Views on the News – 6/9/2012
By: Ron Lipsman
The President was asked that the tone and tenor of the debate be based not on theoretical claims but on empirical achievements. Since Obama continues to blame this predecessor for his problems, a look back is needed to put things in perspective:
· Annual economic growth was three times higher under Bush than under Obama.
· The Bush unemployment rate averaged 5.3% while Obama’s has never been under 8%.
· In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs.
· Labor-productivity growth averaged 2.5 percent annually.
· Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11%.
· From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17%, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.
· The deficit fell to 1% of GDP ($162 billion) by 2007.
· Prior to the financial crisis of 2008, Bush’s budget deficits were 0.6 percentage points below the historical average.
The Obama’s record tells a different story:
· President Obama has overseen the weakest recovery on record.
· He is on track to have the worst jobs record of any President in the modern era.
· The standard of living for Americans has fallen more dramatically during his Presidency than during any since the government began recording it five decades ago.
· Unemployment has been above 8% for 40 consecutive months, the longest such stretch since the Great Depression.
· Home values are nearly 35% lower than they were five years ago.
· The United States has amassed more than $5 trillion in debt since January 2009.
· Government dependency is the highest in American history.
· A record 46 million Americans are now living in poverty.
On Obama’s record, then, it’s not like we have to engage in some theoretical debate. We now have evidence on how well President Obama’s policies have worked, and they did not work out well at all, and the American people now understand that.
(“Obama Makes it Too Easy on His Critics” by Peter Wehner dated June 4, 2012 published by Commentary Magazine at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/04/obama-makes-it-too-easy-on-his-critics/ )
Obama is a socialist as well as a Marxist, a Leninist, and a statist, and this truth can be uncomfortable at times and this may be one of those times for the political left. It matters not whether Obama is a “European-style” socialist or a “Soviet Union-style” socialist, he’s still a socialist, and a Marxist to boot. Socialism is socialism and Marxism is Marxism no matter the geography upon which it is practiced! The United States has still to decide whether it wants the European welfare state or not. Now, that is about as clear-cut a vision of what the up-coming election in November is about as anything heard to date. Depending upon how America chooses, we will either stand on our own two feet as free men, or die on our knees as slaves to the state. Socialism is worse than cancer because it enslaves entire nations and then murders their country. God-fearing people have no place in a socialist state because within a socialist state the government (the state) is god. If you wish to survive, your fealty must be to the state from which your sustenance comes. As far back as FDR, the US government placed the US on the slippery slope to Communism and socialism is the last step in the process of moving a free people from liberty to communism. “Forward” has been the slogan for Socialists, Marxists, and Communists for nigh onto a hundred years. It was either a humongous mistake or an overt attempt to bring Obama out of the Socialist / Marxist closet. The apathy of Americans towards politics has swung the door to the nation’s government wide open for those who have schemed for many years to undermine America’s constitutional republic and the capitalist society America’s forefathers so lovingly and tirelessly created on these shores. It now seems clear that the Obama campaign will use “fairness,” in conjunction with their campaign slogan of “Forward,” as their message to the many special interest and minority groups that make up, by far, the vast majority of the Democrat Party. “Fairness” IS a code word for socialism. The subliminal message is: “Redistribution of the nation’s wealth” meaning your wealth. The election in November is truly between the “Takers” and the “Makers.” The Takers will line up behind Obama and the Makers will line up behind Romney. If the Takers win, it will be a temporary victory because their society can only last as long as “other people’s money” lasts. Once the Makers (and their money) leave America, then America will quickly become what we know today as a “Third-World” country. In November, we will make that choice: Freedom or slavery, and may God help us if we choose the slavery of Socialism/Marxism/Leninism offered by Obama and the political left in America.
