Marxist Obama-nomics Destroy DOW: 14% Lost in First Month of Leftist PowerBy JB Williams ©2009 USA
"Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama's speech and his budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds." -- Larry Kudlow, Economist & CNBC Host, Feb. 27
The DOW Jones average closed at $8,281.22 on January 19, 2009, the night before the Obamanation became an historic reality. A little more than a month later, the DOW continues its free-fall approaching the $7000 mark, closing at $7060 yesterday at the final bell. Nobody knows where the bottom is. But so far, Obama-nomics have cost Americans trillions in new debt and 14% of their savings, in just a month...
Hope for economic recovery is fast flying right out the window as Obamanation change sends investors running for cover. Left-leaning news rag Newsweek, proclaimed that We Are All Socialists Now only days after Democratic Socialists claimed unchallenged control of the federal government and started ramming Marxism down the throats of every America.
It appears that the New Leftist regime in Washington DC just can’t figure out why private investors won’t invest in unbridled socialism. Or is it that they simply don’t care, while they are systematically destroying the entire free market?
Obama's new "Responsible Capitalism"They are selling socialism under every name they can think up and investors are still fleeing from the market. Clearly intent upon destroying free market capitalism at any cost.
They have no interest in saving free market capitalism, a uniquely American system which they have long claimed corrupt, mean-spirited and unfair.
Before the 2008 election, Democrats told the American people that times were bad due to Bush’s deficit spending. Since the election, they have driven the American economy right into the ditch with a level of deficit spending never before seen anywhere on earth.
A week ago today, the Obama White House rushed to settle shaken investor nerves by denying rumors that Obama was going to begin nationalizing the banking industry. The following Monday, they announced that nationalizing banking was indeed their plan, beginning with Citi Group.
Throughout their campaign for power they scoffed at accusations from across the aisle, which suggested they would socialize the health industry once in power. Now they have approved billions in new taxpayer debt earmarked specifically for preparing the nation for socialized medicine.
The average American voter may indeed be stupid enough to buy Marxist Obama-nomics, but clearly, investors aren’t.
What Happens When the People Just Say NO?Investors are simply saying NO! If you want socialism, then you invest in it. And of course, that is exactly what Obama is doing with YOUR money.
But what happens if the taxpayers say NO too?
Obama says he will take care of 95% of Americans by attacking the top 5% of income earners. Talk about a defenseless minority.... Imagine a 95 to 5 battle of any kind. I’d hate to be the 5...
His administration has already sued Switzerland in an effort to force Swiss banks to give up private information on Americans that hold Swiss bank accounts. An unprecedented move aimed at seizing private holdings in foreign investments, protected by Swiss privacy laws for decades.
They will follow the same line of thinking concerning private holdings in places like Nevada and Delaware, long trusted as safe havens for private investors who do not want the federal government up their rear end with a microscope looking for ways to relieve citizens of their legal earnings.
Yet if America were still the land of the free and home of the brave, American citizens would not have to seek secure safe havens abroad just the keep what they rightfully earned from the greedy hands of Washington politicians who gain political power only on the promise of robbing a few so they buy the rest.
What if America’s most productive simply say NO?
Capitalists Don’t March in ParadesThey vote with their wallet.... They stop investing in nonsense and they eventually, stop paying taxes, once they see that their taxes are buying them nothing but grief.
When you're outgunned, your enemy with world class tanks, weaponry and technology, facing 5 to 95 odds... what do you do?
You cut off fuel and parts supply, and watch their weaponry rot and rust in the field, forcing them into hand to hand combat, where they never expected to find themselves.
Likewise, how is socialism advanced in a place where the productive members of society simply refuse to play along? When the means to advance socialism, your money, is simply cut off, like the fuel supply needed to keep tanks moving, then what?
We are talking about America’s most productive here. They actually hold all the cards. So far, they have quietly consented to the nonsense via their silence. That was before push came to shove...
Voters are Stupid... But Investors Are not
Has the left made any contingencies just in case America’s productive class decides to say the hell with the nonproductive class anxious to rob them blind?
