The American Spectator

Sean| 8.2.09 @ 9:20AM

It is always nice to have a science adviser who is wrong on every prediction that he makes. I guess Obama would be smart to ask his opinion on something and then do the opposite.

Dee| 8.2.09 @ 10:29AM

Before you comment, please read Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

This book is terrifying . That's without considering that the guy is advising the most powerful puppet on the planet. It's almost impossible to find, so please follow these links for some excerpts:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures.html

Or download via torrent : http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/108815257/?tab=summary

I am not here to argue. I ask my fellow human beings to read the original book, & come to your own conclusions.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 10:43AM

"Admittedly, President Obama hasn't formally adopted this goal."

Jesus, Bandow. This is what we call arguing in bad faith.

Does Obama have a goal of zero economic growth?

No. He'd be insane to have such a goal. He wouldn't get reelected in '12 with such a goal.

bethtopaz| 8.2.09 @ 11:26AM

"Admittedly, President Obama hasn't formally adopted this goal."

Jesus, Bandow. This is what we call arguing in bad faith.

Does Obama have a goal of zero economic growth?

No. He'd be insane to have such a goal. He wouldn't get reelected in '12 with such a goal.

****My response to this comment is to read the following article and then think again:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

hoads| 8.2.09 @ 11:34AM

liberal reader writes
"Does Obama have a goal of zero economic growth?

No. He'd be insane to have such a goal. He wouldn't get reelected in '12 with such a goal."

Oh sure he can. When over half the country will be dependent on government entitlements, more will have lost their jobs, with ACORN stuffing ballot boxes and a fawning media-- it's a shoe in.

ConservativeWanderer| 8.2.09 @ 11:48AM

Apparently senior members of the Obama Administration are looking at raising taxes on the middle class... something His Obamaness promised not to do.

http://conservativewanderer.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/you-cant-trust-democrats-on-taxes/

(please forgive the self-plug) :)

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 12:20PM

hoads --

Nonsense. The government is having a hard enough time extending unemployment benefits, even when economists say this is one of the most effective means of stimulating the economy (while helping people).

I've heard Limbaugh air this kind of theory over and over: the liberal goal is to make people dependent on government so they can be controlled.

It's nonsense.

A third of the stimulus package went to tax cuts for the middle class. An additional third of the stimulus went to state governments, which are slashing spending in response to falling revenues. How does this make people easier to control?

The final third, being spent on desperately needed infrastructure projects, funds very high paying jobs that develop workers' skills and make them more employable once current projects are finished.

Again -- how is this making people easier to control?

Health reform would allow people to direct their own money into their own economic autonomy and development. If a family no longer fears bankruptcy will result from any serious illness, they are FREER to start a new business, take a new job, move across country to fresher pastures, or hire an extra employee.

In short, spare us the paranoid fantasies and respond to what Obama is actually doing and proposing.

The Glenn Beckification of the right is yielding pretty mediocre, lame stuff.

Is there room for debate? Of course. One of the disservices right wing radio and blabospherics is doing to the country is that it's marginalizing responsible conservative critiques and impoverishing conservative political discourse. We need all the ideas that we can get, and hearing rants about Obama's secret plans to destroy America or his birth in Kenya or his evil midnight Satanic rituals is debasing the forums in which those ideas might be heard.

You should start reading your George F Will and Bill Buckley again, and reacquaint yourselves with how to make a persuasive argument.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 12:38PM

A man went for a walk and came upon a priest praying in the street.

"The world will end at 4 o'clock," cried the priest.

The man shrugged and went about his business.

Later, he passed the same spot and found the priest calm and cheerful.

"It's past 4," said the man, "And we're still here."

"Behold! the power of prayer," said the priest.

Robert| 8.2.09 @ 12:41PM

" I've heard Limbaugh air this kind of theory over and over: the liberal goal is to make people dependent on government so they can be controlled.

It's nonsense. "

You might wanna read the Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes so you can see that is PRECISELY what Roosevelt's political advisors bragged about. They did the same thing with medicare. We give you stuff, you vote for us. Then we can control you by threatening to take your stuff away.

Your stimulus talking points are junk. Funding for the swamp mouse, acorn and pornography. Yea that's responsible.

Get real dude.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 1:30PM

Robert --

The "swamp mouse" is afforded hardly a large percentage of stimulus funds, but projects like that are often more easily lampooned than understood.

