Bad Economics

I was recently added to a political discussion group and while the topics covered are interesting, the premise of the group is faulty and based on some skewed version of history and economic theory. In this article, we will pull apart the mission statement and note the major inaccuracies, since they are prevalent in many other debates.

“In the aftermath of a global recession, as we have seen a massive failure of deregulated subprime-mortgage securities poison the global economy, we seem to be stuck with the same old economic debates.”

This opening sentence shows us where the author is coming from; He is essentially under the belief that deregulation is what caused the mortgage meltdown. Such is not the case, and anyone that makes the argument that the US has been deregulated in any substantial way has not been paying attention. As I pointed out in an earlier article,  the amount of regulations has gone up for 16 out of the last 30 years with the only significant (and sustained) drop happening during Reagan.

The main cause for the subprime-mortgage “poison” was the government instituting regulations. While the beginnings of the problem can be traced to the 1940’s, it wasn’t until the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, a vague and crudely-worded piece of legislation, that the issue snowballed. Essentially, banks were forced to lend to people that couldn’t pay the loans back (in the interest of “fairness”). The loans were, naturally, high-risk, so the banks bundled them up into a “security” and sold them to other institutions. Those companies realized it as a bad deal and sold them to other institutions, and so on until the last company holding the bag got shafted. This never would have happened without government intervention in the marketplace. (I am aware of counter arguments made by somewhat reputable sources regarding the 1977 CRA, specifically that a problem caused by such an old law is a “silly’ notion. I contend that those authors lack the ability to see a causal relationship to actions and seek to gloss over the evidence in order to fit their ideological viewpoint).

As for “same old economic debates,” these debates have been happening since the dawn of civilization. Some believe that humans are fit to make their own economic decisions, while others seem to believe we need a government to make those decisions for us. It is an argument pitting liberty against government control. With the historical record clearly showing the greatest leaps in humankind having happened in direct proportion to the amount of economic and political freedom citizens possess, you’d think this debate would have been over centuries ago.

“The U.S. has never been purely socialist, not purely capitalist, except in the era of the banker and industrial robber barons of the late 1800’s.”

This is a cop-out, and is historically accurate to the point that the late 1800’s did see a rise in economic freedom, but it began to unravel with the McKinley administration (who enjoyed Republican control of Congress) and ended with Teddy Roosevelt and his “trust-busting” policies.

The use of the term “robber barons” is enlightening. While the term is applicable in the train industry, where railroad executives worked with the government to pass legislation (which is not capitalism), it is not applicable when applied to the likes of John Rockefeller and Standard Oil, the usual scapegoat who was able to grab a huge market share by eliminating waste and inefficiency in the fuel refining process, which allowed him to sell his fuel cheaper (which was better for consumers) and reap huge profits (which was better for him and his workers).

Yes, there were a lot of swindlers, but all of these regulations only hurt the honest businessman. It’s like the gun arguments involving gun-free zones; a criminal intent on murdering people is not going to stop because a certain area is “gun-free.” They have already made the decision to commit murder. A regulation banning his weapon of choice from a certain area is not going to stop him. In fact, the evidence points that it only encourages them.

“We have people advocating the same old trickle down deregulatory approach which has greatly helped the top 1%.”

Here, we see the beginnings of the class warfare argument, which is a stance rooted in envy, greed, and seeks to influence the worst parts of human nature. Steve Jobs is in the top 1%, so the argument goes that he should have to pay more in taxes and be regulated more. The flip side to the argument that the class-warfare warriors never seem to understand is how much more productive individuals and society as a whole is by the fact that Steve Jobs exists and is allowed to make his products. He and his team work hard and provide superior products to people who want them, and he should be allowed to keep the money he earns selling those products. Any so-called societal obligation has already been paid in full by the very nature that he made people more productive and grew the economic pie, of which everyone at all levels is able to enjoy.

“As for liberals or left-wing people like myself, I advocate government programs for the poor and disenfranchised as I know full well the ills of bureaucracy, inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc of our government.”

This is the revealing statement, where the author lets his views be known. The problem is that it contradicts itself. How can one advocate for government programs while simultaneously acknowledging the problems associated with them?

The fact of the matter is that those very government programs the author, and those associated with his belief structure, do not work for the simple fact that politicians and bureaucrats make decisions based on a political return, not an economic return. They have no fiscal discipline, and are not subject to the rules of the marketplace, so their job security is based on whether or not they can hand out more goodies and not on job performance. Never mind that those goodies are laced with poison and paid for on the backs of others.

Never in the history of mankind has centralized planning or class-warfare worked. Besides the faulty economic basis for such theories, i.e. class-warfare was only valid when the rich were the ones writing the laws and jailing the people who did not pay up, it ended when capitalism (meritocracy and free markets) came into effect.

