Always Think Ahead

Franz Reichelt presents an interpretive dance on the Obama economic plan:

You Don't Haggle Over The Price Of Fruit With Someone Who Is Setting Fire To Your House

A new chapter is currently being written in the cumbersome tome The Futility of Being Civil To Liberals by John McCain and Nelson Rockefeller, with contributions from Gerald Ford and Lincoln Chafee (ghost written by Neville Chamberlain). Thinking he could finally get a well deserved free trade treaty with Colombia through congress, George Bush in his meeting with Barry Obama offered to support the economic stimulus package that Nancy "Am I smiling? I can't tell" Pelosi has been clamoring for in exchange for the agreement's passage. I know President Bush's intentions are honorable, but he should know by now not to trust a Democrat. Although there were no aides present in what was supposed to be a private conversation between the current and future Presidents, Obama's aides have managed to promptly leak this information to the press.

Its time we stopped treating negotiations with liberals as if they are conducted in good faith. There is always an ulterior motive. These are not honorable people. Its time we stood up and fought them. Else we end up like Gerald Ford, begging Democrats for money while South Vietnam burns.

Why Labels Are Important

Barack Obama appears to be poised to win the office of the Presidency with a socialist platform. How did this happen? The United States of America smashed socialism decades ago, at home and abroad. Why then, are we now embracing it? I think the answer is that we're not embracing it. We're embracing a candidate, Barack Obama. I don't believe that most Americans are aware of Barry's radicalism. America is a center-right country. Barry knows this and has adjusted his rhetoric accordingly. He says he'll give 95% of Americans a tax cut. Sounds pretty conservative doesn't it? Except that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes. Giving a "tax credit" to those who don't pay taxes is socialism, welfare, redistribution of wealth, whatever you prefer to call it, except until recently, no one (at least no one connected to the McCain campaign) has called it that. Only during the final month of the campaign does McCain take off the gloves and attempt to warn the American people:

"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in a radio address.

Way to go, but where was this in June? Obama isn't anything fresh or new. He's running on over a centruy of failed policy that is responsible for untold misery and stagnation. He embodies a radical leftism many in America thought we'd defeated and left for dead in the seventies. This should have been a simple exercise for the McCain campaign, the Obama camp is seemingly run by William Jennings Bryan and the reanimated corpse of Friedrich Nietzsche. These ideas and ideologies were long ago discredited. However, McCain has waited until almost the last minute to point this out. If he loses, he can only blame himself.

Was He Waiting for Schieffer to do It?

If Barry Obama is elected on November 4th, he will be the most radical, left wing President in American history. This will happen without the opposition candidate pointing this out to the American electorate. Think all those "undecided independents" would be leaning toward Obama after last night's debate if McCain had detailed how he was a socialist? Johnny is so used to attacking Republicans and conservatives, that he looks lost when dealing with someone truly deserving of his ire: a left wing socialist.

Last night's debate was McCain's perfect opportunity to paint Obama with a socialist brush. It wouldn't have been hard. The debate was centered on economics, McCain had every chance. He properly mentioned Obama's association with Ayers and ACORN, but he didn't tie it all together. Why did Ayers support Obama at the start of his political career? Because Obama is a radical socialist, in line with the views of the SDS and the Weathermen. Why did Obama work for ACORN? Because they actively promote socialism in America. These were softballs lobed to McCain that he didn't swing at. McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber and Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, but once again he didn't tie it together. He never used the "s" word. He never explained why Obama's comment was damaging, what it said about his ideological beliefs. I could be wrong, but I never heard him use the word "redistribution" when talking about Obama, he should have. He should have quoted Marx, that's essentially what Obama was doing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is what "spread the wealth around" means. There is a dangerously high probability that we're going to elect a radical socialist to the office of the Presidency and no one in the McCain campaign or the Republican Party is warning the American people. Why the hell do we vote for them?

Arguing Against Gravity

I was reading a book last night (Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War, a fascinating book for any history buffs out there.) and I came upon a chapter on the 1906 British election between the Unionist Party (A hodgepodge of Liberal and mostly Conservative MPs united by opposition to Irish home rule advocated by famous Liberal leader William Gladstone) and the remnants of the Liberal party. Not to get into too large of a history lesson, but the Unionist member of the Cabinet who was originally responsible for the split from Gladstone was Joseph Chamberlain. (Father of future idiot Neville Chamberlain.) What I found fascinating was a tidbit about a Liberal MP excitedly showing his wife a newspaper article detailing Chamberlain's new found desire for a tariff which flew in the face of traditional British belief in free trade. The Liberal MP excitedly exclaimed that arguing against the free market was like arguing against gravity and the Laws of Physics. (For any confused American readers, the term "liberal" in late 19th and turn of the century Europe didn't carry the same meaning as it does in our country today. It was more akin to "libertarian" or "classical liberal".)

I must say, it made me a bit nostalgic for an age I've only read about, especially after watching pundits and world leaders proclaim the death of capitalism over the past few weeks. There was once a time, before citizens began voting themselves a share of the national treasury, that elected leaders and the public at large had rational beliefs about economics and complete faith in capitalism. Of course World War I and the ascendancy of Keynesian economics changed that in Britain, and I'm certain that we'll never get to that ideal during my lifetime. (See the Keynesian government bailout approved by both parties and signed by our "conservative" President.) Still, if people and governments were rational once, they can be rational again. After all, arguing against the free market is like arguing against the Laws of Physics.

