This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Obama’s latest class warfare demagoguery – Part 2

Written on Saturday, December 17, 2011 by


This continues the analysis of the latest agitprop by our Marxist-In-Chief (see part 1 ).

Scapegoating laissez-faire

[Obama] And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

Of course, none of his opponents think that.  It rather shows again how little he regards the American people.  He implies that without government coercion, we would not help our fellow man.  Yet Americans have amply shown that they are the most generous people in the world.  And they were even more involved in charity before leftist governments crowded out private charities, as I documented in a previous Patriot column The Left vs the Poor.

This has been far worse, since typically 90% of private charitable donations actually get to the needy people, while only about 25% of taxpayer-funded government programs do.  Most of it is swallowed up by the bloated government welfare bureaucracies.  In sum, Patriots believe it is noble to help our fellow man with our own money, but wicked to help them with other people’s money taken by force.

Then Obama channelled the first RINO president, Teddy Roosevelt:

[Obama] “At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world’s industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low?”

But economist (and Patriot columnist) Dr Thomas Sowell explained five years ago in Bully Boy Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt:

“Monopolies are much harder to find in the real world than in the world of political rhetoric. Monopolies raise prices but, in the big industries supposedly dominated by monopolies—oil, steel, railroads—prices were falling for years before Theodore Roosevelt entered the White House and started saving the country from ‘monopoly’.

“The average price of steel rails fell from $68 to $32 before TR became president. Standard Oil, the most hated of the ‘monopolies’, had in fact innumerable competitors and its oil prices were not only lower than those of most of its competitors, but was also falling over the years. It was much the same story in other industries called ‘monopolies’.

“The anti-trust laws which Theodore Roosevelt so fiercely applied did not protect consumers from high prices. They protected high-cost producers from being driven out of business by lower cost producers. That has largely remained true in the many years since TR was president.”

This is backed up by as economic historian Burt Folsom in his book The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America.  The great “market entrepreneurs” never robbed anyone.  Rather, they made many goods available to millions of Americans.  The true robbers were the “political entrepreneurs, who colluded with government to gain unfair advantage—but often still went bankrupt, much like the Solyndra scam under Obama’s reign.

Twisting American history

Then comes the biggest lie of all, describing the free market as “the same old tune”:

[Obama] “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes—especially for the wealthy—our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. …

Now, it’s a simple theory. … But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

What a mixture of truths and outright mendacity!  Yes, we have tried this theory, including in the decade before the Great Depression.  But contrary to Obama, it worked!  For example, as I showed in my column on President Coolidge, he and President Harding faced a severe depression after WW1, with 11.7% unemployment and a top marginal tax rate of 73%.  But they radically slashed taxes and spending, i.e. “tried this theory”.  Yes, it worked brilliantly: American debt was slashed, unemployment plummeted to 2.4%, and entrepreneurs produced many new inventions during this period called the “Roaring 20s”.  The Great Depression happened only after the great interventions, tax hikes and trade barriers by President Hoover and his ideological twin, Obama’s idol FDR.

It worked when Reagan slashed taxes as well, getting us out of Carter’s “stagflation”.  And economic historian Burt Folsom writes about “President Bush’s Greatest Accomplishment”—his 2003 tax cuts (which Obama savaged in his speech):

“They sparked economic growth and created eight million jobs from 2003-07. Median household income during those four years increased by almost $20,000. That growth spurt from 2003-07 is almost forgotten today because of the housing crisis that followed, but we ought to remember it because it contains the means of achieving prosperity today as well.”

Thomas Sowell has also pointed out that “trickle down” economics is a straw man held by no free-market economist:

“But free-market economics is not about ‘distributing’ anything to anybody. It is about letting people earn whatever they can from voluntary transactions with other people.

“Those who imagine that profits first benefit business owners—and that benefits only belatedly trickle down to workers—have the sequence completely backward. When an investment is made, whether to build a railroad or to open a new restaurant, the first money is spent hiring people to do the work. Without that, nothing happens.

“Money goes out first to pay expenses first and then comes back as profits later—if at all. The high rate of failure of new businesses makes painfully clear that there is nothing inevitable about the money coming back.”

Rising inequality

As I have pointed out before, inequality is hardly a bad thing if everyone is better off.   However, the Left would rather have everyone equally poor—apart from themselves and their politically connected cronies, of course. But here we go again with more class warfare:

[Obama] “In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1% has gone up by more than 25% to $1.2m per year.”