I remember when Jindal mocked spending on light houses and the study of volcanoes. The next week's news contained reports of a volcano eruption in Alaska that people were prepared for because of those government funded studies.

Government often must do what markets cannot or will not do for themselves.

There is nothing "in it" for anyone to build a lighthouse, but everyone profits if the government does.

So yes, some stimulus spending sounds fishy.

But my larger point, which you missed, is that the conservative critique of the stimulus -- and many other government actions -- is being lost in the fury of apocalyptic prophecies now so common they hardly raise an eyebrow.

In short, the conservative critique of liberalism is being debased by the feigned hysteria of pundits hell bent on ratings, not truth.

FDR's policies laid the groundwork upon which the largest expansion of the middle class in our history was built. How was that "controlling" people?

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 1:44PM

Conservative propaganda, in essence, would have you believe that the more the middle class expands the LESS secure your place in it will be.

This is the false ire of reactionary apolcalyptics.

The larger and more secure the middle class is, the MORE secure your place in it will be.

In the 50s and 60s, the heyday of the American middle class, taxes, particularly on the wealthy, were much higher -- topping out at 94% on the wealthiest.

However, a man could graduate high school, get married, and raise a family on a single earner's wages -- with enough left over for a two week family vacation in summer time.

True, as conservatives will point out, that family bought fewer gadgets and was probably more stable than families today. I heartily agree.

But that difference does not explain the difficulty with which young families now struggle, and that struggle cannot be fairly attributed simply to "government intervention" anymore than it can be attributed to the evils of pop culture.

A substantial, real squeeze has been put on the middle class since the early eighties.

Most of you have felt it, and it has caused you considerable anxiety and concern. Reactionaries teach you to name the forces arrayed against you "liberalism," and subtly suggest that the economic prosperity of minorities threatens your own.

It's not true. Shuffle loose from those who worship false gods, including the "invisible hand of the marketplace."

Your economic and political autonomy will increase when the security of the middle class is restored and the opportunities to enter it -- and even climb above it -- are expanded.

Robert| 8.2.09 @ 1:45PM

Actually, capitalism laid the groundwork for the largest expansion of middle class in history. It's amazing how big government liberals constantly take credit for things they had nothing to do with, and shirk their responsibilities for the destruction they caused. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac....you claiming credit for those New Deal/Great Society shams, genius? In actuality, the time between the civil war and the depression disposes of any crypto-marxist notions that America was a horrible place before "liberal reader" showed up to save us. Untold wealth creation, fabulous new inventions and massive immigration. If America was so horrible before the New Deal, why were so many people coming here?

Q.E.D.

hoads| 8.2.09 @ 1:56PM

liberal reader,

I don't need anyone to translate what I see with my own eyes. Obama is on a reckless path and is purposely and radically transforming our economy. Maybe you need to read more of George Will: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014.html

"The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of "economic planning" and "social justice" that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption."

Robert| 8.2.09 @ 2:13PM

By the way, I advise all right minded readers to be aware of what is happening not only on this site, but other conservative, libertarian and free market sites. Trolls, like "liberal reader" are feigning concern over the republican party and conservatism. They're worried about the party being marginalized etc etc. If only we would listen to the Brooks, Frums, Powells and McCains of the world.....losers.....we could have a chance of sitting at the table with them. Taking their advice is the road to nowhere.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 3:01PM

hoads --

There you go. I think Will's criticisms are almost uniformly strong. (You'll notice his sober style and patient argumentation.)

Any liberal has to contend with them. Liberalism is a loose political philosophy, never complete and extremely imperfect.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 3:05PM

Robert --

Your division of "capitalism" and "liberalism" into mutually exclusive categories belies trouble in your thinking.

Liberalism is not opposed to capitalism; in fact, the liberalism of the 30s saved capitalism during a time when this country may have staggered into a kind of socialism.

Liberalism is the golden mean between the dour levelling of socialism on the one hand and economic chaos of crony capitalism on the other.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 3:41PM

Robert --

Your historiographic method is not very reliable.

You read history through the lens of reactionary truisms: "Less government is better than more government: therefore, America must have been a better place before the New Deal."

This would be lovely, if it were true. The fact that immigrants fled the disaster of capitalism in Europe to another disaster of capitalism in Amerca is not evidence that the New Deal was not a good thing.

