The American Thinker has published a very interesting article entitled Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, in which the author examines what amounts to a liberal socialist conspiracy started by radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven.
This strategy, now known as The Cloward-Piven Strategy, is what The American Thinker is accusing Obama of being a pawn of, and perhaps to some extent, a pawn that knows what he is doing.
As the image to the right outlines, the links between Cloward and Piven, the many modern socialist thinkers, the founders and activities of corrupt organizations like Acorn, and Obama are too numerous to ignore. This is not just some kookie conspiracy theory, this is how the power of ideas corrupts higher education and government, and can lead to a nation’s downfall.
And to me, it in part explains why liberals can so enthusiastically buy into the social and scientific negligence of Global Warming Panic and the absurdity of the astronomical debt of Obamanomics. It is an exercise in mass brainwashing, and like watching the Communist revolution all over again as if we never saw it happen before.
Essentially, in order to get their liberal socialist government in place (which they believe is good for us), they create failure in our systems by overtaxing them in order to get more monies for them. In addition, they create an environment of panic in order to push their agenda through more quickly.
So, up enrollment in welfare and claim it needs more money, manufacture a climate crisis (with the added side benefit of making you and your buddies rich trading pollution credits), etc.
So, do the leaders of the Liberal Panic Movement (LPM) know what they are doing? Partly, I think that they are duped by the vain philosophies of Socialism – that is, ignorant and deceived. Partly, I think that they are fearful – when you are afraid, you will grasp onto anything that offers hope. Some people approach religion this way, and our eco- and statist-religions are offering salvation too. Partly, I think that they are greedy for personal gain. Lastly, I think that those who knowingly create crisis in order to push their agenda are evil.
For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh.
Yeah, right, we're all just a bunch of brainwashed zombies ripe for manipulation by the evil leftist conspiracy to take over America and make everyone communists, pot-smokers, abortionists, atheists, and homosexuals.
Lastly, I think that those who knowingly create crisis in order to push their agenda are evil.
Yes, just like the Bush administration after 9/11.
You are so pathetic that you actually give this tripe the time of day. You can't even grant your opponents the integrity of their intellects. You have nothing real to say so you stoop this low to defame anyone who disagrees with you. And then you whine that people actually think the exact same thing about religious conservatives. No wonder!
Why debate someone like you? This is pure ad hominem bilge.
Hi Daniel:
You guys can continue to make the absurd claim that Obama is a socialist, and you can continue to SEE Obama's economic plan as a conspiracy to destroy free enterprise (the same way the crazies in the 30s though the New Deal was a conspiracy to destroy freedom), but if you do your side is as nuts as the 9-11 conspiracy wackos (and the militia wackos and the John Birch Wackos). A huge stimulus package is definitely within the range of reasonable and responsible policy debate. The economy we are suffering from right now is an extreme case and reasonable people have to at least CONSIDER extreme measures. This is not an ideological issue–the crazies on the left are just as nuts as the ones on the right. It's just that the right wing crazies have more power in their party than the left wingers do in ours.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: you can continue to SEE Obama's economic plan as a conspiracy
At the very least, it's group think. But I really really do believe that liberals are deceived about the merits of these huge social programs and the role of government, and are influenced by American liberal socialist thought which was birthed in the 60's.
The fact that Soros and his ilk are associated with and friends with many of these overtly Socialist ideologues, the fact that their small group of friends started many of these corrupt organizations, and the fact that Obama has connections to most of them is not to be overlooked just because it *looks* like collusion, and saintly Obama would *never* do that.
And this *IS the same type of collusion that the Bush/Cheney groups were rightly accused of in some situations, be they the oil and defense industries, as well as the 'we have to go to war with Iraq' guys. Those accusations were not on the level of the 9/11 conspiracies, and neither are those mentioned here.
>> KEITH: A huge stimulus package is definitely within the range of reasonable and responsible policy debate.
Any idea is within the realm of debate, bit the stimulus package is so outside of wisdom, so outlandishly contrary to sound finance that it boggles the mind. I look in amazement as the same people who condemned the Bush debt now look the other way because the Obama debt is somehow targeted in a manner that will HELP the economy.
In my opinion, it's not the logic of the Obama economic plan that appeals to liberals, it's the 'government as savior' appeal that social welfare types fawn over. It's the type of corrupted human wisdom which contradicts the wisdom of the experience (and scripture) across history.
You said that the economy needs 'spending and investment' to recover, and I agreed. However, rather than creating the conditions under which private investors (who have money) want to invest (guided by self-interest, which is what makes capitalism work, and how it maintains a lower risk profile), liberals are TAKING money from all of us (primarily from the rich who pass it on to us in the form of higher prices) and giving it away to cronies.
It's idiotic – counter to promoting responsibility and risk, killing the real engines of the economy (investors), killing the people it is trying to help (by driving up unemployment, consumer costs, and taxes, even though they suppose that it will not do the latter), and creating such an astronomical debt that we all ought to gasp and catch our breath at the risk we are passing on to our children.
