I haven't posted for a while, but once again, I feel compelled. There has been a lot of talk lately on radio and TV about "people who hate Barack Obama." In truth, unless Mr. Obama's personal sphere of influence is much larger than I can believe, I seriously doubt that there are enough people who actually hate Barack Obama to warrant any public comment.

Most of America hates, despises, and fears Barack Obama's policies, and for excellent reasons. Personally, none of us really give a fig about the man himself. We will probably not meet at church, our kids don't play with his kids at school, we are not neighbors, and neither he nor his wife are likely to be occupying the next cubicle at work. On a personal level, he is completely irrelevant, and we have no feelings about him either for or against.

No, what we hate is the idea that we have a communist in the White House, and he is determined to spread that particularly disgusting social disease by whatever means necessary. Yes, we do want him stopped cold, but it is nothing personal. We just don't want to live in a communist country. Most of us find that position quite reasonable, and not ideologically blind at all, especially considering the last hundred years or so of world history.

Yes, I am well aware that I have dropped the dreaded "C" bomb twice in one paragraph. I am also well aware that we are not supposed to notice the socialist tendencies of nearly every appointee in the current administration, but come on, people! He may not have a hammer and sickle tattooed on his forehead, but Stalin's Five Year Plans were less socialistic and totalitarian than Obama's ideas of economic stimulus, energy policy, and health care.

Communism can be defined as a fully socialized economy enforced by a fascist dictatorship. It embodies the worst of both economic and political worlds. President Obama has taken majority stockholder positions in two of the nation's three largest automobile companies, has exercised de facto control over the management of most of the financial industry, and has vigorously promoted a socialized medical system to replace private health insurance. He has voided legal contracts and international treaties for his own personal convenience, apologized to our enemies for defending ourselves and our allies, and has proposed legislation designed to bankrupt both producers and consumers of energy, simply by government fiat. And that was only his first hundred days.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is clear, and has been since even before the Democratic Primaries. The current Presidential administration wants to force socialism down the throats of America, and sees no reason to let trivia like freedom and the Constitution stand in the way. I think the time has come for the Naming of True Names. Our President, ladies and gentlemen, is a communist.

So, yes, we do want him stopped. Yes, we do hate everything he stands for. But no, the simple truth is, the man himself is nobody special, and we don't really care about him one way or another. If we could make him retreat to the Oval Office and be quitely Presidential while the rest of us go about our business, that would suit most of us just fine.

 

My son asked me that question a few days ago, and this was more or less what I told him.

The idea behind socialism is actually rather attractive. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It sounds fair and compassionate, almost utopian. Everyone contributes, and everyone gets everything they need to be content. Right? Let's take a closer look.

First, in a capitalist system, if I am a baker then the bread I produce in my bakery is mine, and I can sell it to anyone who is willing to pay for it. To make more money for my bread, I can raise prices and sell the same number of loaves, or I can increase my production somehow and sell more loaves at the same price. If I can find a way to reduce costs and increase production, then I can sell more loaves at a lower price to make even more money.

The point here is that in a capitalist system, I own the bakery, I own the product, and I get to benefit from my labors. If I do a good job, I get more benefit than if I do a bad job. Under a capitalist system, I have a powerful motivation to always do a better job than I did before.

In a socialist system, I do not own either the bakery or the bread. Those belong to society. Under socialism, the theory is that I should produce as much bread as I can, of the best quality I can produce, and then I just turn it over to be distributed to everyone who needs bread. In turn, I get a place to sleep, a ration of food, clothes, and whatever else the distributors agree that I need.

If I increase production, reduce costs, or both, I do not get anything more as compensation, because it is my socialist duty to do these things. Remember, the concept is "From each according to his ability." So, if I am able to produce more, it is only expected that I should do so. I still only need my ration of food, shelter, clothing, and whatever, and that ration will not be changed because I work harder, or smarter.

It won't be long before I realize that I get no benefit from working harder and producing more, so I will begin to produce less. After all, "To each according to his need." I still need my ration of food, clothing, shelter and whatever, even though I am producing less. I have no motivation to produce more. Why should I work harder than necessary if that work is not going to result in some sort of reward?

Over time, more and more people will see that hard work is not rewarded any differently than laziness. Quality will suffer, production will go down, and shortages will appear because people just do not see any reason why they should work hard, if at all. The socialist system will quickly collapse.