I think you need to brush up on your U.S. History, say between 1850 and 1950. The bits and pieces you're picking up on Limbaugh and right wing websites isn't standing you in good stead. Got that, genius?

Interrested Conservative| 8.2.09 @ 4:24PM

LR - "Liberalism is not opposed to capitalism; in fact, the liberalism of the 30s saved capitalism during a time when this country may have staggered into a kind of socialism."

That's quite an argument you make in just one sentence.

Off the top of my mind, I can name only Alfred Kahn as a member of a democratic administration who embraced and implemented more freedom or liberty, in place of greater government involvement.

I'm not saying government involvement is unrelievedly wrong (i.e. the military, civil liberties enforcement, all sorts of regulatory acts, and so on), but, again, is there any "liberal" or democrat since the deal who has acted to lessen government's role in any area of life?

Power is marvellous for the powerful, but what about the rest of us?

Nobama| 8.2.09 @ 4:24PM

Robert, we're well aware of the moron troll known as LibReader/Jeremiah: He's been stinkin' up AmSpec for months.

Pay the Axelrod troll no mind. After Obama's recent missteps, blunders and screw ups, it's been a hoot to watch LibReader/Jeremiah implode and his whining and shrieks become more shrill. Poor troll, Jeremiah.

Obama's unemployment numbers of 10+% and climbing and Obama's approvals sinking to 48% make you look bad, LR/Jeremiah/Tom Paine/ Marcel/ Murphy, etc, ad nauseam.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 4:54PM

Interested Conservatism --

I'm not saying it always works perfectly, but liberalism's goal is to get YOU more autonomy (power, if you like).

Again (and I think this is another benefit of a liberal frame of mind) liberalism requires what I've been calling the conservative critique. Liberalism is always in danger of hubris, arrogance, and an over idealizing of government. That's why I always read conservative thinkers -- when I can find them.

As usual, you make a good point. My one sentence history of the 1930 is too simplistic.

Economists and historians make whole careers studying the Depression: it's causes, consequences, and so on. It's an enormously complicated topic. A world wide economic crisis was not caused by any single party or person in the United States.

But a crisis in market capitalism began in Europe in the 1880s and spread to the United States in the 20th century.

Keynes loathed socialism and wanted government policies that would destroy its breeding grounds (high unemployment, especially). FDR though Keynes too far to the left, but adopted some of his ideas. The result was the real socialist threats in the 30s were drained of energy.

The best criticisms of FDRs programs point out that the New Deal didn't address the route causes of the Depression.

But that's a far cry from saying the New Deal caused the Depression!

The thesis of the above article suggests that if Obama could wave a magic wand and get 5% economic growth next year, he'd decline to do it.

That's just nuts. Right or wrong, Obama is hoping the stimulus will stimulate the economy: he wants improved job numbers more than he's ever wanted anything in his public life.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 5:16PM

Sorry, Interested Conservative, not "Interested Conservatism"

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 6:08PM

2nd correction:

Keynes loathed communism. I said above he loathed "socialism," and that's a little inaccurate, since he thought a strong liberal government using market forces would lead to what he called "liberal socialism."

FDR, of course, would have none of this. He loathed socialism, communism, and anything related to it. But he was a liberal, plain and simple, and he wanted the government to make markets more vigorous and healthy. That's what liberals do.

Nobama| 8.2.09 @ 7:17PM

Old Texican, you ever hear of specialization? Well, among other things, I specialize in troll torture.

They're bad actors and do not argue in good faith so I berate and ridicule them to keep them off balance. It's fun and it amuses me.

I'm a traditional social/fiscal conservative who loves my country and would fight to the death for the liberty of my fellow Americans. And I have a sense of humor.

Anything else you want to know?

JP| 8.2.09 @ 7:19PM

LR,
The next thing you are going to tell us is that the 1930s were a decade of record economic growth. Lest you forget, the 1929 stock market crash was 3.5 years before the run on the banks of late 1932 , ealry 1933. Hoover had 4 years to deal with the 1929 market correction.

What Hoover did in those 4 years (he launched a massive public works program domestically, and indulged in protectionism abroad) brought about a liqudity crisis late in his term. Everything from the Hoover Dam to the Golden Gate Bridge were built using borrowed public money. FDR continued this program writ large with predictable results.