“We cannot return to full-fledged Keynesianism and wax nostalgic over a past far better than the present, but we need to examine what clearly works well under the rubric of “social democracies” whose middle and poor classes benefit and progress from governments’ support of education, green technology, and universal health care. We have to consider the government’s role in providing the jobs and sustainable economies of the future as contrasted from the current oligopoly of fossil fuel companies, drug companies, big banks, the media conglomerates, all these being functional fascisms dictating the world economy.”

Again, with the class-warfare argument. He seeks to segregate people into groups and wants to equalize outcomes, which is impossible. The best that we can do, the path that we are morally obligated to seek, is one that frees people to go as high as they want while placing no burdens on their fellow man. The notion of all men being created equal escapes those like the author, who sees people as incompetent and in need of a benevolent force to take care of them.

Before the “common era,” that benevolent force was sold to mankind as a god-in-the-flesh whose divine power was mandated by heaven. His argument is little different and constitutes a societal regression, which is ironic since the people who use those arguments consider themselves “progressive.”

The latter part of that quote is important. The only role government has in a free society in providing sustainable economies is twofold, and is centered around the notion of keeping us free. The first is to protect us from force, which takes form in the defense of our borders (outside threats) and the defense of our selves and property (home-grown threats) with military and law enforcement. Secondly, the government should provide a court system so, in the case someone brings undue force against his neighbor, he can take them to court and have the matter judged by an independent arbiter.

The purpose of government is not to jump into the economy and start picking favorites, controlling people, and passing arbitrary regulations that make everyday living even harder. Such policies, which the author advocates, creates the very “functional fascism” he is railing against.

“The market for regular citizens cannot possible be free with the concentrations of power into ever fewer hands.”

Yet he would put control of that market in the hands of regulatory agencies controlled by 535 members of Congress, a president, and 15 cabinet members? One cannot make the argument that such a plan gives us more power when you consider that Congress is only at a 6% approval, hasn’t passed 20% in recent memory, and yet they still get reelected time and time again.

“Getting power back to the people cannot happen under the persistent stagnation of stereotyped economic polemics.”

Polemics (attacks) on leftist economic policies are warranted because those policies have never worked in the history of mankind despite 10,000 years of experimentation with centralized control. Whether you call the fascist, socialist, socialist-light, communist, tribalist, progressive, or liberal, they all fail horribly and only after sucking away the talent and motivation of a people. Such policies need to be attacked, discredited, and buried because real people’s lives are at stake.

What he said is true regarding polemics against capitalism. Capitalism is incredibly misunderstood even though it is essentially the easiest to understand: You are free to make your own economic decisions. It is because of this misunderstanding that I added the first picture in this article.

“We need to find common ground, try to understand the merits of theories we are predisposed to oppose before we can shift the paradigm. Shifting the paradigm is necessary to move forward and extricate ourselves from the transnational corporate tyranny impeding personal freedom and potential for growth.”

The “transnational corporate tyranny” is a straw man argument, though any sort of tyranny caused by corporations could not exist were it not for the regulations and amount of government control he advocates. No company can force you to buy a product, only government. No company can form a cartel without the assistance of government (i.e. the railroad industry in the 1800’s). In a free market, absent of the massive amount of regulations in place today, such companies cannot exist because a dozen competitors would rise up to take their market share.

In this argument between freedom and control, there can be no middle ground. You cannot say you are for freedom while advocating a new set of Jim Crow laws that put people into various groups and treat them differently under the law. 80% of millionaires in this country are self-made, first-generation, and they get that way through dedication, frugality, and hard work. They produce products people are willing to buy, and do so by hiring people willing to do the work. Enacting laws that essentially steal their money to fund corrupt programs does more harm to society than anything else. Such is the folly of “liberals and left-wing people.”

(Crossposted at Federalism Online)

Obama: Keynesian Economics or Cloward-Piven Strategy

The Main Stream Media and Liberal defense of Obama’s Economic Policy has been that he is using “Keynesian Economics” to stabilize our economy and to give him time. Well it’s time to look at Keynesian Economics and see if it matches.

According to BusinessDictionary.com Keynesian Economics is:

..the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy. This theory further asserts that free markets (despite the assertion of 18th century Scottish economist Adam Smith and other classical economists) has no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government’s intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability. Their ideas have greatly influenced governments the world-over in accepting their responsibility to provide full or near-full employment through measures (such as deficit spending) that stimulate aggregate demand.

According to Investopedia

What Does Keynesian Economics Mean?
An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Investopedia explains Keynesian Economics
A supporter of Keynesian economics believes it is the government’s job to smooth out the bumps in business cycles. Intervention would come in the form of government spending and tax breaks in order to stimulate the economy, and government spending cuts and tax hikes in good times, in order to curb inflation.