Yet,  here Obama has played the old fallacy, repeatedly refuted by Dr Sowell: yes, the income of that bracket has increased, but this bracket doesn’t contain the same flesh-and-blood people.  Real people move in and out of brackets all the time, so Obama is just being dishonest.  Sowell shows:

“IRS data show that actual flesh and blood people who were in the top one percent in 1996 had their incomes go down—repeat, DOWN—by a whopping 26 percent by 2005. … A University of Michigan study showed that most of the working people who were in the bottom 20 percent of income earners in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent at some point by 1991. Only 5 percent of those in the bottom quintile in 1975 were still there in 1991, while 29 percent of them were now in the top quintile.”

It’s hard to improve on Newt Gingrich’s response to Obama’s speech, calling him “the candidate of food stamps, the finest food-stamp president in American history.” Gingrich said, “I want to get equality by bringing people up. [Obama] wants to get equality by bringing people down.” He said, “I want to be the guy who says, ‘I want to help every American have a better future.’ [Obama] wants to make sure that he levels Americans down so we all have an equally mediocre future.”


There is so much I could cover from the Teleprompter-In-Chief, and two columns seems barely enough.   But Patriots must be prepared to refute his falsehoods and illogic, and counter these impressions in their liberal friends, colleagues and family members.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • nvrpc

    Lets try this again. We don;t want to abolish DOE i.e. the miltary, we want to abolish the IRS, INANSA, welfare and leave SS and Medicare alone. Do you like that one moderator cause the last one vaporized

    • http://Facebook Que Dub

      “”Yet Americans have amply shown that they are the most generous people in the world.””
      There they go again , NOT TRUE. It’s the Gubb-mint!!! Not us taxpayers saying this!!!
      WE TAX PAYER citizens believe that the gubb-mint needs to stop supporting the world & take care of ourselves!!!

    • daves

      When Herbert Hoover had to face a financial crisis and then unemployment, his strategy was to balance the budget and cut spending, and that made things worse. When Roosevelt came in, unemployment was twenty-five and went to fourteen percent by 1937. With deficits.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      DaveS, if you want to continue to spread your leftist propaganda here, then I suggest a new strategy: getting a clue!

      As I documented in Hoover and FDR: big government Presidents who prolonged the Depression, Hoover signed the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, which is what first kicked unemployment into two digits. He skyrocketed tax rates from 245 to 63%. He told businessmen to hold wages constant, and instituted what would now be called ‘stimulus’ packages.

      FDR’s policies were basically giant clones of Hoover’s. That’s why he never got America out of the Depression.

  • ldmstr

    Class warfre is the tool of modern Liberalism. Class warfare was used by the Communistists in Russia to begin the 1917 revolution in Russia. Class warfare was used by China in its revolution against the so called rich Chiness who lorded over the common people. Modern Liberalism/Socialism uses class warfare to gin up hatred for the rich business owners who make excessive profits and live lives of Riley while us poor common folk fight just to put bread on the table.

    Well, in our society the rich are those who take the risk to put their money into new businesses that make goods that people willbuy. Then the companies take their profits to increase production of products people will buy. Its a vicious circle of production and sales where the poor people who work producing these goods are making money to take care of their families and pay taxes to their governments to pay for services provided.

    It amazes me how the dems continue to point the “fickle finger” at the rich while screaming that we need to create jobs for the people. Socialists want equality across the board where everyone makes the same money, no one profits from anothers work, and their are no rich in the world. Sounds to me that thes same people have been attending the Communist School of Economics where everyone is equal, everyone is paid the same wage, and everyone starves at the same level. Russia in the 60s and 70s is a great example of an economy that will not support itself. There wasno food on the store shelves because farmers were not bringing goods to the cities to sell. There was not incentive to work hard because their was no profit. Farmers traded goods with eachother and the people in the cities starved. The Socialists of today want equality in economics today where no one can be labeled rich, and everyone earns the same wages. Where is the incentive to work and improve a product for sale. Where is the incentive to invent the next IPod. It did not work in Russia, it did not work in China, and it has not worked anywhere elsein the world where dictators took away mans incentive to grow and improve themselves. Keep everyone equal and they will always stay the same.

    Our country was created on freedom of choice. We fight everyday to maintain our freedom to decide how we will live, and yet we allow our politicians to decide to give up our freedom in the name of eqaulity. The only equality guaranteed by our Constitution is the right to “equal treatment under the law”. there is no right to an equal wage, or equal housing, or equal education, or equal healthcare, or equal anything other than “equal treatment under the law”.