From 1933-1936 the economy enjoyed a brief respite. But the 14% unemployment that FDR inherited in 1932 became 24% in 1936. FDR tried to inflate the economy one year, and balance the budget in another. He admitted he had no idea what to try other than that DC must be in charge. Whether it was 10 fold increases in regulation and centralization, the WPA, or Social Security, FDR came up with the wrong solution. His Brain Trust was a flop. What FDR did attempt was similar to what Wilson and Mussolini did in earlier decades - we call it Fascism. It wasn't until Lend Lease began (with borrowed funds) did the economy begin to percolate, and that was only becuase a World War was spreading. In 1942, FDR essientially nationalized agriculture and industry, as well as put 12 million people in uniform. His administration implemented massive wage freezes, rationing, and a huge expansion of the income tax. We were able to recover from this nationalization for 2 reasons: Truman retired the Brain Trust, and the rest of the world was in ruins. The US was the only major industrial power untouched by war. It took just 4 years to return the US to a peacetime economy.

Obama is following Hoover. He inherited a mess, but that mess will pale in comparison to the problems he could create.

Smitty| 8.2.09 @ 7:53PM

So, what war is Obama going to start to get us out of his depression?

ConservativeWanderer| 8.2.09 @ 8:08PM

JP, good info there.

We also have a more recent example, and one that's been cited often: Japan's decade long spending spree trying to get out of their recession.

In short, it didn't work. It didn't work for Hoover, it didn't work for FDR, it didn't work for Japan, and it won't work now.

But, if you're LibJeremiahReader, history started on 21 January 2009, so nothing matters except that His Obamaness has said it will work, therefore, it will work. All that historical evidence doesn't matter to a True Obamabot like him.

Smitty| 8.2.09 @ 8:52PM

Obama figures if a war saved FDR, it might save him. Not hard to figure that one out. Obama's not a real deep thinker, schemer perhaps, but not a thinker.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 9:33PM

JP

Economically speaking, WWII was a gigantic stimulus package.

It was the largest social program in the history of the world, and it did help the economy recover.

I think you're underestimating the size of the Depression. It wasn't just a bad recession that got worse when FDR started spending.

The Depression was a massive failure of capitalist markets all over the world. Entire sectors of the economy collapsed as a result of people acting rationally, not irrationally.

The New Deal addressed many of the symptoms of the Depression -- many of its most painful consequences. Most importantly, it put millions of people back to work, which had lasting economic benefits.

In 1936 the Republicans brought massive pressure to bear on the president, saying, in effect, "One stimulus was enough." The result was another steep downturn. (Keynes, by the way, predicted all this, and in 37 FDR started listening again.)

At any rate, it's a very complicated topic. I can assure you the Depression would have raged on more terribly and for longer if FDR had just cut taxes and let the "market" fix everything. No one was spending or investing anywhere in the world.

Liberal Reader| 8.2.09 @ 9:34PM

Let's remember too that this was when the Republicans were urging FDR to stay out of the war. Yet another time when ignoring Republicans paid off well for this country -- and our allies.

Smitty| 8.2.09 @ 10:30PM

Yeah, U.S. liberals were against the war, too--until the Russian Communists/Stalin declared war on the Nazis. How could that be, LR/Jeremiah? Oh, that's right, democrats were already commies--your Marxist brothers in arms, Jeremiah. Tool.

Liberal Reader| 8.3.09 @ 2:06AM

Smitty --

It's not that I don't find your posts enlightening, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. I don't mean this as a personal insult or anything. Don't get me wrong. It's just you're preposterous and obnoxious. Again, I don't mean in a bad way.

Smitty| 8.3.09 @ 2:42AM

I'm preposterous and obnoxious because I tell the truth. The truth to you liberals is like sunlight to Dracula. Bloodsucker. And of course, I don't mean BLOODSUCKER in a bad way, Jeremiah.

You know damn well that US liberals were against the war until Hitler declared war on Russia. They wanted Stalin to be our ally and didn't want their (your) Stalinist comrades attacked by Hitler.

C'mon, Jeremiah; I know you're very well aware of this little bitty factoid. You guys have always been loaded with commie sympathizers. Hell, you don't have to pretend anymore, comrade.

ds80| 8.3.09 @ 9:48AM

You're so much above us all aren't you, Liberal Reader, that you can so cavalierly disparage faith: "Jesus, Bandow".

Your highbrow missives are preachy and boring. Or, as Vinny Gambini would put it: "Uh... everything that guy just said is bullsh*t... Thank you. "