Is Big Government the Change We Need?
Warning of dire consequences if we don’t take action to fix the troubled economy, President-elect Barack Obama said on Thursday that whileÂ
we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth . . ., Â at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy . . .
Only government?
So, he favors a massage increase in federal spending, yet provides no evidence that such increases have ever solved economic crises. Â In the two most recent economic crisis of similar (well, actually greater) magnitude than the current one, the two presidents ousting unpopular incumbents who presided over the downturn, enacted vastly different policies. Â
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt continued his predecessor’s policies of government intervention in the economy, but accelerated the increase in domestic federal spending. Â Unemployment remained high throughout the 1930s. Â
Ronald Reagan, as best he could with a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats, reversed his predecessor’s big government policies, held the line on federal spending and deregulated the economy. Â Once his policies started taking effect in 1983, the economy began to grow and unemployment to decline. Â Inflation was held in check.
It seems that like his Democratic forebear, Obama seeks to continue and accelerate his soon-to-be predecessor’s policies. Â During the Bush Administration, the rate of growth of domestic federal spending has outpaced inflation. Â It increased at an even faster rate when the president-elect’s party gained control of Congress.
Mr. Obama’s commitment to an ever greater role for the government in our economy seems to contradict some of his campaign rhetoric favoring a more efficient federal government. Â Not just that, there’s more hope than change in his spendthrift stimulus package. Â Experience has shown us that such projects don’t achieve their intended goal. Â
It didn’t work with FDR. Â The opposite remedy worked with Ronald Reagan. Â But, then again, Obama sometimes seems to style himself as a second Roosevelt. Â Maybe the Democrats love affair with their latest leader is like a second marriage to that liberal icon. Â And we all know the old saying that a second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
Well, hope was a theme of Obama’s campaign.
37 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
That’s because Obama is a snake oil salesman who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to get his socialist agenda passed, and its resemblance to truth is irrelevant.
In short, hes a blatant lying fraud.
Comment by American Elephant — January 10, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - January 10, 2009
This just in: tomorrow on This Week, Stephanopoulos has an exclusive interview with Obama in which he admits that he’s not going to be able to accomplish everything as President that he said he would during the campaign. Stephanopoulos reports this as Obama “scaling back some of his campaign promises.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/obama-calls-for.html?cid=144727394#comment-144727394
Scaling back? The election was 2 months ago. Nothing has changed in those 2 months except for the fact that Obama has now won the election. Translation: Obama is a typical, filthy, lying scumbag Democrat politician who said whatever he had to in order to win. There is a difference between a politician who over-promises and one that flat-out lies to get elected. The realities of being the President, the composition of Congress and changes in circumstances can certainly lead to campaign promises being broken. But Obama is freely admitting that what he said would happen 2 months ago ISN’T going to happen. In my book, that makes him a liar, but what do I know?
Comment by Sean A — January 10, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - January 10, 2009
Ugg! Spam filter attack!
Comment by Sean A — January 10, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - January 10, 2009
Does this surprise anyone? I thought it was pretty obvious he had no intention of keeping the promises he made during the campaign. He so many of them. I am still really surprised the (so called) *cynical* American people couldn’t see through him.
Comment by Timothy — January 11, 2009 @ 12:33 am - January 11, 2009
the less promises he fulfills the better
Comment by American Elephant — January 11, 2009 @ 2:48 am - January 11, 2009
But he’s black. That’s all that matters.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 11, 2009 @ 4:38 am - January 11, 2009
Foolish words and I guess a sign of more to come.
Comment by Argent — January 11, 2009 @ 6:46 am - January 11, 2009
And he is creating another expensive government bureaucracy to “study” government spending. Only a liberal is stupid enough not to see the idiocy in that.