    We will come out of this economic depression when we decide that government is to large, having to much power over our lives. We shrink the government back to the level dictated by the Constitution, and power not given under the Constitution to the federal government is returned to the states. Then we will see the investment return to our economy. We will see business return to America, and we will see Americans regain the wealth they lost over the less few years, and we will see more equality in our economy with money “trickling down” from the companies to the workers, to the businesses selling goods, and back to the top when these businesses buy goods for sale to the people. As I said it is a vicious cycle but it has worked for 200+ years and I see nothing that can replace it.

    • daves

      Class warfare is always happening. I am very happy the President and the 99% are finally bringing it into the discussion.

    • daves

      I see in the near future a crisis approaching. It unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. The money powers prey upon the nation in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the financial institutions at the rear, the latter is my greatest foe. Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.
      Abraham Lincoln, letter to William Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864. (After the passage of the debt causing National Bank Act [June 3, 1864]).

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      The only reason corporations are ever enthroned is alliance with the Government to restrict competition, e.g. trade barriers, licencing laws, closed shops. If free market competition is introduced, a corporation will soon be dethroned by one that serves customers better. For example, the most powerful typewriter company in the country was deposed by the development of computers and word processors.

    • daves

      In a truly free market system, a well financed company can sell at a loss until all competition is stifled giving them a complete monopoly and the ability to set prices.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      Dave S (above) raises the old chicken-little cry of the big-government advocate of “predatory pricing”. Yet it doesn’t work! Let the would-be predator sell at a loss; the consumer wins since he can obtain cheap goodies. Then even if the prey is driven out of business, so what? The predator must charge high prices to recoup his huge losses. But then competitors will easily be able to re-enter the market.

      Even better, the “prey” can buy up the cheap goods that the predator is selling well below cost, and then re-sell on the market at a profit, but still undercutting the predator. This is how Herbert Dow, the founder of Dow Chemicals, beat the cartel Die Deutsche Bromkonvention. Note also, this predator was supported by its government, i.e. what you look for as Savior.

      No, if you want something to blame, look to government, not the market (see Rising fuel prices: blame the Dems (and RINOs)).


      Briefly, Obama has only encouraged and, therefore, escalated what is commonly referred to as “Class Warfare” as well as discrimination. Further, his track record prior to occupying the oval office, showed a self-serving, unethical individual with long term ties to known criminals (one recently convicted but NOT sentenced – 4 years LATER!).

      With respect to targeting the “rich” or “wealthy,” and in regards to democrat politicians, that is a double edged sword. This new genre of career democrats ignore that, as a professional political group, they are wealthier than the Republican representatives. Additionally, they have a wealthier “big business” constituency (W Buffet, Jamie Dimon, etc, etc). For example (one out of many!) N Pelosi’s wealth went from $18 Million (2008) to $21 Million (2009) to $35 Million (2010) with 2011 wealth estimated at $54 Million (or MORE!). She is a career politician (in other words, any wealth she has generated, was as a result of her government compensation). Contrast this to John Boehner with total wealth valued a $2.1 million for 2010 . . . a former corporate executive, nonetheless.

      Regardless of where their wealth was accumulated from, the democrat politicians’ current direction (over the last 40 years) speaks volumes of misleading strategies and double standards. Yes, they use the old ruse and outdated strategies and tactics of blaming “big business” and the “wealthy” for many of our issues, to align themselves with the larger majority of the voting constituency or the “lower income” population.

      Having been born into a democrat family and in my earlier years strongly espousing the “values” of the democrat party’s ideals, it is a matter of informing the uninformed “vote the party” democrat party supporters. Unfortunately, as the democrat “professionals” are well aware of with their own very own voter constituency, which that party so blatantly exploits, informing or “educating” that voter constituency is akin to breaching an impenetrable defense. In other words, attempting to inform the “lower income” democrat voter constituency only serves to alienate that constituency and further entrench their undying loyalty to their democrat “leaders.”

      For interesting perspectives on the Black voter constituency, with regards to the current presidency, the Senate and extremists-agitators (J Jackson) visit the following site.

      (Born into a democrat family, registered Non-partisan [“numerous” years ago!], voting Republican).

  • Adrian Vance

    This has been successful in California where 60% want to “tax the rich!” Mr. Obama ignores the history of JFK and Ronald Reagan who both cut taxes and saw federal revenues double, but then government had less power relatively. That is the problem: Obama wants absolute power with the people groveling at his feet.

    The Two Minute Conservative at for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

  • Shane

    Obama and the Dems hope to win the 2012 elections by appealing to Americans envy of and hatred towards the rich. One way to counter this is for Republicans to allow taxes to be raised on the wealthy in exchange for reducing the corporate tax rate and increasing deductions for small businesses. This way the economy will grow and the federal govt. will not lose any income in the short term, and in the long term tax revenues will increase. It’s a win-win plan for the GOP!

