Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
It reaches the point, after hearing or reading President Obama's stump speech, that you want to bang your head against the wall just to see if it will hurt, thereby proving that not all the laws of reality have been repealed just yet. Consider the phrasing from the President's speech just a few days ago in Poland, Ohio, where he descended from a Canadian bus and said:
We learned this morning that our businesses created 84,000 new jobs last month, and that overall means that businesses have created 4.4 million new jobs over the last 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs. That's a step in the right direction. (Applause) That's a step in the right direction.
Well yes, and if I start pushing my 18 wheeler to Michigan tonight instead of using the engine, every excruciating step north would be a "step in the right direction," but the stupidity of the undertaking would be so insurmountable as to be worthy of a government mandate complete with a constitutional stamp of approval from John Roberts.
Piercing the fog of the President's presentation, the indispensable James Pethokoukis reminds us that the June 2012 numbers the President lauded represented a precipitous drop from the 105,000 jobs added in May. Still, the man who promised an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent by this point in his term but who has instead bestowed upon the nation the longest period of 8 percent or higher unemployment since the Great Depression hopes we will pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain.
Data such as the shrinkage in the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force, from 65.7 percent when Obama was inaugurated to 63.8 percent today, is to be excluded from mainstream media discussion of Obamanomics. Who among CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, or the Washington Post has reported that, had Obama not shrunk the labor force, the unemployment rate would be 10.5 percent? Who among these tepid, weak-kneed and dull-minded stenographers for the state has the honest mettle to point out that by this point in Ronald Reagan's first term, an average of 273,000 jobs were being added monthly for an overall increase of 9.8 million jobs, versus an average of 75,000 per month and a total of 2.5 million jobs under the heavy hand of Barack Obama?
But here, the President switches the fog machine into overdrive, saying that the principles of free market economics have been tried before and found wanting. "I mean, if we hadn't tried it before you might say, okay, let's give that a shot. (Laughter) But we just tried it, and it didn't work," he says, while presumably checking the skies for stray lightning bolts. And then comes the whopper: "And you know, if you look throughout our history, that kind of top-down economics has never worked."
Hold on just a Keynesian second here. Yes, of course free market economics have worked throughout our history, ….but did he really just use the term "top down economics" as if it were a bad thing? The man who just seized one sixth of the US economy with a 2,700 page law that launches 159 new agencies and over 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce 13,000 pages of shiny new regulations disapproves of "top down economics?" The man who signed a law that states that his powerful, unelected and unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board cannot be dissolved before 2017, and even then only by means of a three-fifths vote in the House and the Senate isn't fond of "top down economics?" The guy who forbids states to defend their own borders, whose administrative agencies now employ SWAT teams and drones against the citizenry disapproves of "top down" anything? What's next? Will Fidel Castro endorse free speech? Will Bill Clinton come out for monogamy?
The President likes to say that he is betting on America when, in truth, he is betting on what he hopes is the ignorance of America. He is betting that Americans won't look across the ocean to Great Britain where they will see that the future of "universal health care," is one in which just last month a top British doctor reported that the government's National Health Service is euthanizing 130,000 elderly patients annually, "...because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds…" He is betting that you haven't read that the British government has decided to close three out of ten children's heart surgery units because, after all, government knows best, right? Such is the "top down" management of life and death toward which Obama blithely drags us. Such is fundamental transformation.
The President is betting that enough Americans won't notice that by spending money to the tune of our descendants' savings, he has yielded nothing less than the second term of Jimmy Carter. He's betting that his foggy rhetoric will mask the accumulated failures and misery of collectivist experiments throughout history. Ultimately, Barack Obama is betting that Americans will value the illusory promise of government-provided free false teeth over the hopes, dreams, and freedom of generations yet unborn, who will be required to subsidize the failed grand designs of this misbegotten politician.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Mr Obama was, of course, referring to the Cloward-Piven direction in which the US is heading - we are doing fine.
Apr '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Dave, gotta tell you, you are a very insightful and fluid writer, which you probably already know. Ive never commented on a post before, but I continue to be so impressed with your musings onthe political scene. Wish I could put it all together the way you do! Safe travels, wherever you are.
Dec '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Dave, I understand why some people have to listen to his nonsense, or read it, for a living, but I do not understand why any free, thinking person, with some other form of income would.
The phrase, "we do this, so you don't have to, " should not apply to somebody that already has the basic bills covered.
When a lamp is broken in the house, I listen for approximately 2 seconds, when our Boyz make attempted explanations.
Who knows? Someday, a cat may actually knock one over. Within 2 seconds, you can determine whether a Boy is attempting to blame a broken lamp on a cat, or just telling it to you straight.
Boyz rarely tell anyting straight, and you can tell when to just walk out of the room (or commence strangling), before 3 seconds have elapsed.
There's a reason that every lamp I care about is kept in a shed, outside. The lamps in our house are just trip wires, installed for detecting once individual Boyz get old enough to look you in the eye and tell you the truth.
Where the Current Resident is concerned, we need to keep our lamps in the shed.
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
KarenK, thank you so very much, Ma'am, for your kind words. And thank you for commenting! I'm just trying to pull things together in a way that might help people see the utter hypocrisy and delusional, shovel-ready nonsense that is being thrown our way. Thank you again.
Dec '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Betting on America in the sense that he's got our money and he's goin' ta Vegas, baby!