To keep the system going, you now need communism, the government-enforced flavor of socialism. With communism, you have a central committee that decides what everyone needs, and what everyone is able to produce. They have the power to set quotas for each person to produce, and to punish those who do not meet their quotas.

Now, under communism, I have a motivation to work hard again. That motivation is simply the fear of punishment for failing to work hard. I still have no reason to expect a reward for working harder, but I know that I will be punished for not working hard enough. Now, what is another name for a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to benefit from that work?

If you said, "Slavery," give yourself a gold star.

Socialism is a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to own or benefit from the products of that work. Slavery is a system where people are forced to work but are not allowed to own or benefit from the products of that work. Socialism is slavery, pure and simple.

The only people who like socialism are the ones who think it will give them the products of other people's labor for free. In other words, anybody who likes socialism really wants to be a slave owner, and those people should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Like at least several dozen Americans, I have been following the recent Presidential campaign, the economic news, and the political news since the elections with some interest and attention. The general pattern puzzles me.

What the heck is our new President really up to? First he campaigns on the idea that the previous administration is irresponsible because they ran up a $5 trillion debt over an eight year period. Then, to fix the cash shortage, he insists that hundreds of billions of dollars be spent in such a mad rush that nobody even knows what the money is being spent for. Then he introduces a new era of financial responsibility with a proposed budget that makes the most profligate spenders in history look like a bunch of tightwads. This from a man who wants direct control over the salaries of people who actually work for a living because he thinks it is unreasonable that they should be paid at all.

At the same time, he preaches the need to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, but refuses to permit development of massive domestic oil resources. While sitting on an energy cornucopia that could guarantee cheap energy for the next couple of hundred years, he demands that only the most expensive and least practical energy sources be actively developed. He is pushing for a thinly disguised punitive energy tax that will double, or perhaps triple the cost of energy from existing sources. This, at a time when any cost increase will put more people out of work.

Meanwhile, he is pushing for government control of the entire health care system. That may be great if you have a cold, and all you need is plenty of fluids and some aspirin, but what happens when something is really wrong? I for one do not relish the prospect of waiting for three months or more to have my inflamed appendix removed because surgery requires two specialist opinions and operating rooms are booked for weeks in advance.

Not neglecting foreign affairs, he sends hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas to buy more weapons for their terrorist activities, tells the radical Moslem world that he will do nothing to inhibit their quest for nuclear weapons, and informs North Korea that they may test intercontinental missile systems at will. Unsatisifed with his progress in destabilizing the Middle East and the Pacific Rim, he tries to sell out our Eastern European allies for diplomatic favors from a belligerent Russia. He also offers several pointed insults to the British Prime Minister, of all people, during a traditional state visit. Even now, he is busily exhorting the governments of the rest of the world to join him in trashing their currencies in order to prevent their economies from outperforming the one he is trying to impoverish as fast as possible.

Ever the patriot, he has authorized the deployment of half the troops required to do more than hold the line in Afghanistan. Nobody can figure out what his policy toward Pakistan will be, but we can be sure that neither the Pakistani people nor their government will like it. The Malignant and Evil Bush plan to withdraw from Iraq has now become the Wise and Benevolent Obama withdrawal plan, which is obviously a completely different thing. And, those poor unfortunates whose only crime was to plot destruction against the United States and her allies are being released as quickly as possible. We all may rejoice that they will no longer be subjected to the intolerable abuse of three square meals a day, relatively comfortable sleeping quarters, and constant media attention at Guantanamo Bay.

So you tell me. Is Barack Obama the most carefully stupid anthropological specimen ever to walk the earth, or is he the most dangerous enemy the free world has ever faced? I honestly do not know, but I don't see a lot of room for middle ground here.

Watch and listen to this video where White House Press Secretary Gibbs "explains" the difference between a "sound" economy and a "strong" one.

Having watched this display, I can not help wondering, do these people ever listen to anything they say?

He confirms that Candidate McCain (notice the diminutive title as he refuses to even call him Senator) was completely deluded to refer to any part of the national economy as "strong." I can only assume he intends us to understand that the economy is definitely and inarguably weak.

In the next breath, he asserts, "Nobody exceeds the United States in our production capacity, uh, in our untrapranool....entrepreneur'l (sic) capacity, in our capacity to innovate, in our research universities, in the depth and the breadth of our capital markets, umm...." Is it just me, or does that not sound pretty strong, as economies go? And am I the only one who heard how the man just could not choke out the word "entrepreneurial?"