(“America’s Socialist President?” by J.D. Longstreet dated June 7, 2012 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47168 )
The link between President Barack Obama and Marxism is now very clear, with open endorsement by the Communist Party USA, and November’s election will be the first open choice between a capitalist or socialist future for this country. In a 2008, the Communist Party USA, strongly endorsed the Democrat Party’s candidate for the White House, appealing to all working people in the United States to back Senator Barack Obama, in order to provide “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.” That new alliance between the Democrat Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democrat Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress. The appointment of an open member of the Communist Party, Van Jones, as a White House dignitary was another first in the history of the United States. Soon after that, the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress began dutifully following in Marx’s footsteps by redistributing our country’s wealth and putting under government control a part of its health care, banking system, and automobile industry. Today it is considered bad manners even to mention the word Marxism, a doctrine that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:
· A progressive or graduated income tax;
· Abolition of rights of inheritance;
· Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
· Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
· Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democrat Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. Hiding the ugly face of Marxism has become a real Marxist science. This science was conceived by Lenin, who coined the term “useful idiots” to describe those in the West who naively promoted Marxism without knowing what it really was. Stalin perfected this Marxist science. At his request, all East European countries “liberated” by the Red Army at the end of World War II began their march toward Marx’s communism by donning socialist masks. Most East European governments simply concealed their road to communism by posting innocuous nameplates at the door, such as People’s Republic or Popular Republic. The 1963 missile crisis generated by Cuba gave the socialist mask of Marxism a dirty name in the West, and few Marxists wanted to be openly associated with socialism anymore. They therefore began hiding their Marxism under a new cover called “economic determinism,” which became all the rage among leftists who no longer wanted to be labeled socialists. Economic determinism is a theory of survival rooted in Marx’s Manifesto, but it pretends that the economic organization of a society, not the socialist class war and the socialist redistribution of wealth, determines the nature of all other aspects of its life. When economic determinism lost credibility after the devastating economic crisis in Greece, our Democrat Party began replacing it with “progressivism,” which has became the latest cover name for Marxism. The Progressive movement was born after the U.S. financial crisis of 1893, which it tried to solve by redistributing America’s wealth. The progressives pushed through the first federal income taxation, and they created a string of labor standards that opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess that generated the Great Depression. A new progressive movement, dubbed the New Deal, produced steep top tax rates, strict financial regulations, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, eventually generating the current economic crisis. The Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for the 2012 election. The United States of America is a unique country of freedom, built by generations of entrepreneurs who came to this land of opportunity in search of religious, economic, and personal freedom. Most Americans are still independent people who do not believe that the government is a boon bestowed from on high, and who will never allow themselves to become puppets of Marxism. Our country became the leader of the world because it is a successful capitalist country, and we Americans will do our best to keep it so. In November, the United States will indeed face one of the most important elections in its history and the voters will decide which of our two main political parties will control the White House and the U.S. Congress, but in fact, the voters will choose between keeping the country the leader of the Free World, or allowing the United States to be further infected by the virus of Marxism.
(“The Socialist Mask of Marxism” by Ion Mihal Pacepa dated June 4, 2012 published by PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/mihaipacepa/2012/06/04/the-socialist-mask-of-marxism/ )
Last year, as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives stood its ground on the debt ceiling standoff, President Obama’s strategy for 2012 became apparent which is to use Bill Clinton’s 1995 playbook when he similarly bluffed a Republican Congress into shutting down the government over a budget standoff. Throughout the torturous negotiations over entitlements, budgets, taxes and spending, the President issued statements about wanting a compromise, but these were a thin veil covering his obvious desire for a confrontation. Demanding new taxes that the House majority elected in 2010 had vowed never to accept, the administration more or less dared the GOP leadership to allow the country to default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The White House still hoped that lingering disgust for Congress combined with an economic recovery would allow the President to win re-election in the same manner as Clinton did. The bad economic news isn’t just a setback that will give the Democrats a few shaky news cycles, but it is confirmation that the President’s re-election strategy has already failed. The President seems to have no viable options to change the situation other than to whine about Republicans not passing mini-stimulus bills he claims will jump-start the economy. The President hoped to make the election a referendum on the GOP and on Mitt Romney’s fitness for the Presidency, but with a failing U.S. economy and the prospect that an even worse tailspin in Europe will drag America’s finance down even further this year, that strategy is looking like a losing bet. Nothing is worse for an incumbent than the appearance that he is not in control of events. The President’s helplessness on the economy, an issue that is his opponent’s one great strength, is scuttling his 1996 blueprint for victory in an election in which the odds appear to be starting to turn against him.
