In a Panic, Obama reverts to Saul Alinsky's Radical Tactics of Ridicule and Lies!
Reverts to Saul Alinsky's
Tactics of Ridicule and Lies
Obama has made no secret of his admiration for the radical tactics of
Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals,
as he has often called his training as a “community agitator”
(Alinksy's own description of the job!), “the best education I ever
taught that “Ridicule
is man's most potent weapon.”
He also taught that “the ends justify the means”, justifying
lying and cheating to achieve one's objectives. So it isn't surprising that these two Alinsky
teachings are on full display as Barack Obama and the Democrats are
in a panic as their attacks on the Romney/Ryan ticket have thus far
met with a cool response from the voting public.
Wednesday, August 16th,
Obama told a crowd in Waterloo, Iowa , "I
don’t believe in top-down economics. I believe in
middle-class-out economics. I believe in bottom-up economics."
That's all well-and-good, but just what is “middle-class-out”
economics, what is “bottom-up” economics? How does the government create
the conditions for those ill-defined systems of economics? How many at
“bottom” in our economy create jobs for themselves and others?
Simply put, it is just one more of many empty, meaningless statements by
In that same speech Obama railed against tax
cuts for wealthy Americans: "Now
here's the thing -- we've tried this before. We tried this
trickle-down fairy dust before. And guess what -- it didn’t work
then, it won’t work now. It’s not a plan to create jobs. It’s
not a plan to lower the deficit. It’s not a plan to move our
lies in those two short portions of Obama's speech are both manifold
and manifest: First, “supply-side” economics have worked every
time they have been tried. As economist Arthur Laffer pointed out in
an interview with Fox News, history does not bear out Obama's claims
did work. . . It worked under Harding and Coolidge, we had the
roaring twenties...then you had, of course, Kennedy, with his supply
side or trickle down economics -- beautiful -- it was called the
Kennedy go-go sixties.” The Heritage Foundation published a list
of ten myths about the Bush tax cuts -- the myths of the failure of supply-side
economics are multiple lies that continue to be perpetuated by Obama and
Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts
Myth #1: Tax
revenues remain low.
Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax
cuts.[This was as of 2007]
Myth #2: The
Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the
Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional
spending above the baseline.
Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for
It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost
Under Ronald Reagan tax revenues nearly doubled over the eight years
of his administration.]
Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. [Note:
They also increased under Clinton when he cut the capital gains
Myth #5: The
Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget
Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected
large revenue increases.
Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial
The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most. [Note: The
proposed "Buffet Rule" increase in taxes on the top 1% would produce
enough revenue to cover approximately 10 days of Obama's deficits,
around $47 billion!]
Myth #8: Tax
cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's
Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The
Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The
Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
The rich are now shouldering even more of the income.
ridicule here is two-fold: First, the technical name for the type of
economics Obama and the Democrats derisively call “trickle-down”
is “supply-side”, and the fact is that they do work. Second, he
uses the term “fairy dust” to ridicule what he calls “tax cuts
for wealthy Americans." The fact is that after those “tax cuts for
wealthy Americans” about which Obama complains, tax revenues went
up, not down, and the wealthiest ended up paying a higher percentage
of income taxes than before. This was true even of the Bush tax cuts
that are so often derided.
during the Reagan years, "supply-side" economics
worked to turn around an economy Ronald Reagan "inherited"
from Jimmy Carter (remember "stagflation"?) that was every
bit as bad as what Obama inherited from himself and other Democrats
who fought George Bush on regulating Fannie and Freddie (e.g. the
root cause of the housing crisis).
seems to have forgotten as well the twenty years of economic growth ,
low unemployment, and low inflation that followed Reagan's
application of supply-side economics – including the Clinton
years. "The Turning Point," The
September 22, 2007, p.35
the real “Fairy Dust”??? In the ill-defined “middle-class-out”
and “bottom-up” economics that our ideological president claims he
News & Politics