If taxpayers simply say NO, are they prepared to jail million of angry taxpayers in order to confiscate their property for the greater communal good? Are they prepared to order Martial Law and raid private citizens as the only means to grab what does not belong to them?
How far are they willing to go to take from some according to their ability; and buy those with a false sense of entitlement?
Both investors and taxpayers are CAPITALISTS. That’s why socialists need them. Nobody else can pick up the tab for socialism.
But what happens when they decide enough is enough? Or have they already decided?
30 comments:
Least JB Williams forgets, it was George Bush and Henry Paulson that first advocated nationalization of banks several months ago.
What party are they members of??
Good article - is the link to the original up there?
I think that's the RINO party, Joe.
If "if" was a skiff, we'd all be sailing.
Yeah, Joe the Libertarian, I guess that's why the current Democrat Governor of Maryland called Bush a "9/11 Terrorist" for his "extremist" limited government policies.
It's all a matter of perspective.
If you're an anarchist, of course Bush is going to look awful. A mainstream libertarian, less so.
To a Democrat, Bush looks even worse, but only as an "extremist capitalist libertarian."
Of course, how does the anarchist respond? Do they attack the Democrats? Nope! Why, they attack the guy in the middle.
Bint!!!!
Enough Already!! Enough of the g-damned obscure phrases and cutsy little acronyms.
They sound good, but nobody knows what in the fuck you're talking about.
PLEASE! try to be more clear in your posts. Or, at the very least, include a parenthesis with an explanation after the cutsy remark.
Eric - The Management
What is, or who is "Skiff"???
News flash, by the standards of the 1928 Socialist Party USA platform, America has been a socialist country LONG before Obama came to power.
1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals."
2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost."
3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication."
4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation."
5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions."
6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery."
7. "A system of unemployment insurance."
8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor."
9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."
10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week."
11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment."
12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents."
13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance."
14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."
Skiff: A flatbottom open boat of shallow draft, having a pointed bow and a square stern and propelled by oars, sail, or motor.
Eric,
Look, how am I supposed to know what words you are familiar with and which ones you're too lazy to look up in the dictionary?
*sigh*
The point of the statement is that we can talk about "if" all day long. One can create all sorts of scenarios and imagine what might result from them. However, those "ifs" are not reality, and the person is just building a church by squinting at a sheet of paper, as Dickens put it.
I know what a skiff is, but the whole remark was apropos of nothing. Stupid.
Joe, naturally we've been socialist for a long time. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that there aren't greater and lesser degrees. Right now we're full-bore head-on into the heart of a massive economic collapse. Which may be best in the long run - let 'er collapse and rebuild halfway from scratch as a free market. We'll see how it goes I guess.
But seriously, Bush wasn't even close to a fiscal conservative, much less a libertarian. If we're assuming libertarians want a free market.
"What is, or who is 'Skiff'???"
... asks the guy who claims to teach English to foreigners and all the world's languages to Americans. And to have once been a sailor.
Jesus ... all it takes a little metaphor comparison to figure it out.
"If 'if' was a skiff we'd all be sailing."
"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
Get it now?
skiff, n. A small, light boat.
Annie is exactly correct. There are greater and lesser degrees of big government.
The libertarian movement is way too weak to make any progress towards a libertarian society, even with an alliance with the conservatives.
Therefore, you must ask yourself, what's most preferable: Lots of Socialist per Obama and the Democrats, less Socialism with the compromisers in the GOP.
At least with the latter there's a chance of advancing the cause of liberty. At least they'll keep an ear open to our concerns.
With the former there's zero chance.
So then, how do the Joe the Libertarians of the World respond? Why, attack the latter and keep silent on the former.
Does that strategy make any fucking sense whatsoever???
BTW, did you all like the lay-out of this piece; lay-out of the articles posted today?
Graphs match text? Good graphs chosen?
Thanks for the feedback.
"Does that strategy make any fucking sense whatsoever???"
Hehe, no it doesn't.