(“Obama’s 1996 Scenario is Finished” by Jonathan S. Tobin dated June 3, 2012 published by Commentary Magazine at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/03/obama-1996-scenario-is-finished-election-bill-clinto/#more-795476 )
In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the jobless rate would rise to 8.9% by the end of this year and that Gross Domestic Product would increase a mere 2% for 2012 and just 1.1% for 2013 and so far there predictions are proving true. First quarter GDP was 1.9%, so we’re following the forecast. This is the worst recovery since the Great Depression, and maybe even including the Great Depression. Typically, after a sharp downturn, the economy bounces back enough so that it gets right back on its 3% GDP trendline within a couple years, but that hasn’t happened. Forget the excuse du jour – gasoline prices, the European debt crisis, sluggishness in China and India, intransigence in Congress, etc. The hard truth is that the United States has been on a low-growth trajectory ever since the recession officially ended three years ago (!), and the problem is caused by government policies. The goal is growth – strong growth, in the range of 4% on a sustainable, consistent basis, cures all economic ills: it dramatically lowers unemployment; it cuts the deficit; and it boosts consumer demand, housing prices, and business investment. Like anything else, if you want growth, you have to make it the only economic goal and do everything you can to achieve it. Only recently are we hearing that from U.S. policymakers. Cutting government spending is one way to get growth and there are many others. Probably the fastest is reforming the tax code so that rates at the margin are reduced, loopholes and preferences are ended, and taxes are applied on consumption rather than on income and investment. We can also get more growth by adopting policies that bring the best and brightest immigrants to America, that improve our school systems, that increase free trade and remove constraints on developing energy resource. In fact, constraints throughout the economy are what we need to remove. Government’s role is not to create jobs but to help foster an environment where the private sector can flourish and create jobs.
(“As Unemployment Predictably Rises, the Solution Couldn’t Be Simpler” By James K. Glassman dated June 1, 2012 published by Forbes Magazine at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/06/01/as-unemployment-predictably-rises-the-solution-couldnt-be-simpler/ )
TEA Partiers have emerged as a political power and now have a duty to try to capture control of the Republican Party as their means of exerting national influence. Some of the TEA Party’s arguments were advanced in the 1980s as part of the Reagan Revolution, and there are some positive results already that offer encouragement. Two positive signs are the primary defeat of established Republican powerhouse Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and Deb Fischer’s victory in the Nebraska U.S. Senate primary. This sends a very loud signal to the Republican establishment that they need to actively recruit conservative candidates and not back away from conservative values during the general election. Following the TEA Party’s major role in returning the GOP to a majority in the House in 2010, disagreements among different branches of the grassroots movement became evident. The strife mounted between those who wanted to take the party back to its conservative roots and those who emphasized party affiliation over individual position statements. However not all the party elites will yield control over the party without a fight. Some leaders have embraced the TEA Party while others have been openly hostile because it threatens the traditional mode of operation where a small group of well-connected political insiders at the top of the hierarchy make the decisions for the party. During the ’80s, the struggles were internecine battles, whereas today the TEA Party is viewed by the Republican Party as an alien group who are not really Republicans as much as they are TEA Party people. Despite the seemingly slow pace of victory, the struggles will be worth it in the end, because the TEA Party can succeed if members continue their fight and eventually become a majority within the Republican Party.” Many TEA Partiers don’t regard Romney as a conservative, but he has commitments from enough delegates technically to take the nomination, so party leadership discussions will have to continue after the November election.
(“TEA Party Urged: Boot the Old GOP!” by Jack Minor dated June 2, 2012 published by World News Daily at http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/tea-party-urged-boot-the-old-gop/?cat_orig=politics )
Ron Lipsman, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics, Former Senior Associate Dean College of Computer, Math & Physical Sciences University of Maryland