Visibly nervous, he stumbles on, "But as the president, addressed in the debates later that fall, ah, he said that the strength of our fundamentals should be med-measured as to whether, um, the middle class is getting a fair shake." Dude! The guy you are talking about was only a candidate then, too! Also, would you mind defining the term "fair shake?" I'm middle class, and I go to work, get paid, and pay my bills. It doesn't get much more fair than that, does it?

Appearing to gain confidence with the ole campaign slogans, he continues,"Unh, are we taking steps to create jobs? Are we taking steps to prevent home foreclosures?" Son, one of these days somebody has got to explain to you where jobs come from, and why foreclosures happen.

He has to think hard again to make this next bit sound even a little acceptable. "Are we taking steps, ahh, to put money back in people's pockets who most deserve it, rather than to continue, unh, tax cuts that reward those that have done, just fine over eight years?" WHAT WAS THAT?

So, now you have it. A sound economy is one that has all the elements required for everyone who participates to succeed to one degree or another. A strong economy, however, seems to be one where the government "takes steps" to create jobs and prevent home foreclosures. Notice that these government "steps" need not succeed in their purpose. They need only be taken.

Above all, a strong economy, as opposed to a sound but weak one, seems to be an economy where the deserving, whoever they are, are given money by government fiat. At the same time, a strong economy ensures that those who have succeeded to any degree in a sound economy are "not rewarded." Lovely.

Let's just skip ahead to the next significant bit.

"The question was, are we going to, uhh, move forward in, uhh, a plan that would create jobs, a plan that would stem home foreclosures, a plan that would reward the middle class with tax cuts..." Hold it right there! Ten seconds ago you said rewarding the middle class with tax cuts had to be stopped to make the economy strong. You want to make up your mind, there, Sparky?

"...and a plan that would reregulate our financial industry, or were we not? I think that debate is largely over? I think that campaign was...won? Uh, by, a particular side...." Then he starts stumbling and mumbling even worse than before.

We need to get one thing straight, guys. What you "won," as you are so fond of saying, is nothing more than the award of a four year employment contract. That contract includes a termination clause, and you people seem to be doing everything in your power to invoke the conditions of that clause. Your objective is simple. It is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help you God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nowhere in your terms of employment is there any reference to redistributing money to those of whom you approve, and nothing in those terms suggests that you are permitted to beggar the nation, punish the productive, cripple and alienate the military, or apologize to the implacable enemies of the very Constitution that you are sworn to defend.

Under no circumstances are you granted unlimited power over any part of the American nation, its people, its economy, or its relations with other nations. You are specifically required to work with the Congress of the United States of America in equal partnership to promote the freedom, prosperity, and general well being of those United States. So far, you do not seem to Play Well With Others, and you seem a bit unclear regarding the duties and responsibilities of the President of the United States.

Ladies and gentlemen of the White House, you have been hired to do one specific job. Would you care to share with us when you might be ready to get started?

I hardly know where to start with this story. If I tried to address everything that is wrong with it, I would be writing a small book. For now, I will try to restrict myself to one or two points.

For example, America's B.O. wafted out, "I don't think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say." He actually used those very words. There is even video. I am sorry I can not seem to find the original, but here it is presented as part of Hannity's America.

OK, fine. Where was this attitude last October? Yes, the banking industry was hit with a series of paper liabilities that translated into real losses far out of proportion to their actual values. Yes, some banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and a couple fell over that edge. A couple more probably would have followed suit. Resoundingly NO, the banking system was never in any danger at all.

We saw the exact same thing happen to the tech industries in 2001. Huge losses were realized as the "assets" of many companies were found to be without real value and entire corporations were discovered to be hollow shells. Thousands of companies closed, billions of investment dollars were lost, nearly every company that dealt with computers enjoyed massive layoffs, and unemployment skyrocketed. I was one of the unemployed for a while. It could have been said that our technological civilization was imperiled, in the same way that our banking system was imperiled last October.

Interestingly, there was never a suggestion that any of these technology companies should be bailed out by the government. The industry just took its lumps and carried on. Investors were generally skittish about technology stocks for about three years, then cautiously started dipping their toes, and their dollars, back into the technology pool. As, I might add, was fully expected by those of us in the industry.

