Daily Rants

Mychal Massie, a very smart man – avoid socialism

Here’s another man I read each week. Again, a person who considers a persons actions, positions, qualifications, abilities, background, and all around character when deciding who should lead our country, or fix his leaky roof. The way it’s supposed to be. Remember Martin ? Character, not color ?

Here’s more examples of the failed ideology of socialism and a simply wrong approach, with known outcomes. Heaven help us all. We can only hope Barry’s advisers can moderate the man.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80684



Carter’s economic plan squared


Posted: November 11, 2008

By Mychal Massie


I personally couldn’t care less that Barack Obama is black. I wasn’t moved with waves of emotion that a black man had been elected president or that same was proof that America had somehow, overnight, purged itself of its remaining vestiges of racial inequality in the weeks leading up to the election. I argue that America had done that long before – and I argue that his being elected proves my point.

For the record, I would have been equally unmoved if America’s first president of color would have been Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – albeit I would have been indescribably more pleased for different reasons notwithstanding.

When it comes to the person elected president – I care singularly about the individual’s qualifications and policies. I know my position offends those who rejoice over a black man’s victory; however, in my mind that is their problem. I look upon them as myopic and, by definition, just as racist as those who would not vote for him because he is black. The only difference being that the final numbers can be argued to reflect more blacks voted for him because of his skin color than whites voted against him because of same.

I am beyond being concerned with skin color and better for it. For those still hung up on pigment – it is they who are the poorer. I care about Obama’s policy views, especially his economic policies.


I would be the first to say that economics is not my specific field of expertise. But that doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend the difference between failed economic policies of the past and those that actually work.

Obama subscribes to Keynesian economics, which I would argue – with the single exception of its implementation during the Great Depression – does not work. And it can be argued that, even then, it was other factors that contributed to the success of said economic theory.

A simple explanation of Keynesian economics is that it calls for government intervention to jump-start a sagging /failing economy. John Keynes’ economic theory argued for a circular flow of money, i.e., one person’s spending goes toward another’s earnings, and that as that people spend their earnings, they are in effect supporting another’s earnings. Keynes opposed free-market capitalism and the belief that an uninhibited market will achieve economic balance on its own.

Simplistically put, Keynesian economics also opposes too much personal saving in favor of spending as a means to jump-start the economy. And while that may read as logical – it is the means of effecting said spending that portends the draconian intervention as a means of accomplishing it.

It calls for a massive redistribution of wealth whenever needed, as determined by government. Keynesianism argues that if those designated as poor are given sums of money, they will spend it rather than save it, and thus promote economic growth. To be fair, this was the intent of this year’s economic stimulus checks – the difference being that the public, as a whole (well, almost as a whole), underwrote the checks that went to individuals and couples earning below a specified amount.

Raising taxes on the so-called wealthy and penalizing businesses for being successful, with the intent of giving to those who already contribute (vis-à-vis taxes) little or nothing to the economic climate, doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Jimmy Carter when the top personal income tax rate was 70 percent. Artificially increasing the spending power of the lower 50 percent, by increasing the tax burden on the top 5-20 percent of income earners didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

As has been argued by free-market capitalists, myself included, the lowering of the capital gains rate, the cutting of the corporate tax rate and making it easier for small businesses to start – get credit and operating capital – without the millstone of government weighing them down – is the proven way to build a vibrant economy from the ground up.

Ronald Reagan understood this basic economic principle, as did President Kennedy, and as does President Bush – a fact his father, George H. W. Bush, forgot and Bill Clinton, who ran as a centrist supply-sider, pretended to favor before ultimately turning to the Keynesian left.

Many, vastly more economically versed than I argue that Obama’s economic plan, if implemented, will make France look like a burgeoning economy and Carter’s economic plan look like one of genius.


1 reply »

  1. This article is the worst kind of mixed analogies and oversimplification imaginable from a ‘very smart man’. He is correct that during Carter’s term, maximum tax bracket was 70% but he is lying in his teeth when he uses the phrase ‘increasing the tax burden on the top’ as if Carter raised taxes.

    It is worth noting that while economic growth wasn’t robust, it wasn’t negative during Carter’s administration. The problem we had then was inflation based on “Oil Shock I” and the resulting slow growth followed by “Oil Shock II” and an Iranian power structure that wanted Reagan in office the same way the current middle easterners want conservatives in office to act as their foil.

    But more importantly, raising taxes on the wealthy is not and never was a Keynesian solution to slow growth nor did Carter raise taxes. The 70% bracket was inherited from prior generations and in 1978 Carter signed the Tax Simplification Act which brought the highest bracket down to 50%. And Obama’s planned “tax increase” is actually just allowing Bush’s temporary tax cut for the wealthy to be just that, temporary!!! And since the Bush 43 policies of favoring the wealthy have resulted in a growth in GDP which only favored the wealthy and created no new jobs on a net basis (computed before the 1,000,000 job losses in 2008) why would we want to make permanent a tax cut didn’t do what it was supposed to do?

    But what really frosts my heinie is all this crap about the evils of ‘redistribution’. Next time someone says McCain didn’t favor redistribution, ask them about the effect of taxing working people on their employer paid health benefits and using of those tax dollars to fund a refundable tax credit (refundable means you get it even if you didn’t work and pay taxes)–i.e. redistribution. Or ask a “conservative” politician is he really willing to discontinue taxing employers to use the proceeds to fund unemployment insurance–i.e. redistribution. And better yet, what about Social Security! The reality is that we have significant socialist programs in place, we have for generations and we always will. It is the worst kind of demagoguery to rail against socialism as if it were a four letter word.

    Mr. Massie, tell the truth, you hate the working class and don’t care that an unregulated economy grows on the backs and sweat of workers. If working class families were women, Bush 43 would have to register as sex offender!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s