But liberals just content themselves with "it would be worse if we did nothing," as if their plan is the only plan out there, and as if doing nothing were MORE risky than this incredibly insane idiocy pushed by a pretty president which they continue to swoon over.
I estimate that in 50 years, the legacy of the last two presidents will be almost the OPPOSITE of what liberals expect. GWB will be seen as the man who helped create some modicum of liberty in the middle east, and Obama will be the one who drove the economy into a depression that hurt the US, perhaps for generations.
>> LOUIS: You can't even grant your opponents the integrity of their intellects.
The problem here is that, while the opponents have fine intellects, like the Communists, Socialists, and Fascists before them, they are entirely wrong despite their intellects. They are literally driving us off an economic and social cliff, and someone has to warn the people that THEY ARE OFF THEIR ROCKERS.
Obama and his cabinet may be not be consciously following the Cloward-Piven strategy, but the rich jerks who created the organizations like ACORN certainly DID have that in mind, and they just dressed it up in 'helping the poor' clothing. Liberals eat that stuff up, and like Pavlovian digs, give not a thought to wondering why they follow, salivating.
I think that the Obama economic package is 10x worse than the Iraq war as to it's potential impact on America.
And again, what is important to see is that, conspiracy or not, the intellectual links between all of these socialist thinkers and rich politicos like SOROS and Obama shows that their thoughts and strategies most certainly could be related.
I think that most of the left are stooges of these 'thinkers' and 'investors' who want big government, at least as much as it benefits them. I suspect that they think that big government is good for us. They are wrong. Long live Thomas Jefferson!
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: you can continue to SEE Obama’s economic plan as a conspiracy
At the very least, it’s group think. But I really really do believe that liberals are deceived about the merits of these huge social programs and the role of government, and are influenced by American liberal socialist thought which was birthed in the 60’s.
What you call “group think” I’d call “people who have similar opinions about appropriate public policy”–your loaded term is noted:-). I think the 60’s come off pretty good, what with the Civil Rights Acts, with the beginning of the elimination of gender discrimination etc. Socialist thought? Socialism has NEVER been popular in the US, the big liberal programs of the Great Society were monumentally successful until Nixon reduced the real per capita expenditure during his tenure in office. There is ample evidence that big government works exceedingly well (Denmark, Norway for example) at combing productivity with economic security for the vast majority, not leaving people behing the way our more laissez faire system does.
>> KEITH: A huge stimulus package is definitely within the range of reasonable and responsible policy debate.
Any idea is within the realm of debate, bit the stimulus package is so outside of wisdom, so outlandishly contrary to sound finance that it boggles the mind. I look in amazement as the same people who condemned the Bush debt now look the other way because the Obama debt is somehow targeted in a manner that will HELP the economy.
Economists on both sides agreed that a fairly large stimulus was necessary, so it is false to suggest that what Obama got was OUTLANDISHLY contrary to sound finance. Nobel level economists have said the stimulus is too SMALL. YOU say the package was outlandish, which reminds me of saying it’s outlandish that an airplane that weighs thousands of pounds can fly in the air–it may seem amazing but when you understand the science it’s not outlandish at all. Please don’t mistake what I am saying. I am not claiming that Krugman, Stiglitz et all are necessarily RIGHT about the size of the stimulus, I am suggesting that they know enough about economics that their opinions will not be outlandish.
In my opinion, it’s not the logic of the Obama economic plan that appeals to liberals, it’s the ‘government as savior’ appeal that social welfare types fawn over. It’s the type of corrupted human wisdom which contradicts the wisdom of the experience (and scripture) across history.
Experience shows that the welfare state can do quite a bit to promote the well-being of the citizenry. I am definitely for government doing more than it does right now to promote social justice. But in ordinary times we should raise taxes to do this. The deficit is a separate issue, one that only applies to the current economy
You said that the economy needs ‘spending and investment’ to recover, and I agreed. However, rather than creating the conditions under which private investors (who have money) want to invest (guided by self-interest, which is what makes capitalism work, and how it maintains a lower risk profile), liberals are TAKING money from all of us (primarily from the rich who pass it on to us in the form of higher prices) and giving it away to cronies.
Private investors will invest when they believe they can sell their product. Government spending to make up for the collapse in private spending is exactly what will provide businesses with the incentive to hire workers and produce.
It’s idiotic – counter to promoting responsibility and risk, killing the real engines of the economy (investors), killing the people it is trying to help (by driving up unemployment, consumer costs, and taxes, even though they suppose that it will not do the latter), and creating such an astronomical debt that we all ought to gasp and catch our breath at the risk we are passing on to our children.
As a fraction of GDP, our deficit was much worse during world war ii and far from crippling us, we had the best economic times of our nations history after the war. you claim the stimulus will drive up unemployment, but I’d argue the opposite–it’s not overspending that has driven our unemployment rate so high, it has been the COLLAPSE of spending.