The Green Movement isn't Pro Growth?

Reuters yesterday:

"A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.

'It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage,' Crutzen told Reuters in an interview."

Wait, so slowing economic growth is linked to a decrease in CO2 levels? These issues are related? Do environmentalists know this? Do they know that the easiest way to lower CO2 in the atmosphere is to slow, stop, or even reverse economic growth? Thank goodness they don't have questionable motives. Imagine if someone's goal was to slow economic growth because they were say. . . a marxist who hated capitalism. They could use global warming as a decoy issue in order to destroy a pro growth, capitalist economy. Thank goodness there are none of those nefarious characters around.

We Should Make Economics Compulsory for Every Member of Congress

Dr. Thomas Sowell puts the current economic situation in terms even Barney Frank can understand.

A Political "Solution"

A Political "Solution": Part II

Bailout Politics

Penny-Wise Politics

The 228

What a bizarre day. Let's all just take a step back and calm down for a second. 777 is the biggest points drop in Dow history, but at just shy of 7% it doesn't even approach the 26% drop in 1987. There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth. Congressional leaders are already declaring that they will not give up, but they're going to have to go back to the drawing board. Beyond that, there's even a question of whether or not some leaders in Congress want a bailout vote to succeed. Nancy Pelosi must not have wanted this to pass, that's the only way I can explain away her anti-GOP rant at the close of the debate today. You don't build bipartisan support for a deeply unpopular bill by attacking the minority party whose support you need, right before the vote. We know she supports heavy handed government intervention in the U.S. economy, so her actions today leave only two possibilities in my mind. She may be gambling that the economy is going to tank (Wall Street's reaction to the vote was predictable) and wants to blame the Republicans for voting down the bailout, or she is completely inept, incompitent, and just plain stupid. If anyone else has a viable explanation for her unhinged remarks today, I'd like to hear it.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate this bailout and am happy to see it fail. The bumbling Republicans however, have missed their opportunity. This crisis was caused by government regulation. By forcing lenders to accept less than qualified home buyers because of economic or racial status, they placed the housing market on a house of cards. Instead of pointing this out and educating the American people, the GOP leaders (you know, the party of limited government) responded to an over regulation problem with support for a mass government intervention that would make Karl Marx smile in whatever corner of hell he's stewing in at the moment. Are there any classical liberals in the upper echolons of the Republican Party anymore? Thank God the rank and file voted against it (if only because they feared being booted out of office). This is the problem conservatives face right now. We seem to be losing our hold on the Republican Party. Hardly if ever do I see an elected Republican promote the Libertarian economic principles that our country was founded on and swept Reagan into office. The American people aren't dumb. They will see who is in the right if we actually argue and defend our position. As Margaret Thatcher put it: "The facts of life are conservative," but you have to let people know what the facts are.

The 228 stand victorious for now, hopefully no one shows Henry Paulson a goat path.

Friedrich Hayek, Where Art Thou?

It seems likely that both candidates will miss the vote on the trillion dollar bailout plan that may be set for Friday. I understand Barry's reluctance. On one hand, this is the massive government intervention that liberal socialist types have wet dreams about. On the the other, Obama is trying to keep America in the dark about his radical socialist leanings.

McCain has no excuse. If he wants to keep saying that he was on the front lines of the Reagan Revolution, he needs to show up and vote against this bill. When Obama and the media rip him for it, educate the voters. Tell them why government intervention doesn't work. Tell them that these mismanged corporate behemoths created by Congress don't deserve the American tax payer's hard earned money. Tell them that Keynesian economics have been long ago discredited. Can't McCain understand that most of his newfound strength in the polls is due to the appeasment of conservatives with the Palin pick? I've been so happy with Governor Palin, that I almost forgot that John McCain isn't a conservative. Every time I grab McCain's olive branch, he whacks me in the face with the tree. I feel like an idiot teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is cheating on her, but stays with him anyway.

If I had any self esteem, I'd tell McCain to screw himself, but he keeps telling me I'm pretty.

America Needs The TVA!

Demonstrating her complete grasp of the concept of irony, Hillary Clinton believes that "'once we get through this immediate crisis,' the country should look at some Great Depression-era type of governmental entity to deal with it." Like say, Fannie Mae? Government driven solutions to economic woes always work so well don't they? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did its job, hamming the final nail into the coffin of the Roaring 20's and creating an America so destitute, that socialism seemed attractive. I'm sure Hillary, Obama, the DNC, don't want that. I mean its not like the Democrat candidate was endorsed by the Communist Party USA or anything.

John McCain Should Read This

Anything you need to know about economics, you can learn from Walter Williams. The man's brilliant. Read his defense of speculation. Do it. Do it right now. I will drive to your house and punch your dog, click on the link.

Thomas Sowell ain't too bad either.

Has the Reccession Happened Yet?

So economic growth has picked up in the first quarter of this year. I'm bracing myself for the extensive media coverage this is sure to get.