From his Rolling Stone interview:
.. I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic healthcare legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don’t even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before …
We end a war against an enemy of our nation, yet score a “victory” in the halls of Congress.
To be sure, Republicans would also hail passage of legislation they like as a victory, but they (and many Democrats for that matter) would call a successful military operation a victory as well.
(Link above via Instapundit.)
Gee, I didn’t know the Anointed One was so humble.
progressives do not prevent Great Depressions, they CAUSE them. Just like FDR, Obama not only CANT get us out of this depression, his policies are what are preventing recovery.
Republicans need to start talking NOW about the “Republican recovery”. Because it is already starting. and Obama and Democrats will take credit for it, just as Bill Clinton did if Republicans don’t set the record straight.
But the closer we get to the election, and the more it looks like Republicans are going to win control of one or more houses of congress, the better the economy, particularly the markets, will continue to do. Putting a stop to the Obama agenda with a Republican congress will result in at least a minor, if not a major boom.
“Same As It Ever Was”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psJGHGeLSeE
Dan, that is a fair point. The man is incapable of acknowledging, or for that matter wanting, American military victory. But you could have gone on longer. Let’s look at more of Obama’s language:
… and failed awfully. But I do confess, the full extent of that failure is still to come, therefore still to be seen.
No actually; it was our brave troops who ‘ended it’ in victory… following a plan developed under the oversight of the previous administration.
So that’s the 21st-century spin for socialist nationalizations which, by destroying the profit motive, destroy efficiency?
We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program
Hugo Chavez used exactly the same rationale when he nationalized the oil, cement, supermarket, and most recently fertilizer businesses in Venezuelal; the capitalists were extracting too much profit, and the state could run them more efficiently without the profit motive.
But don’t call Obama a socialist, that’s Crazy Talk.
If the Levi / lowercase / Delusional Liberal family of sockpuppets won’t leap in to say something stupid, about now, I won’t miss it. But I do just slightly miss Ash leaping in to say something stupid, about now.
Did the Washington Beltway gang actually save the economy from Wall Street melting-down? Or did they just deliver the middleclass’ wealth and equity to the bankers and gamblers of Wall Street?
“Progressives do not prevent Great Depressions, they CAUSE them.”
—————
President Herbert Hoover / Policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Policies
Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation’s regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country’s economic system.[27] A self-described Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before entering politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking.[28] As Commerce Secretary, he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress.
.
gastorgrab, what do you mean? If you mean that Hoover was, contrary to myth, an activist President who prototyped many of Roosevelt’s policies, and that their Big Government policies together turned the Recession of 1930 into the Great Depression, then you are right. You might also mention Hoover’s tax increases, or his budget (and deficit) increases.
Not to mention Hoover’s demands to increase salaries which lead to millions losing their jobs. Fast forward a few decades to liberal demands for Minimum Wage increases!
Terrific observation, Dan. I am a true believer in the idea that individuals (particularly those for whom language and communication are at the core of their profession) can reveal VOLUMES about themselves, their objectives, and their true values, sometimes with only ONE WORD. I find that in litigation when dealing with highly intelligent witnesses who know how to choose their words carefully, that ONE WORD is sometimes a benign one that is used solely to avoid using another word that would get them into trouble.
What’s so amazing about the Rolling Stone interview is that even given the following:
–a hip, youth-oriented, yet well-established media outlet staffed exclusively with people that are similar to their readership–individuals whose adoration for Obama is still so pathological that even the word “sycophantic” is USELESS to describe it;
–an interviewer that is so “friendly” to the Administration that he is willing to print whatever the White House tells him to and if asked, would gladly lick Obama’s scrotum clean at the conclusion of the interview if the Administration thought it would aid their efforts to propagandize Obama’s first two years in office as an indisputable success;
–Obama is the Leader of the “Free” World and therefore has the autonomy and resources to assemble the savviest and most effective communications staff that money can buy;
and Obama STILL doesn’t get it! His message just gets more and more pissy, bitter, and defensive, AND he keeps hammering home every negative perception about his Administration that is out there. At this point, every rational person in America has accepted the fact that Obama HATES business (despite his hypocritical reliance on millions funneled to him through their lobbyists and “bundlers”). The cat’s out of the bag–Obama would like to see the private sector decimated to the point that it is nothing more than a quirky group of free market eccentrics begrudgingly tolerated by an ever-expanding, monolithic, centralized politburo (like a silly little “Moose Lodge” or a for-profit Civil War re-enactment troupe). Nevertheless, he thinks Americans will be impressed by his “victory” when he courageously “wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks.” Yeah, that’s the PERFECT image to send to voters in this economy: an 8-foot tall muscle god (huge Obama logos tattooed on each bicep) armed with a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other brutally attacking an unarmed 5-foot Wall Streeter in a suit and tie.