My Analysis:

  1. If Obama were actually using Keynesian principles he would, in these troubled times, be giving tax breaks to the rich in order to stimulate and aid the economy, instead we are expecting massive tax increases on the rich which will kill the economy. Not renewing the Bush tax cuts equals a tax hike, exact opposite of the Keynesian explanation.
  2. The Health Care Law amounts to a tax increase on business forcing them to make cuts and layoffs as well as drop coverage to employees.
  3. The pending Cap & Trade Bill is a massive tax increase on every business and every individual. The Coal industry will be unable to continue and electricity/gas prices will skyrocket. The increased price of energy will trickle down to kill manufacturing in the USA and if anything is made here, it will be too expensive to purchase on top of raised domestic energy costs. The lack of suitable energy to replace coal will cause mass rolling blackouts. Not very economically stimulating, therefor anti-Keynesian.
  4. The Financial Reform Bill does little to Wall St. but affects banks that would loan to small businesses, in short, don’t expect any loan. No loan no business, no business no contribution to the economy, hence, anti-Keynesian.
  5. The Many Stimulus Bills, on the surface appear keynesian, borrowing money, even deficit spending, in order to stimulate the economy and create or save jobs. However once you look into to the actual projects and the prices for them, you realize the majority of these projects are complete wastes of money and are therefor frauds which have no positive affect on the US economy, lasting or temporary.

I have made the case he is not using Keynesian Economics, now I’ll explain what I believe he is doing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy from DiscoverTheNetworks.org

“First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

“In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.”

“The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.”

Another title to this strategy has been “The Strategy of Manufactured Crisis” to go with what we have heard from this administration we could call it “The Strategy of Never Waste a Crisis” but I digress…

The objective is quite simple, overwhelm the system with impossible demands and it will collapse, in the chaos that follows you implement a Socialist system to “Save” everyone because “Capitalism falied” them and they will simply accept it.

Are we seeing this in play? I believe we are – this has been Obama’s plan from the beginning.

  1. The National Debt is near the breaking point and we have been warned by Moody’s that if we don’t stop spending we will lose our AAA credit rating, yet Obama continues to spend frivilously.
  2. Even the EU, which is in dire straits with riots in Greece and Spain has decided to stop the spending, yet Obama chastises them for it and demands they continue spending like he is.
  3. Obama’s non-Keynesian economics do not bolster the economy, but create uncertainty. Uncertainty in business does not encourage hirings, which would stimulate the economy, but layoffs and cutbacks just in case.
  4. The way he has demonized the rich, in his own words, and other comments made by Obama demonstrate that he is no friend of business or free market but instead has Socialistic goals.
  5. The Health Care Bill did nothing to lower the costs of Healthcare itself and forces insurance companies to raise premiums in order to cover all the new people added to the rolls that have existing treatment needs but never payed into the pool. By denying them the power to raise their prices, Obama is forcing them into Bankruptcy. He will then Implement the Socialistic “Public Option” to replace the Insurance Companies. Nancy pelosi did promise us that we, “will be begging for the Public Option.”
  6. The rampant unemployment due to Obama’s economic policies is bankrupting the entire State/Federal unemployment benefit system and overwhelming it. Directly inline with Cloward-Piven goals. The majority of the 50 States are at or near bankruptcy and cannot afford to pay for their own infrastructure let alone all the unemployed in this “Recession”
  7. Those lovely stimulus bills did not spend responsibly in any way, shape, or form. You can do a simple google search and find idiotic projects next to mindboggling prices. The worst part to this waste is that quite a bit even went overseas to be wasted there. Telling Hookers to drink responsibly in China, Fossil research in Argentina, and more, which could have absolutely 0 positive affect on the US economy.
  8. The rapid expansion of Government agencies and infrastructure only hastens economic collapse, not slows it. Government by nature is a leech feeding off of private business. The Government does not generate any income only takes it from productive citizens in the form of taxes and therefor cannot pay for itself.
  9. And finally, the last straw on the US economy’s back will be the Cap & Trade bill if implemented. Any business not over-outfitted with alternative energy will cease to exist on its own. Big Business will cut production, institute mass layoff’s, and dramatically draw down operations. Small business will die. This is economic armageddon and the deathblow to free enterprise and Capitalism.

Once fully implemented the Cloward-Piven Strategy will collapse all free enterprise. Obama will then move to Nationalize everything in order to “Save the economy” This I believe is where Obama is bringing us. However, The strategy will not end peacefully regardless of what its inventors predicted. The American People will resist the implementation of Socialism and will always rally behind freedom, not control.