But liberals just content themselves with “it would be worse if we did nothing,” as if their plan is the only plan out there, and as if doing nothing were MORE risky than this incredibly insane idiocy pushed by a pretty president which they continue to swoon over.
Loaded rhetoric to be sure. I’ll trust the Nobel Laureates over you on this one.
I estimate that in 50 years, the legacy of the last two presidents will be almost the OPPOSITE of what liberals expect. GWB will be seen as the man who helped create some modicum of liberty in the middle east, and Obama will be the one who drove the economy into a depression that hurt the US, perhaps for generations.
Yuo are entitled to your wild guesses the same as anyone else:-)
LOUIS: You can’t even grant your opponents the integrity of their intellects.
The problem here is that, while the opponents have fine intellects, like the Communists, Socialists, and Fascists before them, they are entirely wrong despite their intellects. They are literally driving us off an economic and social cliff, and someone has to warn the people that THEY ARE OFF THEIR ROCKERS.
says you. WE say you have a blind faith in your conservative ideology that binds you to the damage your ideology has already visited upon the country.
Obama and his cabinet may be not be consciously following the Cloward-Piven strategy, but the rich jerks who created the organizations like ACORN certainly DID have that in mind, and they just dressed it up in ‘helping the poor’ clothing. Liberals eat that stuff up, and like Pavlovian digs, give not a thought to wondering why they follow, salivating.
Conservative paranoia over ACORN shows your side to be the Pavlovian dogs, IMO.
your friend
keith
>> KEITH: What you call “group think” I’d call “people who have similar opinions about appropriate public policy”–your loaded term is noted:-).
Well, I was backing off of a conscious conspiracy. Perhaps the spectrum looks like this:
– Conscious conspiracy
– Unconscious self-deception
– Unconscious deception by elites
– Group think
– Unconscious deception by bad ideas
– Being partly correct
– Being almost entirely correct
>> KEITH: Socialism has NEVER been popular in the US
You’ve got to be kidding.
In the late 1700’s and 1800’s, there were a ton of Utopian socialists, including the likes of
Henri Saint-Simon
Robert Owen
Charles Fourier
Etienne Cabet
Wilhelm Weitling
See a nice overview of these fellows in America’s Socialist Past (American Thinker).
And let’s not forget the popular Frenchman Rousseau.
In the early 1900’s up till WWII, plenty were enamored with it. The media and academic elite of the 1930’s and 40’s were enamored with it. For instance, British Author H.G. Wells supported the idea of a technocratic elite, and after being impressed by Mussolini’s Italy, said that we need to have an American formulation of what he saw there, which he coined “liberal fascism.”
Just check out wikipedia’s History of the socialist movement in the United States and you’ll see such topics as Socialism’s ties to Labor. Of course, socialism was resisted as well, and was curtailed by fears of Communism, but it did exist as a real force in America.
And what we ARE talking about with the Obama admin is ‘soft’ socialism, not the openly ideological Socialism of the past. This is where government steps beyond simple regulation to heavy oversight of industry, banking, and education. It begins with socialist ideas, progresses to self-selecting leadership (we’ve seen conservatives in universities denied positions based on their politics), and often ends in a hegemony of ideas and legislation removing alternatives.
It’s seen in the hypocrisy of those who would deny, for example, vouchers for kids to choose better schools, while those same legislators feel free to pull their kids from public school to put them in private schools. In Britain, this is derided as Champagne Socialism.
>> KEITH: Economists on both sides agreed that a fairly large stimulus was necessary, so it is false to suggest that what Obama got was OUTLANDISHLY contrary to sound finance.
On both sides of what, the Democratic party? There were and are plenty of respectable doubters – what happens commonly these days is that a pre-selected group is paraded out as the consensus (like the IPCC and global climate change), and then it is claimed that ‘the majority of experts agree.’ This is politics, and I think that the ‘consensus’ here is political, not academic.
It’s like me arguing ‘the majority of Congress voted for the war’ as if that proves it was the right thing.
I’ll grant you that during the campaigns, more economists liked Obama, but again, that was mostly politics, me thinks.
But TODAY, for instance, see the Feb 11, 2009 article Investors and economists rail against Obama bailout plan (The Independent, UK).
>> KEITH: Nobel level economists have said the stimulus is too SMALL.
I’m sorry, but after giving both Arafat and Gore Nobel prizes, I’m not sure that the prize for economics is any less political or more academically impressive.
But just to humor you, how about Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama’s Stimulus (including FIVE Nobel Laureates, they must be right!).
Will you take THOSE Nobel laureates’ opinions over ‘mine’, as well as the other 200 Economists?
How about NPR’s June 17 report Obama’s Plan Falls Flat With Many Economists
You see, just finding a group of experts that agrees with you means little. I still hold that Obama’s policies are contrary to sound wisdom, and those that say the stimulus is too LITTLE are just kool aid drinkers – I mean, they want to throw so much good money after bad that I really think that they are kooks! Not just as a pejorative, but I think they’ve lost their objectivity and rationality almost entirely on this matter.