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Truth be told, I'd rather not listen to it or read it. I'd rather write about how wonderful it feels to have recovered from my little surgery and be turned loose on the road again. But right now, the stakes are too high to ignore this dangerous man and his poisonous policies. I can't wear the uniform any longer,...so I do what I can, if that makes sense.
Edited on July 9, 2012 at 1:06amApr '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
One cannot scale a ladder that's bottom rungs have been removed. Dave, you just gave me one of those moments where you read a post or column and mouth yes, yes, yes! I agree with the President that the free market principles as he understands them don't lead to the outcomes he wishes.
Jul '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
If The One says it enough times, it must be true, right? The free market doesn't work, according to Barry?
Well. 2,000 or so years of proof to the contrary would like to take issue with your statements, Mr. I've-Never-Held-Private-Sector-Gigs-For-More-Than-Like-10-Seconds-Total. Also note that over 100 million people are dead in the 20th century due to "leadership" that promised them free health care.
Why would you want to fundamentally transform a nation that inspires people to drag their families on makeshift watercraft 90 miles across shark-infested waters for a chance to be free? Is there something wrong with the American political model that inspires such risk-taking? If health care is free in Cuba, why would anyone want to leave?
Barry is a total doofus. That more people cannot see the faculty lounge act in full bloom is more a testament to willful blindness and sheer apathy than anything else. If we're not careful, we're going to get 4 more years of the same catastrophically insipid drivel - and worse, the policies that go with said drivel.
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Point. Game. Match.
Apr '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
I think that this is my favorite Dave Carter post since I joined Ricochet. Just perfect. I'd just like to add that when the numbers added to the disability rolls; people taken permanently out of the workforce and onto the government payroll, are greater than the number of new jobs created, that's not just a trivial step in the right direction, but a significant wrong step. As if you pushed the truck uphill during the day, and slept in it with the brakes off by night (yes, my trucking analogies need more work than Dave's).
Jun '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
The editorial section of my hometown paper is full of praise for the president. I guess if gay marriage, green energy, and having a black man in the white house are important to you, then Obama is a hero. Meanwhile, back in the real world the rest of us have to work for a living. If you're a betting man, put your money on the latter come election day.
Dec '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Ohhh, I get you Dave, but I just feel that that effort is misdirected. Anybody with a clue can see whom broke the lamp.
Those without a clue will always look at the cats.
I spent the better part of the afternoon in my shop, with hearing protection on, and Alonzo Bodden podcasts trapped in my mp3 player. How could such an otherwise smart and productive citizen be so otherwise misguided, and preaching it? That may be a question for a younger me. For the record, I love Alonzo Bodden, as a performer, but his personal spiel is..., incoherent.
All I am trying to say is that the world is a bit better served when Dave Carter turns his attention to what is good and right with this country, as opposed to engaging with the folks we already know broke the lamp.
Reading or listening to people like Obama will pooison your spirit.
My spirit is not poisoned. I can always cleanse my pallette by reading Dave Carter.
Apr '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Dave, you want to hit your head against the wall as a reality check. When I see or hear Obama speak, I want to hit my head against the wall to release some of the incredible frustration I feel, realizing that there are a lot of people in this Country who are buying his BS. I hear the crowds yukking and clucking, and clapping and cheering at his every lie and I want to scream. I check the Real Clear Politics Presidential Job Approval average every day and get dizzy. Today, Gallop has a tie, 46-46 and Rasmussen shows that while 50% disapprove, 49% approve. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
May '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
.
Jul '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
If I were to guess, a large number who wouldn't be likely voters. And do you think the polls are skewed just a tad to make it look like all is well in Wonderland for The One? Following Thursday's opinion, the 2010 voters, along with many more now-disillusioned Americans are gearing up for a real fight. Also, there are now 10 Dems – and counting – in Congress publically stating they won’t be attending the party in Charlotte.
I think the Prez is wrong to bet “that his foggy rhetoric will mask [his own failures and] the accumulated failures and misery of collectivist experiments throughout history.” Take heart. The polls were wrong in 2010.
Jan '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
"Forward!"
-General George Custer
Nov '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
There you go again, Dave. Ricochet is supposed to be a place where members can have a conversation, but despite what appears here in the comment section, there is nothing substantial to say beyond "Thanks, Dave." Less perfection, please.
Mar '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
Dave Carter
Point. Game. Match.
Health care is also "free" in the UK. Believe it or not, it is a reason why people don't want to leave the UK, and others flock to the UK to take advantage of it (and the taxpayers who pay for the "free" service).
Of course the country is bankrupt, as a result, but then so is the US - even without "free" healthcare - imagine how much more bankrupt we can be!
Yes, we are going in the direction that Mr Obama intends.
Edited on July 9, 2012 at 11:37amJul '11
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
And now the NHS is privatizing parts of their "free" health care because it cannot ably deliver the services required. Any more of this "free" healthcare and we won't be able to find a doctor when we're sick or injured.
David Williamson
Dave Carter
Point. Game. Match.
Health care is also "free" in the UK. Believe it or not, it is a reason why people don't want to leave the UK, and others flock to the UK to take advantage of it (and the taxpayers who pay for the "free" service).
Of course the country is bankrupt, as a result, but then so is the US - even without "free" healthcare - imagine how much more bankrupt we can be!
Yes, we are going in the direction that Mr Obama intends. · 2 hours ago
Edited 53 minutes ago
Oct '10
Re: Mr. Obama's Foggy Semantics
One additional point regarding the comparison between Reagan's and Obambi's job numbers:
Reagan's were achieved with a population 27% smaller than today's!!