« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Barack Obama’s Economic Patriotism

By: streiff (Diary)  |  September 28th, 2012 at 12:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday, Barack Obama started running a new ad touting “economic patriotism.” I’m not making this up. When you hear this you half expect to told your production quotas for the next Five Year Plan and how you’ll fit into the Great Leap Forward. (Whoa. Forward. Where have I heard that before?)

What is this “economic patriotism”? ”It’s time for a new economic patriotism, an economic patriotism rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class.”

We’ve heard a lot of this before. It is called cargo cult economics. What underpins his economic plan is the idea that prosperity can be created by mimicking the trappings of prosperity. It is like the family who is down on its luck and facing homelessness going out to buy a new car and a flat screen television on credit because prosperous families have these things and if they have those items, they, too, will be prosperous.

A healthy middle class is necessary to a healthy society and economy. But you cannot create a middle class via subsidies and government action if the economy is in the tank. For the past four years we have been promised one recovery after another. Each of these recoveries to be brought forth by a blizzard of government regulations, funding for industries that have no market, and government financial intervention in the economy. What it has actually produced permanent unemployment/underemployment in the 16% range, stagnant growth, and a burgeoning dependent class.

Training students in skills, the hiring of teachers, the development of new technologies will be the logical outcome of a healthy economy and a healthy middle class. They cannot develop them.

 

 

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • DerKrieger

    Obama, and Dems in general, remind me of a time when I was driving through poor, rural Arkansas and my son asked where all the people were. He said that if they would build a mall nearby then people would move to that rural county and then the county wouldn’t be poor. He, like Obama, doesn’t understand cause and effect with respect to economics.

  • reggie1

    Go to “obamaphone.net” and tell me whether the site was created to tout their sugar daddy, or to p.o. people like me and you. Because it does. I’m sure it’s not a government site, but it doesn’t look like one of ours. That’s the real story- find out who put up that site.

  • kentucky

    “Economic Patriotism” is one of those things that only a Democrat could say and get away with it.

    I can hear the howling if a Republican said it: “Patriotism? What, you mean like NATIONALISM?!?! And ‘Economic’? As in SOCIALISM?!?! My god, these rightwingers have really gone over the edge! Lets have an emergency meeting of the editorial team. Also, someone resurrect Journolist so we can slap these Republicans down before they start goosestepping down our streets, which could be any second now.”

  • cheeze

    This article seems intellectually dishonest. Households are not like national economies. Yes, it is LIKE buying things on credit. But in really important and relevant ways, investment and government spending is part of the solution, not the problem. Demonizing people without work as lazy and dependent (and believing that 1. this is the human condition and 2. Even if that were somehow true that that somehow welfare is a cushy blanket that encourages laziness) is in my view an article of fait, not a fact.

  • streiff

    I think that is martian logic of the worst type. Only rarely is government intervention in the economy a good thing. Numerous studies have shown that the New Deal prolonged the Depression. Government really doesn’t invest outside of a few things like transportation infrastructure. In most things the government calls investment it is nothing more than trying to pick winner and losers. Any of the boondoggles in “green energy” whether Solyndra, or wind turbines, or ethanol are simply subsidies to major campaign donors.

    I don’t get the “demonization” part unless you are talking about the video of the Obama ideal of a middle class created by government spending.

    But thanks for playing.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Actually, I think making people subservient to you is morally reprehensible. Many people know of the biblical quotation where God told Pharoah: “LET MY PEOPLE GO” what the leave out is the next part “so that they may serve Me”. You see an enslaved people can pursue God or their own hopes and dreams. They can’t pursue their dreams for their children. A crack addict can only serve the interests of his dealer. A welfare dependent person can only serve those that control the spigot. Before you dismiss me, perhaps you should know Barack Obama agrees with me. He has given numerous speeches on the subject of creating a durable voting majority by creating a dependent welfare class. Here is an excerpt from one “What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the ‘working poor,’” he said, “although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year. They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.” – Barack Obama

  • jaykali

    I don’t even think Obama really means anything with ‘economic patriotism’ – I think it’s a meaningless phrase. He ‘means’ that we should rebuild the middle class – eg tax more and spend more which hasn’t really worked so far.

    It’s not quite animal farmish but it’s getting there. If he does get another term expect a lot of rhetoric of doing things for mother Russia.

  • lineholder

    streiff, I agree with about the “green” energy investments. I want throw something out here at you. Just call it “whispers on the wind”, okay?

    What about the medical device industry, streiff? Think about it for a second. Obamacare. “Bailing out” medical device companies “for the sake of society as a whole”. Then implementing unnecessary regs that cause undue financial hardships to competitors. What happens to the market share of that business government has “invested” in if its competitors are driven out of business? Via Obamacare, government would dictate supply. Via partial or complete ownership of a business, government would dictate both price and demand.

    I’m hearing a few comments along these lines. Scary as the dickens, because what we’re talking about is a government-established monopoly.

    Possible? Yes, I think it could be. Just an example to consider. That’s all.

  • lineholder

    All I have at this point is chatter at HC blogs, streiff…mostly in response to articles like this one.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444620104578012281306687070.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    But I’ll keep my eyes and ears open for anything to substantiate it.

    BTW, all your front page links (except for the highlighted one at the top) are showing 404 errors. I had to go through a back-door route to get into this diary.

  • streiff

    the short answer is I’m giving you the boot because I’m not going to have a lefty crapweasel come on the site and question my honesty.

    1. I don’t make that argument at all. I argue that you can’t create prosperity by buying the outward appearances of prosperity. Training x million people in community colleges doesn’t make any sense unless there are jobs for them. Trained workers do no create jobs.

    2. There is no doubt Obama is an agent of moral subversion.

    3. I know the difference between dependency and interdependence.

    4. The concept you are struggling with is our belief in subsidiarity. That assistance should be provided at the lowest possible level and the federal government, in particular, has an exceedingly limited role in providing aid to citizens.

    5. I don’t believe the government is capable or inclined towards “target assistance” (this, btw, led directly to the collapse of the black family), “thoughtful intervention” and “investments in education.”