Comment by rightwingprof — January 11, 2009 @ 8:22 am - January 11, 2009
Scaled back? Socialism is the cure all. Damn the economic torpedos; Full Steam Ahead. The USS Ironbottom can crash through the reefs of turmoil. Print more scrip and use it to fire up the boiler; we have universal health care, saving the mortgages and the building of green machines to attend to. Our children need free day care and graduate school. The infrastructure needs infraing and structuring. The non-tax payers need tax refunds. Millions of jobs need to be saved. Government needs to grow. The state is a giant machine of universal good with a belly that has to be fed.
Little shop of horrors, I hear it calling “Feed me, Seymour” right now.
He who has come to save the day is on his way. Mighty Messiah, the social organizer will lead the way. We must believe in him the way the really, really smart money believed in Madoff. Hope and change are our only hope. We have rounded up all the usual perps from the Clinton years and with McCain’s help the change will be complete.
Now we are down to the core of the battle plan. Hope. On January 22, He will catch bin Ladin and by Feb 1, we will be sliding down the tubes to the final solution for the economy. Bring in the clowns, Franken and Frank and Dodd and Pelosi and Reid and especially William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana. Let Judge Alcee Hastings preside and John McCain be the court jester.
The puppy has caught a valve stem on the UPS truck and he is riding it for all it is worth. A chat a day from the President elect is the tonic we need to brace ourselves for the endless round of haymakers he is sending our way.
The media swoon will be the teaspoon of sugar we need to help the medicine go down. There’s a bright, golden haze on the economy and in the distance we can see…… we can see …….. it’s …… it’s ….. Shane! He’s come back! Come back, Shane’s come back! He did it for the children! I feel so united. Please, sir, may I have some more?
Comment by heliotrope — January 11, 2009 @ 8:57 am - January 11, 2009
Um his plan is tax cuts, state aid, energy and infrustructure improvements.
I don’t see many econmists coming out against that plan.
Comment by gillie — January 11, 2009 @ 10:12 am - January 11, 2009
Obama is right. You see, government created our economic problems. Only government, *by getting out of the way* and letting the failures fail, so that the productive and responsible people in our society can take over, can thereby create the conditions where our problems can be solved.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2009 @ 10:42 am - January 11, 2009
To make an analogy: Say you have a kid who is bullied and robbed viciously every day and has no one to turn to. (Government would be the uncontrolled, unaccountable bully. The kid would be productive Americans.) Only that bully can stop his own behavior, breaking the vicious cycles that have crippled the kid’s life.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 11, 2009 @ 10:48 am - January 11, 2009
Is Big Government the Change We Need?
Is this the question we need? Of course it isn’t.
“…we cannot depend on government alone…at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us…
Doesn’t that, in a small, circular, hedgehog-like statement, perfectly encapsulate the situation, the lie, and the ’solution’?
Mr. Obama’s commitment to an ever greater role…seems to contradict some of his campaign rhetoric favoring a more efficient federal government.
Seems to? Is there any doubt about it? Was there any doubt during the campaign? Obama moved to the center (i.e., to the right) to get votes –something McCain largely refused to do. It’ll be interesting where he moves his rhetoric to get Congress on board because, you know, they need to get re-elected too.
Comment by Ignatius — January 11, 2009 @ 11:09 am - January 11, 2009
I don’t see many econmists coming out against that plan.
As if the MSM would give any airtime to an economist that opposed The One.
Comment by V the K — January 11, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - January 11, 2009
What the hell is a “massage increase”? Sounds more like Clinton to me.
Comment by Draybee — January 11, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - January 11, 2009
[...] Is Big Government the Change We Need? [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Rejecting Republicans who Rejected Republican Ideas — January 11, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - January 11, 2009
If you would venture outside the echo chamber long enough, you would find there are many.
Comment by American Elephant — January 11, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - January 11, 2009
Gillie isn’t looking very hard, it seems.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - January 11, 2009
Or at things like this.