And let’s not forget this week’s CBO smackdown of the financial viability of the Obama health care plan. Another colossal boondoggle that makes the existing problems worse.
>> KEITH: Private investors will invest when they believe they can sell their product. Government spending to make up for the collapse in private spending is exactly what will provide businesses with the incentive to hire workers and produce.
You mean, if government takes all the risk, investors will invest, like in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I have no idea by what mechanism this government spending is supposed to encourage private investors to invest, esp. when higher taxes await them if they succeed! Please explain.
>> KEITH: As a fraction of GDP, our deficit was much worse during world war ii and far from crippling us,
Where were the liberals with this logic when GWB was driving up the deficit? ;)
>> KEITH: Yuo are entitled to your wild guesses the same as anyone else:-)
Yep, though some guesses are more educated than others. Mine is admittedly less ;) But it's mine.
>> KEITH: WE say you have a blind faith in your conservative ideology that binds you to the damage your ideology has already visited upon the country.
When? As I've argued, the current economic debacle is, imo, largely a creation of liberal economics ('equal housing for all' coupled with liberal opposition to banking reform), or at least bipartisan idiocy ;).
>> KEITH: Conservative paranoia over ACORN shows your side to be the Pavlovian dogs, IMO.
Since when is outrage over voter fraud and misuse of government funds paranoia? It's a symptom of the liberal approach to 'helping' the poor through any means possible, including lying, getting on the dole, playing race politics, reverse discrimination, and billing the government.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: Private investors will invest when they believe they can sell their product. Government spending to make up for the collapse in private spending is exactly what will provide businesses with the incentive to hire workers and produce.
You mean, if government takes all the risk, investors will invest, like in the sub-prime mortgage scandal? I have no idea by what mechanism this government spending is supposed to encourage private investors to invest, esp. when higher taxes await them if they succeed! Please explain.
That's not at all close to what I mean! Here's what I mean:
1. Businesses only invest when they believe someone will buy what they do.
2. In this economic collapse businesses stopped doing as much as they did before BECAUSE there was a collapse in private spending. The economy won't pick back up until buying resumes. Since individuals are not in a position to increase their buying enough, it falls upon government to buy things, the things that will be SOLD by private companies. Investors, wanting to get in on the business will then have an incentive to invest.
3. There is no reason to think that the mild tax increases Obama proposes for health care or to implement the cap and trade energy reform will discourage investment, not when there is profit to be made. I suppose there is SOME tax rate so high that investment would be discouraged, but Obama's moderate proposals don't come close to that rate.
KEITH: As a fraction of GDP, our deficit was much worse during world war ii and far from crippling us,
Where were the liberals with this logic when GWB was driving up the deficit? ;)
Nothing I said implies that deficits are NEVER a problem, but when we are in the liquidity trap economy we suffer now, government deficits are appropriate. We needed huge deficits to recover fully from the Great Depression–today's recession is similar in form to that economic collapse.
KEITH: You are entitled to your wild guesses the same as anyone else:-)
Yep, though some guesses are more educated than others. Mine is admittedly less ;) But it's mine.
smiles:-)
KEITH: WE say you have a blind faith in your conservative ideology that binds you to the damage your ideology has already visited upon the country.
When? As I've argued, the current economic debacle is, imo, largely a creation of liberal economics ('equal housing for all' coupled with liberal opposition to banking reform), or at least bipartisan idiocy ;).
The point is, we liberals do not agree with you that liberal economics produced the current economic debacle. That's the point. IMO trying to suss out hidden motives for those who disagree with you leads to exactly the "you did it, no YOU did it" debates that have poisoned discourse in our country. I think we should take our opponents at their word when they say why it is the believe what they believe. It is just as ill advised for me to claim you conservatives are blinded by ideology as it is for you to accuse us liberals of the same thing. I typically fail at this BTW, as my comment below shows.
KEITH: Conservative paranoia over ACORN shows your side to be the Pavlovian dogs, IMO.
Since when is outrage over voter fraud and misuse of government funds paranoia? It's a symptom of the liberal approach to 'helping' the poor through any means possible, including lying, getting on the dole, playing race politics, reverse discrimination, and billing the government.
There was NO voter fraud, there was voter registration fraud, and ACORN was the victim. Having been involved in voter registration, I know how this works. A group pays people to collect voter registration cards from people who get paid by the card. Some dishonest workers fill out fake cards so they can get paid more money without registering more voters. They were registering cartoon characters like MIckey Mouse for crying out loud. It is silly to see that as a conspiracy to steal an election. Equally silly (and very unhelpful to discourse) is your accusation that liberals support lying and support letting able bodied people to avoid contributing to our society by working. Your side and mine disagree about how to promote social justice (and we probably disagree about what CONSTITUTES social justice) but this impugning each other's character and intelligence doesn't help make things better. As Christians we have a responsibility to be better than that, IMO.
your friend
Keith
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: What you call “group think” I’d call “people who have similar opinions about appropriate public policy”–your loaded term is noted:-).