And I LOVE his bitterness about how “people didn’t even notice” his “legislative victories” like passing Obamacare and the “too big to fail in perpetuity” financial reform bill. Seriously, this is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES bitching that us ungrateful pigs “didn’t notice” Obamacare being shocked into life (i.e., “Congress passed a healthcare reform law?! REALLY?! When?! Gosh, we sure are sorry Mr. President! That was really inconsiderate of us. Thank yeeewww!”) Um, yeah, we NOTICED, Mr. President. We just don’t think it’s a fu*king victory. (Well, I guess it could be called a “victory” for tyranny; or a “victory” over economic reality; or a “victorious” triumph over the effective use of huge majorities in both the House and Senate that the Dems will not likely see again for another 30-40 years;…)
Of course, it’s all good news for America because what we’re seeing is the first leg of Progressivism’s downhill journey back into exile again where it belongs. The liberals must really be in deep, deep denial still because by now, I expected to start hearing the pre-emptive excuse conspiracies that we have to assume will dominate the MSM the day after the election to explain Democratic losses. You know, all those fabricated stories about white Republicans “intimidating” minority voters, stealing elections, Diebold machines programmed to kill registered Democrats with lasers while they are in the voting booth and trap doors that funnel the bodies into refrigerated trucks furnished by the Koch Brothers, the usual stuff. Thought I would have heard more of it by now.
The other joke about “wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks” is: Obama’s bailouts. Bailouts of what? The banks. For how much? Hundreds of billions. And that’s just the official bailouts. Bernanke’s ongoing destruction of the U.S. dollar is a worse bank bailout. ‘Oh, but don’t look there, look over here.’
People who think the Democrats somehow stand *against* the worst banks are seriously out of touch with reality. It was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagall and made some of the worst changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. And Barney Frank who promoted and protected the housing bubble, probably in part for his executive lover at Fannie Mae. Goldman-Sachs employees were among Obama’s top donors in 2008 – because they expected him to be on their side. And he has been.
The storm that blew up when Carly made the comment on Boxers hair was huge – this not so much. We are used to politics = w***e but attacking the hair; that’s uncouth. /sarc
Wait, how is the war in Iraq a successful military operation? It’s still going on, by the way, and it’s over budget, it’s taken way too long, we failed to achieve any of the most important objectives we had going in, and it’s tarnished our credibility and moral authority in the eyes of everyone on the planet. In what dimension is that score sheet considered a success?
“Obama hates business”….Obama is willing to tolerate businesses if they are (a)very large, (b)run by people with Ivy League credentials, (c)willing to play a subservient role to government. The executives of such companies, though, need to understand that they are like the “Kaiserjuden” of Wilhelmine Germany—tolerated because of their usefulness, occasionally even treated as sort-of friends, but never admitted to the Inner Circle or considered to be equals of the aristocrats.
The businesspeople Obama despises most are those who have succeeded without benefit of credentials and government connection and who are in industries that have not been designated as “cool.” An uncredentialed entrepreneur in software may be marginally acceptable; an uncredentialed entrepreneur in a metal-bending business is simply a Kulak.
david foster, well said.
Businesses are subservient to government, because of having to follow laws and all that. The last time I checked Dow Chemical isn’t the one guaranteeing my right to free speech. And indeed, if it were up to “business” writ large, we’d still have 6 year olds working assembly lines.
As for Iraq, Levi is absolutely correct. We removed an enemy of Iran and replaced him with a potentially friendly government. Not only that, Islamic fundamentalists have a much better foothold in Iraq now. But please, run on a platform of more foreign intervention.
… under fascism. Regimes such as Mussolini’s Italy (whose basic electoral platform was to, well, make Italian business subservient to government) and, yes, Hitler’s Germany. The Founders launched the American Revolution to to establish, among other things, that *government ought to be subservient* to all of the People, yes including subservient to those who want to start businesses.
If you mean that Dow has accepted subservience to government rather than standing up to government: then no, of course not. In countries where people like yourself promote the idea of subservience to government, nobody’s free speech is safe. Government is supposed to guarantee free speech but has instead made itself the largest threat to it; see McCain-Feingold.