In addition to what you said, I think there's an added factor to it - a people who are impoverished by full-bore socialism and economic collapse (as we're headed for in a rocket-car right now), don't any longer possess the means to fight back effectively. As Jefferson said, they have to slave day and night just to get potatoes for the day and spend the last hour forging the chains on the necks of their fellow-sufferers. That's what enormous debt would do, as he knew quite well and as we know from socialist countries that have already been down that road. Side note: I'm fed up with people bringing up Europe's communism as a bright example - they are NOT us; they sit under our nuclear umbrella and they can fuck themselves; if we weren't who we are they couldn't have their benign socialism. At any rate, a people who still have some measure of economic success and some measure of liberty and free markets at least, as you say, have the **possibility** of moving towards liberty. But we're intent on relearning the hard way yet again, or at least this new idiot generation is; thanks, Publik Skruuls.
AnnieOnHerKnees,
I know what a skiff is, but the whole remark was apropos of nothing. Stupid.
Once again, the fact that you didn't understand it doesn't mean that it didn't make sense.
Comprehension fail.
I didn't say I didn't understand it, ape, I said it was stupid.
AnnieOnHerKnees,
You said it was "apropos of nothing". At least try to understand the words you use. If your kids had to rely on you to educate them, I feel very, very sorry for them.
LOL you don't know what apropos of nothing means? Pathetic. You know, if you can't be bothered to look things up or understand what you're replying to, you really should fuck off.
Now shut up, there is a topic here and the adults would like to stay on it. Kthxbai.
Eric, the layout is excellent, by the way. But what are you doing reading Lew Rockwell? LOL (Kidding; I enjoy the von Mises site sometimes, and his economic articles are often excellent.)
And this article is worth discussing; purposeful derailments notwithstanding.
AnnieOnHerKnees,
LOL you don't know what apropos of nothing means?
Yes, I do and it's obvious that you still don't.
You know, if you can't be bothered to look things up or understand what you're replying to, you really should fuck off.
Originality fail. See my comment above yours. By the way, this is especially funny coming from the homes-schooling mom who didn't even know that "schooling" is synonymous with "education". Did you forget about that? I haven't. LOL!
Now shut up, there is a topic here and the adults would like to stay on it.
That might work on your children, the poor darlings, but nobody has to care what you want on the internet. Now feel free to go and put a band-aid on your butthurt.
Well it's incredibly rude to keep derailing conversations that actually HAVE a topic, whether or not you have the manners god gave an ape.
Schools are for fish who don't know any better. Educators can educate anywhere, which is what home educators do. Unfortunately you would rather let the government do it for you and indoctrinate yours; sucks to be your daughter - oh, well!
AnnieOnHerKnees,
Schools are for fish who don't know any better.
If you had the intelligence of even a single fish, I'd be surprised.
Educators can educate anywhere, which is what home educators do.
Educators can educate anywhere, including public schools. Some people, like you, want to be home educators, but they lack the intellect to provide anyone with a decent education--at home or anywhere else.
Unfortunately you would rather let the government do it for you and indoctrinate yours
Wrong, dumb ass. As an involved parent, I have always been my child's primary educator and I don't need to whine and moan because someone won't do it for me like you do.
sucks to be your daughter
Should she prefer to have a mother who spends her entire life on her knees, groveling towards any man who'll show her a bit of attention? Nah, she'd laugh at you too.
"Educators can educate anywhere, including public schools."
Incorrect. Just ask John-Taylor Gatto. And by the way, before you try it, he's not conservative. You can't educate when your hands and feet are hogtied. I've been to enough state gatherings of the state educators in NJ, by the way - and yes, I'm talking about teacher's unions and the State Department of Education - to know what actual TEACHERS say to people like you who make that false claim as well. It's not true, and no amount of just claiming it will make it true. I'm not their fan, but they know when they are prevented from doing their jobs properly, and they most certainly are.