Well, I was backing off of a conscious conspiracy. Perhaps the spectrum looks like this:
– Conscious conspiracy
– Unconscious self-deception
– Unconscious deception by elites
– Group think
– Unconscious deception by bad ideas
– Being partly correct
– Being almost entirely correct
The point being, we liberals could just as easily apply the above to YOUR side. Such poisons discourse.
KEITH: Socialism has NEVER been popular in the US
You’ve got to be kidding.
In the late 1700’s and 1800’s, there were a ton of Utopian socialists, including the likes of
Henri Saint-Simon
Robert Owen
Charles Fourier
Etienne Cabet
Wilhelm Weitling
See a nice overview of these fellows in America’s Socialist Past (American Thinker).
And let’s not forget the popular Frenchman Rousseau.
In the early 1900’s up till WWII, plenty were enamored with it. The media and academic elite of the 1930’s and 40’s were enamored with it. For instance, British Author H.G. Wells supported the idea of a technocratic elite, and after being impressed by Mussolini’s Italy, said that we need to have an American formulation of what he saw there, which he coined “liberal fascism.”
Just check out wikipedia’s History of the socialist movement in the United States and you’ll see such topics as Socialism’s ties to Labor. Of course, socialism was resisted as well, and was curtailed by fears of Communism, but it did exist as a real force in America.
That there were reformers who supported socialism does not mean socialism enjoyed any real popularity. At no point in our history has socialism come close to the halls of power.
IMO your above analysis is quite off-base. There is nothing socialistic about strict regulation of the financial system, and there is nothing socialistic about serious government strings attached to bail out money. Bailing out failing industries was essential to prevent the total meltdown of our economy and Great Depression II. Obama is a moderate which is why many of us on the left are disappointed so far (I am not one of them BTW; I’m only a little disappointed).
It’s seen in the hypocrisy of those who would deny, for example, vouchers for kids to choose better schools, while those same legislators feel free to pull their kids from public school to put them in private schools. In Britain, this is derided as Champagne Socialism.
There is nothing hypocritical about (a)recognizing that we all have a responsibility to support the public schools and yet (b) choosing to (on top of your taxes) pay a private school to educate your own children.
KEITH: Economists on both sides agreed that a fairly large stimulus was necessary, so it is false to suggest that what Obama got was OUTLANDISHLY contrary to sound finance.
On both sides of what, the Democratic party?
No. Bruce Bartlett (the father of Reaganomics) and Martin Feldstein (GHWB’s economic guru) both supported the idea of a large stimulus.
There were and are plenty of respectable doubters – what happens commonly these days is that a pre-selected group is paraded out as the consensus (like the IPCC and global climate change), and then it is claimed that ‘the majority of experts agree.’ This is politics, and I think that the ‘consensus’ here is political, not academic.
I am not saying there were no respectable economists who doubted the value of the stimulus. You are not an economist, right? And yet you suspect the stimulus supporters are basing their opinions on politics and not on their expertise in the field? That seems a little presumptuous since they surely understand economics better than you do
It’s like me arguing ‘the majority of Congress voted for the war’ as if that proves it was the right thing.
Bad analogy IMO. Politicians ae not necessarily experts on appropriate policy, but trained economists are experts on the economy. This doesn’t mean they don’t disagree, but without good evidence to the contrary you have to assume that what they propose is at least reasonably likely to be accurate.
But TODAY, for instance, see the Feb 11, 2009 article Investors and economists rail against Obama bailout plan (The Independent, UK).
Some do, some don’t. If Obama’s plan was really as ridiculous as you suggest though, there’d be nearly NO economists of stature who supported it.
KEITH: Nobel level economists have said the stimulus is too SMALL.
I’m sorry, but after giving both Arafat and Gore Nobel prizes, I’m not sure that the prize for economics is any less political or more academically impressive.
There is definitely nothing wrong with Al Gore getting the Peace Prize. But academic prizes are given for quality work in your field. Both Paul Krugman and Joseph Stglitz are very well respected in their fields–their opinions matter.
But just to humor you, how about Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama’s Stimulus (including FIVE Nobel Laureates, they must be right!).
I didn’t say that my side must be right because of the Nobel winners. I said my side is reasonable as evidenced by the Nobel winners supporting it.
Will you take THOSE Nobel laureates’ opinions over ‘mine’, as well as the other 200 Economists?
How about NPR’s June 17 report Obama’s Plan Falls Flat With Many Economists
You see, just finding a group of experts that agrees with you means little. I still hold that Obama’s policies are contrary to sound wisdom, and those that say the stimulus is too LITTLE are just kool aid drinkers – I mean, they want to throw so much good money after bad that I really think that they are kooks! Not just as a pejorative, but I think they’ve lost their objectivity and rationality almost entirely on this matter.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I’d say you are not in a position to declare Krugman/Stiglitz ridiculous.
