Obama, The Hatchet Man
President Obama has become John McCain, at least on economic issues.
When they were running for President against each other, McCain proposed an across the board spending freeze.
At that time, Obama ridiculed the idea.
“The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel," Obama said in his first presidential debate against McCain. "There are some programs that are very important that are underfunded."
In the second debate, he said, “I disagree with Senator McCain about an across-the-board freeze. . . . I want to use a scalpel, so that people who need help are getting help."
Now Obama is the hatchet man.
This spending freeze, which, in traditional Republican fashion, exempts the Pentagon, is a colossal blunder.
As far as the economy goes, it’s totally foolish, since we’re still reeling from the Great Recession and we need more—not less—domestic spending to pull us out of it. By embracing the spending freeze, Obama is consigning millions more to the unemployment lines.
And politically, we need a Democrat for this?
He’s going to be freezing the Education Department, he’s going to be freezing other departments that help the poor, he’s going to be freezing the EPA, he’s going to be freezing the Labor Department, he’s going to be freezing the Justice Department.
That’s less money for people who need it, and less money to go after corporate criminals.
What a hatchet job.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine. To subscribe for just $14.97 a year, just click here.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Resist Censorship in Tucson
- Banned in Tucson
- An Interview with Carlos Muñoz on the Tucson Book Ban
| Banned Authors Respond | |
CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012
Inside the Occupy Movement
| We visited nearly thirty occupations in twenty states in two months.
What I got at Occupy Wall Street
I spent seven weeks in Zuccotti Park, and here is what I got.
Danny Glover
| The Progressive Interview | March 2012 issue
To Wed or Not to Wed
| March 2012 issue
Progressive Matt
The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House
Comments
"Electricity rates would be much higher if we "let the market decide" what to charge."
A hunch?
I think that rates in the mid-Atlantic states would actually be lower, while rates in rural areas would be higher. I think that metropolitan areas near water would be well served, while people in the southwest, the mountains, and the great plains would need to rely on inefficient, unreliable small generators. I came from the electric power industry so I believe my hunch is at least as good as yours.
Is that your angle? To suggest that more and more of our economy should become regulated public utilities?
Well, you did say you are a socialist.
.
"Setting limits on the rates credit card companies can charge would benefit everyone who uses a credit card."
Perhaps. Johnny, are you able to follow your own arguments to their logical conclusions?
If credit card companies are forced to charge a lower rate, what will they do? Will they drastically cut the earnings of their owners and their top talent, and continue the business as before, but with little or no profit?
Or will they decide to issue credit to only a select few? Sure, the industry will contract, but the remaining credit card companies will remain profitable. Are you ok with ending credit for most people in order to keep rates artificially lower for those lucky low-risk people?
Time and again, you fail to understand basic supply and demand. Credit card companies charge higher rates (for some people) in order to defray defaults, fraud, and theft. And yes, to keep the operation profitable. If you squeeze the profit out, guess what? There will be no more credit cards for most people.
Again and again, leftists try to interfere in the affairs and agreements of others, believing that they are better able to make choices and control behaviors for them. Why is that?
.