Those of us who could, got new jobs with healthier companies in the same industry. Those of us who could not for whatever reason, found different career opportunities in other industries. The assets of the failed companies were sold off, the losses absorbed, and lessons were learned. We now have a more educated class of tech investor, and a more robustly profitable digital technologies industry.

I would also like to point out that through it all, even with a huge sector of the economy floundering, the overall economy grew steadily at a healthy pace between one-half and one-and-one-half points above inflation. You can check this yourself at the Federal government's own economic indicators website.

The banking "crisis," left to itself, would have played out in a similar way. Individual banks would have collapsed. Their assets and employees would have been redistributed among the remaining healthier banks. "Toxic assets" and liabilities would have been shunned or disposed of, and the related losses absorbed. The unemployed would, sooner or later, move on to other opportunities, not necessarily in the same industry. We would have ended up, after six months to two years, with a wiser class of lenders, and a less exuberant class of borrowers.

Instead, America's B.O. was one of the first and loudest to proclaim disaster to our very way of life if the government failed to Do Something Now. Even, or maybe especially, if it is wrong.

As a result of this panicked clamor to Do Something, even if it is wrong, we start with an economy battered by a sucker punch to the overrated derivatives, a $1 trillion deficit from last year, and a $10 trillion outstanding debt. We immediately hand out another $700 billion to our political supporters, letting the rest of the banks sink or swim on their own. As soon as the Shadow Presidency ends, we demand that another $787 billion be spent without time for discussion, debate or even full awareness, lest we face the End of Civilization as We Know It. We then pass a pork-bloated "regular" omnibus spending bill of $470 billion, this time with a sort of decent debate period consisting mostly of, "Shut up, you obstructionist Republicans, and vote as you are told!"

Oh, yes, and the nation's leading tax dodger, er, Secretary of the Treasury, is working on a plan to make another $1 trillion in government funds available as loans. OK, sure, why not? Thus, a nation whose primary problem is a temporary shortage of liquid cash assumes another $1.75 trillion dollars in debt within a six month period, with another trillion waiting in the wings. What will the next six months bring? Wow, indeed.

If this "plan" works, it will prove once and for all that, when faced with a cash shortfall, the correct solution is to start spending like a drunken sailor. Since I don't think anyone has any doubts about how that plan will work, I think we can extrapolate what our economy will look like by the end of the year.

So I wind down with another quote from the article that started this whole diatribe, where America's B.O. was addressing the Business Roundtable, a group of top business executives. The article reports that B.O. said his health and energy changes would build a foundation for lasting recovery, arguing that the current economic crisis was precipitated by an "illusion of prosperity."

Well, Mr. President, I think we can be sure that, unless somebody changes their spending habits in the next few weeks, there will be no illusions of prosperity during your term in office.

Wow. Big word. Macroeconomics. Rolls off the tongue. Sounds impressive. Must be complicated. It means "big trade."

Big trade is not really any different from little trade. In little trade, you have a fistful of dollars and you want some things from the store. You go to the store, realize you don't have enough dollars to buy everything you want, so you get what you need first. With the dollars you have left over, you decide if you want to buy a few luxuries (things you want but don't need) or if you want to keep the dollars for another time.

Meanwhile, you know you are going to need more dollars, so you find something that you have that other people will pay for, and sell it. Usually this is the application of a skill or a product of your own labor. When you find someone who will pay you for applying your skill or producing things with your labor, you are "employed." After you get your new dollars, you can go back to the store and get more things you need and/or want.

Macroeconomics, or big trade, is what happens when millions, or even billions, of people become employed so they can go to different stores to buy things they need or want.

An economic boom happens when most of those people get more dollars from their employment and feel free to spend them on things they want. An economic downturn happens when a lot of those people discover that they have spent too many dollars on things they don't need, and are afraid they might not have enough dollars to buy the next things they do need. An economic depression can occur when people who are employed providing things people do not need discover that too many people are afraid to buy things they do not need will no longer employ them. This is usually accompanied by people buying less of the things they do need, which means that everyone gets fewer dollars from their employment.

Recovery from an economic depression, recession, or downturn almost always comes from some number of unemployed people finding another skill or product for which other people are willing to give them dollars. These people then become employed again, and once again everyone has enough dollars to buy what they need, plus a few things they don't. This happy situation is called "prosperity."

Notice that nowhere in this process is anyone forced against their will (by taxation, for example) to buy a particular skill or product.  Think about that for a while, and we will talk again soon.