And let’s not forget this week’s CBO smackdown of the financial viability of the Obama health care plan. Another colossal boondoggle that makes the existing problems worse.
the CBO priced the plan at less than 300 billion over ten years! That amounts to about 10% of the war in Iraq and quite possibly understates the degree to which the public plan will help hold down costs. The report hardly counts as a SMACKDOWN, regardless of how the MSM has portrayed it.
your friend
Keith
Reading this stuff, I'm surprised that daniel and co. aren't "birthers" as well (ie, those who believe that Obama wasn't born in the U.S. and therefore not a citizen). The level of paranoid stupidity is the same.
"Reading this stuff…"
As Admiral Ackbar said in The Return of the Jedi, "It's a trap!"
Regarding the health care bill, killing the F-22 would go a long way to paying for health care, though I love that amazing plane.
>> KEITH: That there were reformers who supported socialism does not mean socialism enjoyed any real popularity.
Assuming you don't call the New Deal socialistic ;)
Seriously though, Marxism had lots of favor among American academics in the US, and in some circles, still does, esp. the 'soft' socialism of the Obama admin. I think that this description, though it has a pejorative and negative connotation, is not inaccurate.
The funny thing is, conservatives are not Libertarian, nor are they against all social programs per se. However, they ARE for the kind that have some attributes that soft socialists resist, including:
– an eye towards self-sufficiency for recipients ('hand-up not hand-out' or workfare rather than welfare)
– a bent away from enforced compassion and towards private compassion (because government compassion programs are wasteful and easily abused)
– an abhorrence for debt (I said conservatives, not GWB)
– a belief that market forces do a better job at keeping prices down, innovation high, and waste at a minimum (monopolies, however, must be protected against)
– a belief that large government programs (other than defense) are by nature prone to waste, abuse, and evil (thank you th. jefferson)
I suspect that many conservatives were against the new deal, and there are historians who think that the oversteps of the New Deal actually slowed the recovery, so the New Deal may not have been purely a success.
Do you not understand why we are alarmed at the unprecedented spending and government intervention in market forces? This has little chance of working out well, and plenty for not, historically speaking.
We are also skeptical because, in our view, the Obama admin is in the business of CREATING and EXAGGERATING crises in order to pass legislation. While the economy may be in crisis, pushing through legislation so fast that even those who vote on it, including the President who must sign it, HAVEN'T EVEN HAD TIME TO READ IT. This is beyond ludicrous speed.
And what is so scary is that this is becoming the MO of this administration and congress. Rush things through (like the Health Care bill, which they give only two weeks for even though it won't take effect for four years ?!?) so that no one can read, contardict, or refine them.
They did it with the stimulus and are doing it again. Panic is a nice way to push things through, but hopefully, people will get sick of this kind of politics. He's just trying to leverage his waning popularity before he becomes a lame duck. 2012!!!
>> KEITH: Politicians ae not necessarily experts on appropriate policy, but trained economists are experts on the economy.
So you excuse their idiocy because they are incompetent to do their jobs, and we should not expect legislators to be experts on public policy? What the hell did we elect them for? Only academics can understand policy? That is a truly scary perspective. And a bad excuse for sloppy legislating.
>> KEITH: And yet you suspect the stimulus supporters are basing their opinions on politics and not on their expertise in the field?
Yes, based on the precedent of the IPCC and other liberal panic politics of recent times. And based on the reality that a majority of University professors are liberal in their politics (unlike the more balanced populace). I think my initial assumption that liberal 'experts' are primarily political and non-objective is a good first guess – not because they are liberal, but because of
(1) the politicization of the sciences and academics
(2) the liberalization of American Universities
(3) the realization that smart people are on both sides of the issues, so the difference is probably politics and not logic.
And out of the gate, I can say that I almost always agree more with the conservative assumptions on reality, so liberal economists I would assume are less correct just out of the gate. Of course, I'd have to look at their arguments to be sure, but I am making educated guesses based on those items above.
Hi Daniel:
KEITH: Politicians ae not necessarily experts on appropriate policy, but trained economists are experts on the economy.
So you excuse their idiocy because they are incompetent to do their jobs, and we should not expect legislators to be experts on public policy? What the hell did we elect them for? Only academics can understand policy? That is a truly scary perspective. And a bad excuse for sloppy legislating.
Where do you get that I am excusing legislators? Legislators ought to become experts on policy but it is a fact that they are not necessarily smart or inquisitive enough to BE experts.
KEITH: And yet you suspect the stimulus supporters are basing their opinions on politics and not on their expertise in the field?