    • nvrpc

      It’s how they go about paying off this debt. It should NOT be done by rasing taxes what so ever for any reason. It should not be done by saying we’re going to tax the rich. We all know that is BS, they protect their funds and again the working middle class pays for everything inclduing the parasite currnetly on the dole. It need to be paid for by cutting ALL social programs except SS and Medicare. It need to be cut by stopping ALL foreign aid and put a CAP on the debt. It need to be done by abolihsing the IRS and going to a FLAT TAX that can never be rasied for any reason and NO write -offs for anything. You pay you 10% and that all. No other taxes what so every for any reason on anything. make the government learn how to run on 10% of EVERYONES income or don’t run at all. Iy should not be paid for on the backs of the 50% of this nation that work.

  • Terry Black

    Newt Gingrich is a flip-flopping CFR Globalist carrying nominee, who just wants in and would as much or more damage as Marxist Obama! He’s not the answer!

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that can re-erect a Free America!

    Now the Oligarch’s are after our Internet and Free Speech again!

    Google:Congress Declares “Offensive” War On the Internet in NDAA

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      I’ve demonstrated clearly that Gingrich is far better than Obama. Which part of his speech did you object to? How could the man who cut taxes and led welfare reform (against a Dem president) be worse than the Marxist-in-Chief who hates this country.

      It’s unfortunate that many Paul-supporters are prepared to see their country go even more down the tubes to punish Conservatives for not selecting Paul to be their nominee. Patriots should prefer a moral impact over a futile moral gesture.

      See also Why conservatives should hold their nose and vote Republican: A search for a perfect candidate will help elect the worst.

  • tweety

    This President is seriorusly flawed. What he puts out there — to him, groaner statements that everyone will agree with him on — most thinking people support what he thinks are wacky ideas. Where is this man living? In another country? On another planet? Underground?

  • BobinPa.

    Would someone please enlighten Ron Paul just exactly who those dirtbags were that flew those planes into the World Trade Centermt The Pentagon, and fortunatly one was brought down in that field in Shanksville. Now if these Scum will fly planes into buildings killing thousands of people, just what the He// does Paul thinks these same scum will do with Nuclear weapons if we allow them to get them ?? Ron Paul had better wake up and get his head out of “Where the Sun don’t Shine”. “Semper Fi”.

  • bressler


  • bressler


  • http://yahoo Wilbur Williams


  • Eddo

    If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, I will vote for
    him. If he runs as an Independent, I will vote for the
    Republican nominee because a third party candidate can not win an election the way our political system is set up. Bottom line is, the best way to get our country turned around is to oust Obama (first) and replace as many as possible in both houses of the Congress. That will only happen if we gather behind the next Republican nominee and make sure he/she knows what we expect and hold their feet to the fire of truth, honesty, transparency (we have zero now) and the will of the people. We were founded as a Democratic Republic, let’s keep it that way, not a socialistic nanny state.

  • Constitutional Believer

    Hello Family, Friends, Patriots & Acquaintance’s.
    Now Is the Time for All Good Men and Women to come to the aid of Our Country!
    If Not Now, When?
    All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!
    If Not You, Who?
    Make the Difference and Take a Stand with other Good Men and Women, Join Us Here!
    Take Care and GOD BLESS The Whole World!
    Mr. Harris
    Happy Birthday Jesus! Merry Christmas to all and have a Happy & Prosperous New Year!

  • LadyLiberty

    I never heard such slick BS in all my life. He just wants more money from us to give to his cronies the unions and hollywood.

  • Eli Jones

    Obama has divided Americans in ways unseen since our civil war. This scumbag must be ousted.

  • Raymond Reiss

    Big Government and Big Business are TOO BIG. One exists because of the other. We need to bust up both and shift power from the federal level to the State level, and from Wall Street to Main Street. If a company is too big for America to let it fall, then it is too big – period! If we had more competition, we would not need government trying to manage everything.

  • Adrian Vance

    What greater clue, or evidence, to see what a destructor this man is than his constant war on “the rich!” These are the people with the ideas, the plans, the means and the paychecks that make America work. When I’m up and rolling I employ ten people. Do you know how many I am employing today? Try none and it is all due to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Barack Hussein Obama.

    The Two Minute Conservative at for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.

  • Tess2_Comments

    More blah blah blah from Obama.

    Once again, Obama shows that he knows very little about the hard-working Legal Residents of the USA.

    Non-Profits are NOT Government run.

    Just look at all the private assistance to those in need that has been given over the past few years even with a poor economy.

    The current government gives too many free hand-outs.