Which shows your ignorance of economic history. The era of subsistence farming saw every child doing hard-scrabble child labor, Mike. U.S. labor law still allows farmers to make their children work. But businesses raised living standards and freed vast swaths of the populace from that. At first, child laborers went to factories because their labor could produce more for their desperate families there, than it could on the farm – but in time, businesses (and the rising living standards they create) put a stop to that as well. Child labor was probably 90% abolished in the United States – by rising living standards, which means by capitalism and business – before the first federal law against it.
So everyone is to be subservient to government?
In that case, government has banned gay-sex marriage, so you should shut up and do as you’re told. You must obey government and have no right to disagree.
Watch how fast Mike flip-flops.
Mike, the Constitution guarantees your right to free speech *against government interference*. The provision is there because the Founders understood that government is **dangerous**.
The government does guarantee your right to free speech in two ways (1)militarily, and (2)by preventing acts of violence that could intimidate free expression. However, the Obama-ites are generally hostile toward the American military, and are often–especially on university campuses but also elsewhere, as in the New Black Panther case–the ones doing the intimidating.
Businesses must submit to the laws of the government (and what is the government except all of us?) so yes, business is “subservient” to the government. I’m sure if you had your way, businesses could do whatever they damn well please, dumping chemicals into rivers, putting out spoiled food, whatever, because that’s “freedom”.
Please, cite your 90% statistic, I’d love to know where you got it from. Indeed, Massachusetts was the first state, in 1852, to pass a law requiring children to attend school, which was a strike against child labor. I’d bet your ideological forebears complained about the tyranny of such a move. The same with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was the real strike through the heart of child labor.
Sure, people submit themselves to the authority of the government to make laws and regulate actions of both individuals and groups, including businesses. Are you saying this isn’t the case? Stopping at a stop sign is submitting yourself to the authority of the government, isn’t it? Yep, that includes gay marriage. I can’t get married in some states: they have the authority to regulate marriage and thus make that decision. No one says you have to agree with that decision any more than businesses have to agree with any law regulating them. And of course, they can organize efforts to repeal those laws, as they do all the time. So, what’s your problem here? Businesses and people should do whatever they want, whenever they want? Sounds like an argument from some high school anarchist to me, but what’s new with that.
Mike, to compare the kind of government regulation of business that has existed in the US over the last 60 years to the kind that exists in a fascist or corporatist state like Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany is like saying that the Gestapo and the Stasi are like your local police department, since in both cases they regulate behavior.
Laws that reasonably limit what GE can pour into the water at its lamp-manufacturing plants are in the first category. Laws that forbid GE from manufacturing incandescent bulbs (and hence, ultimately forbid you from buying them) are closer than I like to the second.
david foster, not quite as well said. What, pray explain, is the essential difference between the kind of government regulation of business that has existed in the US over the last 60 years – much of it promulgated by unelected bureaucrats – and the kind that exists in a fascist or corporatist state like Fascist Italy? In both, government directs what people are to do with their own property – thus violating property rights.
The purpose of government is to serve the People by impartially protecting their individual rights to life, liberty and property. *If* the local police department were in the habit of violating people’s rights to, say, life or liberty – arbitrarily deciding who lives, who dies, who is imprisioned, etc: then it would be like the Gestapo or Stasi. As it happens, and to our country’s detriment, U.S. regulators *are* in the habit of violating property rights, and arbitrarily deciding what businesses live or die.
#20: “I’m sure if you had your way, businesses could do whatever they damn well please, dumping chemicals into rivers, putting out spoiled food, whatever, because that’s “freedom”.”
I love it when liberals like Mike reveal just how ignorant, pedestrian, and cartoonish their view of the private sector is. How many times have left-wing imbeciles posted comments on this blog jumping right to the cliche of big businesses doing what they supposedly love to do most: dump toxic chemicals in our waterways; kidnap hundreds of 5-6 year old children in the dead of night, dressing them in rags like the cast of Annie, and putting them to work in sweatshops where they spend 20 hours a day in front of big, loud machines having something to do with textiles; and putting lethal poisons in food products and sending them out to Piggly-Wigglys across the land….HOO, HOO, HOO, HOO, HOO, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!!!!
