Will A Weaker America Be A More "Just" America?

[stephanie]

:read:

by Austin Hill


President Barack Obama has no intention of helping to grow the United States economy. On the contrary, he is doing everything a President can do to weaken it.

I know that sounds harsh. Maybe it seems outrageously “partisan.” Maybe it just seems outrageous.

But after roughly ten weeks, Obama has consistently proposed ideas and plans (and in one case signing legislation) that will weaken the U.S. economy, not strengthen it. To attempt to view this man through the lenses of American prosperity, and to evaluate him with the same assumptions with which the behavior of other modern-day Presidents has been evaluated - - that growing the U.S. economy is a good and noble and necessary thing - - simply makes no sense.

Yet to assess this very different President with a very different set of assumptions in mind - - that American prosperity itself is a problem to be remedied, or that the U.S. has become an economic superpower at the expense of other nations - - only then does his economic behavior appear rational. And it is now clear that President Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S.

I didn’t arrive at this conclusion quickly. After he won the election, there was a glimmer of hope that his policies could end-up being more rational than his promises, with the appointment of Clinton-era advisor Lawrence Summers and Reagan-era advisor Paul Volcker.


read the rest and comments.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/03/29/will_a_weaker_america_be_a_more_just_america

[Kathianne]

I agree with the article. Perhaps many think a weak America will be a better America. I think they will be shocked at how the world, including Europe will react to a weaker America. Europe has been post-WWII Europe, simply because they could, with America protecting them. There's no doubt that it has been Europe, not North America that has been the killing continent for over 300 years.

[Joe Steel]

by Austin Hill

President Barack Obama has no intention of helping to grow the United States economy. On the contrary, he is doing everything a President can do to weaken it.

I know that sounds harsh. Maybe it seems outrageously “partisan.” Maybe it just seems outrageous.

Actually, the stupidity is more noticeable than the outrageousness. It makes me wonder if the author is using drugs or if he's just totally ignorant of financial and economic principles.

[manu1959]

Actually, the stupidity is more noticeable than the outrageousness. It makes me wonder if the author is using drugs or if he's just totally ignorant of financial and economic principles.

how about you link us up to some of the englightening prose you have published which demostrates your grasp of financial and economic principals....

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

This is what happens when stupid people are allowed to vote we get an inexperienced ASSCLOWN like oBAMA who is clueless and has surrounded himself with even stupider people then he is [ if that is possible ] The ASSCLOWN oBAMA will go down in history as the worst and stupidest President in history and he has accomplished this in less then 2 months... AMAZING :coffee:

[Joe Steel]

how about you link us up to some of the englightening prose you have published which demostrates your grasp of financial and economic principals....

What would you like to know?

[bullypulpit]

This is what happens when stupid people are allowed to vote we get an inexperienced ASSCLOWN like oBAMA who is clueless and has surrounded himself with even stupider people then he is [ if that is possible ] The ASSCLOWN oBAMA will go down in history as the worst and stupidest President in history and he has accomplished this in less then 2 months... AMAZING :coffee:

And then we get ASSMONKEYS like you who have nothing to add but mindless, puerile invective. Never mind that history has already judged Dubbyuh as one of the worst presidents in this nations history...7th from the bottom of the heap. In terms of economic stewardship he ranks 3rd from the bottom and in foreign policy he ranks above William Henry Harrison, but only because Harrison died within a month of taking the oath of office.

[bullypulpit]

:read:

by Austin Hill


President Barack Obama has no intention of helping to grow the United States economy. On the contrary, he is doing everything a President can do to weaken it.

I know that sounds harsh. Maybe it seems outrageously “partisan.” Maybe it just seems outrageous.

But after roughly ten weeks, Obama has consistently proposed ideas and plans (and in one case signing legislation) that will weaken the U.S. economy, not strengthen it. To attempt to view this man through the lenses of American prosperity, and to evaluate him with the same assumptions with which the behavior of other modern-day Presidents has been evaluated - - that growing the U.S. economy is a good and noble and necessary thing - - simply makes no sense.

Yet to assess this very different President with a very different set of assumptions in mind - - that American prosperity itself is a problem to be remedied, or that the U.S. has become an economic superpower at the expense of other nations - - only then does his economic behavior appear rational. And it is now clear that President Obama’s objective is to weaken the U.S.

I didn’t arrive at this conclusion quickly. After he won the election, there was a glimmer of hope that his policies could end-up being more rational than his promises, with the appointment of Clinton-era advisor Lawrence Summers and Reagan-era advisor Paul Volcker.


read the rest and comments.
http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2009/03/29/will_a_weaker_america_be_a_more_just_america

Obama's actions have more to do with classic Keynesian economics than they do with the demonstrably flawed theories of Milton Friedman, which have been the economic touchstone for conservatives for decades. Summers and Geithner have drunk too deeply of Freidman's philosophy to steer us out of this crisis.

[stephanie]

Obama's actions have more to do with classic Keynesian economics than they do with the demonstrably flawed theories of Milton Friedman, which have been the economic touchstone for conservatives for decades. Summers and Geithner have drunk too deeply of Freidman's philosophy to steer us out of this crisis.

so, to be fair to all, we all get to be poor..?

[bullypulpit]

so, to be fair to all, we all get to be poor..?

That's the GOP policy...Everybody works for Wal-Mart wages and the rich just get richer.

[stephanie]

That's the GOP policy...Everybody works for Wal-Mart wages and the rich just get richer.

at least we still had jobs at Walmart when a Republican was President..Now we have long unemployment lines..
But hey not to worry, the Democrats and Obama will save us.

[emmett]

And then we get ASSMONKEYS like you who have nothing to add but mindless, puerile invective. Never mind that history has already judged Dubbyuh as one of the worst presidents in this nations history...7th from the bottom of the heap. In terms of economic stewardship he ranks 3rd from the bottom and in foreign policy he ranks above William Henry Harrison, but only because Harrison died within a month of taking the oath of office.

I got an idea in four years W will be eighth my friend.

[sgtdmski]

Obama's actions have more to do with classic Keynesian economics than they do with the demonstrably flawed theories of Milton Friedman, which have been the economic touchstone for conservatives for decades. Summers and Geithner have drunk too deeply of Freidman's philosophy to steer us out of this crisis.

Oh so it is Keynesian ecomonics, the same ones that are just as flawed as you continually claim are Miltons.

I recall that once upon a time, democrats and liberals jumped up and down decrying the idea of the trickle-down theory. Well newsflash, the Obama adminstrations advisors in the White House Council of Economic (http://www.sitnews.us/0309news/032609/032609_shns_jobs.html) rely on the idea of trickle down to support Obama's claim regarding 3 million new or saved jobs.


Romer and Bernstein looked at how government spending and tax cuts would impact the economy. The economic model they used indicated that every dollar of government spending would increase the gross domestic product by $1.50. They then projected that would trickle down and cause businesses to hire more workers.

Based on their research, Romer and Bernstein predicted that 1.5 million jobs would be created directly over the next two years and another 2.2 million would be created as an indirect result of the economic recovery package or stimulus plan, as it is commonly known.

Wait a minute, I thought trickle-down doesn't work!!!!! It has been a Liberal and Democratic ideal for the past 20 years. So why the hell are they using it.

Nice try. Just more proof that the more we learn about the administrations plans, the more we find they are the failed policies of 30 and 40 years ago. They didn't work then and they sure as hell won't work now.

dmk