Ryan on the American Tipping Point: it’s the socialism, stupid.
“Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” — Ronald Reagan, January 1967
Why did Obama fail?
Or has Obama actually succeeded?
The debt soars to $16 trillion. Millions are out of work to the tune of an 8.3% unemployment rate, with the CBO predicting it will keep on climbing to 9% by 2013 — now only five short months away. One could go on, yipping and yapping about everything from the price of a gallon of gas (already headed north to four bucks a gallon, it spiked again Wednesday from a nickel to as much as 14 cents in the wake of Hurricane Isaac) to the crony capitalism of Solyndra.
So the question isn’t “has Obama failed”? No, the real question is:
Why did Obama fail? And in the world of socialists and progressives, isn’t this failure a success?
And the second question? When will the GOP begin linking Obama’s results to Obama’s beliefs?
Let’s return to the 2008 Democratic primary debates when then-Senator Obama was asked about raising taxes on capital gains. ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked Obama:
Gibson: And in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
Obama: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
In spite of the fact — say again the hard fact — that lowering capital gains taxes brought in more revenue, what was driving Obama was “fairness.”
Let’s turn to one of GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s favorite economists — the Austrian Ludwig von Mises:
Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question of whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance — to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered good and Capitalism as evil — whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with …”moral pathos” …and on which Socialists and (Statists) always fall back, because they find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.
In other words, a rigorous scientific examination of socialism repeatedly shows it to be a failure.
A disastrous failure.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?