When liberals like Mike actually picture the CEO of a corporation, they really do see Goldfinger sitting on a solid-gold throne, stroking a persian cat, and threatening to throw idealistic politicians like Obama in a tank filled with sharks armed with lasers. It never occurs to him that if all EPA regulations disappeared tomorrow that corporate America would not necessarily celebrate it by staging a toxic chemical festival beside a river and start pouring in earnest, just like the good ‘ol days! Yahooooo! I know that Mike would never accept this but most corporations actually aren’t all that interested in poisoning their own customers or putting America’s infant children to work in factories. Seriously, I think it has something to do with that kind of stuff not being all that profitable. True story. Another interesting bit of trivia that liberals categorically reject: selling expensive healthcare insurance policies and then just denying any and all claims that are made by the policyholders…NOT PROFITABLE EITHER.
The idiotic hysteria and recriminations from people like Mike is only going to get better and more hilarious as the liberals watch the progressive terror train speeding up its downhill journey back into exile where it will stay for at least the next 30-40 years. I can hardly wait for the mass head explosions that will start promptly on the morning of November 3rd after the Democrats have their worthless asses handed to them.
The same with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was the real strike through the heart of child labor.
Oh, this is one of my favorites.
During the middle of the Great Depression, when many families were dependent on the fact that their children were working to survive, the Obama Party pushed through the FLSA, which put these children out of jobs permanently and left their families helpless.
Why? Because the point was to eliminate competition for jobs for adults. It had nothing to do with “protecting children”, but everything to do with another attempt by the Obama Party to manipulate the workforce.
The stupidity of the FLSA is in this; it is illegal for your child to stay home and learn a trade that they can practice for their entire life, but it is mandated that your child be sent to school where literally days are spent teaching them to repeat mindlessly, “Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm”.
This is no surprise, though; the Obama Party’s heartfelt belief is that it is better for people to be on food stamps and unemployment benefits than it is for them to have jobs. Then they can spend all day repeating, “Barack Hussein Obama, mmmm, mmm, mmm” instead of producing goods and services and getting those uppity ideas of independence and self-reliance.
And of course, they can organize efforts to repeal those laws, as they do all the time.
No they can’t. The Barack Obama Party and Barack Obama himself say that it is wrong for businesses to organize, file lawsuits, make campaign contributions, and so forth. Indeed, the screaming Obama was saying on the Sunday morning talk shows that businesses were using illegal foreign contributions to fund political campaigns and that businesses must prove they are NOT doing that.
By the way, Mike, “innocent until proven guilty” and the right not to be forced to provide evidence about your own guilt or innocence is in the Constitution, so your Obama’s screaming and pants-wetting that businesses are automatically guilty and must provide evidence that they are not is patently unconstitutional. Your Obama is using government power to make unconstitutional demands.
Once Republicans take power, I vote they do exactly that. They should publicly accuse any Obama supporter of whatever they like and demand that the Obama supporter provide evidence to prove their innocence. For example, they should immediately accuse Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett of corruption and demand that they turn over twenty years of financial records to prove that they are innocent.
Mike, I seriously considered not bothering with you, because your earlier comment was so unimpressive. I often don’t bother doing research for people, when they show basic ignorance in a subject. A capable and -intellectually honest- person can usually find the answer in Google, in about two minutes. You would have gotten on it yourself, if your mind were cracked open enough for the answer to honestly matter to you.
But some others on this blog may be interested in the answer. As it happens, I am often willing to do a bit of legwork for their enjoyment. In the 30 seconds it took me to Google “child labor historical statistics”, I came up with this article: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor
First, for precision, let us review what I said:
Now for a few key sentences from Professor Whaples’ article:
Emphases added. “Until the early twentieth century” – get that? Child labor was largely abolished in the textile industry, as of 90-100 years ago: as of “the early twentieth century.” To continue:
Let’s understand this. After industrial child labor *already declined* by some unspecified, but surely considerable, amount from 1840 to 1880 – such that only 32% of males and 12% of females were still subjected to it, in 1880 – it declined *another* three-fourths by 1930, such that only 6.4% of males and 2.9% of females were still subjected to it. Thus my statement that it “was *probably* 90% abolished” – “probably” reflecting uncertainty over the exact decline from 1840 to 1880.
Now, when was the first federal law against child labor, that was not struck down (i.e. found unconstitutional) by court decisions? 1938. Thus my statement that it was probably 90% abolished, “before the first federal law against it.” I did neglect to add a slight qualifier, “the first *lasting* federal law”.
Other than missing that slight qualifier, it is all as I represented. Professor Whaples’ conclusion is not to be missed:
Emphases added. If you truly care about this topic, you may look further yourself into good Professor Whaples’ references.
Sean A, well said.
