Tag Archives: Socialist

How Obama’s opposition to free trade raises unemployment

From Investors Business Daily.

Excerpt:

…the president said all the right things Wednesday about boosting exports, opening markets and getting Congress to approve free-trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama.

[…]But as good as the speech sounded, it was no more than a reiteration of statements Obama has already made, always promising to get on it, soon. If he wants these treaties passed, he should submit the deals already negotiated and let Congress vote, up or down.

[…]Thirty-nine House Democrats and virtually all the Republicans have indicated their support, and a host of others intend to vote “yes,” though they won’t say so.

That’s why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to permit any vote on the Colombian pact, which was submitted to Congress two years ago. She doesn’t fear it’ll fail; she fears it’ll pass.

[…]Overall joblessness of 9.4% is bad enough. But among blacks, male unemployment is averaging 19.5%, and the 13.2% rate for Latinos is double what it had been most of the decade. Then there’s the 52% of young people who can’t find work.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns that if Congress fails to act on the three pending trade pacts, 585,000 U.S. jobs will be snatched away by rivals such as Canada. That would be a big chunk of the 3.5 million jobs Obama promised to create by year-end.

American businesses do better when they can pay less to buy the things they need to make their products from trading partners who have signed free trade deals signed with us. More efficiency means they can sell the products and services for less. That means that people buy more of those products. And then they hire more people.The number of jobs gained by improving the efficiency of businesses is higher than the union jobs saved by not signing the free trade deals. And who cares about unions anyway – unions make consumers and businesses pay too much! And they’re Democrats! So they’re crap on social issues and foreign policy anyway.

Among economists, being opposed to free trade is the equivalent of being opposed to a round Earth. But Democrats have to believe in protectionist nonsense – they are beholden to the unions that elected them who oppose choice and competition. Unions don’t want consumers to have a choice, and they don’t want to have to compete with anyone. They want to screw consumers into paying higher prices – and Obama has to cater to their delusions.

Obama appoints a socialist to run Medicare and Medicaid

Obama has bypassed the Congressional confirmation process for Dr. Donald Berwick, a socialist, and instead given him an immediate recess appointment. What this means is that there will be no debating Dr. Berwick’s socialist views in public.

From the New York Times. (H/T Verum Serum)

Excerpt:

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, said the “recess appointment” was needed to carry out the new health care law. The law calls for huge changes in the two programs, which together insure nearly one-third of all Americans.

Mr. Pfeiffer said the president would appoint Dr. Berwick on Wednesday. Mr. Obama decided to act because “many Republicans in Congress have made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.

This 2008 NHS paper by Dr. Berwick explains what he thinks about government-run health care in the UK. (H/T Verum Serum)

Excerpt:

The National Health Service [Britain’s single payer health care] is one of the truly astounding human endeavors of modern times.  Just look at what you are trying to be: comprehensive, equitable, available to all, free at the point of care, and – more and more – aiming for excellence by world-class standards.  And, because you have chosen to use a nation as the scale and taxation as the funding, the NHS isn’t just technical – it’s political…The NHS is a bridge – a towering bridge – between the rhetoric of justice and the fact of justice.

[…]You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; historically, you prefer slightly too little of a technology or service to much too much; and then you search for care bottlenecks, and try to relieve them.

[…]You could have obscured – obliterated – accountability, or left it to the invisible hand of the market, instead of holding your politicians ultimately accountable for getting the NHS sorted.  You could have let an unaccountable system play out in the darkness of private enterprise instead of accepting that a politically accountable system must act in the harsh and, admittedly, sometimes unfair, daylight of the press, public debate, and political campaigning.  You could have a monstrous insurance industry of claims, rules, and paper-pushing, instead of using your tax base to provide a single route of finance.  You could have protected the wealthy and the well, instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must – must – redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.

[…]please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can.  I do not agree.  I find little evidence anywhere that market forces, bluntly used, that is, consumer choice among an array of products with competitors’ fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.

[…]I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.