Yes, based on the precedent of the IPCC and other liberal panic politics of recent times. And based on the reality that a majority of University professors are liberal in their politics (unlike the more balanced populace). I think my initial assumption that liberal 'experts' are primarily political and non-objective is a good first guess – not because they are liberal, but because of
Here you assume as fact that the IPCC isn't honestly judging the science on global warming. About liberal professors: subtract out people like English professors because they are not trained to analyze political policy. If we look at economists, I expect there are liberals and conservatives in a reasonable balance. I would presume that conservatives at least understand the basics the same as liberals, that they have a basic agreement on most things. I also (like all reasonable people) recognize that a person's prior beliefs can affect how he evaluates evidence. What I find difficult is your suggestion that the liberal economists have no BASIS AT ALL EXCEPT BIAS for their economic analysis. One of the reasons I have difficulty swallowing your accusation is that you are not a trained economist and yet you imagine yourself competent to judge liberal economists as TOTALLY BLINDED BY THEIR IDEOLOGY instead of presenting a competent opinion.
And out of the gate, I can say that I almost always agree more with the conservative assumptions on reality, so liberal economists I would assume are less correct just out of the gate. Of course, I'd have to look at their arguments to be sure, but I am making educated guesses based on those items above
If all you were saying is that you have more confidence in the conservative analysis than the liberal analysis, I'd not have a problem. But it seems to me that you are going way beyond that. You are saying that the liberals are totally ignoring the facts and letting their ideology totally determine their analysis, The thing is, I know that some liberals are saying the exact thing about your side. It seems presumptuous (even ludicrous) to me for a layman to make such accusations against a person who has studied a field for years. Experts can be wrong–when the experts disagree it is certain that at least some are–but I cannot see any basis for your suggestion that the liberal experts are without any professional integrity.
your friend
Keith
Hi Daniel:
You wrote:
Do you not understand why we are alarmed at the unprecedented spending and government intervention in market forces? This has little chance of working out well, and plenty for not, historically speaking.
Says you! For one thing, what we are doing is not unprecedented. In WW II we had MUCH more government intervention in the economy and MUCH more spending. But I am not saying you ought not be alarmed. It seems to me we are taking extreme measures right now, because the economic problem requires such extreme measures. It's like major surgery. You say there is little likelihood of success. Well the economists I tend to trust say a big stimulus is very likely to work and the evidence of the US's military Keynsianism (and Germany's military Keynsianism BTW) shows how government stimulus can indeed revive an economy.
We are also skeptical because, in our view, the Obama admin is in the business of CREATING and EXAGGERATING crises in order to pass legislation. While the economy may be in crisis, pushing through legislation so fast that even those who vote on it, including the President who must sign it, HAVEN'T EVEN HAD TIME TO READ IT. This is beyond ludicrous speed.
I;'d say there was no exageration–we were definitely in a crisis and failure to act could easily have led to Great Depression II. Your complaint is like saying we should wait until the patient bleeds to death before we start the transfusion.
And what is so scary is that this is becoming the MO of this administration and congress. Rush things through (like the Health Care bill, which they give only two weeks for even though it won't take effect for four years ?!?) so that no one can read, contardict, or refine them.
We know how to fix health care because the western industrial democracies show how it can be done–at half the cost as in the US. of course we won't get that because of the power of the parasitical private health insurance companies.
They did it with the stimulus and are doing it again. Panic is a nice way to push things through, but hopefully, people will get sick of this kind of politics. He's just trying to leverage his waning popularity before he becomes a lame duck. 2012!!!
I'm not a big one on predictions. I remember the right wing crowing last summer about how Sarah Palin was going to fire up the Republican base and sweep McCain into the White House. Obama hasn't even been in office a year and he is still the most popular political person on the planet. Talk about his being lame duck is IMO a bit premature.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: Your complaint is like saying we should wait until the patient bleeds to death before we start the transfusion.
So you are OK with the legislators and the president not reading the legislation before voting on it due to the crisis? This is what is happening.
Hi Daniel:
I am not sure the legislators were as clueless about what was in the stimulus package as you suggest, but when the choice is between swift action and Great Depression II, swift action is necessary; too much caution is reckless.
your friend
Keith
Swift action is the answer? So if we make a resolution to build 20 sand castles and pass it quickly, that's the answer?
Bit silly, I know, and I'm sure that you'll agree that swift *helpful* action is necessary.
Is massive deficit spending helpful? That great conservative bastion of fiscally responsible thought… oh wait, nevermind, UCLA would disagree:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Polici…
It even defies Keynesian economic theory:
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/richard_pos…
And sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:
http://flutemandy.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/def…
http://ohiopoliticsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/…
Hi James:
The idea that the Great Depression was PROLONGED by the New Deal is, I will charitably say, NOT established economics. That Krugman has forgotten a key part of Keynesian theory (as the writer of your second link claimed) is wrong.
youor friend
Keith
I assume your post got cut off, Keith.
I would love to see the support for your statement. Or should I just take it on your word?
:p
Better Louis! Thank you.
So, that then starts to get us to the point… So "Krugman says" is better than "UCLA study says"? I could easily say, "Thomas Sowell says", but then what do you say?
Krugman is a liberal.
Thomas Sowell is a conservative.