NDT, well said.
In conclusion: Child labor, like slavery, died largely under the pressures of capitalism. The whole point of capitalism is to intelligently replace grinding, soul-crushing labor with CAPITAL (e.g., machines). As capitalism raises both general living standards and business technology, it squeezes out firms that rely on inferior forms of labor – such as slaves or children.
That is part of what makes capitalism so great. It is part of why *I*… *LOVE*… *CAPITALISM*. And equally, part of why I don’t love grubby, fascist phonies who see capitalism’s achievements and try to take the credit by legislating those achievments *after the fact*, then expand government endlessly on the grounds that their ‘reform’ or ‘management’ of others is so superior.
Let us not forget that Levi is the one who could never admit that any degree of success in Iraq. After all, per Levi, brown people cannot comprehend democracy.
And isn’t it funny Mike worried about Iraq being an ally to Iran? I mean he complains about a potential ally to Iran, but supports a President who’s policy is to negotiate with Iran, despite their killing our troops and accusing the American Government of being behind 9/11.
So remember folks. If you’re a 9/11 Truther you can be on equal footing with the Administration, or work for them. If you question the President’s tax policy, you’re silenced.
I just realized something. The statistics I quoted show the proportion of child labor in agriculture going up from 1880 to 1930. So the decline of child labor in industry was even more than I said.
For males in 1880: 32.5% of males in child labor, and 69.9% of those in agriculture, makes 9.78% of males laboring in industry.
Males in 1930: 6.4% of males in child labor, and 74.5% of those in agri, makes 1.63% of males laboring in industry.
9.78% to 1.63%, that is a decline of greater than 80%… on a child labor rate that was surprisingly low (9.78%) to begin with.
Females in 1880: 12.2% in child labor, and 37.7% of those in agri, makes 7.6% of female children laboring in industry.
Females in 1930: 2.9% in child labor, and 61.5% of those in agri, makes 1.1% of female children laboring in industry.
7.6% to 1.1%, that is a decline of greater than 85%… on a child labor rate that was surprisingly low (7.6%) to begin with.
So, declines in child labor of greater than 80%, just from 1880 to 1930. The 1880 numbers were already low enough – compared to what foolish anti-capitalists might guess – that the unmeasured decline in child labor from 1840 must have already been great.
It would not surprise me if, in truth, child labor from its 1840 levels in the United States were abolished more like 95, 98 or even 99%, before the first federal law against it.
But it’s fine to put out food that illegal immigrants took a shit on. Just as it’s perfectly acceptable for liberals to force toxic, mercury filled light bulbs MADE IN CHINA into our homes.
ILC y you need to rethink your zany conclusion “Child labor, like slavery, died largely under the pressures of capitalism”
First off, virtually all State governments had Child labor laws long before solid labor statistics were kept. Federal laws merely unified the state laws and ended the confusion that arose with the various state laws and was passed to mostly to protect family farmers.
Secondly – What killed Child labor in the US was the Public School System. When it was made compulsory – most states did this in the late 1800’s – it pretty much killed widespread Child labor practices in this country.
Want solid proof of this? African American and immigrant populations who where not in the public school system and ignored by state laws had higher rates of Child employment.
So please rethink.
Yeah, ILC. Forget all your fancy links and documentation and proof! gillie said it was the Federal Government and he doesn’t need any proof!
Heh – But where’s Mike?
#30: “Let us not forget that Levi is the one who could never admit that any degree of success in Iraq. After all, per Levi, brown people cannot comprehend democracy.”
The_Livewire, it’s probably been at least a couple of years since Levi walked right into that propeller where he ended up admitting that our mission in Iraq was pointless because those brown people (that the Left supposedly cares for so deeply) are really just a bunch of savages who don’t deserve freedom and will only be confused and upset by the concept of democracy.
I just wanted to say that I LOVE the fact that you will NEVER let him forget it and it makes me happy every single time you throw it in his elitist, bigoted face. (As you know, NDT is also HIGHLY SKILLED in this area.) You are AWESOME.
It also reminded me that I need to dig out an exchange with Levi that I had about a year ago on abortion. It took a while but I got Levi to admit in his responses that even assuming that a fetus is a human life he still thinks abortion is morally acceptable and that the mother’s right to abort trumps the human life in her uterus regardless. It was chilling, but it’s always a good thing when you can get liberals to admit that they really are sociopathic monsters. It’s far too easy to lapse into complacency and forget the horror behind what these people truly believe.
that could in which