Mainly because Obama’s plan “cuts taxes” on people who don’t pay them, gives aid to Democrat-controlled states who can’t balance their budgets while ignoring states that do, invests in “energy” that isn’t even a pipe dream while ignoring proven energy sources like nuclear and clean-coal power, and plans to build a thousand bridges to nowhere in the name of “infrastructure enhancement” — after mocking such projects during his campaign as being wasteful.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - January 11, 2009
If I hear one more person or media type recommend everyone take inauguration day off I will puke. The same media people beating down the economy; what if the economy stopped for one day? Better yet, what if all of the broadcast and cable people took the day off and they could not televise it?
Comment by David — January 11, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - January 11, 2009
Well, just look at what lack of government oversight has done for the American citizen….
Comment by Kevin — January 11, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - January 11, 2009
Problem is, silly Kevin, that would be the deliberate blocking of oversight by your own party.
Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.
â€These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,†said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. â€The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.â€
Barney Fag decided that he should purchase votes by giving mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them — and now that all hell has broken loose, both he and his Obama puppet are demanding that taxpayers who didn’t buy too much house, banks who didn’t make stupid loans, and businesses who didn’t overextend their credit bail out those who did.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 11, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - January 11, 2009
22: Barney Fag? so much (once again) for real political discourse….
Funny, Bush and McCain tried to make it sound like their was no recession, decline in the economy, etc. Sounds like there’s blame to go around everywhere.
by the way, which democrats do you blame for the lack of oversight in all areas of our economy that helped to bring it down?
Comment by Kevin — January 11, 2009 @ 11:38 pm - January 11, 2009
his plan is tax cuts, state aid, energy and infrastructure improvements.
1. Tax cuts amounting to $10/week. Big deal.
2. Aid to states that have been increasing spending at rates far higher than population growth, inflation, and (most importantly) the ability of their citizens that actually pay taxes to afford all of it. California is being consumed by public employee unions and pensions… how much more do we feed this monster?
3. Infrastructure? More bridges to nowhere and billion-dollar-a-mile light rail systems nobody rides? More subsidized ethanol (with resulting starvation is other parts of the world)? More wind farms that still have to be backed up with coal/gas/oil/nuclear (in addition to being unsightly)?
The funniest thing about “infrastructure” is that the benefits (if any) are to construction companies – but that’s assuming a shovel of dirt gets turned after years of litigation by environmentalists and NIMBYs.
I don’t see many econmists coming out against that plan.
Would these be the same economists who told governments that Social Security, Medicare, and all the rest were sustainable? The same geniuses at Fannie and Freddie that saw no problems in the housing market?
Comment by SoCalRobert — January 12, 2009 @ 12:23 am - January 12, 2009
Kevin – Myself, I don’t blame Democrats in particular. I blame liberals (which includes GWB) for entertaining the notion that everyone must own property – whether or not they can care for it and pay for it. I just finished reading an article about tiny little houses in Compton (yes, that Compton) selling for $350K.
The problem here is too much oversight. Were it not for government mandates and the guarantees by Fannie and Freddie, do you think people would put their own money at risk? If I had $350K to loan (at my risk), I sure wouldn’t sink it into a Compton slum.
Comment by SoCalRobert — January 12, 2009 @ 12:32 am - January 12, 2009
Barney Fag? so much (once again) for real political discourse….
When Barney Fag stops trying to use his sexual orientation as a substitute for competence and intelligence, then he can be called something else.
Sounds like there’s blame to go around everywhere.
Except to Democrats, who you refuse to blame, even when you’re confronted with direct quotes that state that Barney Fag said there were no problems and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn’t need oversight.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2009 @ 2:34 am - January 12, 2009
Man up. You can talk the economy down or you can talk the economy up. The Messiah of economic doom and gloom ran on a dismal economy growing worse by the second. Only his hopeandchange ministrations could raise us from the muck and mire of human misery. He would save jobs, create jobs, reinvigorate the economy which he said “grows from the bottom up.”