In my opinion this Manufactured “Economic Collapse” will bring about riots and chaos in the streets worse than we are seeing in Greece and Spain. When we have radical militant groups such as The New Black Panthers and Farrakhan’s Fruit of Islam preaching racial hatred and violence, and Unions such as the SEIU who feel storming the home of a banker is ok, you can infer that their will be great violence from the Left .  This is not part of Cloward-Piven but part of the Communist takeover. Obama prepared for the ability to use violence in January with his “Council of Governors” Executive Order wherein 10 Governors will be chosen to run the country with Obama in the event of Civil Disturbances and Martial Law amongst other factors.  Obama willl use the violence from the economic collapse, fueled by the racial divide the Left is bringing along with anti Capitalist sentiments,and the clearly biased media to implement Martial Law and suspend elections and freedom itself. They have tried to bait the Tea Party into being the violent group but that has proven ineffective so now he waits for the left to attack.
According to the Army Times we already have Soldiers with “Homeland Tours” as a “New Dwell Time Mission” beginning on October 1st. 2010 for deployment within the USA.  “They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack”.  The article goes on to detail all the extensive training they are recieving for this new mission and new equipment such as tazers.
Cloward-Piven strategy is being used as a means to an end, nothing more and according to the Left’s hero Saul Alinsky, “The ends justify the means” regardless of the suffering caused. All for their greater good unrealistic Communist Utopia.  The Cloward-Piven strategy won’t end the way its creators planned, but will have been effective none the less.

If interested in reading the original article written by Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4
You can find it here at “CommonDreams.org” a website that describes itself as follows:

“CommonDreams.org is a national nonprofit, progressive, nonpartisan citizens’ organization founded in 1997 by political activists Craig Brown and his late wife, Lina Newhouser.
We are a powerful online voice for change in America.
With millions of monthly readers, we have become one of the top progressive websites.”

Yet another link between crushing capitalism and implementing Socialism as a goal of any progressive policy.

UPDATE August 1, 2010

Heres an amazing video on Cloward-Piven Strategy

Hattip to @AlinskyDefeater

Follow StopObama2012 and Conservative Daily News on Twitter

Unemployment Suffers Under Big Government: Reagan Had The Answer

The chief of the Atlanta Federal Reserve said on Wednesday that the unemployment rate is actually 16%, “If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking…”. Discouraged workers are one of the dirty little secrets of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). It’s a secret the Obama administration is happy to let continue on.

It is to be expected that people would eventually give up on looking for a job after spending months and months competing for fewer and fewer jobs. The longer a jobless period lasts, the more people drop off of the unemployment rolls. So the longer this lasts, the more the rate will appear to slow-down or even deceptively improve. The signs of improvement are not so and there’s more.

Unemployment line

Unemployment line

President Obama stated that the stimulus would create or save 2.5 Million jobs. According to the BLS, all we’ve seen is job losses since the start of this recession and that picture has not improved at all since the enactment of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (The Stimulus Bill). We were shown the fact the the unemployment rate stabilized in July to somehow back this up as jobs saved. Unfortunately, by reviewing the BLS statistics we see a different picture.

To get the real picture, we didn’t look at the deceptive unemployment numbers the government chooses to use.  Instead, we analyzed the employment statistics.  Basically, we looked at who had jobs in recent reports, and who has a job now then we broke-out the calculator.

For all 50 states (yes Obama, fifty), there were 134,300 fewer working people in August than in July. Where are the created jobs? We actually have the answer, and it has nothing to do with government stimulus.

We plotted the numbers state-by-state, then added in personal and corporate taxation as a factor. A not-so-surprising result appeared. States with less-than-median corporate tax rates, gained jobs – 13,600 of them. Wait, tax-incentives improve an economy faster than bottom-up government spending? Who would have thought, besides Reagan. It gets better.

States that had no personal income tax, gained 35,700 jobs. This can’t be. Obamanomics, Stimulus and bottom-up big-government, were supposed to stave off job losses, not Reaganomics. Evil, entrepreneurial, trickle-down only serves the greedy CEOs (and the 49,000 people that apparently got jobs in states that bothered to practice it).

It’s obvious that President Obama did not start the recession, but like Roosevelt, he is using big-government solutions to intervene and may have made it longer and more detrimental than it would have been if market forces had been allowed to work. This is another failure of bottom-up economics by the likes of Hoover, Roosevelt, Carter, now Obama – not great company if you want to be the savior of the economy. Due to the stimulus act and a monstrous influx of government money in to the private economy, this is now Obama’s economy – good or bad.

Just last month Vice President Biden told us that the Stimulus had performed better than his, “wildest dreams”. This is a continuation of the sales pitch to get America to buy a lemon. I’m betting more lemons are coming. Keep an eye out for extensions of unemployment benefits, an extension of the first-time home-buyers credit, and… heaven forebid… ARRA 2: The Mother of All Stimulus Bills.

Recent Entries »