They have idealogical differences. They are both pundits, and credentialled economists. So then an impass and throw up hands?…
Which is why addressing the UCLA (a LIBERAL university) study would be helpful, or showing a peer reviewed economic study that shows different take on it would be helpful.
What I find particularly interesting about that snippet you provided, is that it points blame at Bush II for tax cuts and goverment spending as a cause or exacerbation of the problem (not that I disagree)… Do you see the flaw in the argument? :D Of course that link is from the blog of a high school student, so some logical errors are to be expected. This is a big boy topic.
Krugman isn't just a liberal, he's a socialist.
It isn't "because Paul Krugman says so," but the arguments provided in the two paragraphs and the whole article. And, yes, it's a big boy argument, but when I provide the argument you can't or won't really address the facts. Talk about ad hominem (he's a high school student so he can't have anything good to say)! Here's another analysis you might like to peruse (complete with graphs). I don't like your patronizing tone either. This is precisely why I maintain I can't get a fair hearing from you conservative christianists – you consistently insult, patronize and dismiss anyone you disagree with, parsing their lives and positions with a microtome, while giving yourselves a free pass. Evidence? Reread the original post for this thread written by your buddy, daniel:
So, do the leaders of the Liberal Panic Movement (LPM) know what they are doing? Partly, I think that they are duped by the vain philosophies of Socialism – that is, ignorant and deceived. Partly, I think that they are fearful – when you are afraid, you will grasp onto anything that offers hope. Some people approach religion this way, and our eco- and statist-religions are offering salvation too. Partly, I think that they are greedy for personal gain. Lastly, I think that those who knowingly create crisis in order to push their agenda are evil.
For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh.
You completely give this malicious bilge a free pass and jump on me for a supposedly irrational response (here and elsewhere). Well, as far as I'm concerned, you have NO standard to judge me, no ability to be fair. Hypocrite.
Whatever.
Louis,
Do you think it's fair to say that all Christians are a certain way because one is that way? What you provided was an anectdotal example, not proof. Would you respond in agreement if I said that all gay people are one way because I know a gay person who is that way? It's silly, right?
As for Ad Hominem on my part… only if you pick and choose… Let me provide the entire quote of what I said, so you can try again:
"What I find particularly interesting about that snippet you provided, is that it points blame at Bush II for tax cuts and goverment spending as a cause or exacerbation of the problem (not that I disagree)… Do you see the flaw in the argument? :D Of course that link is from the blog of a high school student, so some logical errors are to be expected. This is a big boy topic. "
Note I did not dismiss what was said because it was a high school student. I asked if you could see the absolutely glaring logical problem, and THEN pointed out that you quoted a high school student. If you really don't see the error, I'd be happy to point it out. Either way, you've failed to address it.
My tone? You're imagining it. Text doesn't have tone. If you want to assume negative tone, then you may, your perogative, but it doesn't add to the conversation.
Patronize? Where?
Insult? You may have taken insult when it's not offered. Have I ever used fighting words with you? Never.
Judging you? Where have I declared you guilty or given you a sentence. These are the things of judges.
Hypocrite? Please point it out.
Dismiss? Hardly. I engage your thoughts consistently and without prejudice. I think it might apply to what you're doing here, though.
Here's the point: After all of those personal attacks, which I can only imagine you think somehow add to the conversation or your sense of self worth (else why would you hit "Post"?), you still haven't addressed the UCLA study or come up with a peer reviewed scholarly examination with different results. You linked a partisan article. Same problem with "Krugman says…"
When you address the articles I linked to, and the facts therein (which you have not done), I'll address your question.
And, yes, tone can be conveyed by text. "This is a big boy." This expressed contempt, both for the blogger and for myself for linking to him. It's doesn't matter a mosquito's fart who he is or his age, what matters is what he says. You have stated how much you admire daniel and his postings, only with a few slight reservations about his tone. You don't argue with his outrageous statements or provocations. Why not?
Do you think it's fair to say that all Christians are a certain way because one is that way? What you provided was an anectdotal [sic] example, not proof. Would you respond in agreement if I said that all gay people are one way because I know a gay person who is that way? It's silly, right?
I respond this way because christianists (not all Christians as you falsely allege) have so painted me. I'm just giving them back a little of what they have given me. If conservative Christians don't want to be stereotyped and judged they should stop doing it to others.
Two wrongs don't make a right louis
Translation: "I get a free hand to be as malicious and nasty as I want and you can't do a thing about it."
Fascist.
No, I just don't say one thing and do another. I am for consistency and sticking to principle, you are for applying one rule to others and another to yourself. This is how liberal logic works.
Hate racism, but apply it to white people.
Condemn 'hate speech' but approve of denigrating white men
Condemn the Bush debt then quadruple that debt and call it progress.
I hope that we have REAL health reform, not the idiotic Obama plan.
"what matters is what he says. "
Strike two.
You *still* haven't addressed the clear logical error… See above to your quote.
I had more written, but I think it's probably easier to focus on one thing at a time.