FFS, do you even know what they've done to core curricula in your state? (I don't know where you live.) I do, and it isn't pretty, nor did the teachers find it so. My husband toured thousands of schools over the course of a decade and talked to tens of thousands of teachers, and they all told him the same thing. Important vocational classes and recesses being cut, students tracked into either MEDIA classes or dumbed-down academics while being drugged into submission; who almost unanimously applauded home schoolers and private schoolers and sent their own children to private. The things they were forced to spend their time on would make any sane person's hair straighten. Excessive and meaningless testing that occupied all the REST of their time so there was no time left to educate. Positively frightening. If you find that adequate and relinquish the care of someone you claim to care about to such bureaucracy, it's either under some delusion or it's irresponsible as hell. Both.
"Should she prefer to have a mother who spends her entire life on her knees, groveling towards any man who'll show her a bit of attention?"
Hey, who you talkin' 'bout, Willis? I grovel before ONE man, don't be a nincompoop! And she's a lesbian FFS LMAO
Annie,
Incorrect. Just ask John-Taylor Gatto. And by the way, before you try it, he's not conservative.
Learn to logic. One man's opinion does not negate the evidence that shows it is indeed possible.
You can't educate when your hands and feet are hogtied.
YOU may not be able to teach under certain conditions, but that still doesn't change the fact that plenty of real educators can and do.
I've been to enough state gatherings of the state educators in NJ, by the way - and yes, I'm talking about teacher's unions and the State Department of Education - to know what actual TEACHERS say to people like you who make that false claim as well.
Your claims to have super sekrit knowledge is giving me the lulz. Make up your mind about whether teachers can be trusted to tell the truth. If they are all lying, propaganda spreaders, then what you claim to have heard from them is irrelevant. If they can be trusted to tell the truth, then there's no reason to believe they are incapable of providing children with a good education. Can you at least agree with yourself?
FFS, do you even know what they've done to core curricula in your state? (I don't know where you live.) I do, and it isn't pretty, nor did the teachers find it so.
My daughter's teachers aren't whiners like you. They turn out wonderful leaders for our community and have produced talented artists known all around the world. If a teacher can't deal with the requirements for the job, then they can go elsewhere. Fortunately, there are many, many who don't just take their toys and leave because their job might not be easy.
Excessive and meaningless testing that occupied all the REST of their time so there was no time left to educate.
I happen to believe that testing is important. I think that we should have some way of measuring children's progress throughout the year. Evidently, the universities that these children go on to attend don't find testing meaningless because they also require them. Of course, given how many home-schooled children are completely incapable of handling university requirements, it's no surprise that many of them don't go on to graduate from the top universities in the country and some folks are trying to start up the university equivalent of a home-school education.
If you find that adequate and relinquish the care of someone you claim to care about to such bureaucracy, it's either under some delusion or it's irresponsible as hell.
If those were the actual conditions, then I wouldn't allow my child to have someone else as their primary teacher. Of course, I don't believe in doing that anyway. However, the conditions you listed don't represent reality. In reality, my daughter attended a wonderful public Montessori school before she went on to a very exclusive school for the gifted and talented that is also public. Soon she will be heading off to high school. The one where she has been accepted is the top ranked school in Louisiana. It is also a public school.
One of the problems with home-schooling is that it would take more than a lifetime for a parent to be able to become an expert in every subject that children need to learn. If they are college-educated, then they may be able to teach one or two subjects well. However, that's about it. In fact, many home-schooling parents now recognize this, which is why so many of them seek out music teachers and art classes and sports leagues for their children to join. If they were capable of providing their children with a great education in ALL of these subjects, there would be no need to out-source.
I grovel before ONE man, don't be a nincompoop!
How do his boots taste? Personally, I don't grovel before anyone and my partner would never ask me to do so nor would he want to be with any woman who would. In my household, we actually value liberty--unlike yours, apparently.
And she's a lesbian FFS LMAO
The man you grovel towards is a lesbian? Well, whatever floats your boat. You've already made it clear how obsessed you are with cunts, so color me unsurprised.
