Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked'

[ATAK, Inc.]

Just another example of how truly clueless Der Leader really is!

In a speech delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.

"'[T]here is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. 'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us," said Obama. "If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes--especially for the wealthy--our economy will grow stronger.

"Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers," Obama continued. "But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Rest of story here. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...s-never-worked

[mriddick]

The question is he calling for burdensome gov't to replace limited gov't, government controlled markets to replace free markets, or both? I'm guessing both...

IMO it's our dabbling with limited socialism that's wrecking the country.

[Schuetzenman]

Well he's finally tipped his hand that he is indeed a Socialist. Good to see him put it out there now there is no doubt and this can be used to defeat him in 2012.

[American Rage]

From a communist perspective, he's right.

The problem is that the communist perspective always fails itself.

[imanaknut]

Somebody needs to remind him that we live in a country that goes by "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and not "of the government, by the government and for the government" and if he doesn't like that, he can just pack up and leave, along with everyone else who doesn't believe in what this country was founded on.

[stinker]

Knew this before he was elected. No suprise here.

Communist.

In a speech delivered at Osawatomie High School in Osawatomie, Kansas, on Tuesday, President Barack Obama argued that while a limited government that preserves free markets "speaks to our rugged individualism" as Americans, such a system "doesn't work" and "has never worked" and that Americans must look to a more activist government that taxes more, spends more and regulates more if they want to preserve the middle class.

I have a novel notion...
Why don't we actually TRY free markets before we condemn them?
We havent had free markets for over a century.

Everything quoted after that is just propoganda bullshit not even worth my time...

[Kadmos]

Somebody needs to remind him that we live in a country that goes by "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and not "of the government, by the government and for the government" and if he doesn't like that, he can just pack up and leave, along with everyone else who doesn't believe in what this country was founded on.

A lot of people would agree that it's government created "for the people", not for big business, not for the almighty dollar, but for the people.

Frankly, I think if we are being honest here there is probably only one actual politician who really believes the stuff you all are slinging, and that's Ron Paul, and he's generally considered a nutjob.

There is a reason we haven't had a "real" free market in over 100 years, it's because when we did, life for most people was brutish, nasty, and short. We had horrible working conditions, child labor, nearly no public education, made nearly every bit of flowing water undrinkable, and the air in many cities nearly unbreathable.

We have unions and regulations because they actually work for us, they make life better

[JAMC]

Anyone who'd actually viewed the video that accompanied the article would have realised that the phrase "doesn't work" and "has never worked" was in reference to the concept of trickle-down economics - the idea that liberating the wealthy from their proportionate burden of funding civic society would improve the lives of everyone because the wealthy would spend and that spending would, through iterative transactions, reach the rest of us. In that respect he is completely correct - it didn't work.

Low and behold it transpires that wealthy people do not remain wealthy for long if they spend all their money - wealthy people, who aren't usually too slow on the uptake, know this. So, in practice some wealthy people spent a lot, others spent some and others - the majority in fact - spend far less than they earned and hoarded the difference (or "put it to work" as capital) using financial instruments of varying complexity.

The other factor which is very often overlooked is that wealthy people don't tend to spend their money on cheap items that have been produced by poorly paid people. They tend to spend their money on items that have been produced by people who are at the top of their respective field and are already wealthy themselves - either because of their specialist skill commands a high premium or because they own the manufacturing process of these exclusive products/services and thereby derive their income from selling things to other wealthy people.

In short, the entire concept is bull because it runs completely contrary to the first law of capitalism - accumulation via speculation.

[Warthogg]

Frankly, I think if we are being honest here there is probably only one actual politician who really believes the stuff you all are slinging, and that's Ron Paul, and he's generally considered a nutjob.

And I think you are correct in that I too have called RP a "nut job". HOWEVER, as I look into the abyss and see the Newt, RP is looking saner and saner !!



Wart

[Warthogg]

Somebody needs to remind him that we live in a country that goes by "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and not "of the government, by the government and for the government" and if he doesn't like that, he can just pack up and leave, along with everyone else who doesn't believe in what this country was founded on.

Sadly I must remind we-the-peoples voted in the ass-wipes who created what we now abhor. (Remember, we elected both Dubya and Barry.) Maybe voting them in could be seen as an error but continually re-electing can only be seen as gross stupidity.


Wart

[Schuetzenman]

Sadly I must remind we-the-peoples voted in the ass-wipes who created what we now abhor. (Remember, we elected both Dubya and Barry.) Maybe voting them in could be seen as an error but continually re-electing can only be seen as gross stupidity.


Wart

And you'd rather of had Algore or John (Lurch) Kerry I assume given your post.

[Ruskiegunlover]

thats PRECISELY what wart wants. Oh, that, and to see every JOOOOOOOOO get driven into the sea and slaughtered. Serv em right, eh wart?

[Warthogg]

Quote Originally Posted by Warthogg View Post
Sadly I must remind we-the-peoples voted in the ass-wipes who created what we now abhor. (Remember, we elected both Dubya and Barry.) Maybe voting them in could be seen as an error but continually re-electing can only be seen as gross stupidity.


Wart

And you'd rather of had Algore or John (Lurch) Kerry I assume given your post.

Today 10:22 AM #14
Ruskiegunlover

thats PRECISELY what wart wants. Oh, that, and to see every JOOOOOOOOO get driven into the sea and slaughtered. Serv em right, eh wart?

Neither response has anything to do with my post. You guys are simply answering what you wish I had posted and not what I did post.

Let me try again:

We elect fools and thieves. We re-elect more than 90%.


Wart