Free Markets, Free People

Obama? He’s just too smart for us on the right!

Or at least that’s the thesis of one Allen Clifton.

Which brings me to President Obama. While I’m not calling him a genius, I do think he’s extremely intelligent. I also believe that his tendency to use “big picture” thinking while drafting policy is something most Republican voters simply can’t understand.

Now understand it this comes from orthodoxy central, aka a site called “Forward Progressives”.  And this is apparently considered “forward thinking”.  We just are too stupid to get it.

He uses Obamacare as an example of us not getting it:

While many Republicans want to look at the “now” aspect of the Affordable Care Act, they seem unable to grasp the reality that as more Americans get health insurance, giving them access to preventable care, this lowers expenses down the road for everyone. If people can prevent very costly heart attacks, strokes or other debilitating health issues now, that’s an overall savings for practically everyone from consumers to health insurers to doctors who now have more patients. Quite literally, improving the overall health of Americans will improve the health of this country. It even makes sense for our economy. If workers are healthier, because they have access to quality health care, that means there will be fewer people calling in sick to work, showing up sick to work (putting other employees at risk) or relying on government programs because their health conditions (that were preventable) render them unable to work at all.

But to see all of that requires “big picture” thinking and Republicans seem unable to understand anything beyond the spoon-fed bumper sticker talking points they’re given by the GOP and the conservative media.

We could spend 5,000 words and countless hours expounding on how clueless this is.  Health care doesn’t get less expensive if you “subsidize” it by penalizing those who work and earn by making them pay for those who don’t.  Period.  Wealth is something earned by individuals, not governments.  When government’s take other’s wealth to pay for government priorities, it leaves less for the individual who earned it to spend on their priorities.  This isn’t a hard concept to grasp, but seems beyond Mr. Clifton and our brilliant president.  While all the pie in the sky BS about a healthier American work force sounds wonderful, for the most part it isn’t the workforce that’s benefiting from this subsidy.  So while you may want to see this as a “far reaching” plus, it isn’t.  There are certainly ways to approach the lack of insurance, but this isn’t one of them.

Mr. Clifton then doubles down on his ignorance of economies with this “Underpants Gnomes” paragraph:

Minimum wage is another issue you see this with. Republicans constantly paint it as a “job killer” (it’s not) while also rallying against the millions of people who are on government assistance. Funny thing though, a good portion of the Americans who are on government assistance have jobs. If we made sure that no American working full-time had to rely on government programs just to survive, instantly we would save our country hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. Not only that, but when Americans have more money, they have more to spend. And what’s the biggest driver of economic growth? Consumer spending. More consumer spending means higher profits and higher demand, which means – more jobs.

But once again, when it comes to Republicans and explaining job creation, anything outside of “tax cuts create jobs” is often too complex for many of them to understand.

So, where again does the money come from to pay that $15 minimum wage?  The earnings of the business.  And what will a business have to do if it has to pay that wage?  Well it has some choices – raise prices, lay off workers, go out of business, etc.

Would someone have more money to spend?  Yes, if they weren’t laid off or their business didn’t close their doors.

And how big of a jump in spending money would they have?  Well initially a bit.  But then prices would adjust, because, you see, as the price of labor goes up, so do the prices of commodities and goods.  In other words, if they still have a job and they’re earning $15 an hour, fairly quickly prices will catch up with their gain and their purchasing power will be about the same as they previously enjoyed.  Meanwhile, businesses who can keep the doors open are raising prices and laying off workers, or considering automation as a replacement for workers.

Apparently this too is beyond the grasp of Mr. Clinton and the brilliant president.  Half the story, in both cases, is where Clifton stops.  And this is considered just freaking brilliant by the boob.

And you wonder why the left lives in a fantasy world?  This isn’t rocket science nor is there a dearth of examples proving these points.  They are everywhere, throughout history.  Look them up?  Oh, hell no … let’s continue to live in our fantasy orthodoxy and call everyone else stupid.

See climate change for further proof of this nonsense.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

20 Responses to Obama? He’s just too smart for us on the right!

  • I also believe that his tendency to use “big picture” thinking while drafting policy is something most Republican voters simply can’t understand.

    Well. We truly cannot understand “big picture” MAGIC thinking. Because we won’t. We don’t engage in delusions. The SCALE of magic thinking is unimportant. Big or little, it’s all idiocy-inducing, and we eschew it.

    As I’ve observed before, the Venn diagram showing the intersection of the group who thinks that raising the cost of tobacco lowers demand, against the group who thinks that raising the cost of LABOR does NOT lower demand comprises the group of people who are functionally insane.

    • I think you’ll find that Venn diagrams are an exclusionary tool of the white patriarchy and therefore …. shut up!

      • Actually I’ve heard that claim before from someone either deep in parody or sincere. I wasn’t able to follow to find out which.

        • The Pauli Exclusion Principle must drive them bonkers… so totally heteronormative, only fermions with opposite spins may pair in the same state??? Must be racist too, since bosons can condense into one big polygamous group.

        • Those must be the same people I used to work with who explained to me that the use of the term “straw man” was sexist and I needed to refer to it as a “straw person.” I wish I were joking.

  • Demonstrating the usual utopian leftist grasp of human nature and economics.
    Listed amongst these ideas such as minimum wage and health care and pro active health maintenance we have other ideas that would make society perfect!