Wrong again (unsurprisingly); Gatto was a teacher for 30 years and won awards doing it. He speaks for ALL the teachers that are furious that they are not allowed to educate anymore due to a wide variety of restrictions that are designed to prevent real education from occurring. There is a reason why the group that overwhelmingly above all other groups sends their children to private schools - teachers in public schools. You weren't there watching teacher after teacher, princple after principle, superintended after superintendent, all getting up to testify before the state board of Ed that teaching was impossible NOW; and that what they were proposing to do to it (goals 2000 shit) was going to make it far worse. It did. Oops.
"One of the problems with home-schooling is that it would take more than a lifetime for a parent to be able to become an expert in every subject that children need to learn."
Hehe; you suffer from the common misperception that teachers are experts in anything but teaching. I guess you don't know how low they score on tests about the *actual* knowledge they are supposed to teach, not that they are left much time for that anyway.
But then you don't read about these things much OR spend a lot of time on the ground, obviously.
AnnieOnHerKnees,
He speaks for ALL the teachers that are furious that they are not allowed to educate anymore due to a wide variety of restrictions that are designed to prevent real education from occurring.
Wrong. He can only speak for himself and for those who decide that he can speak for them. This still doesn't change the fact that one guy's claims doesn't negate the evidence that shows that teachers in public schools have produced and continue to produce extraordinary students. Learn to logic.
You weren't there watching teacher after teacher, princple after principle, superintended after superintendent, all getting up to testify before the state board of Ed that teaching was impossible NOW
If we should believe what those teachers had to say, then there's no reason why we shouldn't believe what other public school teachers have had to say--the ones who have proven that they can provide students with an excellent education.
Hehe; you suffer from the common misperception that teachers are experts in anything but teaching.
You suffer from poor comprehension skills. The teachers in the schools my daughter has attended and the ones my brothers and I attended were, for the most part, very knowledgeable in their fields. They had to be in order to be there. Even the ones who were simply mediocre were more educated than the majority of home-schooling parents.
By the way, you still can't account for why so many home-schooling parents still have to outsource their children's education to others if they are really capable of doing a better job than those who have spent years studying that particular subject. Why are there so many home-schooling parents who sign their kids up for science and music classes and form independent athletic leagues taught by others? Can you answer that?
But then you don't read about these things much OR spend a lot of time on the ground, obviously.
You wish. I have spent years tutoring children (many of whom were home-schooled) and college students. My father teaches at a university and has worked as a professional tutor and educational trainer for over twenty-five years. One of my sisters is a professional pianist and a singer. She has also taught plenty of home-schooled children. Home-schooling parents simply don't have the education necessary to provide their children with extraordinary educations. If they didn't have to rely on others, I and a lot of other folks in my family wouldn't have collected so many of their dollars over the years.
I could go on about all of the accomplishments of folks who have graduated from public schools if you are still under the delusion that these institutions are incapable of preparing children for the world they will face.
Well, back to the sophistry. Throw enough of it at the wall and see what sticks.
Just a couple hints here - going on about how parents can't give their children a good education (pointing to hiring tutors for special and non-core subjects as a bizarre bit of "evidence") while simultaneously claiming that it is fully a parent's job to educate their own children and NOT the job of the state, and parents whose children emerge from the government system ignoramuses are the fault of the parents? Logic fail.
Describing Gatto's books about the system after teaching for decades within that system as meaningless and irrelevant, as merely one person's opinion (despite that I backed it up with the testimony of hundreds of teachers and the fact that PS teachers send their children to private more than any other group), while making the (probably false) claim that because all the teachers in your daughter's particular school are masters, are brilliant and otherwise anomalies in the system means that the system is good? Logic fail. Epic fail.
You can't have it both ways, and I'm not going to argue with someone who argues two completely separate sides just to hear herself bark. For anyone who's interested in the subject, all they need do is discover that math teachers in studies fail basic math tests, that the requirements for becoming a teacher are notoriously low, especially as concerns the academic subject you intend to teach (requiring what would be a failing grade for any other course of study - like 35 or 40%, becomes passing when you're seeking to become a teacher) and that teaching thus attracts those who can not cut it in college otherwise. This information is all freely available and has been for a long time. That was addressed to anyone who is interested in the topic, not in poo-flinging.
Post a Comment