[…]Unfettered growth and pursuit of institutional self-interest has been the engine of low value for the US health care system.  It has made it unaffordable, and hasn’t helped patients at all.

That’s who is going to administer government-run single-payer health care programs in the United States. He opposes consumer choice. He opposes competition. He wants to have a monopoly on health care, and make your decisions for you. You pay him your money based on what you earn, and he’ll decide which of your neighbors will get health care. You’re smart enough to earn the money, but not smart enough to spend it on your own family. And that’s probably what Obama believes, too, otherwise he would have picked someone else.

Thanks to Verum Serum for finding all of this. They do amazing work breaking these stories. You really need to bookmark Verum Serum and read it every day, if you haven’t already.

Related posts

Liberal Democrat Treasury Secretary paid 68K of taxpayer money to gay lover

Story here from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

Treasury Chief Secretary David Laws was fighting to avoid becoming the coalition Government’s first casualty tonight after it was revealed that he funnelled £40,000 of taxpayers’ money to his secret gay lover.

The Liberal Democrat, who is in charge of slashing public spending, is facing growing pressure to quit after he claimed up to £950 a month in expenses for five years which was paid in rent to his partner.

Mr Laws was last night confronted with evidence that he could have breached Parliamentary rules on expenses, which ban MPs from renting from spouses or lovers.

[…]Mr Laws is a multi-millionaire former investment banker who earned a double first in economics at Cambridge.

[…]Mr Laws escaped censure by the numerous Parliamentary inquiries into expenses because he had never admitted his homosexuality, meaning officials had no way of knowing his landlord was also his lover.

But between 2004 and 2007, Mr Laws claimed between £700 and £950 a month to sub-let a room in a flat in Kennington, South London, owned by Mr Lundie, who was also registered as living at the property.

He’s a Liberal Democrat, which is the socialist party in the UK. His secret gay lover is a lobbyist who used to work for former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. So, Liberal Democrats all around. Lib Dems are not just hostile to capitalism, they are totally opposed to religious liberty, the rights of the unborn and traditional marriage. Their UK leader Nick Clegg wants to force Christian schools to endorse homosexuality, (similar to what Dalton McGuinty tried to do in Ontario, Canada).

Something similar happened a while back in Canada

This is not the first time that a prominent socialist has stolen tens of thousands of dollars. Svend Robinson, a former New Democratic Party Member of Parliament in British Columbia, Canada, also committed theft.

Excerpt:

Former NDP MP Svend Robinson has received a conditional discharge and one year probation after pleading guilty to stealing an expensive diamond ring from an auction.

Robinson faced a range of penalties from absolute discharge to a maximum of 10 years in prison.

[…]Robinson had been shopping for a diamond engagement ring he wasn’t sure he could afford just a week before he committed the act of theft.

[…][Robinson’s defense attorney] read several letters from MPs, friends and other colleagues attesting to Robinson’s good character. The letters were from such high-profile as former NDP leader Stephen Lewis, environmentalist David Suzuki, and cabinet minister Stephen Owen.

In court to show their support were Vancouver NDP MP Libby Davies, and Bill Siksay, Robinson’s longtime constituency assistant who won Robinson’s seat in the June federal election.

Svend was able to avoid jail time, but this scandal did not break before he had played a crucial role in legalizing same-sex marriage and passing Canada’s hate crimes and hate speech legislation.

The NDP is the Canadian equivalent of the UK Liberal Democrat Party or the US Democrat party. Robinson was instrumental in criminalizing speech critical of homosexuality in Canada, (Bill C-250). Speech that is offensive to the secular left can be prosecuted criminally in Canada and in the UK, and Obama also passed a bill criminalizing free speech in 2009.

But all of this stealing by socialists is not surprising when you reflect on what socialism is. Socialism is the view that demagogues should gain political power by promising “victims”, (people who freely choose to make irrational and/or immoral decisions), their neighbor’s money. It’s basically theft. So it isn’t really surprising that two socialists should be convicted of stealing other people’s money. That’s what socialism is – THEFT.

Note: comments to this post will be strictly monitored in keeping with Obama’s law restricting free speech.