    If people work just as hard for the good of others as they work for the good of themselves, their families and their offspring!
    If we take only what we need!
    If we contribute to provide for all!
    If we always work as hard as our abilities allow us to work!
    If we don’t waste time doing work we’re not really good at even if it’s what we think we want!
    If someone would direct our efforts and best determine how we can best contribute!
    If we accept guidance and direction from those who are smarter than we are!
    If stupid people who don’t agree with me do as they’re told!

  • It’s thinking that you can change what you want and only have the consequences you want. With no sincere acknowledgement on any level of unwanted consequences or consequences you may not be able to imagine. They can be acknowledged some as trivial so specific examples can be dismissed as such. But nothing above trivial exists, not even small or tolerable. The reason for that is if you acknowledge even small consequences it becomes a matter of debating scale and looking and thinking in detail. .

    No. No. No… Can’t have that.
    Its all upside, except for the invariable villain(s) of the story.

    Because that’s what it is, a story. A story suitable for bedtime for a six year old. Everything turns out better except for the bad guy who gets his come uppin’s.

    • It isn’t just childish thinking towards expected outcomes, its also self-reinforcing narcississtic thinking. We disagree with them so we must be (a) evil (b) deficient, or (c) most likely evil and deficient.

      Narcisssists believe whatever shred of distorted reality they need to in order to be in the right or supperior over anyone thats disagrees. Generation N doesn’t just include millenials.

    • Ref the Liberals’ “My policies will have only the consequences I want” notion (H/T Ace of Spades, this is extracted from a fairly recent post there):

      Apparently somebody had asked Thomas Sowell during a discussion, “Well, then what’s YOUR solution?” and his response was, “There are no ‘solutions’. There are just trade-offs.”


  • Well, if we aren’t the villains, we’re they’re henchmen.

    It’s like sitting around a campfire listening to people who are high or drunk solve the worlds problems.
    With about the same probability for success.

  • He’s smart enough to use the weaponized bureaucracy to ensure his 2nd victory

    • He’s also smart enough to realize the potential in a truly outlaw executive in our system of government, which…brilliant as it’s design was and is….really does not provide for any effective check. The legislative branch is NOT empowered to prosecute, and the judiciary is too limited, as well.

      • Obama might as well emulate Caligula and put his dog Bo in the Senate by executive order.

        I can just see McConnell trot out his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger persona about how it’s just not a good idea, and how divisive it is. And then the next week, McConnell would be right there helping the dog hold his paw on the Bible for swearing in.

        And then in his press conference, he would say “I know we’ve never had a dog in the Senate, much less one appointed by the president, but what can we do? We could pass a bill against it, but Obama would just veto it. What’s that you ask about? Impeachment? That was tried with Bill Clinton. We would probably lose the next election if we tried it. So we’re stuck with Senator Bo until we get a Republican president to rescind the order. In the meantime, we’re just going to treat his barks as votes in favor of whatever Obama wants.”

        • Indeed. When you take the remedies the Constitution provides OFF the table, you’ve effectively set the table for any farce or tyranny when you have a lawless President. Senator Bo would only be one of the more innocuous, and might raise the qualities of the chamber in some respects.

        • Couldn’t vote any worse than Harry Reid, and if Bo was a Congressman, at least he wouldn’t think stacking too many personnel and too much equipment on one side of Guam would cause it to capsize.

      • According to Robert Nisbet, it was by accident that Watergate came to light. Congress did not discover the break in. The Judiciary did not get involved until after others uncovered what went on. The public seemed uninterested when it broke. He even gave the press only a mild attaboy.
        It was not the system of checks and balances that worked here. It was sheer accident that Watergate was discovered. Here is an interesting quote from Nisbet’s book “The Twighlight of Authority”, “I would be astonished if the real lesson of Watergate-the Actonian principle that all power tends to corrupt, absolute power absolutely- were other than forgotten utterly once a crowd-pleasing President with the kind of luster a John F. Kennedy had for academy, press, and the world of intellectuals generally comes back into the White House.” That was written in 1975, and here we are with comparisions to all the charismatic President’s of the past to the Obamas.

    • Lili Von Shtupp: Vhy don’t you admit it? He’s too much of man for you. I know. You’re going to need an army to beat him! You’re finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt!

  • Bruce, do you have a standard order for “more cow bell” in these threads? Christ almighty.

    Anyway, Obama is very intelligent, but it’s not just intelligence, it’s his analytical method, which is orthodox Marxism, that gives him the advantage. That advantage is that he does not care about the standards of “bourgeois” ideology. He doesn’t give a flying fuck about values such as truth, competence, success, etc. Those things are meaningless to real Marxists.

    He is on the other side of the looking glass, reaching back through it to manipulate the “false consciousness” of the right. Hey, have you noticed that he is *always* lying?

    How do you think a handful of Bolsheviks took over an entire civilization after the Russian revolution? They simply have no interest in a debate, a reasonable encounter, any sort of fair exchange of ideas, the rules of civilization, none of it. They’re in another realm, where none of that counts. And that is how they do it. Obama isn’t stupid. He understands how a Marxist analysis works and how it exerts control.

  • Once again, repeat after me: Health “insurance” does not equal health “care”. You can wave your health “insurance” card around all you want but if there are not any providers who want to meet your price, then you will not have any health “care”. Is this complicated to understand?