Funny, Obama makes it sound like there is a depression, or one just around the corner, etc. Sounds like he got what he was looking for. Now he is promising us, a la Jimmuh Carter, that we will have to struggle together while holding his hem to get back up.
Here’s the real deal. If Obama would just do “The View” and “Oprah” for two years and the Congress would take a two year vacation to travel the world studying shrimp salad the economy would recover all by itself.
Instead, we are going to switch to gigmongous servings pork 24/7 and call it investment. The Obamanauts are on the rough seas of in the USS October Surprise and busy pulling out charts from the Roosevelt captaincy. For the present, we are all on Corregidor and Obama says to hold fast, they are building some ships now to come reenforce us in a couple of years. Meanwhile, draw strength from hopeandchange.
If misery loves company, there are a bunch of elated, miserable democrats. Let us pray.
Comment by heliotrope — January 12, 2009 @ 9:17 am - January 12, 2009
An Economist Who Is Not On Board with Spendapalooza.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 9:26 am - January 12, 2009
When Japan’s real estate bubble burst in the 1990’s, they tried to use the Obama plan — massive infrastructure projects — to jump start their economy. They built an airport, Kansai, that is sinking into the ocean. Refurbished an airport north of Tokyo that no one uses. Built a tunnel from Honshu to Hokkaido that cuts travel time by car from Tokyo to Sapporo to 10 1/2 hours. No one uses it because you can fly from Tokyo to Sapporo in 3 hours. They also built massive bridges with $30 one-way tolls.
The Japanese economy also spent the entire period mired in recession. The Obama plan failed, just as it has everywhere it’s been tried.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 9:30 am - January 12, 2009
V, please redo link.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 10:49 am - January 12, 2009
Indeed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 10:51 am - January 12, 2009
It wasn’t lack of oversight in all areas, the reason we have a crisis is because of the meltdown in the financial and housing sectors, there was NO meltdown in any other area of the economy prior to that. And the ones who blocked regulation were corrupt, lying, socialist Democrats who were protecting their campaign cash cow and the corrupt members of their party who RAN fannie and freddy into the ground — and it was President Bush, Alan Greenspan and Republicans who called for reform and increased regulation over and over and over again. Blocked by Democrats every time.
Comment by American Elephant — January 12, 2009 @ 10:56 am - January 12, 2009
Sorry, ILC. Relink: An Economist Not On Board With Spendapalooza.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 11:40 am - January 12, 2009
The Japanese economy also spent the entire period mired in recession. The Obama plan failed, just as it has everywhere it’s been tried.
Right on, ILC. But the problem here is that Obama doesn’t care about the economy or the country; he and his leftist party care only about being re-elected, and their ticket to that is to fund unions.
California’s bullet train is a fine example. Why in the hell should the state spend $40 billion it doesn’t have to build a train that will, at best, only match airlines in speed, at worst, not even come close because of all the stops it has to make, and which will require a wholly-new infrastructure setup around it — versus taking $10 billion to improve LAX, SFO, and the other airports in Southern California and the Central Valley to reduce delays (which will help flying to EVERY destination versus just one or two), and then taking another $10 billion to improve the transit connections between the airports and the cities they serve?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2009 @ 12:39 pm - January 12, 2009
NDT – Liberals always push mass-transit programs on the theory that if they can force enough proles into mass-transit, there’ll be more room on the freeways for the Volvos and Priuses.
Not to mention, the transit workers unions will have the proles at their mercy.
Comment by V the K — January 12, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - January 12, 2009
V – thanks for link.
NDT – Let’s make your comment into a “Right on, V”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 12, 2009 @ 1:36 pm - January 12, 2009
greater role for the government in our economy seems to contradict some of his campaign rhetoric favoring a more efficient federal government……….kaizen2www.fastrehttalestate.net
Comment by KAIZEN2 — October 24, 2009 @ 8:01 am - October 24, 2009