G old man Sacks by Poster Boy NYC
The present article describes the ideological war that has been going on, ever since Obama first entered the White House, between President Obama on the one side, and the vast majority of congressional Democrats on the other. No one has written about this before.
Just days earlier, on the morning of Friday March 1st, the President had met with House Republican leaders to achieve, as the AP reported, "a big fiscal deal that would raise taxes and trim billions from expensive and ever-growing entitlement programs" (the same list: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).
Also that morning, Les Leopold headlined at huffingtonpost, "Sequester This! How Did We Get Here?" and he perspicaciously noted that, "When Wall Street imploded under the immense weight of its own greed, it tore a hole in the economy.... The combination of the economic collapse and the deficit spending needed to counter it increased the national debt. Before the crash in 2007, the yearly deficit was 1.17 percent of GDP. By 2009 it shot up to 10.13 percent. Even with a weak recovery, the deficit fell to 8.51 [percent] by 2012."
However, what does that soaring deficit spending really have to do with Obama's aim to "trim billions from expensive and ever-growing entitlement programs"? It provides him an excuse to do so, and for him to say that Republicans have "forced" him to "concede" to doing it. Thus, for example, the liberal Mr. Leopold asserted that, "President Obama caved to the debt hysteria."
But what if, instead, he didn't actually "cave" at all? What if he had, from the very start of his Presidency, set up the Simpson-Bowles Commission, and otherwise carefully planned the same general scenario that is now playing out, in order to get the public to accept the "necessity" to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in order to get this economy out of the funk that was caused by Wall Street's crash, which tanked the entire economy? Obama's record in office suggests that he is, in fact, carefully working, step-by-step, in precisely this direction, toward cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- programs that Democrats started -- and saying that Republicans "forced" him to do this, in order to restore the economy.
Proposals to cut what is derogatorily called (by Republican wordsmiths such as Frank Luntz) "entitlements" have nothing to do with getting to the roots of what actually caused the 2008 collapse, nor with our recovering from it. Those proposals have nothing at all to do with helping the nation to prevent a recurrence of the George W. Bush crash. It's all been a Big Lie. Something is very wrong with the way that the public (with the assistance of both Republican and Democratic media) views the Obama Presidency. The "Barack Obama" that comes through from our President's liberal rhetoric (and from cooperative major news-media of both the right and the left) has simply not been borne out by his actions as President, and it is time for us to recognize this fact.
This is going to be a long article, because its purpose is to replace that garbage with a credible understanding of Barack Obama. Trusting his liberal rhetoric just doesn't make sense any more -- not this late in his Presidency. It's just a front, with liberal touches such as the Violence Against Women Act, etc., in order to cover for a conservative economic transformation of this country that had seemed to be culminating in the George W. Bush Presidency, but which is still continuing with unreduced intensity right up to the present day.
People who assume that Barack Obama entered politics as a Democrat on account of his being progressive in his convictions assume something that could be false. There is an alternative explanation for that, and it is far likelier to be true. In fact, his record in the White House, thus far, suggests that he entered politics as a Democrat for this alternative reason.
On 26 October 2012, Peter Finocchiaro at huffingtonpost headlined "Lawrence Wilkerson, Former Colin Powell Aide, Blasts Sununu, GOP, as 'Full of Racists'," and he linked to video of that evening's MSNBC "The Ed Show," in which the Republican White, Col. Wilkerson, expressed outrage at Romney campaign spokesman John Sununu's saying that the Republican Black Colin Powell was endorsing Barack Obama because Obama was black. "Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists," said Wilkerson.
It is hard to say precisely when Obama entered politics, or if he had in mind at that time the aspiration to become America's President thereby, but whenever he did first think about the Presidency as his future career-objective, how smart would it have been for him to do it then as a "Republican," given Richard Nixon's infamous anti-Black "Southern Strategy," and the impossibility at that time for any Black -- no matter how politically gifted -- to be able to win from the nation's Republican voters (including the Southern states) the Republican Party's nomination to become the U.S. President?
A Republican black man entering politics at that time wouldn't have stood any chance at the White House, because he wouldn't have stood any reasonable chance to win his own party's Presidential nomination.
This article will document that Obama is sufficiently conservative, as shown by his actions (though not by his liberal public rhetoric) while he has been in the White House, so that an intelligent question can be raised as to whether he entered politics as a "Democrat" basically because this was the only way that a black man, when he entered politics, could at all reasonably have aspired to become the U.S. President. One must put oneself in the mind of Barack Obama, at that time, and then construct a reasonable history, from then to now.
This article will even seek to document that Obama is actually completing a plan that was started in 1978 when the University of Chicago's Republican economist Milton Friedman first said that government expenses should not be fully funded from taxes, and that gradually building up the federal debt would be the only practical way to force the public to accept the ultimate "necessity" to slash "entitlement spending." Friedman's aim there was to encourage creating an enormous enough federal debt so as to produce what the public would come to believe to be the inevitability of slashing what Friedman considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary programs of the federal government, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which he wanted to eliminate, or else privatize. (He was, of course, a passionate libertarian: he favored eliminating many functions of government.) What will be shown here is that since Barack Obama first entered the White House, Obama has been brilliantly maneuvering himself into a position where he can claim that Republicans in Congress are forcing him to slash, though not to privatize (which he doesn't want to do), those programs. This is actually what he has been aiming to do, and been planning to do, all along, and he is now in the very closing months of finally achieving this long-held Republican goal, I shall attempt here to show.
Since it will be argued here that Obama is basically a believer in Republican economics, the concept of "Republican economics" will first need to be explained here, in order to enable one to understand how Obama has planned, and is now executing the closing phase of, this long objective, of a form of, actually, a massive Republican policy-victory. (People who refuse to consider even the possibility that Obama is aiming to load the costs of bailing out Wall Street onto the economic backs of coming generations of the broad American public might as well read no further here, because that's precisely what this article will document.)
The basic difference between Democratic economics and Republican economics is the difference between Keynesianism and the economic theory that preceded it (and that Republican economists still cling to). So: Keynesianism must first be explained here: