Please, Sir. May I Have More Stimulus?


Is it possible that the NYT may be starting to get a clue?


This February 27, 2008, article , "Sharper Downturn Clouds Obama Spending Plans," describes the Obama economy:

•    “spiraling down at an accelerating pace”

•    “disconnect”

•    “grim realities”

•    “abysmal”

•    “brutal forces at play”

•    “gruesome data”

I thought Obama was the candidate of hope and change.  This does not sound very hopeful, nor is it the change Obama promised.  But then, Obama never quite told us just what it was that He was promising.

My contention has long been that Marxists always get “grim”, “abysmal”, “brutal”, and “gruesome” results, and that Obama is a Marxist (tax the productive, subsidize the unproductive, control all aspects of the government, the economy, and peoples’ lives).  We are now certainly seeing Marxist policies and Marxist results in the American economy, and the NYT article actively speculates on just how bad it will become.  Will we be no worse off than socialist Old Europe with its chronic high unemployment and low productivity and growth, or might we become as hapless and hopeless as the USSR, or Cuba, or NorK?  Historically, that depends on to what degree we embrace Marxist policies and philosophy.

The NYT article concludes by questioning the viability of the Obama economic program:

“Mr. Levenson noted that the weakening economy was destroying demand for goods and services even faster than the $787 billion stimulus program could replace it.”

So, do we need more stimuli in order to make up for the bad results of Marxist economic policy?  Ummm, no.  Bad results ARE Marxist economic policy.

James Long



Is it possible that the NYT may be starting to get a clue?


This February 27, 2008, article , "Sharper Downturn Clouds Obama Spending Plans," describes the Obama economy:

•    “spiraling down at an accelerating pace”

•    “disconnect”

•    “grim realities”

•    “abysmal”

•    “brutal forces at play”

•    “gruesome data”

I thought Obama was the candidate of hope and change.  This does not sound very hopeful, nor is it the change Obama promised.  But then, Obama never quite told us just what it was that He was promising.

My contention has long been that Marxists always get “grim”, “abysmal”, “brutal”, and “gruesome” results, and that Obama is a Marxist (tax the productive, subsidize the unproductive, control all aspects of the government, the economy, and peoples’ lives).  We are now certainly seeing Marxist policies and Marxist results in the American economy, and the NYT article actively speculates on just how bad it will become.  Will we be no worse off than socialist Old Europe with its chronic high unemployment and low productivity and growth, or might we become as hapless and hopeless as the USSR, or Cuba, or NorK?  Historically, that depends on to what degree we embrace Marxist policies and philosophy.

The NYT article concludes by questioning the viability of the Obama economic program:

“Mr. Levenson noted that the weakening economy was destroying demand for goods and services even faster than the $787 billion stimulus program could replace it.”

So, do we need more stimuli in order to make up for the bad results of Marxist economic policy?  Ummm, no.  Bad results ARE Marxist economic policy.

James Long